THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Here is a stark 'for instance':

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html

"Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War
Administration Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 12, 2006; A01

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.

The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons -- who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.

None would consent to being identified by name because of fear that their jobs would be jeopardized. Their accounts were verified by other current and former government officials knowledgeable about the mission. The contents of the final report, "Final Technical Engineering Exploitation Report on Iraqi Suspected Biological Weapons-Associated Trailers," remain classified. But interviews reveal that the technical team was unequivocal in its conclusion that the trailers were not intended to manufacture biological weapons. Those interviewed took care not to discuss the classified portions of their work.

"There was no connection to anything biological," said one expert who studied the trailers. Another recalled an epithet that came to be associated with the trailers: "the biggest sand toilets in the world." "

0 Replies

The article linked to above contains some old information that was tentatively reported, but then dropped by the media, in 2003. But most of the article is brand new information, never revealed before. Since the technical report is still classified, none of the individuals with knowledge of it, and its contents, could comment for the article. Or chose not to comment when contacted.

On the assumption that it is easier to read excerpts then to go and read the entire article, which I recommend that readers do, I am quoting more from it below.

"Intelligence officials and the White House have repeatedly denied allegations that intelligence was hyped or manipulated in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. But officials familiar with the technical team's reports are questioning anew whether intelligence agencies played down or dismissed postwar evidence that contradicted the administration's public views about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Last year, a presidential commission on intelligence failures criticized U.S. spy agencies for discounting evidence that contradicted the official line about banned weapons in Iraq, both before and after the invasion.

....The technical team's findings had no apparent impact on the intelligence agencies' public statements on the trailers. A day after the team's report was transmitted to Washington -- May 28, 2003 -- the CIA publicly released its first formal assessment of the trailers, reflecting the views of its Washington analysts. That white paper, which also bore the DIA seal, contended that U.S. officials were "confident" that the trailers were used for "mobile biological weapons production."

...."Within the first four hours," said one team member, who like the others spoke on the condition he not be named, "it was clear to everyone that these were not biological labs."

News of the team's early impressions leaped across the Atlantic well ahead of the technical report. Over the next two days, a stream of anxious e-mails and phone calls from Washington pressed for details and clarifications.

The reason for the nervousness was soon obvious: In Washington, a CIA analyst had written a draft white paper on the trailers, an official assessment that would also reflect the views of the DIA. The white paper described the trailers as "the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program." It also explicitly rejected an explanation by Iraqi officials, described in a New York Times article a few days earlier, that the trailers might be mobile units for producing hydrogen.

...After team members returned to Washington, they began work on a final report. At several points, members were questioned about revising their conclusions, according to sources knowledgeable about the conversations. The questioners generally wanted to know the same thing: Could the report's conclusions be softened, to leave open a possibility that the trailers might have been intended for weapons?

...Then, their mission completed, the team members returned to their jobs and watched as their work appeared to vanish.

"I went home and fully expected that our findings would be publicly stated," one member recalled. "It never happened. And I just had to live with it." "

0 Replies

On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department's top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us. More important: Why was this doubt, on the part of the secretary of state and others, about the salient facts justifying the invasion of Iraq kept from the public until we heard the truth from whistle-blower Wilson, whose credibility the president then sought to destroy?

In matters of national security, when a president leaks, he lies.

By selectively releasing classified information to suit his political purposes, as President Bush did in this case, he is denying that there was a valid basis for keeping the intelligence findings secret in the first place. "We ought to get to the bottom of it, so it can be evaluated by the American people," said Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I couldn't have put it any better.

0 Replies

Sumac, I'm happy to learn my inference drawn from an earlier post of yours about the basis of your positions, is false.

Changing the Subject

Why do we continue to discuss here the well known Bush administration Iraq-WMD falsity?

We have known since the publication of the Duelfer report, that the Bush administration was wrong about Iraq possessing ready-to-use WMD of any kind when the USA invaded Iraq -- Dick Channey requested Duelfer's investigation.
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

Quote:

Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
Regime Strategic Intent – Key Findings [re: allegations of Iraq WMD]

Why do we continue to discuss here the well known Bush administration 9/11-abetting falsity?

