0
   

The US, UN & Iraq III

 
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 04:16 pm
Quote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086924/

Calling Out Colin

What Powell got wrong in his U.N. briefing on Iraq.

By Fred Kaplan
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 3:27 PM PT

In the middle of a fascinating article in Monday's Los Angeles Times, which quotes several former Iraqi officers on why they lost the war so badly, the following passage leaps out: "Commanders interviewed for this article said they were issued no orders regarding chemical or biological weapons. And they denied that Iraq ever possessed such weapons."

The truth of this denial is, by now, close to inescapable. Too much time has passed, too many suspicious sites have been inspected, too many knowledgeable sources have been interrogated, for much doubt to remain on the matter. Maybe a ton of VX will be unearthed in Ahmed's basement tomorrow, but this is unlikely?-and, at this point, few would regard such a find as authentic.

Whatever officials and apologists may say about it in retrospect, the belief in Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" was the only compelling reason, really, to have fought this war. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and his toppling is welcome. But the same could be said of North Korea's Kim Jong-il, with whom the Bush administration is now (properly) preparing to negotiate, or of Liberia's Charles Taylor, whose exile didn't strike Bush as worth the commitment of more than a handful of Marines. Even Paul Wolfowitz, the Pentagon's intellectual architect of Gulf War II, admitted in his famous Vanity Fair interview that Iraqi human rights alone would not have justified the sacrifice of American soldiers.

So let us ask, one more time: Where are the Iraqi WMD? Or, more to the point now, since such weapons will probably never be found: Why did so many?-including Bush officials, whose views on this issue, I think, were sincere, if hyped?-believe Iraq had WMD in the first place?

The best case that the administration ever made on the issue was Secretary of State Colin Powell's briefing before the U.N. Security Council last Feb. 5, shortly before the war. Powell introduced the briefing as "an accumulation of facts and disturbing patterns of behavior" that "demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort to disarm" and, in fact, "are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction."

Months later, news articles reported that Powell had spent several days at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., looking over the intelligence, and that he put only the strongest evidence in his briefing, tossing out many claims?-for instance, the business about uranium-shopping in Niger?-that he considered flimsy, if not fraudulent.

Yet in hindsight, his best stuff now looks pretty thin. The four "chemical bunkers," which he showed in overhead spy photos, have since been scoured to a fare-thee-well and come up dry.

Powell also made much of aluminum tubes, which he said could be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium* and thus constituted proof that Saddam remained "determined to acquire nuclear weapons." Even back in February, Powell conceded that some intelligence analysts thought the tubes were meant for conventional artillery rockets, though he added, "It strikes me as quite odd that the tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets." Now, it doesn't seem odd at all; indeed, the tolerances turn out to be exactly the same as those of conventional artillery tubes made in Italy.

As for the "mobile biological-weapons labs," one trailer of which was supposedly found in northern Iraq last May, the Defense Intelligence Agency has recently concluded that the trailer was in fact what Iraqi officials claimed it was: a producer of hydrogen for military weather balloons. (Even the rival Central Intelligence Agency's report of May 28, which called the trailers "the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological-warfare program," was, read closely, far more ambiguous than its sweeping summary paragraphs suggested.)

This leaves one piece of Powell's briefing that remains, to this day, puzzling. It involved two intercepted phone conversations that Powell played and translated. One, recorded Nov. 26, the day before U.N. weapons inspections were to resume, was said to be between a colonel and a brigadier general in the Iraqi Republican Guard. The general says, "I'll come see you in the morning. I'm worried you all have something left." The colonel replies, "We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left." The implication is that the Iraqis have removed illegal materials from a site to be inspected to the next day.


There is more - the last of the Bush Regime lies refuted, yet they will not and can not justify their lies..........
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 04:17 pm
mamajuana, maybe he has questions within himself about a position he has taken, as I sometimes do. And the more passionately held the position, and the more partisan the view, the more it is in need of a second look.

I think one can look at things in parts, sometimes, rather than in the whole. The "whole" issues of, say, abortion, civil unions, free trade, tax cuts, affirmative action, national security, you name it, are daunting if one must decide that the whole issue is either black or white, right or wrong. Just because one is a conservative generally does not mean that he must fall into a stereotype of conservative thinking on every issue. Same with a "liberal." I am a liberal about many things, but I am not a tax-and-spender. I am a strong supporter of free trade (but...) There is nothing I enjoy more than a well articulated argument against what I believe (or thought I believed until that moment.)
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 04:17 pm
Try again, perception. That really wasn't clear.

Although I think you might be surprised at the number of people who would vote for Clinton again.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 04:20 pm
Mama wrote:

CNN quick poll just now asked if the public thought Bush could turn around the economy by 2004. 8% said yes; 92% said no.



Mama---when it comes to money---how often is the public correct?

