The case for war: Bush's Oct 2002 Cinci speech [Archive]

View Full Version : The case for war: Bush's Oct 2002 Cinci speech

DrSmellThis

12-09-2005, 04:11 AM

Note: Enjoy this entertaining blast from the past! Though he had all the same "intelligence" information, Bush did not claim Iraq sought yellowcake uranium until a few months later, in the State of the Union address. Still, the number of lies told in this one speech was remarkable. -- DST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless America. (Applause.)

Friendly1

12-09-2005, 11:37 PM

Help us out, here. Where are the lies in the speech's text?

DrSmellThis

12-10-2005, 09:20 PM

They're not hard to spot. But I take it by your response that you disagree that there are any, despite all the evidence that intel was twisted/fabricated, and that so many of the claims are just factually inaccurate. These issues have been visited in detail in other threads here. If someone wants to read the speech as the inspiring words of a great patriot making a great argument for the war, they are welcome. Glad I could be of service.

Friendly1

12-11-2005, 03:35 PM

Well, given the lack of specific citation and the long history of false accusations made against Bush by his political opponents, I see no reason to buy into the latest spate of hyperbole.

If you can share specific points where the evidence is not more nonsense like the half-truths and inconsistencies being spun by hardcore Democrats, feel free.

Otherwise, it's safe to assume you're just blowing off political steam and really don't have anything specific. And that ain't no service to anyone.

DrSmellThis

12-11-2005, 04:01 PM

To start, one could go through this thread in detail:

http://www.pherolibrary.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13816&highlight=irAQ+PREDETERMINED

The cliched response above reminds me of a cartoon I saw yesterday:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=20032

Friendly1

12-11-2005, 09:07 PM

belgareth

12-12-2005, 04:58 AM

Moderates Want Iraq Rhetoric Toned Down By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

Mon Dec 12, 2005

WASHINGTON - Moderates are imploring colleagues in Congress to tone down the rhetoric on Iraq as debate about President Bush's war policies has become increasingly bitter and partisan.

Their pleas are likely to be ignored.

The war is expected to be front and center in the upcoming congressional election year, particularly in several races where candidates are Iraq war veterans. Neither party has much incentive to pull its punches, with Republicans eager to paint Democratic critics of Bush's Iraq policies as soft on defense and Democrats looking to exploit his woes as polls show declining support for the war.

Nevertheless, some senior lawmakers are appealing for courteousness, saying that while debate is essential to democracy, politics and partisanship should stop at the waters' edge.

"The quality of congressional debate has an impact on events in Iraq and our prospects for success," Sen. Richard Lugar (news, bio, voting record), R-Ind., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in the first of several letters he plans to write to House and Senate members on the issue. "We should continually strive to elevate our debate by studying thoughtful sources of information and embracing civility in our discourse."

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who in recent weeks has broken with most of his Democratic brethren and largely supported the president's Iraq strategy, urged discussion that goes beyond "dueling partisan press conferences."

"I hope that it goes on with a recognition that there are Republicans and Democrats on both sides, and that it should be conducted in the spirit of mutual respect and national interest," Lieberman said.

It's no surprise that moderates are acting as referees.

"They're the ones who are reaching across partisan aisles, trying to find common ground," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an expert on political rhetoric and campaigns. "It's the people on the partisan extreme that are the ones most likely to impugn integrity."

Iraq has dominated debate this fall on Capitol Hill with accusations being tossed around almost daily.

Democrats accuse Bush of misleading the United States into war and of failing to be candid about the current situation in Iraq. Republicans assert that Democrats are emboldening U.S. enemies with a "cut-and-run strategy."

"One side uses the word lie, the other side implies treason," said Jamieson, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center.

The war of words seemed to reach a low point just before lawmakers left for Thanksgiving break.

Rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats nearly came to blows on the House floor during a debate over withdrawing U.S. troops. In a speech referencing a pullout proposal by Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat and decorated Vietnam veteran, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, said: "Cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Democrats shouted her down — causing the House to come to a standstill. "You guys are pathetic! Pathetic!" yelled Rep. Marty Meehan (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass. Schmidt later apologized.

That scene prompted Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to appeal for more reasoned discourse. The moderate Virginia Republican called for "bipartisanship on the war in Iraq, instead of more political posturing."

Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, characterized the scene as "one flare-up" that doesn't represent the nature of the Iraq debate that night or every day in Congress.

"There is great respect and civility," the California Republican said last week.

But the top Democrat on Hunter's own panel, Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record) of Missouri, differed. He called it unfortunate that the war rhetoric has become intensely partisan and nasty. "I like to be above that type of debate," Skelton said.

Other lawmakers dismiss the notion that Iraq discussion has gotten out of hand — at least in one chamber.

"Not in the Senate," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, the top Democrat on Warner's committee.

"No, I don't feel there's a lack of civility around here," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., agreed. "There's at least a debate going on."

DrSmellThis

12-12-2005, 08:23 PM

I've seen all these false evidences before. To date, no one has proven any of these allegations against Bush and Blair.

All you're doing is repeating the same political nonsense over and over again. You're not doing anything different from the Republicans who continually bashed Clinton about various things. Since Richard Nixon, President Clinton is the only U.S. President who has actually been shown to have lied to the public while in office.

His egregious offence: denying having had "sexual relations with that woman".

Oboy.

You don't have to agree with Bush. Doesn't matter to me.

The anti-Bush tirades that preoccupy otherwise reasonable people's time are really no different from all the other anti-whatever tirades that preoccupy otherwise reasonable people's time.

But until someone shows us some proof (and I mean, the kind of evidence that would make news headlines such as have not yet been made -- none of this partisan cock-and-bull-illogic), your allegations will remain without foundation.You are going to let the press's headlines determine it? The Downing Minutes were eventually covered by every major news service, as can be seen in the thread; with absolutely no information in any of those articles casting doubt on anything in it, with the exception of Bush, Blair's, and McCain's abstract, empty denials.

You asked me to get specific, which I did; and had done long ago in this forum. Now it's your turn. What evidence do you have against all the evidence in that thread? Where have you been with your facts? Your terse dismissal of that thread (which is full of specific information, as you requested), and everything suggesting we were misled about Iraq (including statements from within Bush's own government and a mountain of other stuff. For the latest wrinkle on Bush and Cheney's Iraq war propaganda -- see this month's excellent Rolling Stone article, the "Man who Sold the War", and get back to me on this also.) as "false evidences;" without providing any rational analysis; is itself typical partisan rhetoric, not a dialogue about facts; just like in the linked cartoon.

As regards partisanship, a search of forum history will reveal I had essentially no interest in "opinionated" politics; until after Bush sent us to war on phony pretenses. (That is what all the evidence has indicated, in my opinion.) Everyone but me was participating in the political threads. I was neutral until my integrity forced me to be otherwise. Of course I am decidedly unhappy with this administration now. We can't be neutral about everything. This is not OK.

I advise readers to read the thread as a preliminary introduction, and judge for themselves. Anyone who is not a died in the wool partisan would have to be deeply concerned after reading it, in my honest opinion. The fact that you just dismiss these official documents as meaningless lies is itself telling. Now people from within the administration are starting to talk, and I predict we are seeing just the beginning.

Anything exposing Bush as the corrupt politician he is is going to be dismissed by the dwindling numbers of Bush supporters as partisan rhetoric, regardless of the substance behind it. That is their typical defense, along with the arrogance of thinking they owe no real substantive responses to the American people. But the Downing Street Minutes, for example, which indicate that intel was being manipulated, were the official leaked minutes of a meeting attended by all the top officials of the U.S. and Great Britain , our closest allies. The British government essentially acknowledged it was authentic, though Blair and Bush just denied the contents, as would be expected. Bush and Blair refused to respond in detail to it; or answer to the charges it makes.

Most of the claims in the above Bush speech were factually inaccurate, except that Iraq had a history of resisting the inspection program, despite its ultimate reports of success. Should I go back and highlight all the false claims? My original plan was just to post the speech and leave it at that, assuming people had been aware of where the claims about nonexistent WMD's (e.g, the known alcoholic liar, "Curveball") and the imaginary "Al-Queda-Iraq connection" (e.g, an alleged "tell them anything they want to hear" torture confession from an Iraqi expatriate) came from.

