1
   

A pathetic case of Pentagon incompetence

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 01:35 pm
old europe wrote:
....And, as far as I know, he thinks those WMD are now somewhere else. Syria was mentioned, I think.

From among your numerous false statements, and statements deserving rebuttal, I guesss I will choose this representative example. At the most, I said that we aren't very sure of our facts, and I certainly never said the WMD are in Syria. Please find any post where I said this. I know that neither falsely quoting people nor being dead wrong bothers you. I await your next evasion.

This is basically pretty simple. You lose when you argue with me, so you claim that you could but don't want to. Someone who replies to specific arguments with nothing but insults is never the winner of a debate.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 01:43 pm
Are you trying to be funny, Brandon?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 01:44 pm
mesquite wrote:
It appears woiyo is having a problem separating foresight from hindsight.


BUNK - You "I TOLD YOU SO'ERS", seem very happy to look back and post any nonsense to support whatever lame position suits the day.

The only thing any General would say going into a battle is I WISH I HAD MORE TROOPS.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 01:52 pm
Sure, woiyo. And the only thing any secretary of defense would ever say would be "you got to war with the army you have, not the army you want".

But what about presidents?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 01:53 pm
mesquite wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I will grant that among the numerous predictions, were some that are more or less what really ended up happening.


I would like to point out that the predictions I offered were not just "some". They were from the President ot the U.S. and the top General during Desert Storm.

Last November I posted this on another thread. If you haven't seen the documentary, you should.

Quote:
I would like to think that I would have listened to my generals from the beginning. PBS Frontline recently aired "Rumsfeld's War", which was a remarkable program IMO. It should be required viewing for all political junkies. Laughing The full 90 min . program can be viewed online HERE. The online version is broken into six 15 min. segments.

Here is an excerpt from the program. Note that this is NOT HINDSITE. this testimony was given to congress three weeks prior to the invasion.
Quote:
Feb. 25, 2003 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/art/cronp1.jpg

Shinseki goes public with doubts over troop size.

Three weeks before the invasion of Iraq is to begin, Gen. Shinseki is forced to take his internal fight with Rumsfeld public in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Responding to a question from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) about the size of the force required for an occupation of Iraq, Shinseki responds:

I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so, it takes significant ground force presence to maintain safe and secure environment to ensure that the people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.

Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz respond with public rebukes of Shinseki. Rumsfeld calls Shinseki's estimates "far from the mark," and Wolfowitz comments two days later in testimony before the House Budget Committee, "First, it is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in a post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army -- hard to imagine," he said. Wolfowitz also argues that the Kurdish northern third of Iraq had been liberated from Saddam after the Gulf War and that the area had stayed relatively stable without the presence of U.S. troops.
Source:Timeline

Shinseki is apparently a very bright man, and he was dead on correct. He certainly deserves credit for his accurate assessment. Nonetheless, it should be noted that many post-invasion occupations of no more than a few years have not encountered organized resistance on the scale of the insurgency in Iraq, so failure to anticipate it is to some extent forgiveable. It is my opinion that had Bush not faced such rabid criticism from the left of practically everything he did, he would probably have been more agressive with troop strengths, but that the ubiquitous and strident attempts to capitalize on any opportunity to attack him had the effect of making him fight a very PC war. Remember that he is constantly villified for characteristics of this war that it has in common with all or most other wars.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 01:56 pm
old europe wrote:
Are you trying to be funny, Brandon?

As I predicted an evasion. I am asserting that you have misquoted me in the manner I described, and ask you, if you have a trace of honor, to either provide a citation to the words you attribute to me regarding Syria, or withdraw them.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 02:04 pm
I said,
old europe wrote:
Syria was mentioned, I think.


If you say you never said the WMD were in Syria, so be it. Maybe somebody else said it. I'm glad you're not that nuts.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 02:04 pm
I thought you had to go to work soon, Brandon...
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 02:06 pm
Very Happy

You don't appreciate the fact that Brandon deems us more important than work.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 02:11 pm
Brandon wrote:
Shinseki is apparently a very bright man, and he was dead on correct. He certainly deserves credit for his accurate assessment. Nonetheless, it should be noted that many post-invasion occupations of no more than a few years have not encountered organized resistance on the scale of the insurgency in Iraq, so failure to anticipate it is to some extent forgiveable.
No, it's not. Thousands of us gathered in the streets before Bush invaded, predicting EXACTLY what is taking place right now. What is unforgiveable is your complete lack of intellect to recognize that.

