| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2004/1/29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12003 Activity:high |
1/29 "I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.'
Those were not words we used."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 1/27/04
"This is about an imminent threat."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
(I can give you whitehouse.gov urls if you like)
\_ Actually, yes please. URLp.
\_ Older quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-7.html
Newer quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-6.html
\_ There's also plenty of other juicy quotes from McClellan and
Rumsfeld like "mortal threat," "serious and mounting threat,"
"immediate threat," "unique threat" etc. etc. etc.
\_ until they retroactively change the press releases. -tom
\_ Do the internet archives track the white house?
\_ Where/what are the "internet archives?"
\_ <DEAD>wayback.org<DEAD>. obGoogle
\_ whitehouse.gov set their pages to request no-archive,
after they were caught modifying press releases to
say "the end of major combat operations" instead of
"the end of combat operations." -tom
\_ url ??
\_ http://csua.org/u/5ro (Washington Post)
\_ Speaking of which, is there an official document I can examine
which lists the reasons for war (i.e. causus belli)? I just
want to check that, in fact, the american people were mislead
by being told that the primary reason for going to war were WMD.
\_ The resolution to grant Bush authority to deal with Iraq:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0210/S00023.htm
This is as close to a statement of causus belli you will find.
I have yet to find any transcripts of hearings/debate leading
to it. Any help on finding that would be appreciated. --scotsman
\_ I think the best reference would be Powell's speech to the UN,
which was really the only time the entire case for war was
laid out comprehensively. Of course, technically that wasn't
addressed directly to the American people.
\_ Right... hence my problem with the whole line of attack
against Bush. I mean it might work politically, but the line
of reasoning seems, shall we say, a little suspect.
\_ Not really, its simply a technicality. The imminent
threat of WMDs was always clearly the justification,
from the State of the Union address to numerous
discussions in the media (particularly from Cheney) to
press conferences etc. etc. To argue that the President
is immune from attack simply because the case wasn't
presented formally is specious. Also, the case WAS
presented formally to Congress, who (presumably)
represents the people.
\_ Not _the_ justification. _A_ justification. That's
the whole point! What I keep hearing over, and over,
and over again is 'the president said WMD were the
primary reason for war. There are no WMD. Therefore
the war had no reason, and the president lied.'
This argument, as presented is simply false, because
there were multiple reasons presented in all cases,
and all of them, except possibly (but not necessarily)
the WMD one are valid still.
\_ It was the only justification that mattered.
"We're the good guys, they're evil, let's go
get em" might play in the Bible Belt but it wasn't
what got massive support behind the war. What
got the support was Bush saying "mushroom cloud."
\_ It was? Do you think even a large minority agrees
with you? At any rate, there is a difference
between a 'primary' reason, which presumably is
the first reason listed in some official casus
belli document (maybe), and 'the only reason that
mattered', which, to put it mildly, is subject
to interpretation.
\_ Americans have never been shown to support
wars for purely humanitarian reasons, and
as Human Rights Watch has pointed out the
Iraq war doesn't qualify as justified on those
grounds alone. So what other justification
are you proposing? The only one that I heard
was that we were stopping an imminent threat
to OUR country. Anything else is just spin
after the fact.
\_ So let me get this straight. The human
shredders, the rape rooms, the mass gassings,
the prisons for children, etc. etc. are not
enough for the Human Rights Watch? Or for
you? That's good to know... Let's not
forget Iraq's supposed connection to
terrorists, which is certainly playing out
prominently now.
\_ What links to terrorists? Osama hated
Hussein, and the foreign terrorists in
Iraq now aren't blowing things up to
bring back the Baathists.
\_ Glad you have the inside terrorist
scoop. Our guys don't know that. Can
you please let them in on it and your
information sources?
\_ You can blather all you want about
human rights violations, but much
worse is perpetrated every day by
Mobuto Sese Seku and we're doing
absolutely nothing. Fact is,
humanitarian reasons don't convince
the American public and they don't
convince me.
\_ You are using present tense, but
Mobuto died in 1997. Anyways, do you
have a catalogue of his abuses so we
can compare? I am starting to think
you are just trolling. Bush was not
even President then.
\_ I wasn't aware Human Rights Watch speaks for
this country or people. I think we not only
should have gone into Iraq but many other
countries for HRVs over the years but I
understand that real politik prevents that.
When it doesn't we should do it. BTW, did
HRW 'point that out' before or after the
war? I'll bet it was before when they were
generating fake estimates of 600,000 Iraqi
civilian deaths from war and millions more
from post-war starvation, disease, etc.
\_ The primary justification was that Hussein was an
imminent threat to the US. To bolster that argument,
the administration said that Iraq had WMD. It also
said that Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda. The sum
total of this image that the Pres. sold to the
American people was that Hussein had planned the
WTC attack and was now about to hand nukes to the
same group that carried that attack out. The
evidence before and after did not support this
view. Did the Pres. out-and-out lie? I don't know.
Did he play on the fears of the American people to
force them to support his plan to invade Iraq? Yes.
Is the world (and Iraq) better off without Hussein
in power? Yes. Does that fringe benefit justify,
in retrospect, the Pres.'s decision to act
unilaterally? No. The same result could have been
\_ I don't think you have enough of a retrospect
to speculate. Wait 20 years or so. Consider
Lybia, for instance.
achieved through working with our former Coalition
partners. Would Coalition support have resulted in
a better handling of post-war Iraq? Yes.
\_ Please explain in what way we could have "worked
with our former Coalition partners" such that
SH would be tossed out of power and those mass
graves would be unearthed. The rest of your
post is your unbacked and very biased opinion.
I'm glad you have the motd to express your
opinion but it's just your opinion at this
point.
\_ It goes like this: instead of rushing to
invade, the Pres. keeps pursuing his case
against Hussein in the Security Council. At
the same time, he intros resolutions calling
for greater monitoring of the human rights
violations occurring in Iraq. He makes
demands that the Security Council will see
as reasonable but that Hussein will see as
infuriating. Hussein refuses to cooperate
with HRV inspectors, and the US turns this
into a crusade to free the Iraqi people
from a tyrant and mass-murderer. With the
moral issue on our side _before_ the
invasion, our former Coalition allies would
either have to jump on board or risk
appearing utterly callous. Within six
months, we either have our invasion (and a
damn good reason for it), or we have
Hussein weakening his own position. The
invasion of Iraq and the subsequent over-
throw of its dictator is not the issue; how
it was achieved and what the Pres. did to
bully us into it is.
\_ The problem with this is most of the SC
doesn't give a flying fuck about HRVs and
in at least one case, Russia, they were
owed billions of dollars they needed very
badly and weren't going to do anything
to fuck that up. I admire your idealism
but the real world doesn't work like that.
None of them gives a shit about appearing
callous or anything else when there's big
bucks and oil contracts on the line.
\_ Why did Russia just agree to forgive
the Iraqi debts then?
\_ I'm glad we are all so shortsighted and quick to judge the Prez
now, unlike b4 with Clinton. Pluz! If he said, he's a tyrant,
and a magnet for terrorist, do you think that'd be enough reason
to attack? No. Any answer you hear from him you won't accept, even
though it was Clinton's policy for regime change.
\_ Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles and kept up the sanctions.
His policy was prudent. He didn't send 150,000 troops into
harms way and invade another country unilaterally when virtually
all of our traditional allies disagreed with his justifications.
By the way, you overwrote my post, dickhead.
\_ Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles which let Bin Laden know
we could hear his phone calls and he immediately stopped
using easily tracked electronic communications after that.
Clinton, big dummyhead, threw away our best source of info on
Bin Laden to cover up his penis problems.