We have known since the publication of the 9/11 Commission report, that the Bush administration was wrong about Iraq abetting the 9/11 attack.
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
emphasis added by ican

Quote:

9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004.
2.5 AL QAEDA'S RENEWAL IN AFGHANISTAN (1996-1998)
...
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76

President Bush either believed his Iraq-WMD and 9/11-abetting falsities when he stated them or he didn't. Obviously, if he believed them when he stated them, he did not lie. If he did not believe them when he stated them, he lied. Others think Bush lied. I think Bush blundered and did not lie. None of us is capable of reading Bush's mind. So why do any of us pretend we are capable of reading Bush's mind?

But the Bush Administration and Congress told the truth about al-Qaeda possessing sanctuary in both Iraq and Afghanistan!

We know from several sources besides Bush (e.g., 9/11 Commission, General Franks, General Powell, US Congress, and even Wikipedia Encyclopedia) that al-Qaeda possessed sanctuary in Iraq from December 2001 until we invaded Iraq March 2003. So even though Iraq-WMD and 9/11-abetting were subsequently shown to be false, there was ample corraboration that al-Qaeda was in deed harbored in Iraq beginning three months after 9/11 and two months after we invaded Afghanistan. Clearly removing al-Qaeda from Iraq was just as good a reason for invading Iraq, as was removing al-Qaeda from Afghanistan a good reason for invading Afghanistan.

I think we would be far more productive here if we debated how well or what the Bush administration did or did not do after these two justifiable invasions.

0 Replies

Two glaring factors/faults here: the people who told the lies, and the people who unquestioningly fell for them.

Truly, you can fool some of the people all of the time.

0 Replies

Quote:

I think Bush blundered and did not lie. None of us is capable of reading Bush's mind. So why do any of us pretend we are capable of reading Bush's mind?

Hmm; it's far more than Bush. It's the Administration. Did they know the truth? Did they insulate Bush from the truth? These are important questions to figure out.

Many of us feel that we cannot move forward with new business until we resolve the question of corruption in our leadership.

You've been quite even-handed these days; you must/may admit that there seems to be more evidence that Bush, and his cabinet, knew that their WMD allegations were false, and took actions that many consider to be unethical in order to propogate these memes; as you would say, to their own folly, for they didn't focus on the Al Qaeda link that they should have in order to make the case, if that truly was the strongest reason.

Quote:

But the Bush Administration and Congress told the truth about al-Qaeda possessing sanctuary in both Iraq and Afghanistan!

Oh, it was the Taliban who told us the truth about Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. They didn't deny it. That's why you didn't see anyone complaining about going to war in Afghanistan.

And I'm not sure that Al Qaeda has had it's level of sanctuary reduced in Iraq, would you?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The contention that al Qaeda had sanctuary in Iraq prior to March, 2003 is without foundation--but it is a necessary canard to be peddled by those who still want to claim a link between Iraq and September 11th.

0 Replies

ican asked:

Quote:

Why do we continue to discuss here the well known

about more than one subject matter.

While it doesn't seem like a real discussion is taking place here, if I run across anything new about the topic here in general, I like to bring it to the attention of people who touch base with this thread from time to time.

It might reflect something different from preconceived ideas of facts, it may reinforce certain facts or beliefs, but it adds to the totality upon which I base an opinion. Subject to change, of course.

I was unaware of the timing of events of reports detailed in the Washington Post article cited above. I was unaware of what agencies, individuals knew what when. Not for sure. Guessing or assuming is one thing. Having things confirmed by actual participants is quite another.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Two glaring factors/faults here: the people who told the lies, and the people who unquestioningly fell for them.

Truly, you can fool some of the people all of the time.

... and some of the people some of the time ... and some of the people none of the time.

Group 1: The people who allegedly did not believe their stated falsities at the time they stated them = liars.
Group 2: The people who allegedly did believe their stated falsities at the time they stated them = falsifiers.

Group 3: The people who did not believe the liars = informed.
Group 4: The people who did believe the liars = uninformed.
Group 5: The people who did not believe the falsifiers = informed.
Group 6: The people who did believe the falsifiers = uninformed.

Of which group or groups are you a member?