I also assumed that ambassador Wilson's exposee of manipulated intel and forged documents regarding the supposed yellowcake uranium from Africa, which led to the outing of his wife as a CIA agent by top Administration officials, was well-known. Even the fiercely loyal soldier Colin Powell admits his speech to the U.N. about WMD's was essentially unsourced, and that he was simply ordered to give the text of a bulleted "menu" of talking points he was handed. His Chief of Staff describes the speech as the most humiliating moment of his life in hindsight. Many CIA officials also reported being pressured to tell Bush what he wanted to hear. Those in the intelligence community who spoke up to the contrary were threatened, marginalized, or lost their careers. Both Defense Department and CIA intelligence indicating that there was at best scant evidence for WMD's was already available, but ignored by the Administration. Our own weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq, who were withdrawn by Bush against their wishes, reported no evidence of WMD's. Hans Blix, the chief inspector, will be the first to tell you there was no evidence of WMD's, and that the inspection process was going well.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld simply insisted there were WMD's, and that the evidence for WMD's was clear, unambiguous and overwhelming. They all insisted this, over and over, in the strongest possible terms (see above Bush speech for a good example), and convinced Congress to approve war (as a last resort option, per the president's judgement) for that reason.

They lied. And further, they lied us into war.

Johnson and Nixon lied. Clinton lied too. He should have been slapped in the head and reprimanded by Congress for acting in an unprofessional manner in the Oval office, and screwing his family like that. Clinton deserved to be bashed on some other things, too, like dropping some bombs with inadequate justification. But I'm tired of hearing, "Stop bashing Bush!" Screw that.

Lying a nation into a major war is a grave offense beyond measure, and we all ought to be concered about this possibility, regardless of political affiliation. Arguments that the severity of criticisms should be toned down in this case are silly. This is an egregious matter, with horrific consequences and implications. Tell the parents who lost their kids unnecessarily to "tone down" their anger! We have, as a nation, to call it like we see it on something like this, IMO.

On the other hand, a thorough, independent investigation of our government's actions leading up to war should be launched. If people are innocent they have nothing to fear. Without mentioning the processes of impeachment at this time, I would never advocate throwing Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld in jail without their day in court, and legal presumption of innocence.

The thread I referenced provides evidence that invading Iraq was just something Bush wanted to do all along. The philosophical basis was already there, as indicated when I posted the actual Administration document summarizing the U.S. foreign policy, as well as similar PNAC documents, signed by Bush administration officials.

But listen to the words of Bush himself. Today, on 12-12-2005, George W. Bush said that, knowing what we do now about no WMD's, etc., he would invade Iraq all the same way all over again. Those are your president's own most recent words to his country. He doesn't care that there were never WMD's, and that Iraq was not a grave threat to anyone, at the time of that fallacious Cincinnati speech.

Had he been honest about this in the first place, I would have been able to say, "Um, I happen to disagree with the policy of taking over other nonthreatening countries and killing hundreds of thousands of people just because we want their money and oil." But since he wasn't honest, he is also subject to being criticised for lying about his reasons for taking us to war.

tim929

12-12-2005, 11:28 PM

As a conservative,I feel compelled to chime in here.While pinning the tail on the donkey is a very difficult endevor,the list of inconsitencies in this administrations public statements regarding the reasons and justifications for war with Iraq are overwhelming.Interestingly,according to stated U.N. policy,Bill Clinton was remiss in NOT going to war against Iraq.Sadam Husein violated so many U.N. resolutions and agreements of cooperation that his demise was in fact the responsability of the previous administration.While this administration is realy full of crap on the subject,the war is in fact totaly justified based on what was agreed uppon by the government of Iraq and the U.N. Where I get all spun up about it is the nonsense that this administration used to make that all happen.

On another note...when do we get to go to war agains the U.N.?These people are perhapse the single greatest supporters of terrorism the world has ever seen.And they actively oppose people who seek to carry out thier own policies.Kinda makes you think....:think:

DrSmellThis

12-13-2005, 12:08 AM

I'm not saying I agreed fully with Clinton either. But Bill Clinton was in fact in favor of "regime change". He wanted to make it happen within Iraq, from Iraq's own people, by supporting them to revolt. He had not succeeded at this at the time he left office. He recommended that Bush continue that program. The Bush administration abandoned that program and plan, and it died; while at the same time proclaiming Iraq as the major threat in the world and deemphasizing Al Queda. Then 9-11 happened; which brings us up to date.

"Regime change" is not necessarily the same thing that we did in occupying them. Earlier on after the first Gulf war, when Iraq was resisting inspections, we should have been more firm. We blew it. Iraq was going to test us until we made them toe the line with inspections. Eventually they opened everything up when we threatened them. They eventually would have let us inspect everything, like they did; and we would have found out right away that they destroyed everything, when they did. You can be firm in your foreign policy without being stupid, just like you can disclipline kids extremely thoroughly, without spanking them.

DrSmellThis

12-13-2005, 02:07 PM

French Told CIA of Bogus Intelligence

The foreign spy service warned the U.S. various times before the war that there was no proof Iraq sought uranium from Niger, ex-officials say.

By Tom Hamburger, Peter Wallsten and Bob Drogin
Times Staff Writers
December 11, 2005

PARIS — More than a year before President Bush declared in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear weapons material in Africa, the French spy service began repeatedly warning the CIA in secret communications that there was no evidence to support the allegation.

The previously undisclosed exchanges between the U.S. and the French, described in interviews last week by the retired chief of the French counterintelligence service and a former CIA official, came on separate occasions in 2001 and 2002.

The French conclusions were reached after extensive on-the-ground investigations in Niger and other former French colonies, where the uranium mines are controlled by French companies, said Alain Chouet, the French former official. He said the French investigated at the CIA's request.

Chouet's account was "at odds with our understanding of the issue," a U.S. government official said. The U.S. official declined to elaborate and spoke only on condition that neither he nor his agency be named.

However, the essence of Chouet's account — that the French repeatedly investigated the Niger claim, found no evidence to support it, and warned the CIA — was extensively corroborated by the former CIA official and a current French government official, who both spoke on condition of anonymity.

The repeated warnings from France's Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure did not prevent the Bush administration from making the case aggressively that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons materials.

It was not the first time a foreign government tried to warn U.S. officials off of dubious prewar intelligence.

In the notorious "Curveball" case, an Iraqi who defected to Germany claimed to have knowledge of Iraqi biological weapons. Bush and other U.S. officials repeatedly cited Curveball's claims even as German intelligence officials argued that he was unstable and might be a fabricator.

The case of the forged documents that were used to support claims that Hussein was seeking materials in Africa launched a political controversy that continues to roil Washington.

A special prosecutor continues to investigate whether the Bush administration unmasked a covert CIA operative in a bid to discredit her husband, a former diplomat whom the CIA dispatched in February 2002 to investigate the Niger reports. The diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, like the French, said he found little reason to believe the uranium story. The investigation into the leak led to the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury.

The French opposed U.S. policy on Iraq and refused to support the invasion. But whether or not that made top U.S. officials skeptical of the French report on Niger, intelligence officials from both countries said that they cooperated closely during the prewar period and continued to do so. And the French conclusions on Niger were supported by some in the CIA.

The CIA requested French assistance in 2001 and 2002 because French firms dominate the uranium business internationally and former French colonies lead the world in production of the strategic mineral.

French officials were particularly sensitive to the assertion about Iraq trying to obtain nuclear materials given the role that French companies play in uranium mining in France's former colonies.

"In France, we've always been very careful about both problems of uranium production in Niger and Iraqi attempts to get uranium from Africa," Chouet said. "After the first Gulf War, we were very cautious with that problem, as the French government didn't care to be accused of maintaining relations with Saddam in that field."

The French-U.S. communications were detailed to The Times last week by Chouet, who directed a 700-person intelligence unit specializing in weapons proliferation and terrorism.