\_ The problem with using this as a political attack on the President
is the average voter will accept that the CIA fucked up. It sure as
hell wouldn't be the first time. For example, the CIA was totally
and completely taken off guard when the Berlin Wall fell and that
sort of thing was their primary reason for existing. Also, the UN
agreed that Iraq had WMD and many foreign intelligence agencies also
agreed so it isn't as if Bush & Cheney sat in a room and concocted
some story. It was accepted around the world as fact that Iraq had
WMD. The only dispute was what to do about it. You can hang your
political hopes on this one if you like but you'd be in the tiny
minority that hates Bush so much that no matter what he says or does
you'll find a reason to hate him. The rest of the country just
isn't like that. Iraq just isn't the issue you think it is or want
it to be and even if it was it still isn't a candidate killer.
\_ The UN did not think that Iraq had WMD. Neither did the French
or Germans. You are just repeating the same tired old lie.
\_ Prove it. URL. The French were bought off. What's your
excuse? They didn't even pay you.
\_ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3323633.stm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0918spin.htm
Go ahead and try and prove that the "UN agreed that
Iraq had WMD." You will not be able to do it, because
they never said that. What is your excuse for continuing
to defend Bush's lies? Did they pay you off?
\_ UN INSPECTORS WERE IN THE COUNTRY! WE KICKED THEM OUT TO BOMB!
Clearly, the containment policies the UN were pushing had been
effective enough to decimate the programs they had. The CIA
should have known this. The inspection teams were all but
screaming it. This is our fuckup, top down. Now Bushco is
trying to absolve itself, and doing a pretty poor job of it.
\_ Bushco? Who exactly kicked out the inspectors, genius? I
don't recall Bush being in office at the time. If you do,
then I want some of what you've been smoking.
\_ They came back in before the war, remember? No, of course
not, just like you don't 'remember' the justifications
for invasion.
\_ Its been clearly documented that there was heavy pressure on
the CIA from the administration to produce intelligence that
fit their preconceived notions. Whether or not this pressure
came directly from the President remains to be seen. Its
kind of amazing to me that people can be so blase about such
a massive failure of government on every level to do the right
thing. Unfortunately, I highly doubt we will ever see an inquiry
into this with our current Congress.
\_Clearly documented? Ok. Where's the documents? URL, please.
\_ Oh please. This is so commonly known, you're just being
pedantic. But if you must, here's a reprint of a relavant
WaPo article from 04 June 2003. This should get you
started. You're welcome. And we all know how "liberal"
the WaPo is, ha ha.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060603A.shtml
\_ I read your article. It only says that Cheney visited
to ask about the info he was being given. Some people
said they felt pressured by those visits, others said
they didn't and none of them claimed the pressure was
direct. It's just what a few people felt. You need to
read your own sources with a less biased eye. Thanks.
\_ Bias? You mean, common sense. If you're a lowly
engineer at gigantic XYZ company, how would YOU
feel if the CEO of the company came into your office
and wanted to know exactly how each line of your
code was going to help him make money? You might
feel some PRESSURE to produce RESULTS, wouldn't
you? Don't be a dumbass. There are plenty of
other sources that demonstrate the kind of pressure
that was applied, but digging them out again for
you will never convince you anyway so it doesn't
matter. Even a transcript and full confession signed
in Cheney's blood would no doubt be ignored.
\_ So now we go from proof and clearly documented to
common sense? I note you ignore the others who
said they felt zero pressure. It would be better
if a major decision was taken without anyone ever
going back to ask the guys that produced the data
anything about it or for more details. You're
real rocket scientist material. Remember, we do
rockets in metric now.
\_ No, you accused me of bias, shitheel. I was
explaining to your little rat-brain how
executive pressure works. The article was
an example of something that is COMMON
KNOWLEDGE to everyone, right and left, except
for Pedantic Libertario-Nerds such as yourself.
\_ http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
Great New Yorker article about how Cheney pressured
the intelligence community by Sy Hersh.
\_ The newyorker? A source of info on the inside
working of the federal government? Oh, please....
\_ Sy Hersh has more integrity in his little
fingernail than the entire Neocon cabal combined.
\_ Kennedy on the Office of Special Projects:
http://csua.org/u/5rn
\_ Amazon link to Weapons_Of_Mass_Distraction:
http://csua.org/u/5rp
\_ Actually, yes please. URLp.
\_ Older quote:
which lists the reasons for war (i.e. casus belli)? I just
http://http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-7.html
Newer quote:
http://http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-6.html
\_ There's also plenty of other juicy quotes from McClellan and
Rumsfeld like "mortal threat," "serious and mounting threat,"
"immediate threat," "unique threat" etc. etc. etc.
\_ until they retroactively change the press releases. -tom
\_ Do the internet archives track the white house?
\_ Where/what are the "internet archives?"
\_ <DEAD>wayback.org<DEAD>. obGoogle
\_ whitehouse.gov set their pages to request no-archive,
after they were caught modifying press releases to
say "the end of major combat operations" instead of
"the end of combat operations." -tom
\_ Speaking of which, is there an official document I can examine
which lists the reasons for war (i.e. causus belli)? I just
want to check that, in fact, the american people were mislead
by being told that the primary reason for going to war were WMD.
\_ The resolution to grant Bush authority to deal with Iraq:
http://http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0210/S00023.htm
This is as close to a statement of causus belli you will find.
I have yet to find any transcripts of hearings/debate leading
to it. Any help on finding that would be appreciated. --scotsman
\_ I think the best reference would be Powell's speech to the UN,
which was really the only time the entire case for war was
laid out comprehensively. Of course, technically that wasn't
addressed directly to the American people.
\_ Right... hence my problem with the whole line of attack
against Bush. I mean it might work politically, but the line
of reasoning seems, shall we say, a little suspect.
\_ Not really, its simply a technicality. The imminent
threat of WMDs was always clearly the justification,
from the State of the Union address to numerous
discussions in the media (particularly from Cheney) to
press conferences etc. etc. To argue that the President
is immune from attack simply because the case wasn't
presented formally is specious. Also, the case WAS
presented formally to Congress, who (presumably)
represents the people.
\_ Not _the_ justification. _A_ justification. That's
the whole point! What I keep hearing over, and over,
and over again is 'the president said WMD were the
primary reason for war. There are no WMD. Therefore
the war had no reason, and the president lied.'
This argument, as presented is simply false, because
there were multiple reasons presented in all cases,
and all of them, except possibly (but not necessarily)
the WMD one are valid still.
\_ It was the only justification that mattered.
"We're the good guys, they're evil, let's go
get em" might play in the Bible Belt but it wasn't
what got massive support behind the war. What
got the support was Bush saying "mushroom cloud."
\_ It was? Do you think even a large minority agrees
with you? At any rate, there is a difference
between a 'primary' reason, which presumably is
the first reason listed in some official casus
belli document (maybe), and 'the only reason that
mattered', which, to put it mildly, is subject
to interpretation.
\_ Americans have never been shown to support
wars for purely humanitarian reasons, and
as Human Rights Watch has pointed out the
Iraq war doesn't qualify as justified on those
grounds alone. So what other justification
are you proposing? The only one that I heard
was that we were stopping an imminent threat
to OUR country. Anything else is just spin
after the fact.
\_ So let me get this straight. The human
shredders, the rape rooms, the mass gassings,
the prisons for children, etc. etc. are not
enough for the Human Rights Watch? Or for
you? That's good to know... Let's not
forget Iraq's supposed connection to
terrorists, which is certainly playing out
prominently now.
\_ What links to terrorists? Osama hated
Hussein, and the foreign terrorists in
Iraq now aren't blowing things up to
bring back the Baathists.
\_ Glad you have the inside terrorist
scoop. Our guys don't know that. Can
you please let them in on it and your
information sources?
\_ You can blather all you want about
human rights violations, but much
worse is perpetrated every day by
Mobuto Sese Seku and we're doing
absolutely nothing. Fact is,
humanitarian reasons don't convince
the American public and they don't
convince me.