"Remove the plank from your own eye before accusing another of a splinter in his eye."

0 Replies

Number Of Iraqi Civilians Slaughtered In America's War? As Many As 250,000

Number of U.S. Military Personnel Slaughtered (Officially acknowledged) In America's War 2364

Cost of America's War in Iraq

$272,621,797,290

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
Hmm; it's far more than Bush. It's the Administration. Did they know the truth? Did they insulate Bush from the truth? These are important questions to figure out.

Many of us feel that we cannot move forward with new business until we resolve the question of corruption in our leadership.
I think we have no choice but to continually move forward with new business regardless of how we resolve the question of corruption in our leadership.

... as you would say, to their own folly, for they didn't focus on the Al Qaeda link that they should have in order to make the case, if that truly was the strongest reason.
Whether their folly was committed knowingly or unknowingly, the consequences of their folly are the same.

Quote:
But the Bush Administration and Congress told the truth about al-Qaeda possessing sanctuary in both Iraq and Afghanistan!

Oh, it was the Taliban who told us the truth about Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. They didn't deny it. That's why you didn't see anyone complaining about going to war in Afghanistan.
Aha! Then likewise, it was the Saddam regime who told us the truth about al-Qaeda in Iraq. They too didn't deny that when accused of that. But they did deny WMD possession and abetting 9/11. So why is anyone complaining about going to war in Iraq?

Truly, I heard and read Powell's speech to the UN wherein he accused the Saddam regime of harboring al-Qaeda, and the US having demanded twice before that Zarqawi and his subordinates be extradited. They ignored our earlier demands and Powell's accusation about same at the UN. That is, they didn't deny it. But they did not ignore Powell's WMD and abetting accusations at the UN. They chose to deny that.

And I'm not sure that Al Qaeda has had it's level of sanctuary reduced in Iraq, would you?
It was reduced for a brief time, but has since blossomed substantially

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The contention that al Qaeda had sanctuary in Iraq prior to March, 2003 is without foundation--but it is a necessary canard to be peddled by those who still want to claim a link between Iraq and September 11th.

I have repeatedly provided here the "foundation" you repeatedly deny exists. Ok! You chose not to believe the 9/11 Commission, General Franks, General Powell, Zawahiri, and Wikipedia Encyclopedia. What is your "foundation" for your disbelief: They all lied or Bush lied to all of them? If so, what is your foundation for that?

0 Replies

sumac wrote:

...
I was unaware of the timing of events of reports detailed in the Washington Post article cited above. I was unaware of what agencies, individuals knew what when. Not for sure. Guessing or assuming is one thing. Having things confirmed by actual participants is quite another.

"Confirmation by actual participants" may or may not qualify as actual confirmation. For example: did Joe Wilson tell the truth? Some actual participants say yes and some say no. Which participants are telling the truth. I must admit, I don't know.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Number Of Iraqi Civilians Slaughtered In America's War? As Many As 250,000

Number of U.S. Military Personnel Slaughtered (Officially acknowledged) In America's War 2364

Cost of America's War in Iraq

$272,621,797,290

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

According to IBC:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
the "Number of Iraqi Civilians Slaughtered" in the 39 month period 1/1/2003 to 3/31/2006 is 38,161. Less than 7,200 of these were killed by US military operations in 2003 and less than 800 were killed by US military operations 1/1/2004 through 3/31/2006.

I'll trust your other two numbers until and unless I learn not to.

By the way, according to my calculations from the IBC data above and from the data obtained from Britannica Books of the Year, Population and Vital Statistics, the "Number of Iraqi Civilians Slaughtered" by the Saddam regime in the 39 month period 1/10/1999 to 12/31/2002 was 72,241.

0 Replies

ican, You have absolutely no credibility. All rightwing/conservative position and lies have failed all who beleived in them.

my/our record and perdictions have been right on the whole time since 2000.

If peolpe would have listened to the their fellow American protesters and desenters instead of the Bush government from the very begining history would be differant. Thats a fact. Now they reep what they sow and it is a bitter fruit.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

ican, You have absolutely no credibility. All rightwing/conservative position and lies have failed all who beleived in them. ...