Chouet said the cautions from his agency grew more emphatic over time as the Bush administration bolstered the case for invading Iraq by arguing that Hussein had sought to build a nuclear arsenal using uranium from Niger.

Chouet recalled that his agency was contacted by the CIA in the summer of 2001 — shortly before the attacks of Sept. 11 — as intelligence services in Europe and North America became more concerned about chatter from known terrorist sympathizers. CIA officials asked their French counterparts to check that uranium in Niger and elsewhere was secure. The former CIA official confirmed Chouet's account of this exchange.

Then twice in 2002, Chouet said, the CIA contacted the French again for similar help. By mid-2002, Chouet recalled, the request was more urgent and more specific. The CIA was asking questions about a particular agreement purportedly signed by Nigerian officials to sell 500 metric tons of uranium to Iraq.

Chouet dispatched a five- or six-man team to Niger to double-check any reports of a sale or an attempt to purchase uranium. The team found none.

Chouet and his staff noticed that the details of the allegation matched those in fraudulent documents that an Italian informant earlier had offered to sell to the French.

"We told the Americans, 'Bull - - - -. It doesn't make any sense,' " Chouet said.

Chouet said the information was contained in formal cables delivered to CIA offices in Paris and Langley, Va. Those communications did not use such coarse language, he said, but they delivered the point in consistent and blunt terms.

"We had the feeling that we had been heard," Chouet said. "There was nothing more to say other than that."

The former CIA official could not confirm the specifics of this 2002 communication, but said the general conclusions matched what many in the CIA were learning at the time.

Chouet left the French government in the summer of 2002, after the center-right coalition led by President Jacques Chirac won control, forcing out top officials who had been aligned with the outgoing Socialist Francois Mitterand.

When Bush gave his State of the Union address in January 2003, citing a report from the British that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium in Africa, other French officials were flabbergasted.

One government official said that French experts viewed the statement attributed to the British as "totally crazy because, in our view, there was no backup for this." Nonetheless, he said, the French once again launched an investigation, turning things "upside-down trying to find out what was going on."

Chouet's comments come as the FBI and the Italian government reopen investigations into the origins of the documents that surfaced in 2002 purporting to prove the Iraq-Niger link. The documents in question originally surfaced in Rome.

Before speaking with The Times last week, Chouet had told part of his story to La Repubblica, a Rome newspaper, prompting Italian investigators to resume their inquiry and seek Chouet's testimony.

In the U.S., the FBI recently reopened its inquiry into the documents in part because it had won access to new information.

Wilson, the former U.S. ambassador sent to Niger by the CIA to investigate the allegations, said he believed that his trip was inspired by the forged documents. He said the briefing he received at the CIA referred to a sales agreement between Iraq and Niger that sounded like the forged documents.

Bush attributed the African uranium information to British intelligence in his 2003 address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The British government maintains that its conclusions were based not on the forged documents but on other, more reliable sources. In fact, British officials have said that they reached their conclusions long before the forged documents surfaced.

Still, Chouet said in the interview that the question from CIA officials in the summer of 2002 seemed to follow almost word for word from the documents in question. He said that an Italian intelligence source, Rocco Martino, had tried to sell the documents to the French, but that in a matter of days French analysts determined the documents had been forged.

"We thought they [the Americans] were in possession of the documents," Chouet said. "The words were very similar." The former CIA official said that in fact the U.S. had been offered the same documents in 2001 but had quickly rejected them as forgeries.

A spokeswoman for the British Embassy in Washington declined to comment on Chouet's remarks, reiterating that the British government continued to stand behind its conclusions that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium in Africa.

A British report on prewar intelligence found the Africa claims in Bush's speech to be "well-founded," noting that British suspicions on Iraq's efforts to buy uranium originated with visits in 1999 by Iraqi officials to Niger and the Congo.

Bush's assertions in his 2003 State of the Union speech had previously been made by other U.S. officials in speeches and internal documents.

On Sept. 8, 2002 — within months of the third French warning — Cheney and then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice spoke in dire terms of Iraq's alleged efforts to pursue nuclear materials. Rice warned: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Chouet, asked for his reaction to Bush's speech and the claims of his lieutenants, said: "No proof. No evidence. No indication. No sign."

White House officials scrambled to explain how the 16 words found their way into the 2003 speech when so much doubt surrounded the claims. Ultimately, then-deputy national security advisor Stephen Hadley took responsibility for allowing them to remain.

On June 17, 2003, five months after Bush's State of the Union, the CIA clarified its position on whether Iraq had sought uranium from Africa.

"Since learning that the Iraq-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad," the agency said in an internal memorandum that was disclosed by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Bush critics now say that — in light of the warnings from the French and others — the White House owes the public a better explanation.

Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who was chairman of the Intelligence Committee when the Niger claims first surfaced in 2002, said some officials in the U.S. State Department were also expressing doubts: "The big mystery is why did the administration, in the face of at least a very persuasive contrary view, feel the president should take the risk of stating this?"

Hamburger and Wallsten reported from Paris and Washington, Drogin from Washington. Times staff writer Sebastian Rotella in Paris contributed to this report.

DrSmellThis

12-13-2005, 02:18 PM

Prewar Findings Worried Analysts

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 22, 2005; A26

On Jan. 24, 2003, four days before President Bush delivered his State of the Union address presenting the case for war against Iraq, the National Security Council staff put out a call for new intelligence to bolster claims that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear, chemical and biological weapons or programs.

The person receiving the request, Robert Walpole, then the national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs, would later tell investigators that "the NSC believed the nuclear case was weak," according to a 500-page report released last year by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

It has been clear since the September report of the Iraq Survey Group -- a CIA-sponsored weapons search in Iraq -- that the United States would not find the weapons of mass destruction cited by Bush as the rationale for going to war against Iraq. But as the Walpole episode suggests, it appears that even before the war many senior intelligence officials in the government had doubts about the case being trumpeted in public by the president and his senior advisers.

The question of prewar intelligence has been thrust back into the public eye with the disclosure of a secret British memo showing that, eight months before the March 2003 start of the war, a senior British intelligence official reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that U.S. intelligence was being shaped to support a policy of invading Iraq.

Moreover, a close reading of the recent 600-page report by the president's commission on intelligence, and the previous report by the Senate panel, shows that as war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein's alleged weapons programs.

These included claims that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium in Africa for its nuclear program, had mobile labs for producing biological weapons, ran an active chemical weapons program and possessed unmanned aircraft that could deliver weapons of mass destruction. All these claims were made by Bush or then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in public addresses even though, the reports made clear, they had yet to be verified by U.S. intelligence agencies.

For instance, Bush said in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address that Hussein was working to obtain "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa, a conclusion the president attributed to British intelligence and made a key part of his assertion that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program.

More than a year later, the White House retracted the statement after its veracity was questioned. But the Senate report makes it clear that even in January 2003, just before the president's speech, analysts at the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center were still investigating the reliability of the uranium information.

Similarly, the president's intelligence commission, chaired by former appellate judge Laurence H. Silberman and former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.), disclosed that senior intelligence officials had serious questions about "Curveball," the code name for an Iraqi informant who provided the key information on Hussein's alleged mobile biological facilities.

The CIA clandestine service's European division chief had met in 2002 with a German intelligence officer whose service was handling Curveball. The German said his service "was not sure whether Curveball was actually telling the truth," according to the commission report. When it appeared that Curveball's material would be in Bush's State of the Union speech, the CIA Berlin station chief was asked to get the Germans to allow him to question Curveball directly.

On the day before the president's speech, the Berlin station chief warned about using Curveball's information on the mobile biological units in Bush's speech. The station chief warned that the German intelligence service considered Curveball "problematical" and said its officers had been unable to confirm his assertions. The station chief recommended that CIA headquarters give "serious consideration" before using that unverified information, according to the commission report.

The next day, Bush told the world: "We know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile weapons labs . . . designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors." He attributed that information to "three Iraqi defectors."

A week later, Powell said in an address to the United Nations that the information on mobile labs came from four defectors, and he described one as "an eyewitness . . . who supervised one of these facilities" and was at the site when an accident killed 12 technicians.