\_ You are using present tense, but
Mobuto died in 1997. Anyways, do you
have a catalogue of his abuses so we
can compare? I am starting to think
you are just trolling. Bush was not
even President then.
\_ I wasn't aware Human Rights Watch speaks for
this country or people. I think we not only
should have gone into Iraq but many other
countries for HRVs over the years but I
understand that real politik prevents that.
When it doesn't we should do it. BTW, did
HRW 'point that out' before or after the
war? I'll bet it was before when they were
generating fake estimates of 600,000 Iraqi
civilian deaths from war and millions more
from post-war starvation, disease, etc.
\_ The primary justification was that Hussein was an
imminent threat to the US. To bolster that argument,
the administration said that Iraq had WMD. It also
said that Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda. The sum
total of this image that the Pres. sold to the
American people was that Hussein had planned the
WTC attack and was now about to hand nukes to the
same group that carried that attack out. The
evidence before and after did not support this
view. Did the Pres. out-and-out lie? I don't know.
Did he play on the fears of the American people to
force them to support his plan to invade Iraq? Yes.
Is the world (and Iraq) better off without Hussein
in power? Yes. Does that fringe benefit justify,
in retrospect, the Pres.'s decision to act
unilaterally? No. The same result could have been
\_ I don't think you have enough of a retrospect
to speculate. Wait 20 years or so. Consider
Lybia, for instance.
achieved through working with our former Coalition
partners. Would Coalition support have resulted in
a better handling of post-war Iraq? Yes.
\_ Please explain in what way we could have "worked
with our former Coalition partners" such that
SH would be tossed out of power and those mass
graves would be unearthed. The rest of your
post is your unbacked and very biased opinion.
I'm glad you have the motd to express your
opinion but it's just your opinion at this
point.
\_ It goes like this: instead of rushing to
invade, the Pres. keeps pursuing his case
against Hussein in the Security Council. At
the same time, he intros resolutions calling
for greater monitoring of the human rights
violations occurring in Iraq. He makes
demands that the Security Council will see
as reasonable but that Hussein will see as
infuriating. Hussein refuses to cooperate
with HRV inspectors, and the US turns this
into a crusade to free the Iraqi people
from a tyrant and mass-murderer. With the
moral issue on our side _before_ the
invasion, our former Coalition allies would
either have to jump on board or risk
appearing utterly callous. Within six
months, we either have our invasion (and a
damn good reason for it), or we have
Hussein weakening his own position. The
invasion of Iraq and the subsequent over-
throw of its dictator is not the issue; how
it was achieved and what the Pres. did to
bully us into it is.
\_ The problem with this is most of the SC
doesn't give a flying fuck about HRVs and
in at least one case, Russia, they were
owed billions of dollars they needed very
badly and weren't going to do anything
to fuck that up. I admire your idealism
but the real world doesn't work like that.
None of them gives a shit about appearing
callous or anything else when there's big
bucks and oil contracts on the line.
\_ I'm glad we are all so shortsighted and quick to judge the Prez
now, unlike b4 with Clinton. Pluz! If he said, he's a tyrant,
and a magnet for terrorist, do you think that'd be enough reason
to attack? No. Any answer you hear from him you won't accept, even
though it was Clinton's policy for regime change.
\_ Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles and kept up the sanctions.
His policy was prudent. He didn't send 150,000 troops into
harms way and invade another country unilaterally when virtually
all of our traditional allies disagreed with his justifications.
By the way, you overwrote my post, dickhead.
\_ Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles which let Bin Laden know
we could hear his phone calls and he immediately stopped
using easily tracked electronic communications after that.
Clinton, big dummyhead, threw away our best source of info on
Bin Laden to cover up his penis problems.
\_ The problem with using this as a political attack on the President
is the average voter will accept that the CIA fucked up. It sure as
hell wouldn't be the first time. For example, the CIA was totally
and completely taken off guard when the Berlin Wall fell and that
sort of thing was their primary reason for existing. Also, the UN
agreed that Iraq had WMD and many foreign intelligence agencies also
agreed so it isn't as if Bush & Cheney sat in a room and concocted
some story. It was accepted around the world as fact that Iraq had
WMD. The only dispute was what to do about it. You can hang your
political hopes on this one if you like but you'd be in the tiny
minority that hates Bush so much that no matter what he says or does
you'll find a reason to hate him. The rest of the country just
isn't like that. Iraq just isn't the issue you think it is or want
it to be and even if it was it still isn't a candidate killer.
\_ The UN did not think that Iraq had WMD. Neither did the French
or Germans. You are just repeating the same tired old lie.
\_ Prove it. URL. The French were bought off. What's your
excuse? They didn't even pay you.
\_ UN INSPECTORS WERE IN THE COUNTRY! WE KICKED THEM OUT TO BOMB!
Clearly, the containment policies the UN were pushing had been
effective enough to decimate the programs they had. The CIA
should have known this. The inspection teams were all but
screaming it. This is our fuckup, top down. Now Bushco is
trying to absolve itself, and doing a pretty poor job of it.
\_ Bushco? Who exactly kicked out the inspectors, genius? I
don't recall Bush being in office at the time. If you do,
then I want some of what you've been smoking.
\_ They came back in before the war, remember? No, of course
not, just like you don't 'remember' the justifications
for invasion.
\_ Its been clearly documented that there was heavy pressure on
the CIA from the administration to produce intelligence that
fit their preconceived notions. Whether or not this pressure
came directly from the President remains to be seen. Its
kind of amazing to me that people can be so blase about such
a massive failure of government on every level to do the right
thing. Unfortunately, I highly doubt we will ever see an inquiry
into this with our current Congress.
\_ Clearly documented? Ok. Where's the documents? URL, please.
\_ Oh please. This is so commonly known, you're just being
pedantic. But if you must, here's a reprint of a relavant
WaPo article from 04 June 2003. This should get you
started. You're welcome. And we all know how "liberal"
the WaPo is, ha ha.
http://http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060603A.shtml
\_ I read your article. It only says that Cheney visited
to ask about the info he was being given. Some people
said they felt pressured by those visits, others said
they didn't and none of them claimed the pressure was
direct. It's just what a few people felt. You need to
read your own sources with a less biased eye. Thanks.
\_ Bias? You mean, common sense. If you're a lowly
engineer at gigantic XYZ company, how would YOU
feel if the CEO of the company came into your office
and wanted to know exactly how each line of your
code was going to help him make money? You might
feel some PRESSURE to produce RESULTS, wouldn't
you? Don't be a dumbass. There are plenty of
other sources that demonstrate the kind of pressure
that was applied, but digging them out again for
you will never convince you anyway so it doesn't
matter. Even a transcript and full confession signed
in Cheney's blood would no doubt be ignored.
\_ So now we go from proof and clearly documented to
common sense? I note you ignore the others who
said they felt zero pressure. It would be better
if a major decision was taken without anyone ever
going back to ask the guys that produced the data
anything about it or for more details. You're
real rocket scientist material. Remember, we do
rockets in metric now.
\_ No, you accused me of bias, shitheel. I was
explaining to your little rat-brain how
executive pressure works. The article was
an example of something that is COMMON
KNOWLEDGE to everyone, right and left, except
for Pedantic Libertario-Nerds such as yourself.
\_ http://http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
Great New Yorker article about how Cheney pressured
the intelligence community by Sy Hersh.