Sixteen months is quite a long time especially since it's already started to turn. At any rate CNN probably polled 10 blind Bush bashers.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 04:22 pm
More proof the emperor wears no clothes <yipes>
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 04:25 pm
perception, this is another take on the "turn" in the economy: Laughing


A young man walked into the local welfare office, marched straight up to the counter and said, "Hi, I hate drawing welfare. I would really rather find a job."

The man behind the counter replied, "Your timing is amazing! We just got a listing from a very wealthy man who wants a chauffeur/bodyguard for his nymphomaniac daughter. You'll have to drive around in a big black Mercedes, and the suits, shirts, and ties are provided. Because of the long hours on this job, meals will also be provided and you will also be required to escort this young lady on her overseas holiday trips.
The salary is $200,000 a year."

The young man said, "You're bullshitting me."

The man behind the counter said, "Well, you started it."
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 06:39 pm
Kara

Great story Kara but what's that got to do with the "turn" in the economy? :wink:
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 06:44 pm
Mama wrote:

Try again, perception. That really wasn't clear.

If you still believe in Clinton and Hillary you are so closed minded you are INcapable of conceiving doubts. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 09:19 pm
Boy is this scary----if I were a johnny nobody of doubtful extraction this would be my weapon of choice. I won't say how I would use it for fear that it might actually happen

Model plane goes transatlantic
The plane flew at 270 metres over the Atlantic Ocean on autopilot
An international team of model aeroplane enthusiasts say they have managed the first successful flight by a lightweight remote-controlled plane across the Atlantic.

US, Canadian and Irish engineers worked together to ensure "The Spirit of Butts Farm" - named after its testing site - landed safely in County Galway, Ireland on Monday 11 August, some 38 hours after it took off from Canada.

The balsa wood and mylar plane flew 3,039 kilometres (1,888 miles) using satellite navigation and an autopilot system overseen by engineers and radio operators using laptop computers.

If the flight is certified by the Federation Aeronautique Internationale, it will break world records for distance travelled by a model aeroplane as well as duration of flight.

In order for the records to be broken, the plane had to weigh less than five kilograms, including its "camping lantern" fuel.

Dave Brown, president of the American Academy of Model Aeronautics, told BBC News Online it had been "pins and needles" waiting for the plane to come into view over the Irish coast.

"When it suddenly appeared over our heads, we were ecstatic," he said.

"We already lost three planes in 2002. We got one of five models this year to travel 500 miles, but they all eventually ended up in the drink apart from this one. This is the first time we've actually done it."

Doubts

Mr Brown said there had been some tense moments, especially when hourly satellite updates pinpointing the plane's whereabouts failed for three hours.

"Then 10 minutes after the team called around to say another attempt had failed, it re-appeared," Mr Brown said.

He established direct radio control of the model after seeing it, before bringing it in for landing close to the designated landing spot .
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2003 02:29 am
All eyes turn to the skys as in the background the air raid warden screams 'TURN OUT THAT LIGHT AND BLANKET THAT DOOR'.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2003 02:35 am
A
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/ahnc%20gop%20makeover1.jpg
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2003 02:49 am
A
S t a t e m e n t o f P u r p o s e
BRING THEM HOME NOW! is a campaign of military families, veterans, active duty personnel, reservists and others opposed to the ongoing war in Iraq and galvanized to action by George W. Bush's inane and reckless challenge to armed Iraqis resisting occupation to "Bring 'em on."

Our mission is to mobilize military families, veterans, and GIs themselves to demand: an end to the occupation of Iraq and other misguided military adventures; and an immediate return of all US troops to their home duty stations.

The truth is coming out. The American public was deceived by the Bush administration about the motivation for and intent of the invasion of Iraq. It is equally apparent that the administration is stubbornly and incompetently adhering to a destructive course. Many Americans do not want our troops there. Many military families do not want our troops there. Many troops themselves do not want to be there. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis do not want US troops there.


Our troops are embroiled in a regional quagmire largely of our own government's making. These military actions are not perceived as liberations, but as occupations, and our troops are now subject to daily attacks. Meanwhile, without a clear mission, they are living in conditions of relentless austerity and hardship. At home, their families are forced to endure extended separations and ongoing uncertainty.

As military veterans and families, we understand that hardship is sometimes part of the job. But there has to be an honest and compelling reason to impose these hardships and risks on our troops, our families, and our communities. The reasons given for the occupation of Iraq does not rise to this standard.

Without just cause for war, we say bring the troops home now!

Not one more troop killed in action. Not one more troop wounded in action. Not one more troop psychologically damaged by the act of terrifying, humiliating, injuring or killing innocent people. Not one more troop spending one more day inhaling depleted uranium. Not one more troop separated from spouse and children. This is the only way to truly support these troops, and the families who are just as much part of the military as they are.

