0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 01:31 pm
On Eve of National Assembly, Iraqi Parties Still Lack Consensus
By EDWARD WONG

Published: March 28, 2005


BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 28 -The country's leading political parties held last-minute talks today before a meeting of the National Assembly scheduled for Tuesday, as a wave of violence in central Iraq that began on Sunday night left at least nine people dead, several of them police officers.

As the 275-member assembly prepared to hold its second meeting, more than two months after general elections, it appeared that the top politicians had failed to reach any deal to install a government.

At best, the assembly is expected to name a speaker and two vice-speakers, said Adnan Pachachi, a leading Sunni Arab politician. But even that looked doubtful on Monday afternoon: The leading candidate for speaker and current interim president, Sheik Ghazi al-Yawer, had turned down the job, said Ahmad Najati, the sheik's personal secretary. The leaders of the top parties were meeting on Monday evening to discuss the issue.

The leading Shiite bloc, the United Iraqi Alliance, was trying to put forward Fawaz al-Jarba, a Sunni Arab candidate from its group, as a possible alternative. Some politicians have expressed resistance, though, to having a Sunni from the alliance take on the job of assembly speaker, since the alliance already dominates the assembly, having the most seats of any bloc, and is expected to secure the post of prime minister.

Mr. Pachachi said Sheik Ghazi had been the overall favorite choice, but that the sheik had never been keen on taking the job.

Even if the assembly were to appoint a speaker, though, that would be a fairly insignificant step toward forming a government. The first real move will come when the assembly appoints a president and two vice-presidents. Then, according to the transitional law approved a year ago, those officers will be obligated to name a prime minister within two weeks.

The National Assembly held a largely ceremonial meeting in mid-March. As talks to form a coalition government have dragged on, the optimism spawned by the Jan. 30 elections has eroded, and work at some ministries has slowed. Many Iraqis are clamoring for the speedy appointment of a government that can suppress the continuing violence and improve basic services, especially electricity.

All sides have said they are now haggling over cabinet positions, among other things. Mr. Pachachi said the leading Sunni parties had banded together into an umbrella group called the Front of the Iraqi Political Forces. The group has appointed five politicians to take part in negotiations with the Shiites and Kurds.

Mr. Pachachi said the Sunnis met separately with the Shiite and Kurdish blocs last week and presented their demands. The Sunni groups want at least the same number of ministry positions as the Kurds, including either the Interior or Defense Ministry, he said. Since political leaders say the Interior Ministry will almost certainly go to the Shiites, that leaves the Defense Ministry.

"I think we made a point that it should not be less than what the Kurds have," Mr. Pachachi said.

The Kurds and former governing Sunni Arabs each make up roughly a fifth of the Iraqi population, while the Shiite Arabs make up at least 60 percent.

Mr. Pachachi himself is a leading contender for one of the two vice-presidency slots. The other Sunni Arabs being considered for that slot are Sheik Ghazi and Shari Ali bin al-Hussein, several politicians say. A Kurd, Jalal Talabani, will likely be named president at some point, and a Shiite Arab is expected to take the other vice-presidency slot.

Attacks flared across Baghdad and elsewhere late Sunday and today. A suicide bomber on a motorcycle rammed into a checkpoint in the town of Musayyib, south of Baghdad, on Sunday evening, killing two police officers and injuring five people, police officials in the southern town of Karbala said. In that same area, gunmen opened fire this morning on Shiite pilgrims in the town of Yusufiya, killing three of them, a hospital official in Baghdad said.

The region where those attacks took place is called the Triangle of Death, because Iraqi security forces and Shiite Arabs have been killed regularly there by Sunni Arab insurgents and criminal gangs. Shiite pilgrims are now heading through that area to the holy city of Karbala for a religious festival this week. The festival is tied to the seventh-century martyrdom in battle of the Prophet Muhammad's grandson, Hussein, and attacks on Shiite pilgrims are expected to increase in the coming days.

In Baghdad, gunmen opened fire on a car carrying a police officer, Col. Abdul Karim Fahad Abbas, killing him and his driver as he went to work, The Associated Press reported, citing a police captain.