It is my opinion that had Bush not faced such rabid criticism from the left of practically everything he did, he would probably have been more agressive with troop strengths, but that the ubiquitous and strident attempts to capitalize on any opportunity to attack him had the effect of making him fight a very PC war. Remember that he is constantly villified for characteristics of this war that it has in common with all or most other wars.
How would criticism from the left cause Bush to not commit aggrressive troop strength when part of their gripes were directly related to troop size? And WHAT PC war? WTF are you talking about?


So very sad indeed...
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 02:25 pm
old europe wrote:
Sure, woiyo. And the only thing any secretary of defense would ever say would be "you got to war with the army you have, not the army you want".

But what about presidents?


Patton wanted more troops. Did that make FDR a bad President?

You apparently have no knowledge in this area, except of course the hindsight area.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 02:30 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Shinseki is apparently a very bright man, and he was dead on correct. He certainly deserves credit for his accurate assessment. Nonetheless, it should be noted that many post-invasion occupations of no more than a few years have not encountered organized resistance on the scale of the insurgency in Iraq, so failure to anticipate it is to some extent forgiveable. It is my opinion that had Bush not faced such rabid criticism from the left of practically everything he did, he would probably have been more agressive with troop strengths, but that the ubiquitous and strident attempts to capitalize on any opportunity to attack him had the effect of making him fight a very PC war. Remember that he is constantly villified for characteristics of this war that it has in common with all or most other wars.


I suspect they my chances of making any further progress here are about the same as your chances of making progress with the Wonder Squirrel on evolution. Sad
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 02:44 pm
woiyo wrote:
Patton wanted more troops. Did that make FDR a bad President?

You apparently have no knowledge in this area, except of course the hindsight area.


... so your credentials are?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 02:56 pm
What I find quite stunning is all the neocon rumble "nobody could possibly have predicted what would happen if we went into Iraq". Show them some good sources, and all you get is either "aw, that's just hindsight" or "well, that's what happens if you go to war".

The thought that going to war at that time could have been the big mistake not even crosses their minds.

One argument frequently used is "but Saddam had 12 years to disarm". So, if it apparently had been possible to wait for 12 years - why the rush? Especially as UN inspectors had finally returned to the country? And had, from December 02 to March 03 virtually access to every site in the country?

The strong military presence in the ME was, without doubts, very 'helpful'. And had the inspections found something, military action might have become necessary. But, at that time, there was no necessity for military action.

And certainly not without proper troop strength, military equipment, good training (thinking about the language, for example!!) and good intelligence on the country in question.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 03:52 pm
Bush's Catastrophic Failures in Iraq
by Geoff at 01:11AM (CDT) on September 21, 2004  |  Permanent Link  |  Cosmos
A Series of Disastrous Mistakes With Disastrous ConsequencesRecently-Revealed Intelligence Briefing Spells Out Pessimistic Predictions For Iraq. Bush received a classified National Intelligence Estimate in late July which "spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq." The three possibilities outlined in the estimate paint a grim picture for Iraq through the end of 2005, "with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms." A government official who read the document admits "there's a significant amount of pessimism." [New York Times, 9/16/04]

TIMELINE: THE "LONG CHAIN" OF BUSH'S KEY FAILURES IN IRAQ"Iraq today falls far short of what the Bush administration promised. As a result of a long chain of U.S. miscalculations, the coalition occupation has left Iraq in far worse shape than it need have and has diminished the long-term prospects of democracy there. Iraqis, Americans, and other foreigners continue to be killed." -- Larry Diamond, Former CPA Adviser, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2004

BUSH FAILED TO PLAN FOR POST-WAR IRAQFAILURE TO PLANSecret Joint Chiefs Report: Pentagon Planners Were Not Given Enough Time. In August 2003, the Joint Chiefs of Staff prepared a secret report assessing the post-war planning for Iraq. The report blamed "setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process." It also said "planners were not given enough time" to plan for reconstruction. [Washington Times, 9/3/03]