Within a year, doubts emerged about the truthfulness of all four, and the "eyewitness" turned out to be Curveball, the informant the CIA station chief had red-flagged as unreliable. Curveball was subsequently determined to be a fabricator who had been fired from the Iraqi facility years before the alleged accident, according to the commission and Senate reports.

As Bush speeches were being drafted in the prewar period, serious questions were also being raised within the intelligence community about purported threats from biologically armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

In an Oct. 7, 2002, speech, Bush mentioned a potential threat to the U.S. mainland being explored by Iraq through unmanned aircraft "that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons." The basis for that analysis was a single report that an Iraqi general in late 2000 or early 2001 indicated interest in buying autopilots and gyroscopes for Hussein's UAV program. The manufacturer automatically included topographic mapping software of the United States in the package.

When the list was submitted in early 2002, the manufacturer's distributor determined that the U.S. mapping software would not be included in the autopilot package, and told the procurement agent in March 2002. By then, however, U.S. intelligence, which closely followed Iraqi procurement of such material, had already concluded as early as the summer of 2001 that this was the "first indication that the UAVs might be used to target the U.S."

When a foreign intelligence service questioned the procurement agent, he originally said he had never intended to purchase the U.S. mapping software, but he refused to submit to a thorough examination, according to the president's commission. "By fall 2002, the CIA was still uncertain whether the procurement agent was lying," the commission said. Nonetheless, a National Intelligence Estimate in October 2002 said the attempted procurement "strongly suggested" Iraq was interested in targeting UAVs on the United States. Senior members of Congress were told in September 2002 that this was the "smoking gun" in a special briefing by Vice President Cheney and then-CIA Director George J. Tenet.

By January 2003, however, it became publicly known that the director of Air Force intelligence dissented from the view that UAVs were to be used for biological or chemical delivery, saying instead they were for reconnaissance. In addition, according to the president's commission, the CIA "increasingly believed that the attempted purchase of the mapping software . . . may have been inadvertent."

In an intelligence estimate on threats to the U.S. homeland published in January 2003, Air Force, Defense Intelligence Agency and Army analysts agreed that the proposed purchase was "not necessarily indicative of an intent to target the U.S. homeland."

By late January 2003, the number of U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf area was approaching 150,000, and the invasion of Iraq was all but guaranteed. Neither Bush nor Powell reflected in their speeches the many doubts that had surfaced at that time about Iraq's weapons programs.

Instead, Bush said, "With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region." He added: "Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

DrSmellThis

12-13-2005, 02:20 PM

And try this one:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822_1,00.html

DrSmellThis

12-13-2005, 02:22 PM

This government document also showed the war was inevitable:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723.html

DrSmellThis

12-13-2005, 02:26 PM

More official government documents from our closest ally show war and lies were preplanned:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-britmemos15jun15,0,7062164.story?coll=la-home-headlines

DrSmellThis

12-13-2005, 02:30 PM

http://www.russbaker.com/Guerrilla%20News%20Network%20-%20Bush.htm

DrSmellThis

12-13-2005, 02:36 PM

..and not dependent on WMD's:

British Iraq Options Paper (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/iraqoptionspaper.pdf)
Manning Paper (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/manningmemo.pdf)
Meyer Paper (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/meyermemo.pdf)
Ricketts Paper (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/rickettsmemo.pdf)
Straw Paper (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/strawmemo.pdf)
British Legal Background Paper (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/iraqlegalbackground.pdf)

Here is another, most of which is printed except for the last censored page. With all these documents, you need to note the dates of them are well in advance of the Iraq War:

http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif
The Sunday Times June 12, 2005
Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action

The paper, produced by the Cabinet Office on July 21, 2002, is incomplete because the last page is missing. The following is a transcript rather than the original document in order to protect the source.

PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY

IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION (A Note by Officials)

Summary

Ministers are invited to:

(1) Note the latest position on US military planning and timescales for possible action.

(2) Agree that the objective of any military action should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD.

(3) Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy, which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq. This should include a call from the Prime Minister to President Bush ahead of the briefing of US military plans to the President on 4 August.

(4) Note the potentially long lead times involved in equipping UK Armed Forces to undertake operations in the Iraqi theatre and agree that the MOD should bring forward proposals for the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements under cover of the lessons learned from Afghanistan and the outcome of SR2002.

(5) Agree to the establishment of an ad hoc group of officials under Cabinet Office Chairmanship to consider the development of an information campaign to be agreed with the US.

Introduction

1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.

2. When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted.

3. We need now to reinforce this message and to encourage the US Government to place its military planning within a political framework, partly to forestall the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way by, for example, an incident in the No Fly Zones. This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action. Otherwise we face the real danger that the US will commit themselves to a course of action which we would find very difficult to support.

4. In order to fulfil the conditions set out by the Prime Minister for UK support for military action against Iraq, certain preparations need to be made, and other considerations taken into account. This note sets them out in a form which can be adapted for use with the US Government. Depending on US intentions, a decision in principle may be needed soon on whether and in what form the UK takes part in military action.

The Goal

5. Our objective should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD. It seems unlikely that this could be achieved while the current Iraqi regime remains in power. US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one.

US Military Planning

6. Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq. In a 'Running Start', military action could begin as early as November of this year, with no overt military build-up. Air strikes and support for opposition groups in Iraq would lead initially to small-scale land operations, with further land forces deploying sequentially, ultimately overwhelming Iraqi forces and leading to the collapse of the Iraqi regime. A 'Generated Start' would involve a longer build-up before any military action were taken, as early as January 2003. US military plans include no specifics on the strategic context either before or after the campaign. Currently the preference appears to be for the 'Running Start'. CDS will be ready to brief Ministers in more detail.

7. US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia. This means that legal base issues would arise virtually whatever option Ministers choose with regard to UK participation.

The Viability of the Plans

8. The Chiefs of Staff have discussed the viability of US military plans. Their initial view is that there are a number of questions which would have to be answered before they could assess whether the plans are sound. Notably these include the realism of the 'Running Start', the extent to which the plans are proof against Iraqi counter-attack using chemical or biological weapons and the robustness of US assumptions about the bases and about Iraqi (un)willingness to fight.

UK Military Contribution

9. The UK's ability to contribute forces depends on the details of the US military planning and the time available to prepare and deploy them. The MOD is examining how the UK might contribute to US-led action. The options range from deployment of a Division (ie Gulf War sized contribution plus naval and air forces) to making available bases. It is already clear that the UK could not generate a Division in time for an operation in January 2003, unless publicly visible decisions were taken very soon. Maritime and air forces could be deployed in time, provided adequate basing arrangements could be made. The lead times involved in preparing for UK military involvement include the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements, for which there is no financial provision.

The Conditions Necessary for Military Action

10. Aside from the existence of a viable military plan we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base; an international coalition; a quiescent Israel/Palestine; a positive risk/benefit assessment; and the preparation of domestic opinion.

Justification

11. US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.

12. This leaves the route under the UNSC resolutions on weapons inspectors. Kofi Annan has held three rounds of meetings with Iraq in an attempt to persuade them to admit the UN weapons inspectors. These have made no substantive progress; the Iraqis are deliberately obfuscating. Annan has downgraded the dialogue but more pointless talks are possible. We need to persuade the UN and the international community that this situation cannot be allowed to continue ad infinitum. We need to set a deadline, leading to an ultimatum. It would be preferable to obtain backing of a UNSCR for any ultimatum and early work would be necessary to explore with Kofi Annan and the Russians, in particular, the scope for achieving this.

13. In practice, facing pressure of military action, Saddam is likely to admit weapons inspectors as a means of forestalling it. But once admitted, he would not allow them to operate freely. UNMOVIC (the successor to UNSCOM) will take at least six months after entering Iraq to establish the monitoring and verification system under Resolution 1284 necessary to assess whether Iraq is meeting its obligations. Hence, even if UN inspectors gained access today, by January 2003 they would at best only just be completing setting up. It is possible that they will encounter Iraqi obstruction during this period, but this more likely when they are fully operational.

14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003.