The hospital official in Baghdad said that a homemade bomb planted in a trash dump exploded today, killing a police officer and a road cleaner and injuring nine others. A group of cleaners had spotted something unusual in the trash dump and reported it. When the police came to check out the scene, the official said, the bomb exploded.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 01:39 pm
. . . Mr. Rumsfeld personally authorized unlawful interrogation techniques and abdicated his responsibility to stop the torture and other abuses of prisoners in U.S. custody.
March 28, 2005

Is No One Accountable?
By BOB HERBERT

The Bush administration is desperately trying to keep the full story from emerging. But there is no longer any doubt that prisoners seized by the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere have been killed, tortured, sexually humiliated and otherwise grotesquely abused.

These atrocities have been carried out in an atmosphere in which administration officials have routinely behaved as though they were above the law, and thus accountable to no one. People have been rounded up, stripped, shackled, beaten, incarcerated and in some cases killed, without being offered even the semblance of due process. No charges. No lawyers. No appeals.

Arkan Mohammed Ali is a 26-year-old Iraqi who was detained by the U.S. military for nearly a year at various locations, including the infamous Abu Ghraib prison. According to a lawsuit filed against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Mr. Ali was at times beaten into unconsciousness during interrogations. He was stabbed, shocked with an electrical device, urinated on and kept locked - hooded and naked - in a wooden, coffinlike box. He said he was told by his captors that soldiers could kill detainees with impunity.

(This was not a boast from the blue. On Saturday, for example, The Times reported that the Army would not prosecute 17 American soldiers implicated in the deaths of three prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Mr. Ali's story is depressingly similar to other accounts pouring in from detainees, human rights groups, intelligence sources and U.S. government investigators. If you pay close attention to what is already known about the sadistic and barbaric treatment of prisoners by the U.S., you can begin to wonder how far we've come from the Middle Ages. The alleged heretics hauled before the Inquisition were not permitted to face their accusers or mount a defense. Innocence was irrelevant. Torture was the preferred method of obtaining confessions.

No charges were ever filed against Mr. Ali, and he was eventually released. But what should be of paramount concern to Americans is this country's precipitous and frightening descent into the hellish zone of lawlessness that the Bush administration, on the one hand, is trying to conceal and, on the other, is defending as absolutely essential to its fight against terror.

The lawsuit against Mr. Rumsfeld was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First, a New York-based group, on behalf of Mr. Ali and seven other former detainees from Iraq and Afghanistan who claim to have been tortured by U.S. personnel.

The suit charges that Mr. Rumsfeld personally authorized unlawful interrogation techniques and abdicated his responsibility to stop the torture and other abuses of prisoners in U.S. custody. It contends that the abuse of detainees was widespread and that Mr. Rumsfeld and other top administration officials were well aware of it.

According to the suit, it is unreasonable to believe that Mr. Rumsfeld could have remained in the dark about the rampant mistreatment of prisoners in U.S. custody. It cites a wealth of evidence readily available to the secretary, including the scandalous eruptions at Abu Ghraib prison, the reports of detainee abuse at Guantánamo Bay, myriad newspaper and magazine articles, internal U.S. government reports, and concerns expressed by such reputable groups as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

(The committee has noted, among other things, that military intelligence estimates suggest that 70 percent to 90 percent of the people detained in Iraq had been seized by mistake.)

Whether this suit will ultimately be successful in holding Mr. Rumsfeld personally accountable is questionable. But if it is thoroughly argued in the courts, it will raise yet another curtain on the stomach-turning practices that have shamed the United States in the eyes of the world.

The primary aim of the lawsuit is quite simply to re-establish the rule of law. "It's that fundamental idea that nobody is above the law," said Michael Posner, executive director of Human Rights First. "The violations here were created by policies that deliberately undermined the rule of law. That needs to be challenged."

Lawlessness should never be an option for the United States. Once the rule of law has been extinguished, you're left with an environment in which moral degeneracy can flourish and a great nation can lose its soul.

E-mail: [email protected]
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 01:41 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McTag, I believe you are looking at the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq. Cycloptichorn

I believe neither you or McTag are looking at any real reasons.

