THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

cicerone imposter wrote:

For those who still thinks Bush didn't lie or provided erroneous information to the American public about his invastion of Iraq, read the following article by an insider. We know this won't change your mind, but it says a whole lot about those who refuse to acknowledge that Bush is not only dangerous to the world at large, but to all Americans.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mcclellan_book_14

Quote:

"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House," she said. "For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad - this is not the Scott we knew."

I conclude Bush did not lie: that is, did not knowingly provide erroneous information to the American public about his invastion of Iraq; but Bush did unknowingly provide erroneous information to the American public about his invastion of Iraq.

"Disgruntled" may have everything to do with the truth. Disgruntled people often have an agenda, as do people trying to sell books they've authored -- and "truth" isn't usually at the top of said agendas.

(And would one of you tell me what the hell an "invastion" is?)

"Disgruntled" may have everything to do with the truth. Disgruntled people often have an agenda, as do people trying to sell books they've authored -- and "truth" isn't usually at the top of said agendas.

Supposedly everybody in the Bush administration who has come out and spoken against them are "disgruntled."

revel wrote:

Supposedly everybody in the Bush administration who has come out and spoken against them are "disgruntled."

Supposedly everyone in the Bush administration who has come out and spoken for the Bush administration is biased.

I suspect, Ican, that the plethora of books coming out from this admin's folks have the same purpose as those that came out from folks in other admins: (A) sell books/make some money/become a pundit and (B) spin things so that they might end up looking like they were responsible for the successes but were out of the loop on any failures.
Months ago I heard a comment to the effect that "Journalism is the 1st draft of history." I reckon that these memoirs are a 2nd draft.

I won't argue the point that people who write books want to sell books. Seems obvious to me. However, as recently as 2006 Bush and others in the administration were praising McClellan so to now call him a "disgruntled ex-employee" does not ring true.

Also there have been too many other books from this administration who have all revealed similar things concerning Iraq and the Bush administration. Added to that is the post war finding since then which have said what the administration knew then at the time of selling the war to the public verses how they portrayed it to the public. Evidence of this has been left in this forum and on this and the previous Iraq threads so I do not see a need to go through it all again only to go through the same arguments from the same people.

revel wrote:

I won't argue the point that people who write books want to sell books. Seems obvious to me. However, as recently as 2006 Bush and others in the administration were praising McClellan so to now call him a "disgruntled ex-employee" does not ring true.

Also there have been too many other books from this administration who have all revealed similar things concerning Iraq and the Bush administration. Added to that is the post war finding since then which have said what the administration knew then at the time of selling the war to the public verses how they portrayed it to the public. Evidence of this has been left in this forum and on this and the previous Iraq threads so I do not see a need to go through it all again only to go through the same arguments from the same people.

So true; and yet, it still doesn't penetrate those who continue to believe Bush didn't lie or mislead the country into war. They all forgot about the WMD spin this administration took to sell this war; Bush's SOU speech, and Colin Powell's presentation to the UN are legend. The wordes "mismanaged and incompetent" doesn't seem to phase those who still "trust" Bush. Any CEO with such a record would have been booted long ago.

Oh, so lies are not in fact lies when you have convinced yourself they are truth?

I doubt any court in the country would support that.

Cycloptichorn

cicerone imposter wrote:

revel wrote:

I won't argue the point that people who write books want to sell books. Seems obvious to me. However, as recently as 2006 Bush and others in the administration were praising McClellan so to now call him a "disgruntled ex-employee" does not ring true.

Also there have been too many other books from this administration who have all revealed similar things concerning Iraq and the Bush administration. Added to that is the post war finding since then which have said what the administration knew then at the time of selling the war to the public verses how they portrayed it to the public. Evidence of this has been left in this forum and on this and the previous Iraq threads so I do not see a need to go through it all again only to go through the same arguments from the same people.

So true; and yet, it still doesn't penetrate those who continue to believe Bush didn't lie or mislead the country into war. They all forgot about the WMD spin this administration took to sell this war; Bush's SOU speech, and Colin Powell's presentation to the UN are legend. The wordes "mismanaged and incompetent" doesn't seem to phase those who still "trust" Bush. Any CEO with such a record would have been booted long ago.

There is zero evidence that Bush knowingly mislead the country: that is, lied. But there is evidence that Bush mislead the country as well as himself.

Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.

The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.

One result was a largely one-sided presentation to the public that did not convey the depth of evidence and argument against the administration's most tangible proof of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq.

About Iraq on the Record
Presented by Rep. Henry A. Waxman

"[T]he reporting that we had prior to the war this time around was all consistent with that -- basically said that he had a chemical, biological and nuclear program, and estimated that if he could acquire fissile material, he could have a nuclear weapon within a year or two."
Source: Transcript of interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004).

This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program. The statement also failed to mention weeks of intensive inspections conducted directly before the war in which United Nations inspectors found no sign whatsoever of any effort by Iraq to resume its nuclear program. In addition, it failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

If we had had that information and ignored it, if we'd been told, as we were, by the intelligence community that he was capable of producing a nuclear weapon within a year if he could acquire fissile material and ignored it . . . we would have been derelict in our duties and responsibilities."
Source: Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim Gerlach, White House (10/3/2003).

This statement was misleading because it failed to provide the context that the U.S. intelligence community believed that Iraq probably would not be able to make a nuclear weapon until near the end of the decade.

In terms of the question what is there now, we know for example that prior to our going in that he had spent time and effort acquiring mobile biological weapons labs, and we're quite confident he did, in fact, have such a program. We've found a couple of semi trailers at this point which we believe were, in fact, part of that program."
Source: Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004).

