Question for Iraq war supporters

[finebead]

6. Did the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy prepare and present briefing charts concerning the relationship between lraq and a1 Qaeda that went beyond available intelligence by asserting that an alleged meeting between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and lraqi intelligence officer al-Ani in Prague in April 2001 was a 'known' contact?'

Yes. The OUSD(P) produced a briefing, "Assessing the Relationship between lraq and al-Qaida," in which one slide discussed the alleged meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta and lraqi Intelligence officer al-Ani as a "known contact."

7. Did the staff of the OUSDP present a briefing on the Iraq-a1 Qaeda relationship to the White House in September 2002 unbeknownst to the Director of Central Intelligence, containing information that was different from the briefing presented to the DCI, not vetted by the lntelligence Community, and that was not supported by the available intelligence (for example, concerning the alleged Atta meeting), without providing the IC notice of the briefing or an opportunity to comment?

Yes. The OUSD(P) presented three different versions of the same briefing, of which some of the information was supported by available intelligence, to the Secretary of Defense, the DCI, the Deputy National Security Advisor and the Chief of Staff, OVP.

8. Did the staff of the OUSDP undercut the lntelligence Community (IC) in its briefing to the White House staff with a slide that said there were 'fundamental problems' with the way the IC was assessing information concerning the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and inaccurately suggesting that the IC was requiring 'juridical evidence to support a finding,' while not providing the IC notice of the briefing or an opportunity to comment.

Yes. We believe that the slide undercuts the Intelligence Community by indicating to the recipient of the briefing that there are "fundamental problems" with the way that the Intelligence Community was assessing information.

9. Did the OSD Policy briefing to the White House draw conclusions (or 'findings') that were not supported by the available intelligence, such as the 'intelligence indicates cooperation in all categories; mature, symbiotic relationship', or that there were 'multiple areas of cooperation,' and shared interest and pursuit of WMD, ' and 'some indications of possible Iraqi coordination with a1 Qaida specifically related to 9/11 '

Yes. The briefing did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence.

http://www.dodig.mil/IGInformation/archives/OUSDP-OSP%20Brief.pdf

This is the transcript from congressional report by the inspector general DOD, reporting on the activity of Douglas Feith, Office of Under Secretary of Defense (Policy). This is where the intelligence was manipulated by Feith.

And Bush admin used this manipulated non-intelligence that was not even being shown to the real intelligence community to tell the American public there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, such as by VP Cheney on Meet the Press, which I posted the link to his actual words. And that is why I say the Bush admin lied to the american public leading up to the war, in the marketing and selling of the war.

 

[finebead]

Yes. Both UN inspection agencies (from 1998 and from 2003) had lists of delcared weapons that were not shen to have been destoryed by Iraq.

There is a difference between a list of weapons that were not shown to have been destroyed, and having weapons. Agree?

What did we know that justified the war? Links? I'm posting my links and information. Where is yours?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is a difference between a list of weapons that were not shown to have been destroyed, and having weapons. Agree?

What did we know that justified the war? Links? I'm posting my links and information. Where is yours?

We had a long list of reasons agreed to by many democrats as well. WMDs were just ne of many reasons, they were heavily sold on the mistaken belief that we could get the UN to help. A mistake fostered by a lying deceitful France, they sent Generals and staff to help plan the invasion with their support, all the while knowing they had no intention of approving any such action, they wanted to delay us until the heat set in so no war would occur before that fall.

Why? Because they were paid off, along with Russia , China and Belgium. Those Countries intended to work to LIFT sanctions that summer.

In the end we only needed one reason.... Saddam FAILED to abide by the ceasefire agreement for 12 DAMN YEARS.

 

[finebead]

In the end we only needed one reason.... Saddam FAILED to abide by the ceasefire agreement for 12 DAMN YEARS.

You don't go to war, spend half a trillion dollars, 4,000 dead, 30,000 injured because somebody technically cheated on an agreement, when you could ensure compliance by re-inserting inspectors, which we had just successfully done in Nov. 2002. That's just stupid, and most folks in the country can see it, so they voted the repubs out of both houses of congress.