The justification for our invasion of Iraq is not derived from opinions or proclimations. This justification is derived from facts and logic, plus the proposition that our government cannot secure our lives, our liberties and our pursuits of happiness by attempting to exterminate al Qaeda terrorists without removing those governments that provide al Qaeda terrorists sanctuary for their bases.

President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists.

At that time there were terrorist training bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier.

We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan.

We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government in Iraq refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq.

We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistanis own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there.

We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraqis own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there.

Only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 01:55 pm
Ican, I know that's balls, and I think you do too.

Follow the money.

President Bush, and his lieutenants over recent months and years, have announced plenty of things to the nation. Most of thes have proven to be balls too.

Follow the money. That's the reason the invasion of Iraq was considered necessary, pre- 9/11
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 02:05 pm
Quote:
The justification for our invasion of Iraq is not derived from opinions or proclimations. This justification is derived from facts and logic


You are absolutely right; that is, if you state that my judgement is based upon facts and logic and that yours is based upon opinions and proclamations.

FACT:Iraq started trading in Euros in Nov. 2000.

FACT:The Euro was kicking the crap out of the dollar, and still is in many ways; this made it attractive for OPEC the same way it was for Iraq

FACT:The US Gov't doesn't pay for oil. What, you didn't know this? It's true. When we want to buy oil, we do something devious: print more money. If the switch to the Euro was made by other ME countries, it would be disastrous for the US.

FACT:The US changed the oil standard in Iraq back to the dollar within a week of the end of the initial military invasion. It was one of their first official actions.

These are all verifiable facts. None of that was made up or is an opinion. Now, onto your argument:

OPINION:plus the proposition that our government cannot secure our lives, our liberties and our pursuits of happiness by attempting to exterminate al Qaeda terrorists without removing those governments that provide al Qaeda terrorists sanctuary for their bases. [/b]

As you say yourself, your case is built on a proposition based upon an opinion.

PROCLAMATION:President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that "harbor" terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that "support" terrorists.


You have said it here yourself. Surely even you can see how badly you have contradicted yourself in just a few sentences. THis is what was SAID to be the reason, but that doesn't MAKE it the reason, now does it?

PROCLAMATION:We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan.


Incorrect. You are presenting a proclamation as a fact. THis is the reason Bush SAID we were going in, but that does not logically MAKE it the reason we went in.


PROCLAMATION:We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government in Iraq refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq.

We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistanis own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there.

We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraqis own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there.<snip>


Basically the entire rest of your post operates under the mistaken assumption that stated reasons constitute facts.

You can see the pattern by now. Instead of presenting factual information, you have fallen into the trap of using the 'offical line' as your facts. THis is quite unfortunate, as it is what allows the gov't to dupe even very intelligent people such as yourself. You see, and this is the critical part. what if they were lying, Ican?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 02:27 pm
What was Bill saying about post hoc ergo hoc or something like that?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 02:31 pm
no it was post hic
therefore dont eat hoc
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 02:49 pm
ican's comments are in blue

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ican:
Quote:
... Unfortunately, if the government tries to take too much tax money from the private sector, the total amount of tax revenue collected by the governent is actually reduced.


The line I bolded is what I take issue with. I believe this is patently untrue, for several reasons.

First, you assume that any monies not paid in taxes lead to increased employment opportunities. This is not a logical position to hold, as there are many ways to spend one's money that do not in fact lead to greater employment opportunities, and a whole host of ways to spend it that do not lead to greater employment opportunities in America. Not to mention the very real possibility that you may not spend the money at all. Therefore it is disingenuous to say that taxation causes less job opportunities because it simply isn't true, and is the same old Voodoo economics all over again. I'd like to see your reasoning on this.

I know it's not"disingenuous." I think what I posted is true, but of course, I could be wrong and so could you.

Here's why I think I am right and not wrong.

I cannot think of anyway to spend one's own money that doesn't contribute to employment opportunity. Purchase any service, any product, or any comodity, and you together with millions of others doing the same thing help maintain employment. Purchase more of any service, any product, or any comodity, and you together with millions of others doing the same thing help increase employment.

Contribute to any charity, and you together with thousands of others doing the same thing contribute to the employment of charity workers and perhaps the incomes of the charity recipients. Increase your contribution, and you together with thousands of others doing the same thing help increase employment of charity workers and perhaps the incomes of the charity recipients.