Who are you trying to convince? Me or you?

This reads like conventional bigotry!
"All rightwing/conservative position and lies have failed all who beleived in them."

I was first exposed to analysis of conventional bigotry statements by my 6th grade teacher. One basic form is:
All persons X do Y.
Another basic form is:
All persons X are Y.

It becomes clear that it is a bigoted statement when one learns that the speaker/writer cannot possibly know all persons X , much less know what all persons X have done or not done.

Explore this form of definition statement:
If and only if one does A, then one is a B.

0 Replies

ican,

When speaking of having events and the timing of them confirmed by actual participants, I wasn't speaking in the abstract universe, but specific to the report as detailed in The Washington Post article posted and linked to above.

Specifically:

"The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons -- who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it. "

0 Replies

One can argue as to how many angel hairs can be put on the head of a pin (a somewhat tangled version of the saying), but at some point, as regards to consequences, it matters not whether the Bush administration was incompetent, dissembling in its' public relations utterances; or both.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Amigo wrote:
ican, You have absolutely no credibility. All rightwing/conservative position and lies have failed all who beleived in them. ...

Who are you trying to convince? Me or you?

This reads like conventional bigotry!
"All rightwing/conservative position and lies have failed all who believed in them."

I was first exposed to analysis of conventional bigotry statements by my 6th grade teacher. One basic form is:
All persons X do Y.
Another basic form is:
All persons X are Y.

It becomes clear that it is a bigoted statement when one learns that the speaker/writer cannot possibly know all persons X , much less know what all persons X have done or not done.

Explore this form of definition statement:
If and only if one does A, then one is a B.

My statement is based and backed up by our (liberal, left wing whacko,etc,etc) record of what we told people was the truth and what was going to happen and what happened against what you said then and know.

There is no bigotry in the record, the facts and the position that the lies and deceptive policies of people like you and the people you support have put America in.

YOU ARE DELUSIONAL. YOUR PSEUDO-LOGIC IS PATHETIC.

0 Replies

Pressure on Shiites Is Giving the U.S. New Ally in Sunnis

Quote:

New Ally in Sunnis
Rice Visit Seen as Highlighting a Shift

By Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, April 13, 2006; A17

BAGHDAD, April 12 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's trip here this month to pressure Iraqi leaders to form a new government sparked a slew of familiar complaints about U.S. meddling in Iraqi affairs.

One party official described the visit as "manipulation" that cheated the politicians out of exercising their newly won democratic rights.

The spokesman for an influential cleric called her presence "unwelcome" and accused her of "suspicious intentions."

Less familiar, however, was the source of the charges: Iraq's Shiite Muslim leaders, close U.S. allies since the 2003 invasion. Meanwhile, Sunni Arab politicians, some of whom dined with Rice on her only night in Baghdad, made a point of thanking her and Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad for what they called their newfound evenhandedness.

"I looked Condi in the eye and told her, 'Your ambassador shows tremendous courage and is doing a hell of good job in Iraq,' " said Tariq al-Hashimi, secretary general of the Iraqi Islamic Party, which like almost all Sunni parties boycotted Iraq's January 2005 elections and has denounced the American occupation at every turn. Before that night, he said, he had never met the secretary of state.

In recent weeks there has been stepped-up pressure on Iraq's Shiite leaders, including strong statements about the dangers posed by Shiite militias, less-than-subtle discouragement of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari's bid to keep his post and accusations against Iraq's Shiite-ruled neighbor, Iran, of fomenting instability.

A joint U.S.-Iraqi army raid last month on a religious and political complex in Baghdad, which included an office of Jafari's Dawa party and an alleged hide-out for a Shiite militia, further inflamed the rift. Some Shiite leaders have complained openly of betrayal by the United States and compared the recent U.S. diplomatic stance to the Americans' refusal to actively support an abortive Shiite uprising against Saddam Hussein in 1991.

"There's lots of talks in the street and among politicians who see that lately the Americans are hard on the Shiites and favoring the Sunnis by rewarding them and hoping they are going to lay down their weapons and stop being the resistance. There is fear and concern," said Adnan Ali Kadhimi, an adviser to Jafari.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know