"Anti-Americanism"...what is this critter?

Sump'n burnin' in here? Somebody got some incense?



timber

Didn't volunteer as the singular suspect...but conservative fools,...liberal fools...is inflammatory.

At least, that's what I hear when the shoe is on the liberal foot...

I did read the article.

Funny how differently people read the same thing.



"If the U.S. government puts out bad information it runs a risk of undermining the good information it possesses," said David Albright, a former IAEA weapons inspector who has investigated Iraq's past nuclear programs extensively. "In this case, I fear that the information was put out there for a short-term political goal: to convince people that Saddam Hussein is close to acquiring nuclear weapons."

The Bush administration, while acknowledging the IAEA's findings on the aluminum tubes, has not retreated from its earlier statements

I thought c.i. said his link showed that the Bush admin. had lied. I don't see that. What I see is one guy, Albright, making an opinionated comment about Bush's motives, based on Albright's bel;ief that he has seen the tubes Bush was referring to.

I am comfortable trusting that the Bush administration has evidence to back their position.

I am confident that this and many other articles are based on the media's frenzy to have all the evidence presented to them.

It is not outside the realm of possiblity that a mistake has been made, or that Bush admin has fabricated evidence. I think the odds of that are virtually nil.

I think the only way the US or the world will know of the evidence is the day Bush declares war.

I hope none of us ever see it, but I think we might.

That article is proof of nothing but an opinion, conjecture, and a very frustrated newspaper, trying to force the President to release information through a negative article.

Lash, You may be right. I didn't check anything to make sure the information I received is accurate, and that's a failure on my part. We'll have to see who's telling the truth; even though the claim was made it came from the Washington Post. c.i.

I don't consider it a failure on your part c.i.

I guess if I hated Bush, I might have seen what you saw.

If you are referring to the Washington Post link, Lash, the following seems to indicate some educated thinking on those aluminum tubes.


"After returning to Iraq when weapons inspections resumed in November, the IAEA made it a priority to sort out the conflicting claims, according to officials familiar with the probe. In December, the agency spent several days poring through files and interviewing people involved in the attempted acquisition of the tubes -- including officials at the company that supplied the metal and managers of the Baghdad importing firm that apparently had been set up as a front company to acquire special parts and materials for Iraq's Ministry of Industry. According to informed officials, the IAEA concluded Iraq had indeed been running a secret procurement operation, but the intended beneficiary was not Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission; rather, it was an established army program to replace Iraq's aging arsenal of conventional 81mm rockets, the type used in multiple rocket launchers."

There is much more in that article which is not just opinion.

Bush lied because he stated with certainty that these tubes were proof that Hussein had intended them for use with uranium. And he was backed up by Condi Rice. If he had said , in his opinion, or, it looks to me. But he stated positively, as proof. The WP article does explain a lot.

I went to the Washington Post web site and found nothing about the subject of the email I received from Australia. I sent an email to Australia to request further details on the Washington Post article, and hopefully, he can provide it. c.i.

It also says the WH acknowledges the comments by Albright, and stands by their statement.

These tubes are very possibly, and IMO, probably not the ones referred to by Bush and Rice. The Post is baiting the WH to show their hand.

Precious little has been found. Do you think what has been found is all that is there?

Bush lied because he stated with certainty that these[/I] tubes were proof that Hussein had intended them for use with uranium

Bush said those specific tubes... Come on.

Lash, No matter how much I may disagree with GWBush, I will never knowingly spread untruths. I have defended Bush when liberals have a tendency to blame Bush for all the problems under thw sun. As everyone should know, I'm not a fan of Bush, but will not let lies or half-truths stand if I know them not to be right. c.i.

Nice to know, c.i.

The article was published in a reputable paper. You have no blame, whatsoever. I can just see things contained in the article that, while they appear damning, aren't conclusive.

That's all.

No offense intended toward you in the least on my part.

I watched an hour-long program about an Iraquian doctor who specialized in nuclear weapons. He spent 12 years in prison, was tortured unmercifully over long periods until his body was entirely paralyzed and spent 11 years in solitary confinement. All because he refused to use his expertise to build nuclear weapons for Hussein Saddam.