Invest in any enterprise, you together with many others doing the same thing help increase the employment of workers by that enterprise.

Investing your money in a savings or checking account, you together with many others doing the same thing provide more money for the bank or investment fund to invest in enterprises.

Aaah, but investing your money by sticking it in a matress or equivalent helps neither your or any one else's employment. It probably doesn't help one's sleep either. :wink:


Second, how many are employed by the gov't itself? I know you think that number should be as close to zero as possible, but there are a large number of critical jobs for society that are funded with public monies, and when there aren't enough public monies, that reduces job opportunities in that sector accordingly. So by avoiding taxes, one can actually be said to be lowering job opportunity for many Americans.

The number employed in the private sector is about 40 times the number employed in the federal government. Approximately half of those employed by the federal government earn it one way or another by securing our rights or reducing the probability of our accidents. The rest are redistributors who are redistributing wealth from those who earn it to those who did not or do not earn it, and do not produce services, products or commodities.

By reducing the federal employment of these redistributors, we will thereby provide private employment opportunities for these redistributors as well as increase employment for everyone else.



Last, a question: how do you differentiate the private sector and the public sector of society? Cheers to all Cycloptichorn

Those people whose incomes are paid from funds collected from people or enterprises in the form of taxes, comprise the public sector. The public sector consists mainly of federal, state, county, and municipal employees.

The private sector consists of all employed people that are not employed in the public sector.

Except in countries governed by tyrannical governments, the number employed in the public sector is generally far less than the number employed in the public sector.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 03:02 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
The justification for our invasion of Iraq is not derived from opinions or proclimations. This justification is derived from facts and logic


You are absolutely right; that is, if you state that my judgement is based upon facts and logic and that yours is based upon opinions and proclamations. Cycloptichorn
Laughing

Please identify what in the following quote from my original post that you think is false. Then please be so kind as to explain why you think it is false.

Quote:
The justification for our invasion of Iraq is not derived from opinions or proclamations. This justification is derived from facts and logic, plus the proposition that our government cannot secure our lives, our liberties and our pursuits of happiness by attempting to exterminate al Qaeda terrorists without removing those governments that provide al Qaeda terrorists sanctuary for their bases.

President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists.

At that time there were terrorist training bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier.

We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan.

We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government in Iraq refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq.

We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistanis own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there.

We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraqis own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there.

Only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.


Cycloptichorn wrote:
what if they were lying, Ican?


What if who was lying about what?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 04:31 pm
Quote:
The justification for our invasion of Iraq is not derived from opinions or proclamations. This justification is derived from facts and logic


This is false. I explained why in the previous post, as your argument IS based upon opinion and proclamation.

Quote:
What if who was lying about what?


What if BushCo are lying about the reasons they chose to invade countries and prosecute the war on terror in this fashion? You have to admit the possibility, even if you never will the probability.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 05:26 pm
No, your opinion of the justification is what's opinion. Read again the actual justification for the war. Timber posted it somewhere.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 08:46 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
The justification for our invasion of Iraq is not derived from opinions or proclamations. This justification is derived from facts and logic


This is false. I explained why in the previous post, as your argument IS based upon opinion and proclamation.

You did not exlain why. You merely proclaimed your disagreement with each statement of mine.

Quote:
What if who was lying about what?


What if BushCo are lying about the reasons they chose to invade countries and prosecute the war on terror in this fashion? You have to admit the possibility, even if you never will the probability. Cycloptichorn
Laughing

What if BushCo are the reincarnation of Saint Joan of Arc and her followers? "You have to admit the possibility, even if you never will the probability."

What if all those who convinced you BushCo lied are themselves lying? "You have to admit the possibility, even if you never will the probability."

What if all those who convinced you BushCo lied were themselves convinced by people who are lying? "You have to admit the possibility, even if you never will the probability."

What if all those who convinced you BushCo lied were themselves convinced by people who were convinced by people who were lying? "You have to admit the possibility, even if you never will the probability."

What if when an event A and an event B co-occur, neither is the cause of the other? "You have to admit the possibility, even if you never will the probability."