An International Coalition

15. An international coalition is necessary to provide a military platform and desirable for political purposes.

16. US military planning assumes that the US would be allowed to use bases in Kuwait (air and ground forces), Jordan, in the Gulf (air and naval forces) and UK territory (Diego Garcia and our bases in Cyprus). The plans assume that Saudi Arabia would withhold co-operation except granting military over-flights. On the assumption that military action would involve operations in the Kurdish area in the North of Iraq, the use of bases in Turkey would also be necessary.

17. In the absence of UN authorisation, there will be problems in securing the support of NATO and EU partners. Australia would be likely to participate on the same basis as the UK. France might be prepared to take part if she saw military action as inevitable. Russia and China, seeking to improve their US relations, might set aside their misgivings if sufficient attention were paid to their legal and economic concerns. Probably the best we could expect from the region would be neutrality. The US is likely to restrain Israel from taking part in military action. In practice, much of the international community would find it difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon. However, the greater the international support, the greater the prospects of success.

A Quiescent Israel-Palestine

18. The Israeli re-occupation of the West Bank has dampened Palestinian violence for the time being but is unsustainable in the long-term and stoking more trouble for the future. The Bush speech was at best a half step forward. We are using the Palestinian reform agenda to make progress, including a resumption of political negotiations. The Americans are talking of a ministerial conference in November or later. Real progress towards a viable Palestinian state is the best way to undercut Palestinian extremists and reduce Arab antipathy to military action against Saddam Hussein. However, another upsurge of Palestinian/Israeli violence is highly likely. The co-incidence of such an upsurge with the preparations for military action against Iraq cannot be ruled out. Indeed Saddam would use continuing violence in the Occupied Territories to bolster popular Arab support for his regime.

Benefits/Risks

19. Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of Government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor. We must also consider in greater detail the impact of military action on other UK interests in the region.

Domestic Opinion

20. Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action against Saddam Hussein. There would also need to be a substantial effort to secure the support of Parliament. An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence Saddam Hussein, the Islamic World and the wider international community. This will need to give full coverage to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including his WMD, and the legal justification for action.

Timescales

21. Although the US military could act against Iraq as soon as November, we judge that a military campaign is unlikely to start until January 2003, if only because of the time it will take to reach consensus in Washington. That said, we judge that for climactic reasons, military action would need to start by January 2003, unless action were deferred until the following autumn.

22. As this paper makes clear, even this timescale would present problems. This means that:

(a) We need to influence US consideration of the military plans before President Bush is briefed on 4 August, through contacts betweens the Prime Minister and the President and at other levels;

DrSmellThis

12-13-2005, 02:53 PM

Remember Powell's infamous UN WMD evidence speech?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast...l.un/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/index.html)

Unfortunately, the videos supporting this article are unavailable. The links were good for a week only, and are excerpts from a TV show.

The first video presented information -- two emails -- wherein the CIA official responsible for the information tried to warn everyone a day before the speech that the WMD claim was based on faulty intel from "Curveball", a known liar and Iraqi expatriot who had actually never been interviewed by the CIA. The official was prevented from doing so by his superiors; who told him that the "Powers That Be" frankly wouldn't be interested, as they were going to war anyway.

The CIA under Bush was reduced to a highly efficient spin machine, whose job it was to produce "faks" (we needed a new word here) to beef up whatever propaganda Bush, Cheney and Rove chose to unleash. This has ruined our credibility in the world for the foreseeable future.

As the article states, Powell was simply given a list of talking points to present in his speech by Bush and Cheney; with no sources whatsoever listed; and was reduced to having to spend four days hurriedly asking Tenet if the list of talking points was true. Powell argued and expressed many doubts, according to the report. Tenet simply told him they were "solid intelligence", but Powell had to go on blind faith, according to the article. He was a "good" soldier, so to speak.

Basically, what this is all is a corroboration of the Downing street memo from inside the US government.

DrSmellThis

12-13-2005, 03:09 PM

Friendly1

12-13-2005, 05:38 PM

OK, Friendly1:

If you're going to attack with mindless cliches ("partisan cock and bull illogic", "lies", "political steam", "political nonsense", "latest spate of hyperbole", "anti-Bush tirades" -- sounds like a typical seven year old trying to out-insult another kid, but with bigger words);

Whereas the political propaganda you're posting is supposed to be accepted as the God's honest truth despite the fact that it's largely speculation and hate-based?

Sorry.

That dog won't hunt.

If Bush had really intended to deceive the country, he and a few other people would have been brought up on charges by now.

The allegations are hogwash.

The criticisms which motivate them are probably very true and accurate. Bush is not the sharpest nail to have been driven into the board.

But he is clearly a sincere and emotionally honest man. He doesn't hide his feelings (or his motivations) very well and he is quite probably the most honest president we have had in office for a very long time, if only because he has been too distracted by the various wars and disasters that have plagued his administration since 2001 to do anything intentionally stupid (like all of his recent predecessors, including his father, who relented on No New Taxes and came to regret the change in position).

...you need to provide detailed, evidence based responses to my 9 posts above:

I don't have to do any such thing. You posted the text from an old speech where no lies are present and then proceeded to declare it to be full of lies.

That's political propaganda. There is certainly no truth to the claim.

You need to find some valid sources of information, not party wardogs who are obviously trying to derail the sitting President.

Both Democrats and Republicans trot out all the negative hyperbole they can to attack every administration and it's always nothing but absolute B.S.

I don't base my opinions on lies and B.S.

You want to persuade me, present some verifiable, independently confirmed facts that are widely documented.

There are plenty of people who would not hesitate to pull down the Bush Administration if it could be shown that he misled the country.

Despite four years of intensive investigation, not one of the charges has proven to be true.

catlord17

12-14-2005, 07:41 PM

Evidence is easily dismissed, regardless of validity, if you simply choose to ignore it. Try it some time, DrSmellThis - it makes the world much easier to deal with. I suggest you try it with a bill collector. Just tell them that you simply don't believe their illogical propaganda and lies, and that they're wrong, that you really don't have to pay those bills because they're obviously hardcore Democrats. Oh, and it works beautifully with the IRS, too. Evidence is too easily faked. Let's all refuse to believe what we see in front of us. If we repeat our belief that all this evidence is propaganda enough, someone will eventually believe it. Once they believe it, we can really be sure it's true, because if they believe it, we can also believe it. At that point, there's no way anyone can convince us otherwise!

Remember, key words to remember and use liberally (snicker snicker):

Propaganda
Lies
Baseless
Illogic
Invalid
Unproven
Mislead
Decieve
Unfounded
Cock-and-bull
Irrelevant

Also remember that Clinton can never be forgiven for getting caught having sexual relations and then lying about it, even though:

1. Forgiveness is a core tenet of Christianity, and
2. Practically every president and leader since the dawn of time has been doing the same thing.

Remember, there are no other points of view than those of the Conservatives of the United States that are in the slightest valid. In fact, the United States is the only country, and all the rest are just pretenders, not worth even thinking about. Therefore, it does not matter if the rest of the world sees what we are really doing, which is making gigantic asses of ourselves.

The so-called Second Iraq war is fully justified because Bush seems sincere. He couldn't possibly be a bulls**t artist of the highest caliber. He couldn't possibly have been born into one of the most corrupt political families in the United States. How could you ever think that he would lie when he's so used to lying that he doesn't even know when he's doing it? And of course when you don't realize you're spewing bulls**t, you're really not spewing bulls**t, you're just being warm and cuddly. You know, like any good old money political family with blinders on to reality!

DrSmellThis, it's obvious you need to stop with this pointless "evidence" faulty thinking thing and just realize that life's not shades of gray. It's black and white. If you don't agree with me, you're wrong! And you don't want to be wrong, now do you? After all, if thinking like this is good enough for the President of the United States - as well as the VP, and most of the rest of the New Republican Party, it's good enough for me. And you!

So suck it up, DrSmellThis! Get with the program!