If you see a potential threat, the answer is not necessarily to go to war. That's the most expensive way to deal with it. What are our other options? Re-inserting inspectors which we had just done would eliminate the threat at much lower cost. That's easy to see. What was the real reason we went to war? It' clear Bush wanted to go to war, and then he trumped up a case for it. What's the real reason he wanted Iraq?

Don't worry. Shell, Exxon, and BP have their 30 year contracts to produce Iraq crude, civil unrest will keep enough troops there for the next 30 years, the CEO's will get rich, and when the fields are depleted, we'll give up on Iraq and leave. The rich get richer, the poor die. Follow the money. I've posted links that both Greenspan and Abizaid have said it's about oil.

Then the defense contractors will get to build some humvees and new tanks, and they'll be happy.

 

[Psychoblues]

It is immoral and a simple disrespect for human life and American values, finebead. Don't expect these bonehead armchair warriors to understand it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You don't go to war, spend half a trillion dollars, 4,000 dead, 30,000 injured because somebody technically cheated on an agreement, when you could ensure compliance by re-inserting inspectors, which we had just successfully done in Nov. 2002. That's just stupid, and most folks in the country can see it, so they voted the repubs out of both houses of congress.

If you see a potential threat, the answer is not necessarily to go to war. That's the most expensive way to deal with it. What are our other options? Re-inserting inspectors which we had just done would eliminate the threat at much lower cost. That's easy to see. What was the real reason we went to war? It' clear Bush wanted to go to war, and then he trumped up a case for it. What's the real reason he wanted Iraq?

Don't worry. Shell, Exxon, and BP have their 30 year contracts to produce Iraq crude, civil unrest will keep enough troops there for the next 30 years, the CEO's will get rich, and when the fields are depleted, we'll give up on Iraq and leave. The rich get richer, the poor die. Follow the money. I've posted links that both Greenspan and Abizaid have said it's about oil.

Then the defense contractors will get to build some humvees and new tanks, and they'll be happy.

So how much you think it would have cost to keep 150,000 troops in Kuwait to ensure Saddam pretended to once again cooperate with inspections? And the sanctions would have disappeared that summer thanks to France, China and Russia. We have absolute proof that Saddam maintained the technology, the scientists and the equipment to rebuild his WMD programs after sanctions were lifted.

 

[finebead]

So how much you think it would have cost to keep 150,000 troops in Kuwait to ensure Saddam pretended to once again cooperate with inspections? And the sanctions would have disappeared that summer thanks to France, China and Russia. We have absolute proof that Saddam maintained the technology, the scientists and the equipment to rebuild his WMD programs after sanctions were lifted.

Why do you say it would have cost 150K troops in Kuwait to keep the inspectors in? If it has taken 170K in Iraq to secure it, it would not take that many to constitute an incentive to cooperate. And you don't have those other costs, the 4,000 dead, 30,000 wounded, bomb, guns, bullets, destroyed vehicles, worn out equipment, and the ill will of most of the rest of the world who views our invasion of Iraq as illegally taking control of their oil reserves.

If you don't believe international dislike costs us anything, think again. It is one factor, but not the major factor, in the decline of the dollar, which is a major factor in $90 per barrel oil. Iran has required Japan to pay for its oil in Yen, and China to pay in Euros. This reduces the demand for the dollar, so to create demand we have to put it on sale, or lower its price. The huge budget deficit created by the war in Iraq and the trade deficit is the major cause of the fall of the dollar.