This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

"It isn't a figment of anyone's imagination that just 15 years ago they gassed and killed 5,000 people with sarin and VX at a place called Halabja I visited just a few weeks ago. They never lost that capability."
Source: Remarks After Meeting with Hungarian Foreign Minister Laszlo Kovacs, State Dept (10/3/2003).

This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

"Going into the war against Iraq, we had very strong intelligence. I've been in this business for 20 years. And some of the strongest intelligence cases that I've seen, key judments by our intelligence community that Saddam Hussein . . . had biological and chemical weapons . . . ."
Source: National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice Interview with ZDF German Television, ZDF German Television (7/31/2003).

This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

"One item I showed was cartoons of the mobile biological van. They were cartoons, artist's renderings, because we had never seen one of these things, but we had good sourcing on it, excellent sourcing on it. And we knew what it would look like when we found it, so we made those pictures. And I can assure you I didn't just throw those pictures up without having quite a bit of confidence in the information that I had been provided and that Director Tenet had been provided and was now supporting me in the presentation on, sitting right behind me. And we waited. And it took a couple of months, and it took until after the war, until we found a van and another van that pretty much matched what we said it would look like. And I think that's a pretty good indication that we were not cooking the books."
Source: Press Briefing, State Dept (7/10/2003).

This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

"QUESTION: When I was in Iraq, some of the soldiers said they believed they were fighting because of the Sept. 11 attacks and because they thought Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaida. You've repeatedly cited such links. . . . I wanted to ask you what you'd say to those soldiers, and were those soldiers misled at all? VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: . . . . With respect to . . . the general relationship. . . . One place you ought to go look is an article that Stephen Hayes did in the Weekly Standard . . . That goes through and lays out in some detail, based on an assessment that was done by the Department of Defense and forwarded to the Senate Intelligence Committee some weeks ago. That's your best source of information. I can give you a few quick for instances, one the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. QUESTION: Yes, sir . . . . VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: The main perpetrator was a man named Ramzi Yousef. He's now in prison in Colorado. His sidekick in the exercise was a man named Abdul Rahman Yasin. . . Ahman Rahman . . . Yasin is his last name anyway. I can't remember his earlier first names. He fled the United States after the attack, the 1993 attack, went to Iraq, and we know now based on documents that we've captured since we took Baghdad, that they put him on the payroll, gave him a monthly stipend and provided him with a house, sanctuary, in effect, in Iraq, in the aftermath of nine-ele (sic) . . . the 93' attack on the World Trade Center. QUESTION: So you stand by the statements? VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Absolutely. Absolutely. And you can look at Zarkawi, (Abu Mussab) al-Zarkawi . . . Who was an al-Qaida associate, who was wounded in Afghanistan, took refuge in Baghdad, working out of Baghdad, worked with the Ansar al Islam group up in northeastern Iraq, that produced a so-called poison factory, a group that we hit when we went into Iraq. . . . We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions."
Source: Transcript of interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004).

This statement was misleading because it asserted that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. The statement also refers to the Ansar al Islam group in Northeastern Iraq without acknowledging that this area was not controlled by Saddam Hussein.

"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11."
Source: Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004).

This statement is misleading because it describes a Czech government report of a meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraq intelligence official Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani in April 2001 and states that there hasn't been more information on that, despite the fact that Czech intelligence officials were skeptical about the report; U.S. intelligence had contradictory evidence regarding this report, such as records indicating Atta was in Virginia at the time of the meeting; and the C.I.A. and F.B.I. had concluded the meeting probably didn't occur.

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

This statement was misleading because it starkly evoked a threat of Iraq detonating a nuclear bomb when there was deep division in the intelligence community on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.

At the time that the State of the Union address was prepared, there were also other sources that said that they were, the Iraqis were seeking yellow cake, uranium oxide from Africa."
Source: This Week with George Stephanopolous, ABC (6/8/2003).

This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought uranium from Africa despite the fact that the CIA expressed doubts about the credibility of this claim in two memos to the White House, including one addressed to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. CIA Director George Tenet also warned against using the claim in a telephone call to Ms. Rice's deputy. In addition, the statement fails to mention that State Department intelligence officials also concluded that this claim was "highly dubious."

"[H]e has made repeated covert attempts to aquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed. These tubes are controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group precisely because they can be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium. By now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes and we all know that there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most US experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium."
Source: Remarks to the United Nations Security Council, United Nations (2/5/2003).

This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government's most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.

With each passing day, Saddam Hussein advances his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and could pass them along to terrorists. If he is allowed to do so, the result could be the deaths not of 3,000 people, as on September 11th, but of 30,000, or 300,000 or more innocent people."
Source: Donald H. Rumsfeld Delivers Remarks to American Troops, Defense Department (3/20/2003).

This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an imminent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

"Notable progress" has been made in Iraq despite persistent problems, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday at an international summit to promote peace in the violence-wracked country.

If we were asked to use just one word to describe the situation in Iraq today, I would choose the word 'hope,' " Ban said at the Stockholm, Sweden, conference. "Iraq is stepping back from the abyss that we feared most."

Yet Iraqis continue to suffer from terrorism, sectarian violence and criminality, he said, and "essential services are still sorely lacking."

Forced displacement and human-rights violations remain problems, particularly for women and minorities, he said, but the level of violence has declined from that of 2006 and part of 2007.

"There is new hope that the people and government of Iraq are overcoming daunting challenges and working together to rebuild their country after years of war, neglect and dictatorship," Ban said.

The secretary-general spoke at the summit known as the International Compact with Iraq. Officials from Arab nations, the United States, Iran and other countries are attending the summit, hosted by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.