\_ The newyorker? A source of info on the inside
working of the federal government? Oh, please.... |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-7.html The purpose of the call was for the President to - well, the President thanked the Prime Minister for his strong leadership and his support in our efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq. After arrival at Nashville, there will be a roundtable with the leadership and graduates of the Campus for Human Development. Thats at 9:45 am I expect there to be some pastors and a rabbi, as well as four graduates of the program. Let me tell you a little bit about the Campus for Human Development. Its a faith-based, nonprofit organization that serves the homeless community of Nashville through a variety of programs, including primary and mental health care, substance abuse treatment, transportation, support groups, job training and placement, food and emergency winter shelter. The roundtable will give the President - will give the President an opportunity to meet suburban and urban religious leaders from the Nashville community who have joined together to serve the poor and suffering, as well as meet the graduates I noted a few minutes ago. This will also give the President a chance to highlight his compassion agenda, specifically, his faith-based and community initiative. Following that, the President will make remarks at the 2003 National Religious Broadcasters Convention. The National Religious Broadcasters is an association representing more than 1,500 evangelical Christian radio and 350 television stations, program producers, multi-media developers and related organizations around the world. Its 30,000 members are responsible for much of the worlds Christian radio and television. And, lets see, the annual convention and exposition is the worlds largest nationally and internationally recognized event dedicated solely to assist those in the field of Christian communications. That stands in stark contrast to what were now seeing from Saddam Hussein. Hell talk about how Saddam Hussein is the true enemy of the Iraqi people, that he regards the Iraqi people as expendable when it comes to serving his own purposes. And, specifically, Im talking about using the Iraqi people as human shields. We know that Saddam Hussein is already pre-positioning his military within civilian populations in order to shield his military forces and then blame coalition forces for casualties that he will end up causing. So I think that you should pay particular attention to those remarks when the President speaks today to the National Religious Broadcasters. QUESTION: Is the President hoping an Iraqi audience will hear these words? I mean, is this geared toward pressuring Saddam into, you know, leaving office? McCLELLAN: I think its - well, as you mentioned, obviously - and as Condi Rice and Secretary Powell mentioned, talked about yesterday on the shows, if Saddam and his cronies were to leave Iraq, that would be a positive development. But, you know, its important for the international community and Americans to know what Saddam Hussein is doing, the type of person that he is. QUESTION: Are you preparing this proposal to give him 48-hour notice to flee Baghdad? McCLELLAN: What we are doing - and as Condi pointed out, there is a period of intensive diplomatic discussions going on as we remain in this window of diplomatic opportunity. But, again, the - QUESTION: And is that - one of those discussions? McCLELLAN: Well, I think those are discussions that will be had in consultations with Security Council members and others around the world. McCLELLAN: Well, what were focused on - and, remember, it goes back to what the President said over the weekend. This is about 12 years of deceiving and denying and cheating and retreating and playing hide-and-seek. And now this is an opportunity for the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations to show its relevance; And Saddam Hussein has continued his defiance of the international community. And this is a moment for the Security Council to come together and show its relevance. And we will not put up with any more games of deception and any more games of hide-and-seek, as the President has made very clear. Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle? And I think its important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think whats important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance. McCLELLAN: Well, I just made some comments regarding that and, obviously, we will work through NATO, as well. QUESTION: So whats the significance of that, it goes to the core - I mean, what if its rejected? McCLELLAN: Again, we support the request by Turkey under Article IV. QUESTION: Is the United States prepared to give Turkey more military equipment if NATO nations dont, to protect - MR. QUESTION: Scott, is there some evidence of the Iraqis positioning military troops or weapons among its civilian population? McCLELLAN: Well, thats what I just noted, that Saddam Hussein is already taking steps. And this is what the President will talk about, as well, in his remarks - QUESTION: No, I understand, but what Im asking is - MR. Is it - are we getting the evidence from reports on the ground, or is it satellite, or is it - what is it? McCLELLAN: Well, again, Im not going to go into intelligence information that were getting there, but thats intelligence matters. QUESTION: Is the President going to provide any backup, or is he just going to make the charge? McCLELLAN: Well, we know the type of person that Saddam Hussein is; This is a brutal dictator who has a long history of using civilians to further his own purposes, and has a long history of defying the international community and using civilians to further his own purposes. McCLELLAN: I just noted that our intelligence and reports that we have indicate - QUESTION: But you wont provide that? McCLELLAN: - indicate that he is pre-positioning military forces, and we know his history, as well, doing this in the past. QUESTION: - youre talking about the request for discussions of a possible imminent threat? QUESTION: Right, as opposed to a request for equipment or NATO - MR. QUESTION: Did comments yesterday from Blix and ElBaradei tell you about Friday, what to expect out of their report? But I think Secretary Powell addressed this at length yesterday, as well as Condi. QUESTION: What about Hans Blixs - and your reaction to his statements - shown some more cooperation - MR. McCLELLAN: A little bit here and a little bit there, is not going to get it done for Saddam Hussein. This is a time for the United Nations Security Council to show its determination to enforce 1441. McCLELLAN: Well, I noticed he made some comments a short while ago in response to a question about more inspectors. Blix said that, and I quote him, The principle problem is not the number of inspectors. And I think thats the message youve heard from administration officials yesterday, as well, that this isnt about inspections. And if Saddam Hussein was going to comply and going to disarm, we would see that out of him already. Whether it was 100 inspectors, or 300 inspectors, thats not the issue. The issue is disarmament and there is a short period of time left before this United Nations Security Council must address and enforce 1441. QUESTION: Any particular diplomats being dispatched from the United States to go to Belgium, France, Germany? McCLELLAN: There of a lot of intensive diplomatic efforts going on right now. I just gave you - you can check with the Department of State and others. QUESTION: - with Chirac and Schroeder those other leaders this week? As I did this morning, we always update you on calls and meetings. QUESTION: But, I mean, are these troops like regular army or - MR. QUESTION: But I mean if hes scattered them through the country, will they not be less effective as a military force? QUESTION: Scott, what about Russia, France, Germany acting, coordinating the... |
| www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-6.html A couple of scheduling matters Id like to update you on, and then one announcement, and then well go on to questions. The President was very pleased to welcome President Kwasniewski back to the White House. President Kwasniewski is a great ally and a close friend, and the President very much appreciates his strong leadership. Poland stands with America in the war on terrorism, including in Iraq. Poland has shown great strength and they are now playing a major role in helping to build security and democracy in Iraq. And we are grateful to the Polish people and the brave Polish soldiers serving alongside their American allies in the field. Under President Kwasniewskis leadership, Poland has become a secure, sovereign, democratic nation, embracing the path to prosperity, helping its neighbors, and playing a major role in Europe and on the world stage like never before. We are committed to developing a new level of relations between Poland and the United States. We are working together on a broad range of issues from Europe and the transatlantic alliance to the greater Middle East, to the Ukraine, the Russia, the counterproliferation. In particular, they agreed to strengthen Polands capacity to respond to global threats, and to strengthen our defense cooperation with new military assistance to continue to modernize the Polish armed forces. The President is grateful for courageous friends like President Kwasniewski, who can join us in tackling common challenges. And well have a joint statement out here shortly to discuss some of what they agreed to. And the President this afternoon looks forward to welcoming a bipartisan group of House and Senate leaders to the White House. And I expect that the President will discuss a number of important legislative priorities, many of which he touched on in his State of the Union address. Finally, I want to address some press reports that you all may be seeing. As you are aware, the United States and the United Kingdom team is now assisting Libya in the elimination of its weapons of mass destruction programs, consistent with the announcement made by Libya on December 19th, 2003, that it would voluntarily give up these programs. To date, cooperation between all parties in this effort has been excellent. As part of that effort, and in close partnership with the Libyan government, a transport plane left Tripoli last night and landed at 8:37 am this morning at McGee-Tyson Airport outside of Knoxville, Tennessee. Included on this plane were critical materials related to Libyas nuclear weapons program and ballistic missile capabilities. This shipment is estimated to be about 55,000 pounds of equipment. These materials include both sensitive documentation and equipment. On the flight was UF-6 uranium-hexafluoride, which is used for feedstock to enrich uranium. Also included on the flight were centrifuge parts which are used to enrich uranium. Finally, the shipment contains ballistic missile guidance sets for longer-range missiles, which Libya has voluntarily agreed to eliminate. Prior to this shipment, another plane last week