We are paying all sorts of costs for the war in Iraq. Monetarily we could have paid with taxes, but we did charge it, print the money out of thin air by selling bonds, have our currency weaken, and then pay in inflated prices for imported goods. So, every American is paying for the war at the pump with an indirect tax called inflation, which is regressive and hits the poor much harder than the rich. Exactly the way the blue blood little lord fauntleroy republicans want it! Certainly not all of the run up in oil price is due to dollar depreciation, and some of it is due to new demand from China and India's emerging economy and huge populations, but I'd say about half of the increase in oil is due to the dollar losing half its value against the Euro under Bush II.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are, of course aware that the ONLY reason Saddam allowed inspectors back in was because we mased troops on his border in Kuwait? That as soon as we withdrew those troops he would have probably kicked out the inspectors? That he was NOT allowing the inspectors unfettered and free access as was required? That he was not providing the information required? Reread Blix's reports, HE is clear that Saddam Hussein, even at the last minute was NOT meeting the requirements, though he does try to claim that it was acceptable.

France , Russia and China are the reason Saddam refused to come clean, he just knew they would prevent the US from attacking him as they promised and that sanctions would be lifted.

 

[Gunny]

There was no "incorrect assumption" concerning the African Uranium lie. The Administration knew this was a lie before they ever presented it. They had received conclusive reports to this effect and pretended they had not. This was what was behind the whole Valerie Plains debacle and subsequent Scooter Libby case.

If what you are saying is that someone can cherry pick from available information and use what they like no matter how weak and unsupported it might be and without regard to the quality of the source, while at the same time ignoring contrary information no matter how strong and well supported it might be or how good the source is, and then present the desired information as fact and not be lying, then we just have a different definition of the word "lie". (wow that's a long sentence! )

What I'm saying is one can presume guilt based on circumstantial evidence, and probably outcome based on past action.

Joe Wilson was and is a self-agrandizing piece of crap with no real qualifications to carry out the mission he was sent on. Would I take his word alone as a counter to multi-sources of info? Not.

IMO, Saddam Hussein would attempt to obtain/obtain nuclear material from whoever and wherever he thought he could. I put no faith in Mr White Boy American walking into an African Nation and asking questions and getting truthful answers. What would YOU say put in the position of the African nation?

I don't disagree with most of what you say except when stating it was a lie. Where do you draw the line? Which politician -- which President -- has not and does not present strongly the facts that support his position and downplay the ones that don't?

And how many times have YOU been presented conflicting information and chosen to accept the one that conformed to what you wanted?

 

[Gunny]

There is a difference between a list of weapons that were not shown to have been destroyed, and having weapons. Agree?

What did we know that justified the war? Links? I'm posting my links and information. Where is yours?

Disagree. When one is accountable for weapons/percursors, then one must account for them. If one cannot or will not account for them, assuming they're lost, misplaced, stolen and/or destroyed is how you get dead real quick.

As far as links go, what's the point to posting links to widely-known information?

Legally, resumption of hostility could happen at anytime that Saddam violated the terms of the ceasefire agreement HE signed in 1991. Would it make you feel better if I look up and paste each and every time Saddam violated those terms and posted each and every one of the UN's "this is your very, very, very, VERY last chance" warnings?

Links are nice, when required, but not mandatory when arguing a point on merit when the facts used are common knowledge.

 

[Gunny]

You don't go to war, spend half a trillion dollars, 4,000 dead, 30,000 injured because somebody technically cheated on an agreement, when you could ensure compliance by re-inserting inspectors, which we had just successfully done in Nov. 2002. That's just stupid, and most folks in the country can see it, so they voted the repubs out of both houses of congress.

And we did not go to war because someone technically cheated on an agreement.

As far as voting Republicans out, that's bogus. Republicans didn't support returning politicians to Congress that had not lived up to their promises. Winning by default is HARLDY a mandate.

If you see a potential threat, the answer is not necessarily to go to war. That's the most expensive way to deal with it. What are our other options? Re-inserting inspectors which we had just done would eliminate the threat at much lower cost. That's easy to see. What was the real reason we went to war? It' clear Bush wanted to go to war, and then he trumped up a case for it. What's the real reason he wanted Iraq?

You keep going back to reinserting inspectors when it's already been pointed out more than once that doing so was a waste of time. How long do you continue to use reinserting inspectors to get the same runaround as last time? Saddam had 12 years to comply. Sooner or later you need a new plan.