Friendly1

12-14-2005, 08:07 PM

bush is known internationally as the world's asshole ATM, but i just wanna point out point out paragaphs 2 and 3 of the opening speech.

the second paragraph talks about iraq, and how saddam doesn't like the u.s. etc etc... and the third talks about the 9/11 attacks.

first of all, we know that 9/11 attacks were carried out by the al quaeda which were dealt with during the mission to afghanistan, correct??

At the time Bush made his speech, he had been informed of meetings or possible meetings between Iraq and Al Qaeda. That the intelligence proved to be wrong doesn't make Bush a liar.

It makes a lot of people who call him a liar because of that look rather foolish, but the point is that knowing what we know now doesn't change the way things were then.

let me set this straight: SADDAM did not attack the U.S

Well, there you're wrong again. There was an active state of war between the United States and Iraq from the period of 1990 through 2001. We had until that time about 100,000 troops from the various services stationed in the region for the strategic purpose of containing Iraq's aggression and defending our allies (primarily Saudi Arabia and Kuwait).

During that time frame, the U.S. and its allies flew numerous sorties into Iraqi airspace, shot down Iraqi aircraft, and launched missile attacks against Iraqi military installations. Iraq provoked those attacks by violating the terms of the truce it had signed with the allied nations at the end of the First Persian Gulf War.

Iraq had during this same period expressed profound and continued financial and political support for several terrorist organizations operating against Israel. There was significant plausibility in the notion that Al Qaeda might seek to influence U.S. Iraqi hostilities even if Al Qaeda and Iraq were diametrically opposed (and at the time a number of sources alleged that there was no love lost between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda).

So, again, to prove Bush a liar, one must show that he knew the intelligence he was given was wrong.

That has never been shown.

tim929

12-14-2005, 09:16 PM

Correct...we did in fact have troops stationed on the border with Iraq.But a state of war did not exist.The state that existed was armistice.A state that is technicaly niether war nor peace.The case that many will make for claiming that president Bush lied is simple and very plausable.Bear in mind,I am a registered Republican and typicaly regarded as far right of Rush Limbaugh on most topics.There were enough conflicting inteligence reports that people like "Bagdad" Jim McDermot knew that and went so far as to take his traitorous butt to Bagdad in protest.Bad form to be sure...And he should have gone to prison for it,but his statements were just admited too by the president himself.And he wasnt the only one.Huge numbers of analists and advisors and politicians and representatives from a variety of other countries stated that the inteligence was bad.Internal Whitehouse memos indicated and still indicate that GW Bush had every intention of invading Iraq befor he even took office.The list is realy hard to reconcile with what has been said by the Whitehouse in thier own defense.

Believe what you like,but the biggest problem with liberalism is blind faith in the party propoganda without critical thought.Saddly...Republicans are no more immune to it than liberals.

Holmes

12-14-2005, 11:00 PM

belgareth

12-15-2005, 08:49 AM

and speaking of lies, i like this one too
http://gprime.net/flash.php/911pentagonstrikeconspiracy

kudos!

Oh, come on. I thought everybody knew that video was pure trash by now. There are so many holes in it that nobody could possible believe it.

I don't like Bush, feel very strongly that we never should have gone to Iraq and want us out now. But let's at least deal in facts, not unsupported propaganda.

belgareth

12-15-2005, 10:03 AM

It wasn't a 747, it's a 757. How many plane crashes have you seen? How many of them did you see that hit a wall? How many have you seen footage of that is presented by people with a goal of discrediting somebody? That video has been disected by engineers several times over. It's a fake created by a bunch of people who will do anything to discredit Bush. In the end, they make their side look like fools and liars.

Actually, it's pretty funny when you get right down to it. The 9/11 attacks were initiated, the people came to this country and learned to fly and all the rest, during Clinton's watch. The intelligence that failed to detect the terrorists worked for Clinton, not Bush. If anybody should be blamed for the 9/11 attcks it should be Clinton.

I'm probably going to catch it for this but I'd like everybody to consider something. There is no way those attacks were planned and executed in nine months. Look at the time frames and figure it out for yourself. So, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that thos attacks not only originated during the Clinton administration but were a reaction, to some degree, to Clinton's policies in the mid-east? I've tried for several weeks to stay out of this discussion because of my personal opinion of motivations and the truly fruitless nature of this debate but I do get tired of some of the misrepresentations presented by the anti Bush crowd. I don't support him but try to do so honestly.

belgareth

12-15-2005, 10:23 AM

I'll try to find some. It's been quite a while since then and it isn't likely there will be any out there. However, you are enrolled in college. Ask any mechanical engineering prof to look at it. I'm an engineer myself and have a fairly good idea what I'm seeing and what a qualified engineer will tell you. I also think you should be questioning when those pics were taken. I think they are very misleading.

if that is true,

Why is it so many people find it so easy to believe anything they see on the internet but refuse to believe or are sceptical about a person's words?

DrSmellThis

12-15-2005, 04:52 PM

The 9/11 attacks were initiated, the people came to this country and learned to fly and all the rest, during Clinton's watch. The intelligence that failed to detect the terrorists worked for Clinton, not Bush. If anybody should be blamed for the 9/11 attcks it should be Clinton.

I'm probably going to catch it for this but I'd like everybody to consider something. There is no way those attacks were planned and executed in nine months. Look at the time frames and figure it out for yourself. So, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that thos attacks not only originated during the Clinton administration but were a reaction, to some degree, to Clinton's policies in the mid-east? I agree. But do we even need to go there, trying to blame one president for that whole phenomenon? Only a fool would think of Bush as some all powerful Satan responsible for every evil currently in the world. There have been enough fools in charge over the years, thank you very much.

Obviously, the U.S. has been pursuing selfish, ignorant and just plain clumsy world policies, in the Middle East and elsewhere, for quite some time; though there have been some positive efforts, (such as the original Camp David process). It's not just our political leadership. It's also our foolish lifestyles, and the behaviors of our corporations. We also have the Crusades in our cultural history to own up to, not that the history of Islam isn't horribly violent.

Nor is it a Clinton thing. The first attack on the WTC was what, 10 or 12 or 13 years ago? How long was that one planned, including training and recruitment of the planners? How long has Al Queda been attacking us and our interests? Clearly Bush didn't invent Al Queda, or anti-American hostility; and no one is claiming that.

The dirty international politics are also a factor. Hell, Bin Laden was once a CIA associate. And we used to support the Taliban; and Saddham Hussein, for that matter. Was it Cheney or Rumsfeld who was involved in selling Hussein chemical weapons under the first Bush, and met with him like four times? I forget. You have to study the history to understand it.

Is it possible that Bush to some extent allowed the attacks to happen, through extreme negligence or even turning a blind eye as regards Al Queda? Well, yes. The PNAC foreign policy documents provide the philosophical basis, for starters. And there are apparently lots of unsolved engineering questions to be asked and answered, from what I can tell. And there were lots of strange, unexplained behaviors: reading My Pet Goat, allowing the planes to turn around, failing to work with NORAD and scramble planes, the extremely close Saudi and Bin Laden family-administration ties, allowing Saudi Bin laden associates to leave after the attacks, etc.

But it takes an extreme level of balls to ask these questions, since it seems unthinkable for most of us that an elected president and his appointees could be at a diabolical level of criminality. You certainly don't want that to be an early assumption you make about another human being, even one from a political family that once supported the Nazi party.

Unfortunately, we put an astronomical amount of trust in our elected officials. They get to do a lot of hugely bad things before anyone could ever catch them, and it takes a long time. That's just the way our system works, and is the nature of their power. Could that level of power and unaccountability eventually draw some very bad people to lead our U.S??

But as much as this prospect scares me, I'd rather focus on some things we do have a lot of evidence for. Those obvious things will be neglected otherwise, and we have enough work to do.

If over time more evidence accumulates about other stuff, fine. I'm glad others are gathering evidence and speculating, though, because that's the way answers are eventually found. The only conclusion I draw is that I do not trust the government to tell us the truth about just about anything, where power, money and extremist (e.g., theocratic) ideology might be involved. They have to earn my basic trust, and they have not done so. If you follow the non-mainstream press, and the investigations of normal, everyday people; there are an awful lot of apparently diabolical, nasty and viscious deeds in an awful lot of areas going back a long ways; and not just with Bush. Speaking for myself, it was a gradual process of losing trust. People should investigate away.

