The Iraq Thread 2

[CosmicCastaway 0]

Perhaps he tripped and fell onto some bullets.

Edit: Linky

[denoir 0]

Perhaps he tripped and fell onto some bullets.

Edit: Linky

  Unbelievable

---

On another note. Bush made the following statement yesterday:

Quote[/b] ]

"We won't be proven wrong. I believe that we will find the truth, and the truth is, he was developing a program of weapons of mass destruction"

Isn't it lovely. Before the war it was 30,000 rounds of chemical munitions, 5 tons of VX, 2 tons of anthrax.

Last week it was "Evidence of a WMD program".

Now it's "Evidence of development of a WMD program"

Note that it is not the development of WMD but the development of a WMD program.

Quote[/b] ]

This brick could have very well been used in a factory that could have been used in developing weapons of mass destruction. QED

   

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]This brick could have very well been used in a factory that could have been used in developing weapons of mass destruction.

more like

This brick could have very well been used in a factory that could have been used in developing a factory that could possibly be used to develope plans for a WMD program.

Ah well, TBA stupidity stinks.

[walker 0]

Hi all

You should check out the evidence Kely gave to the Select Commitee.

It took them just a few minutes to realise he was not the source of the info that Gilligan used in his report that proved the "dodgy dosier" nor the source for the 45 minutes to use WMD claim.

At the end the commitees opinion was that he had been set up as a fall guy by No. 10 and as a distraction from Gilligan's reports that so embarass The Blair Administration (TBA2)

It is well know that the press believed that TBA2 was using him as a lever to open up the BBC so they would give up the BBC's "Deep Throat" source.

Kind Regards walker

[Bernadotte 0]

So, who has the most to gain by Kelly's death?

[Akira 0]

Anyone ever see The Omen movies?

Bush is SO Damian!

[SgtBarnes 0]

So, who has the most to gain by Kelly's death?

Certainly not the British government...

They`ve announced there`ll be a full judicial enquiry into the WMD evidence issue if Kellys` death is confirmed.

Blair did his best to deflect calls for this type of enquiry, but it looks like he`s been forced to concede.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3077309.stm

Edit: Turns out the enquiry will be limited to just the `events surrounding Kellys' death`

[Akira 0]

Howard Dean has asked the President 16 questions about the uranium claim. Whether or not he will get an answer is another thing.

Dean Speaks

[denoir 0]

Howard Dean has asked the President 16 questions about the uranium claim. Whether or not he will get an answer is another thing.

Dean Speaks

For those lazy, here are the 16 questions. All good questions, I might add.

Quote[/b] ]

1. Mr. President, beyond the NSC and CIA officials who have been identified, we need to know who else at the White House was involved in the decision to include the discredited uranium evidence in your speech, and, if they knew it was false, why did they permit it to be included in the speech

2. Mr. President, we need to know why anyone in your Administration would have contemplated using the evidence in the State of the Union after George Tenet personally intervened in October 2002, to have the same evidence removed from the President's October 7th speech. (The Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Mike Allen, 7/13/2003)

3. Mr. President, we need to know why you claimed this very week that the CIA objected to the Niger uranium sentence "subsequent" to the State of the Union address, contradicting everything else we have heard from your administration and the intelligence community on the matter. (The Washington Post, Priest, Dana and Dana Milbank, 7/15/2003)

4. Mr. President, we urgently need an explanation about the very serious charge that senior officials in your Administration may have retaliated against Ambassador Joseph Wilson by illegally disclosing that his wife is an undercover CIA officer. (The Nation, Corn, David, 7/16/2003)

5. Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration persisted in using the intercepted aluminum tubes to show that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear program and why your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, claimed categorically that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," when in fact our own government experts flatly rejected such claims. (CNN, 9/08/2002, Knight Ridder News Service, 10/04/2002)

6. Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Rumsfeld created a secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon that selectively identified questionable intelligence to support the case for war including the supposed link to al-Qaeda while ignoring, burying or rejecting any evidence to the contrary. (New Yorker, Seymour Hersh, 5/12/03)

7. Mr. President, we need to know what the basis was for Secretary Rumsfeld's assertion that the US had bulletproof evidence linking Al Qaeda to Iraq, despite the fact that U.S. intelligence analysts have consistently agreed that Saddam did not have a "meaningful connection" to Al Qaeda. (NY Times, Schmitt, Eric, 9/28/2002, NY Times, Krugman, Paul, 7/15/2003)

8. Mr. President, we need to know why Vice President Cheney claimed last September to have "irrefutable evidence" that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, an assertion he repeated in March, on the eve of war. (AP, 9/20/2002, NBC 3/16/2003)

9. Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Powell claimed with confidence and virtual certainty in February before the UN Security Council that, "Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent.  That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." (UN Address, 2/05/2003)

10. Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Rumsfeld claimed on March 30th  in reference to weapons of mass destruction, "We know where they are.  They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." (The Guardian, Whitaker, Brian and Rory McCarthy, 5/30/2003)

11. Mr. President, we need an explanation of the unconfirmed report that your Administration is dishonoring the life of a soldier who died in Iraq as a result of hostile action by misclassifying his death as an accident. (Time, Gibbs, Nancy and Mark Thompson, 7/13/2003)

12. Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration has never told the truth about the costs and long-term commitment of the war, has consistently downplayed what those would be, and now continues to try keep the projected costs hidden from the American people.