I do agree with you that going to war is not necessarily the answer.

Don't worry. Shell, Exxon, and BP have their 30 year contracts to produce Iraq crude, civil unrest will keep enough troops there for the next 30 years, the CEO's will get rich, and when the fields are depleted, we'll give up on Iraq and leave. The rich get richer, the poor die. Follow the money. I've posted links that both Greenspan and Abizaid have said it's about oil.

Then the defense contractors will get to build some humvees and new tanks, and they'll be happy.

US interest in the Middle East, and the international community's interest in the Middle East is about oil. That's no secret. There's no conspiracy. I mean. let's be real ... who give's a rat's ass about a sandbox full of backwards-assed people if they don't have something the international community wants?

I'll use the goings on in Africa to support THAT statement. They practice genocide on a daily basis there and the international community, to include the US, basically does as little as possible to stop it.

 

[finebead]

June 2000

What is often overlooked in the debate over how to proceed with Iraq's disarmament is the fact that from 1994 to 1998 Iraq was subjected to a strenuous program of ongoing monitoring of industrial and research facilities that could be used to reconstitute proscribed activities. This monitoring provided weapons inspectors with detailed insight into the capabilities, both present and future, of Iraq's industrial infrastructure. It allowed UNSCOM to ascertain, with a high level of confidence, that Iraq was not rebuilding its prohibited weapons programs and that it lacked the means to do so without an infusion of advanced technology and a significant investment of time and money.

Given the comprehensive nature of the monitoring regime put in place by UNSCOM, which included a strict export-import control regime, it was possible as early as 1997 to determine that, from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq had been disarmed. Iraq no longer possessed any meaningful quantities of chemical or biological agent, if it possessed any at all, and the industrial means to produce these agents had either been eliminated or were subject to stringent monitoring. The same was true of Iraq's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. As long as monitoring inspections remained in place, Iraq presented a WMD-based threat to no one.

The success of the UNSCOM monitoring regime may hold the key to unlocking the current stalemate between Iraq and the Security Council. The absolute nature of the disarmament obligation set forth in Resolution 687 meant that anything less than 100 percent disarmament precluded a finding of compliance. There was no latitude for qualitative judgments. As such, the world found itself in a situation where the considerable accomplishments of the UNSCOM weapons inspectors—the elimination of entire categories of WMD and their means of production—were ignored in light of UNSCOM's inability to verify that every aspect of these programs was fully accounted for. Quantitative disarmament (the accounting of every last weapon, component, or bit of related material) took precedence over qualitative disarmament (the elimination of a meaningful, viable capability to produce or employ weapons of mass destruction).

<snip>

Verifying Iraq's complete disarmament was complicated by the fact that in the summer of 1991 Iraq, disregarding its obligation to submit a complete declaration of its WMD programs, undertook a systematic program of "unilateral destruction," disposing of munitions, components, and production equipment related to all categories of WMD. When Iraq admitted this to UNSCOM, it claimed it had no documentation to prove its professed destruction.

While UNSCOM was able to verify that Iraq had in fact destroyed significant quantities of WMD-related material, without any documents or other hard evidence, it was impossible to confirm Iraq's assertions that it had disposed of all its weapons. UNSCOM's quantitative mandate had become a trap. However, through its extensive investigations, UNSCOM was able to ensure that the vast majority of Iraq's WMD arsenal, along with the means to produce such weaponry, was eliminated. Through monitoring, UNSCOM was able to guarantee that Iraq was not reconstituting that capability in any meaningful way.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_06/iraqjun.asp

Iraq had been qualitatively disarmed by 1998, and Scott Ritter has stated and I posted a link that the US had technical monitoring capability to determine if prohibited materials were reintroduced to Iraq. Colin Powell stated in 2001 that Iraq had no WMD, I posted the link earlier in this thread. We put inspectors back in in Nov. 2002, they found nothing. If Powell could go to the UN and show pictures of the WMD facilities in Jan. 2003, don't you think we could have told Blix where to find them in Nov. 2002? Didn't happen.