Bush says "Bring 'em on." We say BRING THEM HOME NOW!




http://www.wanderbody.com/bringthemhomenow/images/pics/pic_oneweek.jpg
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2003 07:45 am
Gel wrote:

Bush says "Bring 'em on." We say BRING THEM HOME NOW!

Since you retransmitted the above you must favor that proposed action
If that is the case you should retitle the article to read : SADDAM'S GUERRILLAS IN AMERICAN WIN IN THE SAME MANNER AS HO CHI MINHS GUERRILLAS IN AMERICA WON THE VIETNAM WAR.-----SADDAM will come out of his hole and resume his rampage of terror and oppression . It is just what his thugs want. It is a typical knee jerk emotional reaction that is pushed to the front page when the water gets choppy. Saddam is counting on you guys. He's saying: "If I can just hold out another month or so I'll win" the US will cave in.

All those good guys will have died in vain----is that what you want?

Just like Vietnam!
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2003 09:32 am
In Vietnam and Iraq -- though they were very different wars -- we made the same mistakes: we sent in troops when we shouldn't have, and we sent them in without forethought and planning. And now we blame those who protested this? Those who told the truth?

What's the conservative core philosophy? Invade, lie, and blame others? Sure looks that way.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2003 09:43 am
Lead editorial, today's New York Times:

Quote:
August 14, 2003
White House Fantasies on Iraq

Someday, in the months ahead, there may be an Iraq where a smoothly run American occupation authority has dealt devastating setbacks to terrorism, brought security to most of the country, improved infrastructure and basic services, and elicited encouraging signs of democracy, economic renewal and cultural rebirth. Unfortunately, right now that Iraq exists only in the pages of the implausibly upbeat 100-day progress report recently issued by the White House.

In Iraq today, American soldiers die, electricity shortages lead to rioting, and the threat of terrorism against civilians must be taken increasingly seriously. The biggest problems have been airbrushed out of the White House report, making it read more like a Bush campaign flier than a realistic accounting to the American people. There have, of course, been positive accomplishments, but making a success of Iraq will require much time, many billions of dollars and real sacrifices. Pretending otherwise risks future public disillusionment.

In the face of news reports detailing continued insecurity, failing basic services and painstakingly slow political progress, the White House cites significant signs of better security, improved basic services and emerging democracy. Not mentioned in the Panglossian report, covering the 100 days after President Bush declared an end to major combat operations, were the 56 American soldiers killed in attacks during that period.

Days after the report's release, Basra was swept by rioting over electricity and fuel shortages. While the report boasts of broad international support, Washington still scrambles to line up countries willing to contribute peacekeeping troops without expanded United Nations authority.

Many of today's problems in Iraq can be traced to the Bush administration's tendency to credit what it wants to believe rather than more realistic accounts. It exaggerated the evidence on Iraqi unconventional weapons and links with Al Qaeda, underestimated the potential for chaos in a country that had endured years of war, sanctions and dictatorship, and misjudged the patience of the Iraqi people for putting up with postwar disruptions and an occupying army. All those delusions find uncanny echoes in the 100-day report.

In the real world there have recently been some hopeful signs that administration policies are beginning to reflect a more sophisticated understanding of Iraq. Future White House reports should describe that world, not wishful fantasies.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2003 09:59 am
Last sentence in the lead editorial NYTimes-----Future White House reports should describe that world, not wishful fantasies.

I don't know why you would criticize a few "wishful fantacies"----- that's the world the Dems live in.

Re: the conservative core philosophy----If you didn't have "spin" you would be silent----now I can do some wishful thinking. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2003 10:23 am
Ge, re your piece on Bring Them Home Now.

It is an unrealistic plea, though one can understand the emotion behind it. The last thing we should do is Bring Them Home Now. We should send more of them over there, even if it thins our ranks. Or we should get the world behind us and helping, through a UN resolution.

We are undermanned in Iraq, as was pointed out months ago by some military leaders. We need educated and trained leaders and administrators to help in the reorganization of the country. And we need more troops for security. The administration would have to fight public opinion on this issue, but they got us into this war with deceit and they might have to suffer a drop in the polls to finish the job and stop the killing. Of course, with an election coming up, this is not going to happen.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2003 10:24 am
Ge, great makeover photo. Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2003 10:32 am
Kara

Excellent pragmatic analysis of the "Plea" to "Bring the troops home.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2003 12:16 pm
perc

I am hurt...deeply hurt...that you haven't even said hello yet. We have a rich history and I feel like some port-floozie you have just cast aside like a worn out shoe or a resource-extracted country.

I'm way behind on reading here, and if someone else has linked this piece (balanced, I swear) from Foreign Policy, my apologies...
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/story.php?storyID=13770
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The US, UN & Iraq III
  3. » Page 193
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/20/2026 at 11:01:38