Everyone here knows what Saddam has done to his own people, yet I hear some defending this stupid, sadistic, sick man. Who would prefer to believe President Bush is lying instead of Saddam? And, WHY? Hatred of Bush for God's sake? He stole an election, did he? Really?

This doctor said Saddam had no trouble whatsoever finding others throughout Europe and other countries to supply what he couldn't get from him.

This show was aired on the World Unity channel which (at least comes to Texas) via DISH.



Tex-Star

Tex, We all know that Saddam is a cruel and inhuman beast, and he has terrorized his own people to no end. However, that also happens in other countries today. The issue is not whether Saddam is a bad leader; but is he an immediate threat to US security? On that basis, I must conclude, "NO." He is being contained in his own country, and keeps underground most of the time, because he fears for his own life. c.i.

My friend in Australia sent me this link to confirm the "lies."

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35360-2003Jan23.html

I hope this works. c.i.



Here's the email I rec'd from my friend in Australia:


"The article should show up at the address below:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35360-2003Jan23.html
(I've just checked and it's still there.)

In the print version it should be in Friday's paper on page A01. The
author is Joby Warrick, staff writer, and the headline is "U.S. Claim on Iraqi Nuclear Program Is Called Into Question"

deleted by dyslexia

And on the topic of fibbing... in this case the Rumsfeld patter 'well, we are going after Al Quaeda because of the links to 9-11, even if me and my buddies have been saying since 92 that we've got to take Sadaam out, it's really because of 9-11'

Interesting tidbit here from Woodward's book...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16050

Blatham,

Many commentators in our government and out of it have expressed the opinion that we should have taken Saddam out in 1991 (Madeline Albright for one), and many others have speculated on the desirability of doing so in the years since then. If Rumsfeld is among them (and I don't know that to be true), it hardly seems either surprising or even interesting. Do you attach some special significance to this possibility?

With respect to the actions of Bush Administration officials in the days immediately after 9-11-01, I would expect that, in their deliberations, a great many actions would be considered, some wise, some unwise, and most not acted on. Many potential actions would be evaluated and seriously considered even in the face of an a priori inclination to reject them, just to establish balance and rigor in the deliberations. Nothing remarkable in that - similar things happen anytime people in decision-making positions consider serious matters.

Do you really consider Woodward's book to be accurate on this (and other) matters? How do you know? He is after all more a gossip columnist than an historian.

george

Here's a link to a review of the book by Anthony Lewis in the NY Times Review of Books...the passage and the details are here and quite interesting (eg, Cheney spoke against this idea when Rumsfeld raised it) http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16050 He isn't a gossip columnist. Lewis suggests that Woodward has become something more like a tape recorder, to the detriment of the story as he would have investigated and fleshed it out years ago. He's become a bit of a fat cat now, and I think that is a plausible way to think of Woodward.

I had posted links earlier to two different pieces on the Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle's (plus some other chaps) strategy paper from 92...let me know if you don't have that. But it seems quite probable if not certain, from that document with the follow up information from Woodward, that Rumsfeld used 9-11 as an opportunity to carry through on a design he and the others had for Iraq. Now that is one part of the question here....is Iraq a valid target and why.

But my protest here was simply regarding the disengenuousness at trying to suggest to the public that Iraq was in some way responsible for 9-11. Because people were so moved by that event, it was an act of opportunism and deceit, and I think it very dangerous for leaders to do this. These guys shouldn't be lying about important stuff, because then the citizens really do lose their connection to truth and to reasoned decision making.

Blatham,

Let me offer you an alternative explanation. I don't know that is true in every detail, but I believe it is more intuitively satisfying than others I have heard.

We didn't take Saddam out in 1991 for two reasons (1) We didn't want to become an occupying power in Iraq and would face opposition from our large coalition of allies if we tried. (2) We were concerned about a still very radical government in Iran, which at the time we regarded as the more serious threat to our strategic interests, and were content to see them checked by a still intact Iraqi government which had successfully opposed them in a long, bloody war. This later was proved to be a strategic error.

