THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

ican711nm wrote:

Here is the definition I advocate.


... ... ...

In the original, historic version, people got a yellow star attached before all that happened ...

Quote:

Powell's statement was subsequently proven true when US special forces aiding Kurd forces invaded northeast Iraq where they found the al-Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Islam that they knew were allowed sanctuary there since December 2001 -- after September 11, 2001..

Except, it has been concluded that Saddam didn't allow sanctuary to Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq. Which you of course know, but claim isn't true.

Cycloptichorn

Neither the President or the Vice President ever said, "There was a connection between the events of September 11, 2001 and Iraq."

On December 9, 2001, Vice President Cheney began publicly arguing on Meet the Press that there were Iraqi connections to the 9/11 attacks. It was "pretty well confirmed," he told Tim Russert, that Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker, had met the previous April in Prague with a "senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service." On September 8, 2002, he returned to the program and reaffirmed this supposed fact even more strongly. ("[Atta] did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center.") All of this -- and there was much more of it from Cheney, the President, and other top officials, always leaving Iraq and 9/11, or Saddam and al-Qaeda, or Saddam and Zarqawi in the same rhetorical neighborhood with the final linking usually left to the listener -- was quite literally so much Bushwa.

Colin Powell stated to the UN February 5, 2003, -- after September 11, 2001 -- "But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants."

Powell's statement was subsequently proven true when US special forces aiding Kurd forces invaded northeast Iraq where they found the al-Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Islam that they knew were allowed sanctuary there since December 2001 -- after September 11, 2001.

What they said prior to the invasion of Iraq, March 20, 2003, implied Iraq possessed ready-to-use WMD.

Cheney: No Doubt Saddam Has WMD
Aug. 26, 2002Dick Cheney, Vice President
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." (more)

Bush: Iraq Currently Expanding WMD Production
Sep. 12, 2002George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

Bush: Iraq Has WMD Stockpile
Oct. 5, 2002George W. Bush, Radio Address
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons." (more)

Bush: Iraq Possesses and Produces Chemical Weapons
Oct. 7, 2002 George W. Bush
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." (more)

Bush: 500 Tons of Sarin, 30,000 Munitions
Jan. 28, 2003George W. Bush
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" and "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents... " (more)

May 30, 2003
Bush cites 2 trailers found as evidence of " the weapons of mass destruction" that were the United States' primary justification for going to war.
washingtonpost

ican wrote:

Neither the President or the Vice President ever said, "There was a connection between the events of September 11, 2001 and Iraq."

...

Quote:

On December 9, 2001, Vice President Cheney began publicly arguing on Meet the Press that there were Iraqi connections to the 9/11 attacks.
...

I never heard either Chenney or Bush say anything like that. This is some of what I read in The 9/11 Commission Report:

Quote:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch10.htm
According to Rice, the issue of what, if anything, to do about Iraq was really engaged at Camp David. Briefing papers on Iraq, along with many others, were in briefing materials for the participants. Rice told us the administration was concerned that Iraq would take advantage of the 9/11 attacks. She recalled that in the first Camp David session chaired by the President, Rumsfeld asked what the administration should do about Iraq. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz made the case for striking Iraq during "this round" of the war on terrorism.64

A Defense Department paper for the Camp David briefing book on the strategic concept for the war on terrorism specified three priority targets for initial action: al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iraq. It argued that of the three, al Qaeda and Iraq posed a strategic threat to the United States. Iraq's long-standing involvement in terrorism was cited, along with its interest in weapons of mass destruction.65

Secretary Powell recalled that Wolfowitz-not Rumsfeld-argued that Iraq was ultimately the source of the terrorist problem and should therefore be attacked.66 Powell said that Wolfowitz was not able to justify his belief that Iraq was behind 9/11. "Paul was always of the view that Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with," Powell told us. "And he saw this as one way of using this event as a way to deal with the Iraq problem." Powell said that President Bush did not give Wolfowitz's argument "much weight."67 Though continuing to worry about Iraq in the following week, Powell said, President Bush saw Afghanistan as the priority.68

President Bush told Bob Woodward that the decision not to invade Iraq was made at the morning session on September 15. Iraq was not even on the table during the September 15 afternoon session, which dealt solely with Afghanistan.69 Rice said that when President Bush called her on Sunday, September 16, he said the focus would be on Afghanistan, although he still wanted plans for Iraq should the country take some action or the administration eventually determine that it had been involved in the 9/11 attacks.70

No connection of Iraq to 9/11/2001 was alleged here. Then of course there is this:

Congress, Friday, Wednesday, October 16, 2002 wrote:

www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002 (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
...
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
...
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

Not even in this case was Iraq, itself, alleged to have a connection to 9/11/2006.