The times of being able to just say, "poppycock" and leave it at that are long gone. For now, though I'd ask that if we want to talk about 9-11 plots, pro or con; perhaps we could please take it to another thread, and give it the attention it deserves.

belgareth

12-15-2005, 05:08 PM

Sorry Doc.

I wasn't really trying to derail your thread. That silly video and the conspiracy theories sets my teeth on edge sometimes. I personally don't trust the government to tell us the truth about anything either so am always questioning motives. The same applies to political parties and their affiliates, who are at times worse about misrepresentation than the government is. That's a big part of the reason I've been keeping my opinions to myself. They aren't real positive about any of the participants in this mess.

In any case, in an effort to be non-traditional I'm going to agree with basically all you said in that last post with the exception of not taking the non-mainstreem press any more seriously than I take the mainstream press. They can show a lot of bias too. I do wish there was some way of getting to the unfiltered truth other than using a cattle prod on the participants. :)

DrSmellThis

12-15-2005, 05:37 PM

In any case, in an effort to be non-traditional I'm going to agree with basically all you said in that last post with the exception of not taking the non-mainstreem press any more seriously than I take the mainstream press. They can show a lot of bias too. I do wish there was some way of getting to the unfiltered truth other than using a cattle prod on the participants. :)* Glad we could agree. I prefer to find agreement where I can with people, though it takes work.

* It's all just information; and people trying to report and share information.

There is no alternative, other than to be open minded and get some information from all of it. The price of turning away information is too high, and so you just have to develop a sophisticated system of filters/organizers/validity judgements and construct your tentative beliefs from the available information. You keep your internal information base strong, and that strength is its self-defense against corruption. It doesn't need external protection so much. You just don't take everything at face value, or judge its validity right away. If a source looks relatively reliable (e.g., reputable press sources) you can accept something for what it is, for the time being. When you start to see big and small patterns emerging, after looking at each bit of information from different depths and angles; and considering the evidence and logic. Then you're in business.

There is an optimal point to set your levels of cynicism (hopefully very minimal) and skepticism; (much higher) in being a responsible information consumer, in various settings. When I decided to be rigorously open minded some time ago, things changed for me in terms of world view, thankfully. Pretty much no source of information threatens me (govt., alt press, conspiracies, mainstream, radical or extreme ideas, etc.), such that I'd have to think primarily in terms of my "distrust" of it.

I don't think the press out and out lies to us for the most part. I just think they present limited pieces of information. But that's all you get even from someone you trust. I'm not a Republican, for example, but I can learn a lot from a conservative news site. You're getting their view and reasons for it, for example, which is good to know.

It's all information, in its context.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

Mtnjim

12-15-2005, 05:50 PM

I agree. But do we even need to go there, trying to blame one president for that whole phenomenon? Only a fool would think of Bush as some all powerful Satan responsible for every evil currently in the world. There have been enough fools in charge over the years, thank you very much.

I'm sure the resentment in the Middle East goes back to the 1940's when we, the British, and the French came rolling into North Africa. then we proceeded to divide up "Arabia" into various “countries" and telling people who would be in charge of where, with no regard to culture or rivalries. That's not even taking into considration the creation of Israel in '48.

DrSmellThis

12-15-2005, 07:31 PM

http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2005/invasion.320.240.mov.htm

Friendly1

12-15-2005, 08:34 PM

Correct...we did in fact have troops stationed on the border with Iraq.But a state of war did not exist.The state that existed was armistice.

We were in a state of war because we were exchanging fire with the Iraqis. A state of armistice is a temporary cessation of hostilities by mutual agreement. The armistice signed in 1991 had been left behind in the 1990s.

The case that many will make for claiming that president Bush lied is simple and very plausable.

The only way the allegations of falsehood can be plausible is for there to be discernible evidence of knowledge and intent to deceive on Bush's part.

There is no such evidence.

...Internal Whitehouse memos indicated and still indicate that GW Bush had every intention of invading Iraq befor he even took office.

But no indication of an intent or action to deceive has been discovered.

You're confusing Bush's desire to take action against Iraq -- which was draining the resources of both the United States and its allies -- as well as ignoring United Nations requirements to comply with the inspections process with a (falsely alleged) desire to deceive the American people.

There is simply no case to be made against Bush with respect to these nonsense allegations about lying to the American people.

And I am NOT a registered Republican or anything else, I don't get my news from either Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh, and I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans (and occasional independents) in every election I've voted in.

The political rhetoric cannot change the facts. And the fact is that no one has been able to show that Bush lied.

belgareth

12-16-2005, 03:22 AM

* Glad we could agree. I prefer to find agreement where I can with people, though it takes work.

* It's all just information; and people trying to report and share information.

There is no alternative, other than to be open minded and get some information from all of it. The price of turning away information is too high, and so you just have to develop a sophisticated system of filters/organizers/validity judgements and construct your tentative beliefs from the available information. You keep your internal information base strong, and that strength is its self-defense against corruption. It doesn't need external protection so much. You just don't take everything at face value, or judge its validity right away. If a source looks relatively reliable (e.g., reputable press sources) you can accept something for what it is, for the time being. When you start to see big and small patterns emerging, after looking at each bit of information from different depths and angles; and considering the evidence and logic. Then you're in business.

There is an optimal point to set your levels of cynicism (hopefully very minimal) and skepticism; (much higher) in being a responsible information consumer, in various settings. When I decided to be rigorously open minded some time ago, things changed for me in terms of world view, thankfully. Pretty much no source of information threatens me (govt., alt press, conspiracies, mainstream, radical or extreme ideas, etc.), such that I'd have to think primarily in terms of my "distrust" of it.

I don't think the press out and out lies to us for the most part. I just think they present limited pieces of information. But that's all you get even from someone you trust. I'm not a Republican, for example, but I can learn a lot from a conservative news site. You're getting their view and reasons for it, for example, which is good to know.

It's all information, in its context.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled program.
True enough. However, there is really no such thing as objective when it comes to us human creatures. That's why science develops things like double blind methodology. I have my biases, you have yours and every press organization has their's, as does each reporter. Everything that is said must be filtered based on that knowledge. The problem is that my filters, and yours are subject to our own biases. Each of us is going to disbelieve or omit or believe data on what we want to believe. That is what my statement about taking the press seriously comes from. Trying to be rational about it, I have to apply it to each person posting here as well.

Again, I am not trying to derail your thread. Rather, I am trying to be objective. Some are going to believe Bush did wrong no matter what happens, just as others felt that way about Clinton, Bush Sr., and on back forever. An awful lot of that is partisan politics and is counter-productive. All I am saying is that every one of your posts, my own and every other's should be viewed in that light. Maybe that way we can approach some measure of truth eventually. Each post has its merits but cannot be taken at face value and needs to be cross checked for bias and validity.

DrSmellThis

12-17-2005, 07:40 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501813.html?referrer=emailarticle

a.k.a.

12-17-2005, 12:43 PM

The only way the allegations of falsehood can be plausible is for there to be discernible evidence of knowledge and intent to deceive on Bush's part.

There is no such evidence.

"We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003

"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003

"We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

If they knew where the WMD's were located, why hasn't anybody been able to produce them?

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati

Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003

The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story concluded that it was bogus and wrote a NYT editorial to that effect shortly after Bush's state of the union address. Then his wife, who was an undercover CIA agent, was "mysteriously" outed. Investigations into the Bush administration's role in this act of treason continue as I write.

I don't believe anybody is so naive to believe the Bush administration's lies at face value. People support the policies (ie. Blood for Oil) and consequently buy into the rationalizations.

There's a left wing notion that if you just give the people enough facts they'll "wake up" and change the government. This is probably a myth. The average person is perfectly content living in a dream and will find ways to rationalize any amount of evidence that comes his/her way.

And it has nothing to do with intelligence. Because the smarter a person is the more refined will be his/her rationalizations.

Americans love their SUV's more than they love their children.