13. Mr. President, we need to know why you said on May 1, 2003 , that the war was over, when US troops have fought and one or two have died nearly every day since then and your generals have admitted that we are fighting a guerrilla war in Iraq. (Abizaid, Gen. John, 7/16/2003)

14. Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration had no plan to build the peace in post-war Iraq and seems to be resisting calls to include NATO, the United Nations and our allies in the stabilization and reconstruction effort.

15. Mr. President, we need to know what you were referring to in Poland on May 30, 2003, when you said, "For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong.  We found them." (The Washington Post, Mike Allen, 5/31/2003)

16. Mr. President, we need to know why you incorrectly claimed this very week that the war began because Iraq would not admit UN inspectors, when in fact Iraq had admitted the inspectors and you opposed extending their work. (The Washington Post, Priest, Dana and Dana Milbank, 7/15/2003)

[Akira 0]

The White House Strikes Back

*cue Star Wars music*

The White House now has released the CIA estimate that they claim they used for the State Of The Union address.

[FSPilot 0]

Have to register to see your link Akira.

I don't like the washington post anyway

[Akira 0]

For those that have to register:

Quote[/b] ]White House Releases CIA Info on Iraq

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN

The Associated Press

Friday, July 18, 2003; 2:11 PM

WASHINGTON - An intelligence assessment by the CIA last October cites "compelling evidence" that Saddam Hussein was attempting to reconstitute a nuclear-weapons program, according to documents released Friday by the White House.

Mounting a campaign to counter criticism that it used flawed intelligence to justify war with Iraq, the White House made public excerpts of the intelligence community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. That report helped shape now-challenged comments by President Bush in his State of the Union address that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium in Africa.

The report asserts that Baghdad "if left unchecked...probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

It also cites unsubstantiated reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from three African countries: Niger, Somalia and "possibly" Congo.

The White House sought to bolster its case as U.S. officials said that documents alleging Iraq sought uranium from Africa were obtained months before Bush cited them in making his case for war. But intelligence analysts did not look at them closely enough to know they were forgeries until after Bush had made the claim, U.S. officials say.

[denoir 0]

UN chief 'seeks Iraqi handover'

Another US soldier is killed in Iraq. Coalition deaths stopped getting headlines of their own in Swedish media a couple of weeks ago. I see that it has come to BBC now too. Now it's just mentioned casually in a paragraph deep inside on of the Iraq articles. ("And today another US soldier was killed in Iraq...")

[FSPilot 0]

I have to admit I'm more and more wanting to see our troops out of Iraq.

[denoir 0]

And leave the country in a total state of chaos? That would be the worst possible outcome of the war.

How long do you think before Iran would step in to "secure order"?

[FSPilot 0]

I didn't say that.

We need to get the job done ASAP. Find out whoevers slagging off over there and kick his/her ass.

[Warin 0]

I didn't say that.

We need to get the job done ASAP.  Find out whoevers slagging off over there and kick his/her ass.

Their... as in, this isnt just one person. The longer resistance occurs, the harder it is to blame it on just a select few malcontents.

[FSPilot 0]

I mean the people in the coalition who are in charge of things like getting the power back on, securing the oil supply so the Iraqis can make some money, getting the crime problem under control. all of these things should of been taken care of by now.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ] .........securing the oil supply so the Iraqis can make some money.........

Securing the oil supply is a realistic goal - but it won't be easy. My guess is that the pipelines all over Iraq will be blown up every now and then. The money however is indeed a political matter and I guess that if the US companies have come to stay forever it won't make things better. It will definately be considered as exploitation.

Quote[/b] ] .......getting the crime problem under control......

If the coalition of the stupid keep on treating the opposition as a "criminal problem" - then the battle is lost already. The britts tried that in Northern Ireland and it only caused problems for the british when the IRA prisoners went on the blanket protesting. If your government does the same mistake the effect will only help their cause - a lot! Just think about it - do you really believe the iraqi people have less world wide sympathy than the terrorists of IRA had back in the seventies?

IRA:

-targeted civilians and military personell

-involved in "ordinary" criminal activities

-by many around the world considered purely as terrorists

Iraqi opposition:

-targeting military personell only ( ? )

-not reported to take part in ordinary criminal activity

-lots of worldwide sympathy.

+ unclear if they are connected to Saddam's former apparatus.

You tell me?

[FSPilot 0]

bgrnorway

Quote[/b] ]Securing the oil supply is a realistic goal - but it won't be easy. My guess is that the pipelines all over Iraq will be blown up every now and then. The money however is indeed a political matter and I guess that if the US companies have come to stay forever it won't make things better. It will definately be considered as exploitation.

Plus getting all the necessary equipment in the area, if it's not already there.