Officials Admit Bush Administration Never Had Concrete Plan for Post-War Iraq. Bush administration officials and military personnel admitted that there was never a real plan for post-war Iraq operations. Posed with the question of whether the Army had an outlined plan for peacekeeping in Iraq, V Corps commander Lt. Gen. William Wallace said, "Well, we're making this up here as we go along." A former senior administration official said, "There was no real planning for postwar Iraq." Knight Ridder reported, "The disenchanted U.S. officials today think the failure of the Pentagon civilians to develop such detailed plans contributed to the chaos in post-Saddam Iraq. ‘We could have done so much better,' lamented a former senior Pentagon official, who is still a Defense Department adviser." [Newsweek, 7/21/03; Knight Ridder, 7/12/03]

FAILURE TO CALCULATE NUMBER OF TROOPS AND EQUIP THEMPrior to the War in Iraq, Wolfowitz Rebuked Shinseki's Estimates as "Wildly Off the Mark." Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army's Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February 2003 that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." Wolfowitz called Shinseki's estimate "wildly off the mark." [USA Today, 6/2/03]

McCain: "Painfully Clear" More Troops Needed. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.): "It is painfully clear that we need more troops. Before the war, the U.S. Army Chief of Staff said that several hundred thousand troops would be necessary to keep the peace. While criticized at the time, General Shinseki now looks prescient." [McCain Speech To the Council on Foreign Relations, 4/26/04]

Graham: Not Enough Troops To Do the Job. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): "So I would like to have more troops on the ground to do the things necessary to stabilize the economy and the country… I have believed for over a year and a half that we do not have enough people to repair the infrastructure and provide security and we need more." [MSNBC, "Hardball," 9/16/04]

Army Study Suggests One-Fourth of Deaths in Iraq Could Have Been Prevented If Troops Were Properly-Equipped at Beginning of War. Newsweek reported that an internal Army study said one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them. Thousands more who were unprotected have suffered grievous wounds, such as the loss of limbs. [Newsweek, 5/3/04]

Bush Was Slow To Address Troops' Need For Body Armor. Though Bush signed the Emergency Supplemental funding bill in November 2003 promising to use the money to "acquire new equipment, such as armored humvees and communications gear," he has been slow to deliver on that pledge. The Bush administration first promised all the troops they would have body armor at the end of November. They extended and missed deadlines for December, January, and February, until the Army Secretary told Congress in March 2004 that there were finally sufficient stocks of body armor to equip all soldiers by the end of the month. [Bush Remarks, 11/6/03; House Approps Cmte, Subcmte on For. Ops, 9/24/03; UPI, 12/3/03; Hartford Courant, 1/11/04; House Approps Cmte, Defense Subcmte, 2/12/04; Senate Armed Services Cmte hearing, 3/2/04]

FAILURE TO ANTICIPATE IRAQI INSURGENCYIraq Embroiled In Insurgency. According to the non-partisan Center for Strategic and International Studies, "Two months after the United States transferred sovereignty to an Iraqi interim government, on June 28, 2004, Iraq remains embroiled in an insurgency, with security problems overshadowing other efforts to rebuild Iraq's fragile society in the areas of governance and participation, economic opportunity, services, and social well-being." [CSIS, "Measuring Iraq's Reconstruction Progress," Sept 2004]

Bush Admitted Miscalculating Iraqi Insurgency. "Mr. Bush also acknowledged for the first time that he made a ‘miscalculation of what the conditions would be' in postwar Iraq." [New York Times, 8/27/04]

Rumsfeld Admitted Bush Administration Was Not Prepared for Iraqi Resistance. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted that "I am saying that -- if you had said to me a year ago, ‘describe the situation you'll be in today, one year later,' I don't know many people who would have described it -- I would not have described it -- the way it happens to be today. … I certainly would not have estimated that we would have had the number of individuals lost that we have had lost in the last week." [Rumsfeld News Conference, 4/15/04]

Powell Says The U.S. Miscalculated The Postwar Insurgency. In an interview with Panama's TVN Channel 2, Powell admitted that the U.S. "miscalculated the strength of insurgents in Iraq" and "it is clear we did not expect an insurgency that would be this strong." [Associated Press, 9/2/04]

Allawi Says Disbanding Of The Army Led To An Increase In Violence. In a Wall Street Journal op- ed, Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi wrote, "The postwar wholesale disbanding of the security forces has seen a rise in murder, kidnapping, armed robbery and drug trafficking, often in a vicious cycle that funds violence." [Wall Street Journal, Allawi Op-ed, 8/25/04]

BUSH HAS FAILED TO USE RECONSTRUCTION MONEY EFFECTIVELY"At the current pace and using the combined criteria and priorities set by the World Bank/UN and the CPA, it would take nearly ten years to rebuild and develop Iraq, not the four projected by these organisations."