brought out the most sensitive documentation associated with the Libyan nuclear weapons program. It is also important to note the destruction of Libyas unfilled chemical munitions has also already begun on the ground. While these shipments are only the beginning of the elimination of Libyas weapons, these shipments, as well as the close cooperation on the ground in Libya, reflect real progress in Libya meeting its commitments. Colonel Qadhafi made a courageous decision to give up his weapons, and through this transparent process, the world can see that Colonel Qadhafi is keeping his commitment. As the President said on December 19th, as the Libyan government takes these essential steps and demonstrates its seriousness, its good faith will be returned. Libya can regain a secure and respected place among the nations, and over time, achieve far better relations with the United States. As Libya becomes a more peaceful nation, it can be a source of stability in Africa and the Middle East. As the President also said, he hopes other leaders will find an example in Libyas announcement. When leaders make the wise and responsible choice, when they renounce terror and weapons of mass destruction, as Colonel Qadhafi has now done, they serve the interests of their own people and they add to the security of all nations. Q Scott, is there any concrete reward at this point for Libyas action? And I would refer you back to the Presidents comments I just mentioned from December in terms of that. Q So theres nothing - the United States is not going to respond with any type of lifting sanctions or anything like that? McCLELLAN: No, we said, as they take these essential steps and demonstrate its seriousness, its good faith will be returned, and Libya can regain a secure and respected place among the nations, as I pointed out and over time - and over time, achieve far better relations with the United States. Obviously, theres more to do, but were making real progress at this point. Q Scott, since you brought up the subject of weapons, a question that has been nagging me all morning - MR. Q Stipulating the fact that the Iraq Survey Group still has a lot of work to do there, does the President believe that David Kay was correct or incorrect when he said that the evidence that America went to war on was inaccurate and wrong? McCLELLAN: Well, the decision that the President of the United States made was based on the fact that Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat. It was something that was based on not only a decade of intelligence by our own government, but intelligence agencies around the world, the United Nations, all concluded that Saddam Hussein was a threat. Thats why there were some - for 12 years and some 17 resolutions, he continued to defy the international community. And 1441 gave him one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. And September 11th taught us that we must confront gathering threats before it is too late. Now, in terms of your question, there is a Iraq Survey Group whose mission is to look at all those issues and to find the truth as the President directed the team to do. Then, at that point, when they complete their work, and draw as complete a picture as possible, we can compare what we knew before the war with what we know now. But its important to let them finish their work, and its important to gather all the facts. I think, as a reporter, you want to gather all the facts and get all the facts you can. Then you can look at what was known - what we knew before, compare that with what we know now. Q Its true enough that the President said on several occasions that Iraq and Saddam were a grave and gathering threat, but that was based on the intelligence that David Kay now says was inaccurate and wrong. McCLELLAN: I think it was based on several reasons that he outlined. We knew that he had used weapons on his own people, as well as his neighbors. We knew that he failed to account for his weapons and weapons programs. He failed to comply for some 12 years and some 17 resolutions with the international communitys demands. Even after he was given one final opportunity to come clean, he continued to defy the international community. It said, this is one final opportunity to comply, or face serious consequences. Q But the President was always demanding that Saddam Hussein disarm, saying if he doesnt disarm, well disarm him. McCLELLAN: I think the international community was looking into that. A unanimous Security Council resolution called for Saddam Hussein to come clean. Q It now appears, though, based on David Kays statements, that the President and/or the international community were asking Iraq to do an impossible task. McCLELLAN: Well, no, I would remind you of the progress report by Dr. Kay has made it very clear in his media interviews that Ive seen that Iraq was a very dangerous place. The President pointed out in his remarks earlier that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous man in a dangerous part of the world. In a post-September 11th era, we cannot rely on the good inten... |
| csua.org/u/5ro -> www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A9821-2003Dec17¬Found=true Recently, however, the government has purged the offending comments by Natsios from the agencys Web site. This is not the first time the administration has done some creative editing of government Web sites. After the insurrection in Iraq proved more stubborn than expected, the White House edited the original headline on its Web site of President Bushs May 1 speech, President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, to insert the word Major before combat. Though it is not clear whether the White House is directing the changes, several agencies have been following a similar pattern. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and USAID have removed or revised fact sheets on condoms, excising information about their effectiveness in disease prevention, and promoting abstinence instead. The National Cancer Institute, meanwhile, scrapped claims on its Web site that there was no association between abortion and breast cancer. And the Justice Department recently redacted criticism of the department in a consultants report that had been posted on its Web site. Steven Aftergood, who directs the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said the Natsios case is particularly pernicious. This smells like an attempt to revise the record, not just to withhold information but to alter the historical record in a self-interested way, and that is sleazier than usual, he said. A White House spokesman, asked later about these remarks, responded vaguely that he had not seen the statement in question. Then, sometime this fall, USAID made it easier for the administration to maintain its veil of ignorance on the subject by taking the transcript off its Web site. For a while, the agency left telltale evidence by keeping the link to the transcript on its Whats New page - but yesterday the liberal Center for American Progress discovered that this link had disappeared, too, as well as the Google cached copies of the original page. USAID spokeswoman Lejaune Hall, asked about this curious situation, searched the Web site herself for the missing document. After a brief investigation, she reported back: They were taken down off the Web site. But other government Web sites, including the State and Defense departments, routinely post interview transcripts, even from Nightline. We would not charge for that, said ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider. We would have no trouble with a government agency linking to one of our interviews, and we are unaware of anybody from ABC making any request that anything be removed. |
| www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0210/S00023.htm Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations; Whereas the United States has the inherent right, as acknowledged in the United Nations Charter, to use force in order to defend itself; Whereas Congress in the Iraq Liberation Act Public Law 105-338 has expressed its sense that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force Public Law 107-40; |
| news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3323633.stm Iraq probably destroyed its weapons of mass destruction WMD in the early 1990s, the former United Nations chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said. Speaking to the BBCs World Service, Mr Blix said he was more certain than ever that there was no WMD in Iraq. Mr Blix said the capture of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was important, as he may reveal at what stage he might have destroyed them. The US and UK used concerns over WMD to justify the March invasion of Iraq. Mr Blix and a team of UN weapons inspectors spent more than three months searching for WMD in Iraq in the build-up to the war without finding anything they deemed significant. No weapons Speaking to the BBCs Newshour programme, Mr Blix said he hoped Saddam Hussein would now reveal the truth about his chemical, biological and nuclear programmes. I doubt that he will reveal any WMD, because I think both we UN inspectors and the American inspectors have been looking around and come to the conclusion that there arent any, Mr Blix said. Mr Blix was in the Swedish capital Stockholm on Tuesday to launch an independent international commission on WMD. He came out of retirement to chair the commission at the request of his native Sweden, which established it following a UN request. A team of 14 commissioners is due to submit proposals by 2005, aimed at reducing the dangers posed by WMD around the world. He said the end of Saddam Husseins regime did not mean the end of such threats - and listed North Korea, Iran and the tensions between India and Pakistan as areas of particular concern. The commission was set up on the initiative of Swedens late Foreign Minister, Anna Lindh. The Swedish Government will fund its work, but the body will be independent from any government. |