Quote[/b] ]If the coalition of the stupid keep on treating the opposition as a "criminal problem" - then the battle is lost already. The britts tried that in Northern Ireland and it only caused problems for the british when the IRA prisoners went on the blanket protesting. If your government does the same mistake the effect will only help their cause - a lot! Just think about it - do you really believe the iraqi people have less world wide sympathy than the terrorists of IRA had back in the seventies?

IRA:

-targeted civilians and military personell

-involved in "ordinary" criminal activities

-by many around the world considered purely as terrorists

Iraqi opposition:

-targeting military personell only ( ? )

-not reported to take part in ordinary criminal activity

-lots of worldwide sympathy.

+ unclear if they are connected to Saddam's former apparatus.

You tell me?

I was referring to the looting and general unrest, not the guerilla warfare, which I don't think they're treating as criminals.

[Bernadotte 0]

So, who has the most to gain by Kelly's death?

Certainly not the British government...

I totally agree. And according to the latest news, it appears to be suicide.

I believe we are witnessing the true beginning of the end of Tony Blair's political career.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I believe we are witnessing the true beginning of the end of Tony Blair's political career.

Well...

Blair up to resign ?

[denoir 0]

Ok, so he slashed his wrists. Why did it take the police almost one day to make a postive identification?

..

Anyway, things are looking bad for Blair. I just watched on the news how he was more or less assaulted with reproters that asked very unpleasant questions.

I guess that's some form of justice. Politicans can lie and decieve until some point the media turns on them. Then they're dog food.

[denoir 0]

OMG, this must be the lamest, most pathetic excuse the White house has come up with: White House acknowledges Bush didn't read all of Iraq assessment

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON -- President Bush and his national security adviser didn't entirely read the most authoritative prewar assessment of U.S. intelligence on Iraq, including a State Department statement that an allegation Bush would later use in his State of the Union address was "highly dubious," White House officials said Friday.

The acknowledgment came in a briefing for reporters in which the administration released excerpts from last October's National Intelligence Estimate, a classified, 90-page summary that was the definitive assessment of Iraq's weapons programs by U.S. intelligence agencies. The report declared that "most" of the six intelligence agencies thought there was "compelling evidence that Saddam (Hussein) is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program."

But the document also included a pointed dissent by the State Department saying the evidence didn't "add up to a compelling case" that Iraq was making a comprehensive effort to get nuclear weapons.

The unusual decision to declassify a major intelligence report was a bid by the White House to quiet a growing controversy over Bush's allegations about Iraq's weapons programs. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is seeking to question White House aides after hearing from CIA officials who claim that Bush aides pushed to include contested allegations about Iraq's nuclear ambitions in Bush's speech. The CIA account was contradicted by the White House during Friday's briefing.

Bush aides released eight pages of the National Intelligence Estimate, including various findings supporting Bush's charges against Iraq: that Iraq was "continuing, and in some areas expanding," chemical, biological and nuclear programs; that it possessed forbidden chemical and biological weapons; and that it was likely to have a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade.

But the excerpts also show that significant doubts were raised about key assertions Bush made in his State of the Union address, contradicting claims made by Bush and senior aides that there were no doubts expressed until after Bush's Jan. 28 address. According to the National Intelligence Estimate -- a document based on the work of six agencies -- both the Energy Department, which is responsible for watching foreign nuclear programs, and the State Department disagreed with the claim, voiced by Bush, that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were meant for a nuclear weapons program.

The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, also offered a caustic criticism of the controversial claim, voiced by Bush in his State of the Union address, that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Africa. "The claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious."

The senior administration official said neither Bush nor National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice read the entire National Intelligence Estimate. "They did not read footnotes in a 90-page document," said the official, referring to the section that contained the State Department's dissent. The official rejected reporters' entreaties to allow his name to be used, arguing that it was his standard procedure for such sessions to be conducted anonymously.

The official said Bush was "briefed" on the National Intelligence Estimate's contents, but "I don't think he sat down over a long weekend and read every word of it." Asked whether Bush was aware the State Department called the Africa uranium claim "highly dubious," the official, who coordinated Bush's State of the Union address, said: "He did not know that."

"The president was comfortable at the time, based on the information that was provided in his speech," the official said of the decision to use it in the address to Congress. "The president of the United States is not a fact-checker."

......

Ok, they release 8 selected pages out of 90 total pages of the NIE and even those pages contain serious reservations about the accuracy of the intelligence. You can then imagine what the other 82 pages contain.

[Bernadotte 0]

..

Anyway, things are looking bad for Blair. I just watched on the news how he was more or less assaulted with reproters that asked very unpleasant questions.

For those who need a little background about this mess:

<ul>A couple weeks ago, BBC reported that Blair intentionally "sexed up" the Iraq dossier to deceive the public, however the BBC refused to reveal their source of this info.

Blair knew that he could not fight against such an anonymous source and therefore set up a parliamentary committee to investigate the report.

The committee focussed its interogation on Dr. Kelly who denied being the source.

Dr. Kelly felt very persecuted and under great pressure for not leading the Blair government to the real source.

Dr. Kelly kills himself and the media is now blaming Blair's witchhunt tactics for his death.