-- International Crisis Group report, 9/2/04

FAILURE TO USE RECONSTRUCTION FUNDS TO REBUILD IRAQReconstruction Money Is Going Unspent. According to U.S. officials, only $1.1 billion of the $18 billion reconstruction package authorized by Congress has been spent and half of that was for security costs. [U.S. News & World Report, 9/20/04]


Electricity Still Has Not Met U.S. Goals. "Even today, the U.S. has not reached the goal set by L. Paul Bremer III, the former head of the U.S.-led occupation authority, to produce 6,000 megawatts of power a day by June 1. By comparison, California has about 50% more people than Iraq but produces up to eight times as much electricity, about 45,000 megawatts at peak summer demand." [LAT, 9/12/04]

Many Iraqis Still Have No Access To Safe Drinking Water. Many of Iraq's sewage facilities were looted following the invasion of Iraq by U.S. forces in 2003. As a result, "The water is so contaminated that Iraq is suffering from a huge outbreak of hepatitis, 15,000 suspected cases, a 100 percent increase over last year." [ABC, "World News Tonight Sunday," 8/29/04]

Continued at:
http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2004/9/21/145948.html
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 03:56 pm
Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels



Ex-Overseer of Iraq Says U.S. Effort Was Hampered Early On

By Robin Wright and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 5, 2004; Page A01



The former U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion said yesterday that the United States made two major mistakes: not deploying enough troops in Iraq and then not containing the violence and looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on.

"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

Bremer's comments were striking because they echoed contentions of many administration critics, including Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, who argue that the U.S. government failed to plan adequately to maintain security in Iraq after the invasion. Bremer has generally defended the U.S. approach in Iraq but in recent weeks has begun to criticize the administration for tactical and policy shortfalls.

In a Sept. 17 speech at DePauw University, Bremer said he frequently raised the issue within the administration and "should have been even more insistent" when his advice was spurned because the situation in Iraq might be different today. "The single most important change -- the one thing that would have improved the situation -- would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout" the occupation, Bremer said, according to the Banner-Graphic in Greencastle, Ind.

A Bremer aide said that his speeches were intended for private audiences and were supposed to have been off the record. Yesterday, however, excerpts of his remarks -- given at the Greenbrier resort at an annual meeting sponsored by the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers -- were distributed in a news release by the conference organizers.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 03:58 pm
Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 23
Art, Antiquity and Law, Vol. 9, December 2004
Abstract:     
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the looting of the Iraqi National Museum in April 2003 by remarking, "stuff happens." In doing so, he gave an early indication that in planning to invade Iraq, the Bush Administration failed to take seriously the legal obligations of an occupying power. Occupying powers have a variety of binding legal obligations, including obligations to stop looting, protect cultural property, and protect persons in detention. Yet, the Administration sent a wholly inadequate force to fulfill those obligations, and, more seriously, the force received no direct and imperative orders to do so. As a result, in addition to the questionable basis for initiating war the war in the first place, the Administration conducted it in a way that amounts to an independent ground for concluding the decision to invade Iraq on March 19, 2003, violated international law.

This article focuses on the Administration's failure to protect Iraqi cultural property as one clear example of the Administration's disregard for its obligations. The article discusses cultural property and the long, continuous development of legal principles, through treaties and rules of customary international law for the protection of cultural property in wartime-developments in which the United States has played a leading role. On the eve of the Iraq invasion, no US leader could have been in doubt about the legal requirements to stop looting and protect cultural property. Yet, we find little evidence of any preparation to do so. The article analyzes the literature on Iraqi war planning to understand why this lapse occurred. It further analyzes the consequences of this failures, including: the possibility that individuals will be held accountable; the high cost to the US associated with the war, and Iraq's right to claim reparations, including in-kind reparations from U.S. holdings of Iraqi cultural property.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 04:03 pm
Er - but the Pentagon itself made those unmake-able predictions. Including in the plans they had drawn up for just such an invasion in the intervening years (while advising against it).