Was Iraq potentially dangerous? Sure. Did they have WMD? No, and knowledgeable people like Colin Powell and Scott Ritter said so. Was the intel manipulated? Sure, and John Keisling said so and resigned over it after 20 years in the State Dept. Congress heard from the inspector general of DOD that Douglas Feith, who was not a career intel officer but was a career lawyer appointed by Bush II, was producing reports and was misusing intelligence that the administration was using instead of the reports from the real intel community.

Iraq was not as big a threat as the administration painted them to be, and we did not have to go to war to deal with them. We could have dealt with them if far less expensive ways. But then, we wouldn't control the oil fields...

That's the bottom line.

 

[finebead]

Before President Bush appointed him in July 2001, Mr. Feith was for fifteen years the managing attorney of the Washington, D.C. law firm Feith & Zell, P.C.

http://www.dougfeith.com/about.html

Just so you know when I say that Feith was a political operative and he was Bush's boy, here it is. He had so much experience in intelligence matters he was a practicing attorney for the 15 years immediately prior to supplying the reports the Bush admin wanted. See post 361 above.

 

[Warner]

Yuu mean the yellowcake thing?
Can you quote the specific claim to that effect?

You can look it up easily enough. I'm a busy person and do not have time to look up every fact. I have very limited time to spend on this board. If you are willing to wait next time I have time to do so I'll look it up.

In one of his public addresses Bush indicated that they had proof that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium ore from Africa. It has since become clear this was a lie and furthermore that they knew this was not true when the speech was made.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You can look it up easily enough. I'm a busy person and do not have time to look up every fact. I have very limited time to spend on this board. If you are willing to wait next time I have time to do so I'll look it up.

In one of his public addresses Bush indicated that they had proof that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium ore from Africa. It has since become clear this was a lie and furthermore that they knew this was not true when the speech was made.

Wrong, the lie is that Wilson proved anything. All he did is go hang out at Hotels and talk to diplomats he knew.

And Yellow Cake was most assuradly found in Iraq.

You want to make a claim, YOU prove it, you have claimed the yellow cake report was a lie, provide evidence. You will discover there is none, it was an opinion not a fact that Wilson discovered anything. No one has proven yellow cake false.

 

[eots]

Wrong, the lie is that Wilson proved anything. All he did is go hang out at Hotels and talk to diplomats he knew.

And Yellow Cake was most assuradly found in Iraq.

You want to make a claim, YOU prove it, you have claimed the yellow cake report was a lie, provide evidence. You will discover there is none, it was an opinion not a fact that Wilson discovered anything. No one has proven yellow cake false.

why don't you ever try to substantiate YOUR claims ? YOU take a position a fact is false all the time then take no responsibility to support YOUR position




White House 'warned over Iraq claim'


Soldiers are yet to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned.
Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC.

On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January.



Given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement

White House spokesman
Ari Fleischer


Uranium row in quotes
But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is a difference between a list of weapons that were not shown to have been destroyed, and having weapons. Agree?

No.
If you declare that you have X, and then do not show that you destroyed or othersise expended X, then you still have X.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can look it up easily enough. I'm a busy person and do not have time to look up every fact. I have very limited time to spend on this board. If you are willing to wait next time I have time to do so I'll look it up.... It has since become clear this was a lie and furthermore that they knew this was not true when the speech was made

You're talking about the statement that that UK intel showed there was a purchase of yellowcake from Nigeria.

How was that a lie, especially given that the UK still stands by the assertion?

 

[midcan5]

Yellow cake was propaganda from the Cheney white house.

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

As with most propaganda there is a little truth but much distortion.

 

[Doug]

Let's run the clock back to 2002, and ask this question: suppose it were definitely confirmed that Saddam Hussein was actively developing nuclear weapons, as so many believed at that time.

Would we all agree then that an invasion was justified?