| www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0918spin.htm Cybercast News Service September 18, 2003 Former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said in an interview Thursday that the British and US governments used exaggeration and "spin" in presenting evidence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. But the British government denied the claims, saying that the existence of banned weapons was a "matter of fact" and that allied troops on the ground only need more time to find them. Blix attacked a September dossier on Iraq issued by the British government, and particularly a claim inside the document stating that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) available for launch within 45 minutes. The dossier's contents have come under scrutiny during the Hutton Inquiry, a probe into the death of David Kelly, a weapons expert who advised the British Ministry of Defense. "The UK paper that came out in September last year with the famous words about the 45 minutes, when you read the text exactly I get the impression it wants to convey to the reader and lead the reader to conclusions that are a little further-reaching than the text needs to mean," Blix told BBC radio. "One can read it restrictively but one can also lead to far-reaching conclusions and I think many people did," he said. "Advertisers will advertise a refrigerator in terms they do not quite believe in but you expect governments to be more serious and have more credibility," Blix said. "I understand they have to simplify things when they explain them, but nevertheless expect them to be more reliable," he said. Blix compared the search for WMD in Iraq to a witch hunt. "They were convinced that Saddam was going in this direction, and I think this is understandable against the background of the man that they did so," he said. "In the Middle Ages people were convinced there were witches. They looked for them and they certainly found them," he said. I think we (the UN inspectors) were more judicious in saying we want to have real evidence." "One cannot help but feel that the exaggeration, the spin, the hyping is also something that damages the credibility of governments," he said. Blix went on to criticize the allies for pushing ahead with military action this spring. "They could have waited, they could have continued with inspections for a few months. We had been preparing ourselves for two and a half years, and we had only had two and a half months of inspections," he said. "They wouldn't have had the patience for that but now ... they say we must have some patience with the US and UK investigators," he said. "The patience they require for themselves right now is not anything that they wanted to give to us." On Wednesday, the former chief inspector told Australian radio that Iraq had probably destroyed almost all of its WMD more than a decade ago. "I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed all almost of what they had in the summer of 1991," he said. In response, a spokesman for the British Foreign Office said: "Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction is a matter of fact." "Successive UN Security Council resolutions concluded not only that he had them but also had used them against his own people," the spokesman said. "Blix's own 173-page report set out in great detail Saddam's history of obstruction of the UN inspectors," he said. "The process of searching for weapons of mass destruction is continuing. It will be thorough and deliberate, despite the difficult security environment." In addition, the Foreign Office said that a parliamentary committee had determined that Saddam possessed WMD "The Intelligence and Security Committee has concluded that based on the intelligence ... there was convincing intelligence that Iraq had active chemical, biological and nuclear programmes and the capability to produce chemical and biological weapons," the spokesman said. "They also concluded that Iraq was continuing to develop ballistic missiles. All these activities were prohibited under UN Security Council resolutions." More Information on the Iraq Crisis FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 USC 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |
| www.truthout.org/docs_03/060603A.shtml With Cheney taking the lead in the administration last August in advocating military action against Iraq by claiming it had weapons of mass destruction, the visits by the vice president and his chief of staff, I. Lewis Scooter Libby, sent signals, intended or otherwise, that a certain output was desired from here, one senior agency official said yesterday. Other agency officials said they were not influenced by the visits from the vice presidents office, and some said they welcomed them. But the disclosure of Cheneys unusual hands-on role comes on the heels of mounting concern from intelligence officials and members of Congress that the administration may have exaggerated intelligence it received about Iraq to build a case for war. While visits to CIA headquarters by a vice president are not unprecedented, they are unusual, according to intelligence officials. The exact number of trips by Cheney to the CIA could not be learned, but one agency official described them as multiple. They were taken in addition to Cheneys regular attendance at President Bushs morning intelligence briefings and the special briefings the vice president receives when he is at an undisclosed location for security reasons. The vice president values the hard work of the intelligence community, but his office has a practice of declining to comment on the specifics of his intelligence briefings, said Cathie Martin, the vice presidents public affairs director. Concern over the administrations prewar claims about Iraq has been growing in Congress and among intelligence officials as a result of the failure to uncover any weapons of mass destruction two months after the collapse of the Iraqi government. Similar ferment is building in Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair is under pressure from within the Labor Party to explain whether British intelligence may have overstated the case of Iraqs covert weapons programs. Blair pledged yesterday to cooperate with a parliamentary probe of the governments use of intelligence material. In a signal of administration concern over the controversy, two senior Pentagon officials yesterday held a news conference to challenge allegations that they pressured the CIA or other agencies to slant intelligence for political reasons. Feith said a special Pentagon office to analyze intelligence in the wake of the Sept. Officials in the intelligence community and on Capitol Hill, however, have described the office as an alternative source of intelligence analysis that helped the administration make its case that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat. Government sources said CIA analysts were not the only ones who felt pressure from their superiors to support public statements by Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Former and current intelligence officials said they felt a continual drumbeat, not only from Cheney and Libby, but also from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Tenet, to find information or write reports in a way that would help the administration make the case that going into Iraq was urgent. They were the browbeaters, said a former defense intelligence official who attended some of the meetings in which Wolfowitz and others pressed for a different approach to the assessments they were receiving. In interagency meetings, he said, Wolfowitz treated the analysts work with contempt. Others saw the intervention of senior officials as being more responsible. Libby, who helped prepare intelligence analysis for the vice president, made several trips to the CIA with National Security Council officials during preparations for Powells Feb. He was described by one senior analyst as an avid consumer of intelligence and the asker of many questions. Such visits permitted Cheney and Libby to have direct exchanges with analysts, rather than asking questions of their daily briefers, who direct others to prepare responses that result in additional papers, senior administration sources said. Their goal was to have a free flow of information and not to intimidate the analysts, although some may well have misinterpreted questions as directives, said some sources sympathetic to their approach. A senior defense official also defended Wolfowitzs questioning: Does he ask hard questions? I dont think he was trying to get people to come up with answers that werent true. Hes looking for data and answers and he gets frustrated with a lack of answers and diligence and with things that cant be defended. A major focus for Wolfowitz and others in the Pentagon was finding intelligence to prove a connection between Hussein and Osama bin Ladens al Qaeda terrorist network. On the day of the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center,Wolfowitz told senior officials at the Pentagon that he believed Iraq might have been responsible. I was scratching my head because everyone else thought of al Qaeda, said a former senior defense official who was in one such meeting. Over the following year, we got taskers to review the link between al Qaeda and Iraq. In the winter of 2001-02, officials who worked with Wolfowitz sent the Defense Intelligence Agency a message: Get hold of Laurie Mylroies book, which claimed Hussein was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and see if you can prove it, one former defense official said. The DIAs Middle East analysts were familiar with the book, Study of Revenge: The First World Trade Center Attack and Saddam Husseins War Against America. But they and others in the United States intelligence community were convinced that radical Islamic fundamentalists, not Iraq, were involved. |
| www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact HERSH How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraqs weapons. Issue of 2003-10-27 Posted 2003-10-20 Since midsummer, the Senate Intelligence Committee has been attempting to solve the biggest mystery of the Iraq war: the disparity between the Bush Administrations prewar assessment of Iraqs weapons of mass destruction and what has actually been discovered. The committee is concentrating on the last ten years worth of reports by the CIA Preliminary findings, one intelligence official told me, are disquieting. The intelligence community made all kinds of errors and handled things sloppily, he said. The problems range from a lack of quality control to different agencies reporting contradictory assessments at the same time. One finding, the official went on, was that the intelligence reports about Iraq provided by the United Nations inspection teams and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitored Iraqs nuclear-weapons programs, were far more accurate than the CIA estimates. Some of the old-timers in the community are appalled by how bad the analysis was, the official said. If you look at them side by side, CIA versus United Nations, the United States agencies come out ahead across the board. In addition, there were widespread doubts about the efficacy of the United States inspection teams, whose operations in Iraq were repeatedly challenged and disrupted by Saddam Hussein. Iraq was thought to have manufactured at least six thousand more chemical weapons than the United States could account for. And yet, as some former United States inspectors often predicted, the tons of chemical and biological weapons that the American public was led to expect have thus far proved illusory. As long as that remains the case, one question will be asked more and more insistently: How did the American intelligence community get it so wrong? Part of the answer lies in decisions made early in the Bush Administration, before the events of September 11, 2001. In interviews with present and former intelligence officials, I was told that some senior Administration people, soon after coming to power, had bypassed the governments customary procedures for vetting intelligence. A retired CIA officer described for me some of the questions that would normally arise in vetting: Does dramatic information turned up by an overseas spy square with his access, or does it exceed his plausible reach? The vetting process is especially important when one is dealing with foreign-agent reportssensitive intelligence that can trigger profound policy decisions. In theory, no request for action should be taken directly to higher authoritiesa process known as stovepipingwithout the information on which it is based having been subjected to rigorous scrutiny. The point is not that the President and his senior aides were consciously lying. What was taking place was much more systematicand potentially just as troublesome. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership. Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from them. They always had information to back up their public claims, but it was often very bad information, Pollack continued. They were forcing the intelligence community to defend its good information and good analysis so aggressively that the intelligence analysts didnt have the time or the energy to go after the bad information. The Administration eventually got its way, a former CIA official said. The analysts at the CIA were beaten down defending their assessments. And they blame George Tenetthe CIA directorfor not protecting them. A few months after George Bush took office, Greg Thielmann, an expert on disarmament with the State Departments Bureau of Intelligence and Research, or INR, was assigned to be the daily intelligence liaison to John Bolton, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control, who is a prominent conservative. Thielmann understood that his posting had been mandated by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who thought that every important State Department bureau should be assigned a daily intelligence officer. Bolton was the guy with whom I had to do business, Thielmann said. We were going to provide him with all the information he was entitled to see. Thats what being a professional intelligence officer is all about. But, Thielmann told me, Bolton seemed to be troubled because INR was not telling him what he wanted to hear. Thielmann soon found himself shut out of Boltons early-morning staff meetings. I was intercepted at the door of his office and told, The Under-Secretary doesnt need you to attend this meeting anymore. When Thielmann protested that he was there to provide intelligence input, the aide said, The Under-Secretary wants to keep this in the family. Eventually, Thielmann said, Bolton demanded that he and his staff have direct electronic access to sensitive intelligence, such as foreign-agent reports and electronic intercepts. In previous Administrations, such data had been made available to under-secretaries only after it was analyzed, usually in the specially secured offices of INR. The whole point of the intelligence system in place, according to Thielmann, was to prevent raw intelligence from getting to people who would be misled. Bolton, however, wanted his aides to receive and assign intelligence analyses and assessments using the raw data. In essence, the under-secretary would be running his own intelligence operation, without any guidance or support. He surrounded himself with a hand-chosen group of loyalists, and found a way to get CIA information directly, Thielmann said. In a subsequent interview, Bolton acknowledged that he had changed the procedures for handling intelligence, in an effort to extend the scope of the classified materials available to his office. I found that there was lots of stuff that I wasnt getting and that the INR analysts werent including, he told me. Bolton told me that he wanted to reach out to the intelligence community but that Thielmann had invited himself to his daily staff meetings. There was no place for INR or anyone elsethe Human Resources Bureau or the Office of Foreign Buildings. There was also a change in procedure at the Pentagon under Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under-Secretary for Policy. In the early summer of 2001, a career official assigned to a Pentagon planning office undertook a routine evaluation of the assumption, adopted by Wolfowitz and Feith, that the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi, could play a major role in a coup dtat to oust Saddam Hussein. They also assumed that Chalabi, after the coup, would be welcomed by Iraqis as a hero. An official familiar with the evaluation described how it subjected that scenario to the principle of what planners call branches and sequelsthat is, plan for what you expect not to happen. Whats Plan B if you discover that Chalabi and his boys dont have it in them to accomplish the overthrow? When the official asked about the analysis, he was told by a colleague that the new Pentagon leadership wanted to focus not on what could go wrong but on what would go right. He was told that the studys exploration of options amounted to planning for failure. Their methodology was analogous to tossing a coin five times and assuming that it would always come up heads, the official told me. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime had been a priority for Wolfowitz and others in and around the Administration since the end of the first Gulf War. For years, Iraq hawks had seen a coup led by Chalabi as the best means of achieving that goal. After September 11th, however, and the militarys quick victory in Afghanistan, the notion of a coup gave way to the idea of an American invasion. Khidhir Hamza, an Iraqi defector, who declared that Saddam Hussein, in response to the 1981 Israeli bombing of the Osiraq nuclear reactor, near Baghdad, had ordered future nuclear facilities to be dispersed at four hundred sites across the nation. Eve... |
| csua.org/u/5rn -> www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/01/2004114558-kennedy.htm Over the course of two centuries, these ideals inspired and enabled thirteen tiny quarreling colonies to transform themselves-not just into the most powerful nation on earth, but also into the last, best hope of earth. These ideals have been uniquely honored by history and advanced by each new generation of Americans, often through great sacrifice. In these uncertain times, it is imperative that our leaders hold true to those founding ideals and protect the fundamental trust between the government and the people. Nowhere is this trust more important than between the people and the President of the United States. As the leader of our country and the voice of America to the world, our President has the obligation to lead and speak with truth and integrity if this nation is to continue to reap the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. The citizens of our democracy have a fundamental right to debate and even doubt the wisdom of a presidents policies. And the citizens of our democracy have a sacred obligation to sound the alarm and shed light on the policies of an Administration that is leading this country to a perilous place. I believe that this Administration is indeed leading this country to a perilous place. It has broken faith with the American people, aided and abetted by a Congressional majority willing to pursue ideology at any price, even the price of distorting the truth. On issue after issue, they have moved brazenly to impose their agenda on America and on the world. They have pursued their goals at the expense of urgent national and human needs and at the expense of the truth. The Administration and the majority in Congress have put the state of our union at risk, and they do not deserve another term in the White House or in control of Congress. I make them as an American deeply concerned about the future of the Republic if the extremist policies of this Administration continue. By far the most extreme and most dire example of this Administrations reckless pursuit of its single-minded ideology is in foreign policy. In its arrogant disrespect for the United Nations and for other peoples in other lands, this Administration and this Congress have squandered the immense goodwill that other nations extended to our country after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. And in the process, they made America a lesser and a less respected land. Nowhere is the danger to our country and to our founding ideals more evident than in the decision to go to war in Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul ONeill has now revealed what many of us have long suspected. Despite protestations to the contrary, the President and his senior aides began the march to war in Iraq in the earliest days of the Administration, long before the terrorists struck this nation on 9/11. The examination of the public record and of the statements of President Bush and his aides reveals that the debate about overthrowing Saddam began long before the beginning of this Administration. Its roots began thirteen years ago, during the first Gulf War, when the first President Bush decided not to push on to Baghdad and oust Saddam. President Bush and his National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft explained the reason for that decision in their 1997 book, A World Transformed. They wrote the following: Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream. Then, on September 11th, 2001, terrorists attacked us and everything changed. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld immediately began to link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda and the attacks. According to notes taken by an aide to Rumsfeld on September 11th, the very day of the attacks, the Secretary ordered the military to prepare a response to the attacks. The notes quote Rumsfeld as saying that he wanted the best information fast, to judge whether the information was good enough to hit Saddam and not just Osama bin Laden. The advocates of war in Iraq desperately sought to make the case that Saddam was linked to 9/11 and Al Qaeda, and that he was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear capability. They created an Office of Special Projects in the Pentagon to analyze the intelligence for war. They bypassed the traditional screening process and put pressure on intelligence officers to produce the desired intelligence and analysis. The Administration has found no arsenals of chemical or biological weapons. The Administration should not have looked at the facts with ideological blinders and with a mindless dedication to the results they wanted. A recent report by the Carnegie Endowment concluded that Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraqs nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. They also concluded that the intelligence community was unduly influenced by the policymakers views and intimidating actions, such as Vice President Cheneys repeated visits to CIA headquarters and demands by officials for access to the raw intelligence from which the analysts were working. The report also noted the unusual speed with which the National Intelligence Estimate was written and the high number of dissents in what is designed to be a consensus document. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, President Bush himself made clear that his highest priority was finding Osama bin Laden. At a press conference on September 17th, 2001, he said that he wanted bin Laden dead or alive. Three days later, in an address to a Joint Session of Congress, President Bush demanded of the Taliban: Deliver to the United States authorities all the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in your land. On November 8th, the President told the country, I have called our military into action to hunt down the members of the Al Qaeda organization who murdered innocent Americans. In doing that, he had the full support of Congress and the nation-and rightly so. Soon after the war began in Afghanistan, however, the President started laying the groundwork in public to shift attention to Iraq. In the Rose Garden on November 26th, he said: Afghanistan is still just the beginning. Three days later, even before Hamid Karzai had been approved as interim Afghan President, Vice President Cheney publicly began to send signals about attacking Iraq. It was Vice President Cheney who outlined to the country the case against Iraq that he had undoubtedly been making to President Bush all along. On August 26, 2002, in an address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Vice President argued against UN inspections in Iraq and announced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, meaning chemical and biological weapons. He also said: We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, weve gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors, including Saddams own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddams direction. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon. It is now plain what was happening: The drumbeat for war was sounding, and it drowned out those who believed that Iraq posed no imminent threat. On August 29th, just two days after Cheneys speech, President Bush signed off on the war plan. On September 12th, the President addressed the United Nations and said: Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other chemical agents and has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. He told the United Nations that Iraq would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year, if Saddam acquired nuclear material. President Bush was focusing on Iraq and Saddam, even though one year after the attack on our country, bin Laden was still nowhere to be found. A sixth bin Laden tape had been aired, and news reports of the time revealed new military threats in Afghanistan. United States and Afghan military and intelligence officials were quoted as saying that Al Qaeda had established two main bases inside Pakistan. An Afghan military intelligence chief said: Al Qaeda has regrouped, together with the Taliban, Kashmiri militan... |
| csua.org/u/5rp -> www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1585422762?v=glance Anyone skeptical of the reasons for the war against Iraq will find their suspicions enhanced here. Download Description Weapons of Mass Deception reveals: How the Iraq war was sold to the American public through professional PR strategies. Euphemisms and jargon related to the Iraq war, eg shock and awe, Operation Iraqi Freedom, axis of evil, coalition of the willing, etc. War as Opportunity: How the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq have been used as marketing hooks to sell products and policies that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Brand America: The efforts of Charlotte Beers and other United States propaganda campaigns designed to win hearts overseas. The Mass Media as Propaganda Vehicle: How news coverage followed Washingtons lead and language. The book includes a glossary - Propaganda: A Users Guide - and resources to help Americans sort through the deceptions to see the strings behind Washingtons campaign to sell the Iraq war to the public. They do a thorough job of exposing the lies and manipulation used by the Bush administration to sell the war against Iraq. The authors chronicle every thing from the administrations intent to conduct a regime change when Bush first took office to the administrations ignoring critical evidence that tended to show that Iraq was not a threat to the US. The authors are careful in this book not to take sides or claim that the US should not have gone to war. All they do is point out the evidence that was in existence and how it was used including the fabrication of evidence. In this extremely well researched book, authors Sheldon Rempton and John Stauber argue that the Bush Regime generated public support for the invasion of Iraq by using a calculated public relations campaign and a series of flagrant lies. The authors base their argument on easily verifiable documents from the media, the PR industry, and a variety of respected government and research organizations. Whether or not you agree with the invasion or Iraq it is important that you understand that the Bush Regime felt the only way it could get support for this policy was to lie. There is simply no question, as this book proves, that the Bush Regime deliberately set out to lie to the American people and to the world about why it wanted to invade and occupy Iraq. BRANDING AMERICA The first chapter of this book explains how the Bush Regime set out to change public opinion about the America in the Middle East by running a brand campaign. The regime hired a PR specialist essentially to brand America and to promote that brand in the Middle East the same way one might promote Budweiser or KFC. The problem with Brand promotion strategies, however is that they are more about manipulation and forceful persuasion than about understanding and working with your target audience. WAR IS SELL The books second chapter describes the numerous mechanisms of persuasion the Bush Regime employed to convince you and me that the war on Iraq was necessary. These included timing the drive to war like a product launch, publicizing the invasion-friendly views of right-wing think tanks that were recast as foreign policy experts, promoting the CIA funded Iraqi National Congress as liberators. Funny how none of these strategies had anything to do with telling the truth. TRUE LIES As its title implies, the books third chapter provides the nuts and bolts of Remptons and Staubers argument. Here the authors demonstrate how the Bush Regime falsely claimed that Saddam Hussein had direct ties to al Quaeda he and bin Laden are sworn enemies, lied about Iraqs weapons capability, and created the false impression that Iraq is a major sponsor of global terrorism. Oddly enough our principal Middle Eastern ally, Saudi Arabia provides much more sponsorship for global terrorism than Iraq. Fifteen of the nineteen September 11th hijackers were Saudi and none were Iraqi. THE USES OF FEAR Perhaps the most important part of this book is its fifth chapter entitled The Uses of Fear. Here, the authors argue that the mass media, PR industry and advertising-all of which were used by the Bush Regime to promote the war in Iraq-and terrorism all share a common mindset best described as the propaganda model. This model, according the authors aims to indoctrinate the audience with a pre-defined set of beliefs rather than to engage in the kind of critical thinking and communication that characterize a democracy. Put another way, the process that the Bush Regime used to persuade you and me that invading Iraq was a really cool thing was anti-democratic in nature. Where democracy is based on the premise that the people are capable of rational self-governance, argue Rempton and Stauber, propagandists regard rationality as an obstacle to efficient indoctrination. In other words, the Bush Regime could not permit a reasonable national discussion to take place about the invasion of Iraq. Instead it needed to indoctrinate us with the same false themes again and again and again, until by virtue of consistent reinforcement they became a truth in themselves. The most distressing part of this process, as the authors point out, is not only how the Bush Regime used fear to promote false concepts to the American people but also how they did so to justify withholding information from us. THE AIR WARS The authors also demonstrate that the Bush Regime-largley through corporate cronies-used the air waves both to promote the war and to censor or punish any pubic opposition to it. Pro war rallies were launched by Clear Channel a radio monopoly owned by a long time Bush business partners and campaign contributor. After reading this book, I hope that people-regardless of their political beliefs-will ask themselves some hard questions about what they know about their government and more importantly, how they know it. Now, more than ever, it is essential for us to distance ourselves from our personal feelings, and especially our sense of fear, in order to take a good hard look at the facts. We may not have the authors resources or expertise, but we can read this book and others like it and we can verify its source material most of which is publicly accessible. It may not be a fun or easy process, but when we do this, we begin to take control of our lives and to see things as they are instead of how powerful interests want us to see them. This book and others like it do much more than exposing the mendacity of the Bush Regimes drive for war. It shows us how we can begin to think for ourselves and in the process it frees us from indoctrination. All Customer Reviews Average Customer Review: Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers. Politicians have always used propaganda during times of war to help build support for military action. From Lincoln, to Hitler, to Roosevelt, there has always been an element of propaganda built into the complex war machine. With the war against Iraq, propaganda has been especially critical to the Bush administration. The use of propaganda in the war against Iraq is the primary focus of this book, Weapons of Mass Deception, written by authors Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. This book centers on several of the basic elements of propaganda: selling the idea to the people, using deceptive statistics, relying on fear to encourage support for war, etc. In each of these areas, the two authors explain how these methods are used, in general, and then how the Bush administration used them to build support for the war against Iraq. One of the primary tasks of the propaganda effort in this war was the act of convincing the people that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and could attack the United States at any time hence, the title of the book. Now, experts have come forward to claim that the weapons charges were false, adding more validity to the authors claim that this was the main deception of the war. Many critics of the war had doubts about the weapons claim and now this book presents its ideas on how and why the false charges were made. No direct finger pointing takes place, but the authors feel that several military and/or political leaders in the present admini... |