As time passed we found that Iran was becoming preoccupied with its own internal problems and the edge was coming off its revolutionary zeal as far as other countries were concerned. Saddam had skillfully turned his bare survival into a political victory. He broke the will of the former coalition, did not seriously attempt to comply with the 1992 agreement that ended the hostilities, and was exhausting the will of the UN to continue the sanctions. These sanctions were all that stood in the way of an immense inflow of oil revenues which would enable him to rearm and even fulfill his evident ambition to acquire nuclear weapons - and there was little prospect the sanctions would (or should from a humanitarian perspective)be continued long enough to contain the problem. We wasted eight years merely temporizing on this situation which was becoming worse with each passing year.

By 2000 the choice for the international community was to either give Saddam his way and eventually drop the sanctions, or to reapply the pressure for compliance and get enough international support to take him out. The drift at the time was clearly towards ending the sanctions without enforcing compliance with the agreement. There is no doubt in my mind that key figures in the Bush Administration saw the situation this way even before the election, and were looking for a way to change the direction of these events. The events of 9-11-01 merely accelerated the process.

A fundamental principle of war and strategy is that your opponent will do what he can to defeat you. The combination of Iraq and al quaeda presented substantial cumulative risk and, regardless of past indifference or even antipathy between them, there was and is every likelihood they would find common cause in dealing with a common enemy. One bases his strategy on what the enemy can do and not only what one currently observes him doing. I have little doubt our intelligence has already detected some connections between them.

You may conclude this merely admits your worst suspicions. OK by me. I believe this scenario is accurate and that it reflects a correct strategic appraisal on the part of the Administration and a policy that will reduce grave dangers to this country and to the world. I have some direct knowledge of the 1991/2 conflict and of the events that preceeded it and I know some of the people to whom you referred - all of that supports the scenario above.

George,

As usual an insightful take on the current situation re. Iraq. I've been one of those who have believed since the Gulf War that we should have finished the job. Over the last year reconsideration and deeper probing into the matter has caused me to revise my opinion. Your remarks fit very well with my current understanding, though there were I think a number of other conciderations in the decision to stop short of Baghdad on the last field outing.

I also believe that there are links between Saddam and Al Queda that must remain highly classified. The importance of maintaining an effective Intelligence Community should have been demonstrated on 911. Past Presidents, Congress and the American People complelled the destruction of most of our human intelligence networks. The belief that we can gather everything necessary for national security by satalite, electronic and signals intelligence has terribly erroded our safety. Rebuilding human sources, spies and traitors to their own regimes, is difficult and takes years to perfect. We are beginning to recover, but our human assetts remain pitifully small, weak and vulnerable. This situation has caused us to rely more than is prudent upon other nation's intelligence assetts. So too much loose talk about sources and means is particularily dangerous at this time.

I found Georgeob's cogent as well, although i don't entirely agree with him(?). I see no justification for war in any of this, nor can i buy any connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Saddam sends checks to the widows of Palestinian bombers because it's good PR for the drum he always beats so loudly, the Zionist Imperialism drum. I've known enough Palestinians and read enough about their lives in the middle east to know that they are the "wetbacks" of the region. They get no respect anywhere, and likely Bhagdad is no exception. Saddam does not seem to me to be a likely supporter of terrorist operations, simply because he has his agenda, and uses his resources for that agenda alone. He has never displayed sufficient depth of understanding nor breadth of vision to convince me that he supports other terrorist groups.

Asherman's comments on human intelligence are very much to the point. In a thread started by that acutely intelligent abuzzard Seydlitz89, in which we discussed this subject immediately after the 9/11 disaster, this was exactly the conclusion at which we arrived. Our best shot at dealing with terrorist would be from intelligence gathering, and our only shot at doing that effectively is with "humint." There is no nation of terrorism, and there is no value to "sigint" in such a war.

Georgeob1 and Asherman

Thank you both for a compelling and insightful analysis. Your remarks could change the minds of those on the fence but I have no illusions about those with closed minds.