These two quotes, one from the administration and one from Congress, persuaded me that Iraq had no connection with 9/11/2001.

ican wrote:

Colin Powell stated to the UN February 5, 2003, -- after September 11, 2001 -- "But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants."

Powell's statement was subsequently proven true when US special forces aiding Kurd forces invaded northeast Iraq where they found the al-Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Islam that they knew were allowed sanctuary there since December 2001 -- after September 11, 2001.

Again you still believe that nonsense about Saddam aiding Zarqawi.

No I do not believe that nonsense about Saddam aiding Zarqawi. I didn't say Saddam aided Zarqawi. I believe exactly what I said I believe: Saddam allowed al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq by not complying with our request to extradite the leadership of al-Qaeda in Northeastern Iraq.

Didn't you hear about the intelligence report the Senate made public when it stated Saddam never aided Zarqawi? Can't you understand Zarqawi's camp was located in that part of Iraq that Saddam was not allowed to enter? How can Saddam provide safe harbor to someone who has a camp in that part of the country he has no control over? ...

First that area for Saddam was a "no-fly" zone not a no-go zone. Second we, the USA, specifically requested Saddam to extradite the leadership there. That is tantamount to the USA asking Saddam to go into the area above which was a no-fly zone. So Saddam was most definitely allowed to go there by virtue of our request that he extradite the leadership from there. Nevertheless, Saddam chose not to go there, thereby allowing al-Qaeda to retain its sanctuary there.

ican wrote:

What they said prior to the invasion of Iraq, March 20, 2003, implied Iraq possessed ready-to-use WMD.

Again your wrong, ... . They didn't imply any such thing. They stated it as a fact.

What they implied was there were no ready-to-use WMD in Iraq. They discovered several locations containing ingredients, subassemblies, and partially assembled WMD missles, but no assembled ready-to-use WMD. So when they said no WMD they were implying no ready-to-use WMD.
...
Does this sound like they're implying Saddam has WMD's or does it sound like they're stating that he definitely does have them?

They at first definitely said Saddam had WMD, implying Saddam had ready-to-use WMD. Subsequently, they discovered Saddam did not have ready-to-use WMD, but did have ingredients, subassemblies, and partially assembled WMD missiles. Consequently, when they announced Saddam did not have WMD, they were implying Saddam did not have ready-to-use WMD.

A Nightmare for the U.S.A.

by Tom Chartier

It's been five years since the tragedy of September 11. I've been suffering from repeated sleepless nights due to the same nightmare:

The bad dream goes like this. It's some time in the near future, 2007, 2008 or soon after. Guided by a religious fanatic whose goal was to spread American Style Democracy throughout the world, the USA has lost its financial and moral standing. It turns out that liberating people at gunpoint simply does not win hearts and minds. "Coalition" Troops were not showered with flowers as they marched into Baghdad. It was not a re-enactment of the Liberation of Paris.

In the nightmare, America stands on the brink of a Third World War

Indeed, much of the world views America as the greatest threat to global security. We're more feared and disliked than Iran, North Korea, Hezbollah, Hamas or even Israel, combined. As France denounces the war on terror, Russia and China keep their cards close to their chest.

It seems that the USA has created and inspired more terror than anything else. Since 1945, the US has been actively or covertly involved in 72 foreign adventures. And now, the whole world wonders who will be America's next target.

Long gone is the first rush of post-9/11 sympathy. Now the world tries to hide a feeling that we asked for it. Should America suffer another terrorist attack will the world feel we deserved it? Most likely.

In the nightmare, Bush's invasion of Iraq has degenerated into a full-blown civil war. The liberation of Iraq and subsequent missions have bankrupted the US. There's not enough money and there's far too many Iraqi Insurgents thus making it nearly impossible to support the troops in the field with proper supplies. While failing to meet mounting Iraqi resistance the US is forced to reinstate the draft. American students (and their parents) take to the streets in massive demonstrations against the Bush regime. Ultimately, US forces suffer terrible casualties, and are forced to retreat in disgrace. Bush never admits he was wrong, of course, but continues to feed us some new form of Turd Blossomisms as if he were shoveling slop into the pigsty.

Iraq ends up divided into three separate states. There is a Sunni west, a Kurdish north and a Shiite led east and south. Even as the three new states quarrel among themselves, none of them are grateful to the US for "liberating" them. Operations Liberty Shield and Iraqi Freedom have only made Iraqis hate America intensely and indelibly. Even worse, the Shiites, who are closely aligned with Iran, win control of the oil rich areas of Iraq.

The vast oil reserves in Iraq, which were supposed to cover America's huge bill for their "liberation," fall into the hands of Iran and Iraqi Shiites sympathetic with Iran. Iranian oil flows to Iran's supporters Russia and China. None of the oil reaches the US and our precious Hummer H3s.