What if the justification BushCo provided is true and valid regardless of whether BushCo believed or did not believe it is true and valid? "You have to admit the possibility, even if you never will the probability."

=================================

I'll try again. Which of the numbered statements in the following quote do you agree with and why, and which ones do you disagree with and why? Hint: Write, I disagree with number 1, because ....

Quote:
1. The justification for our invasion of Iraq is not derived from opinions or proclamations. This justification is derived from the following facts and logic, plus the proposition that our government cannot secure our lives, our liberties and our pursuits of happiness by attempting to exterminate al Qaeda terrorists without removing those governments that provide al Qaeda terrorists sanctuary for their bases.

2. President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists.

3. At that time there were terrorist training bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier.

4. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan.

5. We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government in Iraq refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq.

6. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistanis own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there.

7. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraqis own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there.

8. Only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 10:07 pm
Report Assails C.I.A. for Failure on Iraq Weapons
By DAVID E. SANGER and SCOTT SHANE

Published: March 29, 2005


WASHINGTON, March 28 - The final report of a presidential commission studying American intelligence failures regarding illicit weapons includes a searing critique of how the C.I.A. and other agencies never properly assessed Saddam Hussein's political maneuverings or the possibility that he no longer had weapon stockpiles, according to officials who have seen the report's executive summary.

The report also proposes broad changes in the sharing of information among intelligence agencies that go well beyond the legislation passed by Congress late last year creating a director of national intelligence to coordinate action among all 15 intelligence agencies.

Those recommendations are likely to figure prominently in the confirmation hearings in April of John D. Negroponte, whom President Bush has nominated to be national intelligence director and who is about to move to the center of the campaign against terror. [Page A14.]

The report particularly singles out the Central Intelligence Agency under its former director, George J. Tenet, but also includes what one senior official called "a hearty condemnation" of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, two of the largest intelligence agencies.

The unclassified version of the report, which is more than 400 pages long, devotes relatively little space to the holes in American intelligence about North Korea and Iran, the two nations now posing the largest potential nuclear challenge to the United States and its allies. Most of that discussion appears only in a much longer classified version.

In the words of one administration official who has reviewed the classified version, referring to the North Korean leader and the Iran clerical leaders, "we don't give Kim Jong Il or the mullahs a window into what we know and what we don't."

Mr. Bush is expected to receive the report officially on Thursday morning, White House officials said.

As early copies of the report circulated inside the government on Monday, officials said much of it went over ground already covered by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the two reports of the Iraq Survey Group, which was created by the government to search for prohibited weapons after the Iraq invasion, and came up basically empty-handed.

After Iraq's defeat in the Persian Gulf war in 1991, international inspectors dismantled an active nuclear program, along with biological and chemical weapons. Much of the flawed intelligence was based on a series of assumptions that Mr. Hussein reconstituted those programs after inspectors left the country under duress in 1998.

But in retrospect, those assumptions by American and other intelligence analysts turned out to be deeply flawed, even though some of Mr. Hussein's own commanders said after they were captured in 2003 that they also believed the government held some unconventional weapons. It was a myth Mr. Hussein apparently fostered to retain an air of power.

That forced Mr. Bush to appoint, somewhat reluctantly, the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, which has operated largely in secret under the direction of Laurence H. Silberman, a senior judge on the United States Court of Appeals, and former Governor Charles S. Robb of Virginia.

According to officials who have scanned the document, the unclassified version of the report makes a "case study" of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, the major assessment that the intelligence agencies produced at the White House's behest - in a hurried few weeks - in 2002.

After the Iraq invasion in March 2003, the White House was forced to declassify part of the intelligence estimate, including the footnotes in which some agencies dissented from the view that Mr. Hussein had imported aluminum tubes in order to make centrifuges for the production of uranium, or possessed mobile biological weapons laboratories.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 10:08 pm
Lest we forget: president Bush gave Tenet a national medal for his atrocious service to this country.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 10:10 pm
Iraq parliament in second session

The national assembly will be meeting for the second time
Iraq's parliament is due to meet for only the second time since January's election for a session expected to choose a speaker and two deputies.
But the national assembly is unlikely to approve a new president and vice-presidents as originally planned, as major parties continue talks.