DrSmellThis

12-17-2005, 05:26 PM

There is no such evidence....no indication of an intent or action to deceive has been discovered."Intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" -- Downing Street Minuteshttp://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/840

Welcome back and thanks for the great post, AKA, but I am going to continue to insist that people look at evidence.

No evidence?? People really need to read all eight of these official British government documents. They are not propaganda from the left wing. They are official documents from our strongest ally. They are precisely evidence of intent to deceive.

And they are not the only evidence, as the other posts here demonstrate. Someone can spout empty rhetorical cliches and perjorative labels all they want.

Despite the compelling evidence that we were deceived, right-wingers are on one hand resisting desperately any investigation that would provide hard-core legal proof, the kind you could prosecute on; and on the other hand trying to boast that there is no proof. Good one.

DrSmellThis

12-17-2005, 08:08 PM

There is no such evidence....no indication of an intent or action to deceive has been discovered. If Bush decided beforehand to invade, and yet claimed that he didn't -- which he did -- then he lied.

He also lied when he led us and Congress to to believe us going to war was about WMD's, when his own CIA and defense department intelligence was telling him there were no WMD's; or that there were at least profound doubts about the few pieces of false and flimsy information (e.g., from a known drunken liar, Curveball) that suggested there might be WMD's (see posted articles from the mainstream press).

He and his cohorts also lied when he said he know exactly where the weapons were, when all they had was flimsy cherry-picked indications there might be something somewhere. Obviously they did not know exact locations of anything.

If he fixed, forged, or cherry picked intelligence, as documents indicated, he lied. And why do you think someone forged the yellow cake uranium document? Who ultimately had an interest in doing that?

They lied about outing Valerie Plame, (regardless of whether it was legally prosecutable treason) about not knowing who could have leaked the stuff when it was everyone at the highest levels. Recently, he lied when he said Congress had all the same intelligence he had.

But if we start looking at smaller (but still very bad) lies he tells, we'll be here all day.

Neither Congress nor the UN was going to let him go to his war if he told them the truth. He instead found a way to circumvent Congress and the American people. Since he fully intended to invade, there was no way for him to do that without lying.

That some pieces of more sane intelligence might not have made it to him, due to pressure, threats and prohibition against anything that did not support his preordained war, is no less dishonest than than a lie.

You can't say you had bad intelligence, though, when you had plenty of indication from every branch of intel (CIA and Pentagon) that there was very little indication of WMD's, and picked out only the "bad" pieces. That would be dishonest.

PHP 87

12-19-2005, 10:38 PM

Whatever became of those Downing Street Memo's?

Some Smoking Gun.

DrSmellThis

12-19-2005, 11:17 PM

Whatever became of those Downing Street Memo's? Some Smoking Gun.Shouldn't you be providing solid information here, since you must have good, solid reasons for such a strong, authoritative-sounding opinion?

How would you explain those 8 Downing Street documents posted for your convenience? How about the other posted articles from the various mainstream newservices?

Did you miss the news about what happened, as covered in the first linked thread?

So far all we are getting from the right on this issue, in response to some meaningful evidence, is empty mockery and slogans. I mean no offense, but that is literally what it has been.

Why?

My own answer to your question is that Bush just refused to respond to Congressman John Conyers' (representing the House Judiciary Committee Democrats) hand-delivered demand for answers about the Minutes; and the Republican controlled Congress refused to make him respond, or investigate. IIRC, this request was also signed by over a hundred congresspeople.

So next, Bush flatly refused to respond to a similar demand for answers, signed by 3/4 of a million U.S. citizens.

Again, there is extreme arrogance that answers do not need to be provided to the people, or to Congress, among a one party leadership, and would be dictator.

What else happened?

The dozens of Democrats that scheduled their preliminary inquiry into the Minutes and related documents were forced by Republicans to hold the hearing in a virtual closet, in the basement of the Capitol; after being denied a hearing room. That is how much resistance there was to asking critical questions about it.

The standing-room only hearing nonetheless took place; and in conclusion recommended a full congressional investigation of the matter, as covered near the end of the first linked thread. Some attendees mentioned "impeachment" as a possibility.

Republicans have been fighting against any possible investigation into the President's justification for the war, tooth and nail; using any and all conventional and dirty tactics.

One party control and a deep recent divide between the parties has been the key. That partisan divide is narrowing as evidence about this administration accumulates. Republicans are starting to jump ship, and polls now indicate that most Americans don't believe Bush on Iraq. The matter of formal investigation into pre-Iraq war is about to be reintroduced within Congress. Hopefully, Congress will be in a mode to want answers.

We haven't heard the last of it.

DrSmellThis

12-31-2005, 06:20 PM

For those of you who want a detailed picture of the Downing Street Documents and prewar planning of the Bush administration, here is the minority congressional report on the matter, from Congressman John Conyers:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5769

Released during the holidays, this was the response to Bush's ignoring the demands by citizens and Congress for answers. The "executive summary," posted below, gives a flavor of it. The report contains detailed factual findings.

I challenge Bush supporters to read it with an open mind, along with the other information posted in this thread. The rest of us would do well to give it a look too.

Executive Summary
This Minority Report has been produced at the request of Representative John
Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. He made this
request in the wake of the President=s failure to respond to a letter submitted by 122
Members of Congress and more than 500,000 Americans in July of this year asking him
whether the assertions set forth in the Downing Street Minutes were accurate. Mr.
Conyers asked staff, by year end 2005, to review the available information concerning
possible misconduct by the Bush Administration in the run up to the Iraq War and
post-invasion statements and actions, and to develop legal conclusions and make
legislative and other recommendations to him.
In brief, we have found that there is substantial evidence the President, the
Vice President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled
Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war with Iraq;
misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for
such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and
other legal violations in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of
their Administration.
There is a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice-President
and other members of the Bush Administration violated a number of federal laws,
including (1) Committing a Fraud against the United States; (2) Making False
Statements to Congress; (3) The War Powers Resolution; (4) Misuse of Government
Funds; (5) federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel,
inhuman, and degrading treatment; (6) federal laws concerning retaliating against
witnesses and other individuals; and (7) federal laws and regulations concerning
leaking and other misuse of intelligence.
While these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable misconduct,
because the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have blocked
the ability of Members to obtain information directly from the Administration
concerning these matters, more investigatory authority is needed before
recommendations can be made regarding specific Articles of Impeachment. As a
result, we recommend that Congress establish a select committee with subpoena
authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the
Iraq war detailed in this Report and report to the Committee on the Judiciary on
possible impeachable offenses.
In addition, we believe the failure of the President, Vice President and others
in the Bush Administration to respond to myriad requests for information concerning
these charges, or to otherwise account for explain a number of specific misstatements
they have made in the run up to War and other actions warrants, at minimum, the
introduction and Congress= approval of Resolutions of Censure against Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. Further, we recommend that Ranking Member Conyers and others
consider referring the potential violations of federal criminal law detailed in this
Report to the Department of Justice for investigation; Congress should pass legislation
to limit government secrecy, enhance oversight of the Executive Branch, request
notification and justification of presidential pardons of Administration officials, ban
abusive treatment of detainees, ban the use of chemical weapons, and ban the
practice of paying foreign media outlets to publish news stories prepared by or for the
Pentagon; and the House should amend its Rules to permit Ranking Members of
Committees to schedule official Committee hearings and call witnesses to investigate
Executive Branch misconduct.
The Report rejects the frequent contention by the Bush Administration that
there pre-war conduct has been reviewed and they have been exonerated. No entity
has ever considered whether the Administration misled Americans about the decision
to go to war. The Senate Intelligence Committee has not yet conducted a review of
pre-war intelligence distortion and manipulation, while the Silberman-Robb report
specifically cautioned that intelligence manipulation Awas not part of our inquiry.@
There has also not been any independent inquiry concerning torture and other legal
violations in Iraq; nor has there been an independent review of the pattern of coverups
and political retribution by the Bush Administration against its critics, other than
the very narrow and still ongoing inquiry of Special Counsel Fitzgerald.
While the scope of this Report is largely limited to Iraq, it also holds lessons for
our Nation at a time of entrenched one-party rule and abuse of power in Washington.