The US continues to be hated for its support of Israel. Israel continues to be hated for its "Matrix of Control" program in Palestine. All that hatred further isolates the vulnerable Jewish state from its neighbors.

The nightmare takes a toll on my already depleted pocketbook: One day, the US Treasury does what it's always done to finance US trade imbalances and domestic deficits: it issues bonds. However, on this black day no one shows up to buy them. That's right, the Japanese and the Chinese do not bid on what they perceive to be worthless paper.

China separates its currency value from the dollar.

In my dream I start to shiver; why must I turn the heat off when it is so cold outside? Iran will sets up its own oil bourse allowing payment in a variety of currencies. For instance, Iranian oil may begin to be paid for in Euros or Yuan, not dollars. Oops, there goes our security. We should have kept the dollar backed by gold in Fort Knox. Arab nations once "friendly" to the US choose profit over old loyalties.

Great anxiety sets in at this point in the dream and once I woke up wanting a Big Mac. It was that horrifying. Times get tough for America. Unable to pay its annual dues to the UN, the US loses its clout in the Security Council. Russia, China and India dominate. Recalling how America a) lied about Iraq, b) sent that miserable excuse for a human being, John Bolton, to be US "ambassador," and, c) ignored the UN's humanitarian pleas to stop Israeli bombardment of civilians in the Lebanon, UN members regard the US as a rogue state and close their ranks against America.

Here comes the nasty part of the nightmare: War Crimes trials. Amnesty International files lawsuits in the War Crimes Court at The Hague citing Bush's illegal aggression in Iraq, the resulting huge civilian death toll, and his authorization of the use of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

At this point I always wake up screaming: The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) finds a way to abolish the 2008 election in order to keep George W. Bush in office and immune from war crimes trials. Not to mention this helps them maintain and expand their iron grip on American resources while shutting down dissent. On good nights I dream that the PNAC only throws Bush to the World Court and replaces him with Condi Rice or some other dictatorial figurehead.

From thence onward the view that America is the greatest threat to world security swells far beyond the anti-American fears harbored by Europe, Canada, Tavarua and any other place you can think of. Such fears are taken seriously by the U.N., which is now controlled by countries who distrust and dislike the U.S. such as Russia, which heads NATO.

At this point in the nightmare, the UN demands that the US allow International Atomic Energy Agency officials to monitor disarmament of American nuclear and WMD stockpiles. Failure to comply will mean economic sanctions. Dependent on imported goods and oil, the US realizes it must submit or starve. But of course, we consider ourselves to be right and inviolate. The White House refuses to comply. George W. doesn't take orders or opinions from anybody.

Economic sanctions are imposed. America's much-vaunted standard of living takes a dramatic downturn. In a short time The United States turns from the world's only super power to the world's largest Third World Nation.

What a nightmare! Thank God Dr. Gruber is on 24-hour call and only part of the horror is reality!.. So far.

And when the people perpetrating these horrible acts are captured and thrown in prison, the left will decry the conditions in which they are held.

McGentrix wrote:

And when the people perpetrating these horrible acts are captured and thrown in prison, the left will decry the conditions in which they are held.

Well that was a useful and considered response. Not.

130 people have been found executed now in Baghdad in the last three days.

That doesn't count bombs, just people found tortured and shot to death.

Cycloptichorn

They won't be 'captured and thrown in prison,' because it is the Shi'ite militias who are perpetrating many of these crimes. Our allies.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

They won't be 'captured and thrown in prison,' because it is the Shi'ite militias who are perpetrating many of these crimes. Our allies.

Cycloptichorn

You mean Iran's allies. The Shiite militias and the Shiites are not allies of the USA. Future historians are going to have a field day dedicated to the irony of the situation. The Sh'ia's emergence into power in Iraq as a result of the US invasion reduces the influence of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt in the area and helps solidify the power of the Iranian Islamic Revolution. Yeah, those same guys who held our embassy employees hostage. (You remember? That when Don went over to shake Saddam's hand.)

I am trying to think of a more upside-down bizarroworld circumstance in diplomatic or military history and coming up empty.

Joe(You're doing a heckkava job, George)Nation

Not all shiites are in or involved with the militia's. Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani wants an end to the shia militias, but some, like that ass Muqtada al-Sadr insists on keeping them and not allowing the peaceful Iraqi's to move on.

We are on the side of the Shiites that want peace and a free Iraq.

Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
Regime Strategic Intent -- Key Findings [re: allegations of Iraq WMD]
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html

Key Findings
Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.


Saddam totally dominated the Regime's strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq's strategic policy.

Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections, to gain support for lifting sanctions, with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad's economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability, which was essentially destroyed in 1991, after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability, in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks, but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.


Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq's principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.

Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam's belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam's view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi'a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.
...