The BBC's Andrew North in Baghdad says there is continuing uncertainty over when a new government will be formed.

An alliance of Shia Muslim parties won a majority in the election.

But they did not achieve the two-thirds majority needed for them to rule on their own.

Sticking points

Yet despite eight weeks of talks to form a coalition with the Kurds, who came second, Iraq still has no government, and this latest meeting of the national assembly does not represent much progress, our correspondent says.

There are also fears that the parliament will be targeted by militants, and security has been tightened in the area.

The speaker is likely to be from the Sunni Arab community, many of whose members stayed away from the elections.

The outgoing interim President, Ghazi al-Yawer, has apparently rejected the post. He is still a candidate for vice-president.

The parliament's members still have to approve a new prime minister, who will then form an administration.

But many sticking points remain over who will control key ministries like oil, and over the role of religion. Kurds are concerned that their wishes will be ignored once the Shia-dominated government is in place

There are different views as to whether this delay matters. Some Iraqis say it was bound to take time because the country is new to democracy.

But others, including many politicians involved in the talks, are becoming concerned, some even raising the possibility of people coming out onto the streets to protest.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:40 am
Terrorist training camps were established in an area of Iraq beyond the Iraqi government's control at the time. The Kurds who had de facto control over the area were well prepared to deal with these terrorists. It was the US that ultimately hindered their move against these terrorists. The invasion and occupation of the entire country in the name of removing an isolated group of terrorists in an isolated area of Iraq was ham-handed and gross overkill. The invasion and occupation of the entire country in presumption that no more terrorists will establish there is asinine.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 01:58 am
Cyclo

You made some good points about the dollar/euro factor being a big influence on the war.

You've probably seen this, but its well worth reading for anyone such as Ican who hasn't.

http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 02:55 am
Ex-Diplomats to Urge Rejection of Bolton as U.N. Ambassador
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: March 29, 2005


WASHINGTON, March 28 (AP) - A group of former American diplomats plan to send a letter to urge the Senate to reject John R. Bolton's nomination to be the next United States ambassador to the United Nations.

"He is the wrong man for this position," the group of 59 former diplomats say in the letter, addressed to Senator Richard G. Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, has scheduled hearings for April 7 on Mr. Bolton's nomination.



"We urge you to reject that nomination," the former diplomats said in a letter dated Tuesday that was obtained by The Associated Press.

The former diplomats have served in both Democratic and Republican administrations, some for long terms and others briefly. They include Arthur A. Hartman, ambassador to France and the Soviet Union under Presidents Carter and Reagan and assistant secretary of state for European affairs under President Nixon.

Others who signed the letter include Princeton N. Lyman, ambassador to South Africa and Nigeria under President Reagan, the elder President Bush and President Clinton; Monteagle Stearns, ambassador to Greece and Ivory Coast in the Ford, Carter and Reagan administrations; and Spurgeon M. Keeny Jr., deputy director of the Arms Control Agency in the Carter administration.

Their criticism dwelt primarily on Mr. Bolton's stand on issues as the State Department's senior arms control official. They said he had an "exceptional record" of opposing American efforts to improve national security through arms control.

But the letter also chides Mr. Bolton for his "insistence that the U.N. is valuable only when it directly serves the United States."

That view, the letter says, would not help him negotiate with other diplomats at the United Nations.


SOURCE



Interesting event.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 02:59 am
With a bit of luck neither Bolton's appointment to the UN nor Wolfowitz's to the World Bank will be ratified.

Bush 0 Rest of world 2
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 03:12 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Cyclo

You made some good points about the dollar/euro factor being a big influence on the war.

You've probably seen this, but its well worth reading for anyone such as Ican who hasn't.

http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm


Hey, what about me?

Good post Steve, and some telling facts....no doubt unpalatable facts to some of the wingnuts here.

Does anyone really believe that Rumsfeld cares a jot about Iraqi democracy, or Rove about arab female emancipation, or foreign casualties, or Wolfowitz about spreading "freedom"?

Freedom to do what they're told, no doubt.

Follow the money.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/03/2024 at 11:33:11