Only Rumsfeld's hand-picked toadies were unable to predict these things - because Rumsfled had become convinced that he could do it with his new lean mean fighting machine.

They ignored, or got rid, of their ME experts, the advisors who would not crumble, Powell -

Really, these are Rumsfeld mistakes.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 04:04 pm
Friday, March 25, 2005

A chronicle of failures in Iraq

THE INDEPENDENT
EDITORIAL COMMENTARY

The chronic mishandling of the occupation of Iraq has been detailed before now. Critics have identified the failures of post-conflict planning, the total unpreparedness for the Iraqi insurgency and the blunders in dealing with the Iraqi police and security forces. These failings are to blame for the ongoing chaos and lack of progress in normalizing Iraq and launching its reconstruction.

Nevertheless, the report released this week by the British House of Commons Defense Committee makes required, and uncomfortable, reading for the government and the Ministry of Defense. MPs from across the political spectrum have painted a depressing picture of a bungling, arrogant coalition, whose tacticians were too blinkered or ill-informed to foresee either the scale of the Iraqi insurgency or that the presence of Western troops would provoke deep resentment among ordinary Iraqis. Fighters were able to flood in from outside Iraq because borders with Syria and Iran were not secured after the toppling of Saddam.

Coupled with this lack of preparedness was the disastrous decision to disband the Iraqi army and police on the grounds that their ranks were full of Baath Party members. Reforms to the Iraqi security forces, when they belatedly came, were characterized by "short-termism and indecision." British Army chiefs should not be too quick to draw comfort from the report's praise for the "considerable success" of their forces in southern Iraq. Because of the brutal degradation of Iraqis in British detention, the report has been compelled to recommend training in human rights law for soldiers.

The loss of vital time in training Iraqi forces now means, as the report concludes, that there is no prospect of a British troop withdrawal from Iraq until 2006 at the earliest. The scramble of other coalition forces to leave Iraq makes even a reduction in troop numbers difficult. This does not mean, however, that a timetable for withdrawal cannot be established.

Setting a date would help dampen the violence and give Iraqis more incentive to take responsibility for the future. Whoever wins the next election should consider it a priority.

The Independent is published in Britain.



I have posted just a few of the articles on the web relative to administrations failure to properly plan for the occupation of Iraq. The web has many more .
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 04:28 pm
Quote:
Here's what Bush said:
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address - 1/28/2003

Bush's claim:
Iraq has 500 tons of chemical weapons:
- Sarin gas
- Mustard gas
- VX Nerve agent

Reality:
Not True

Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq


Quote:
Here's what Bush said:
"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents."
State of the Union Address - 1/28/2003

Bush's claim:
Iraq has 30,000 weapons capable of dumping chemical weapons on people

Reality:
Not True

Zero Munitions Found
Not a single chemical weapon's munition has been found anywhere in Iraq


Quote:
Here's what Bush said:
"We have 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."
State of the Union Address - 1/28/2003

Bush's claim:
Iraq has a growing fleet of planes capable of dispersing chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world

Reality:
Not True

Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq


Quote:
Here's what Bush said:
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids nd protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."
State of the Union Address - 1/28/2003

Bush's claim:
Iraq aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda and implied that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11

Reality:
Not True

Zero Al Qaeda Connection
To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.
(besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US)


Quote:
Here's what Bush said:
"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
State of the Union Address - 1/28/2003

Bush's claim:
Iraq has attempted to purchase metal tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production

Reality:
Not True

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.


Quote:
Here's what Bush said:
"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."
Bush speech to the nation - 10/7/2002

Bush's claim:
Iraq is rebuilding nuclear facilities at former sites.

Reality:
Not True

Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there
IAEA report to UN Security Council - 1/27/2003


Quote:
Here's what Bush said:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
State of the Union Address - 1/28/2003

Bush's claim:
Iraq recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa

Reality:
Not True

The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.


Quote:
Here's what Bush said:
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
VP Dick Cheney - "Meet the Press" 3/16/2003

Bush's claim:
Iraq has Nuclear Weapons for a fact

Reality:
Not True

"The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."
IAEA report to UN Security Council - 3/7/2003


Quote:
Here's what Bush said:
"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

Bush's claim:
Iraq's Saddam Hussein refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq

Reality:
Not True

UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003
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 0.03 seconds on 05/25/2024 at 07:30:41