The Iraq thread 4

[EiZei 0]

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.wor....-01.gif

Yet another flip-flo... policy readjustment.

[DarkLight 0]

Quote[/b] ]Actually, all he asked was if you'd like it or not if some foreign smartasses would invade YOUR country...

All they would want is for you and your buddies to have a country full of peace and democracy!!!

So why not like it, huh?

erm.. No, I do not answer those types of questions.

I wonder why...

Quote[/b] ]Furthermore, please refrain from using lame-ass insults...

Uhm

ok

edit: ps: gotta love politicians

[Balschoiw 0]

Bremer was misunderstood also.......

Great day for Kerry !

He doesn´t even have to do much with these nerds running around.

One more speech Mr. Rumsfeld ! Pleeeaaassse

[brgnorway 0]

Bremer was misunderstood also.......

Great day for Kerry !

He doesn´t even have to do much with these nerds running around.

One more speech Mr. Rumsfeld ! Pleeeaaassse    

I'm very pesimistic about this! It won't change a thing. People believe what they want to believe. The only way Rummy is going to make republican voters change their mind is if there exist a picture of him where he personally torture and rape Abu Graib prisoners.

Nothing will change and "it's all about the economy stupid" !

[Tozmeister 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3718150.stm

Quote[/b] ]

Inspectors conclude no WMD in Iraq

Charles Duelfer has led the Iraq Survey Group since January

The group hunting for banned weapons inside post-war Iraq is preparing to report that it has found no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

But the Iraq Survey Group will assert that Saddam Hussein had plans to start producing weapons in defiance of UN sanctions, US officials say.

Chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer will reveal the findings on Wednesday.

Much of the content of the report has been anticipated since a draft of the report was leaked last month.

Mr Duelfer is due to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he is expected to confirm that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction when the US-led invasion began in March 2003.

That verdict has been widely anticipated since the former head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, resigned from his position in January.

'Clandestine schemes'

US government officials told the New York Times that the report would include new evidence that Saddam Hussein had plans to break UN-imposed sanctions and renew the production of banned weapons.

The officials, speaking anonymously, said the report would detail efforts by Iraq to bypass sanctions while they were still in place, and to undermine international support for them.

Those efforts were reported to include the use of clandestine laboratories to manufacture small quantities of chemical and biological weapons for use in assassinations.

BBC Pentagon correspondent Nick Childs says the report, which runs to more than 1,000 pages, is being billed as the most definitive account yet of Iraq's weapons programmes.

Our correspondent says that with the political stakes in the US so high and Iraq so central to the debate, Republican and Democratic camps in the presidential race will seize on the different elements of the report to argue that it bolsters their case for or against the Iraq war.

However, the document will stop short of offering a final judgement about the situation before the war.

Instead, the Iraq Survey Group is expected to continue translating and evaluating an estimated 10,000 boxes of documents seized in Iraq.

[turms 0]

More lies from liberal commie media follows:

Iraq Had No Stockpiles of WMD - Duelfer

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons for military use before last year's U.S.-led invasion and its nuclear program had decayed since the 1991 Gulf War, a U.S. weapons inspector said in testimony on Wednesday.

His report contrasted with statements by the Bush administration before the invasion, when it cited weapons of mass destruction as the main reason for overthrowing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"I still do not expect that militarily significant WMD stocks are cached in Iraq," Charles Duelfer, the CIA special adviser who led the hunt for weapons of mass destruction, said in testimony prepared for the Senate Armed Services Committee obtained by Reuters.

Reuters

CIA Report Finds No Conclusive Zarqawi-Saddam Link

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A CIA report has found no conclusive evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which the Bush administration asserted before the invasion of Iraq.

"There's no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi," a U.S. official said on Tuesday about the CIA findings.

But the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, stressed that the report, which was a mix of new information and a look at some older information, did not make any final judgments or come to any definitive conclusions.

"To suggest the case is closed on this would not be correct," the official said in confirming an ABC News story about the CIA report that the network said was delivered to the White House last week.

ABC quoted an unnamed senior U.S. official as saying that the CIA document raises "serious questions" about Bush administration assertions that Zarqawi found sanctuary in pre-war Baghdad.

"The official says there is no clear cut evidence that Saddam Hussein even knew Zarqawi was in Baghdad," ABC reported.

The CIA report concludes Zarqawi was in and out of Baghdad, but cast doubt on reports that Zarqawi had been given official approval for medical treatment there as President Bush said this summer, ABC said.

Earlier on Tuesday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan reasserted that there was a relationship between Saddam and Zarqawi.

"He was in contact from Baghdad with Ansar al-Islam in the northeastern part of Iraq. He had a cell operating from Baghdad during that period, as well. So there are clearly ties between Iraq and -- between the regime, Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qaeda," McClellan told reporters.

Before last year's invasion to topple Saddam, the Bush administration portrayed Zarqawi as al Qaeda's link to Baghdad.

Following Saddam's capture in December and waves of suicide attacks on U.S. and Iraqi security forces which followed, Zarqawi quickly became America's top enemy in Iraq. The United States placed a $25 million bounty on his head.

The Jordanian-born Zarqawi and his militant Tawhid and Jihad group have claimed responsibility for a string of suicide bombings, kidnappings and hostage beheadings.

Reuters

So why did the invasion happen? "The world is a safer place without Saddam" ? Terrorism is on the rise,highest than ever. Iran has a nuclear program, USA is isolating itself from the rest of the world.

Why?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]CIA Report Finds No Conclusive Zarqawi-Saddam Link

I think that´s quite interesting as Cheney made that claim again yesterday in his debate with Edwards....

Makes you wonder how informed the White House is AT ALL  

[ralphwiggum 6]

oops! guess he realized that he was in trouble.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/bremer.iraq.ap/index.html

Quote[/b] ]EAST LANSING, Michigan -- A day after suggesting that the United States didn't initially send enough troops to Iraq to stem lawlessness, the former top U.S. administrator in Iraq softened his assessment, saying he only recognized the problem with the benefit of hindsight and insisted there are enough soldiers on the ground now.

"One way to have stopped the looting would have been to have more troops on the ground," L. Paul Bremer told an audience of more than 400 people Tuesday at Michigan State's Wharton Center. "That's a retrospective wisdom of mine, looking backward. I think there are enough troops there now for the job we are doing."

"We certainly had enough (troops) going into Iraq, because we won the war in a very short three weeks," he said. "The point that I have been making, and that has gotten a little bit distorted in the press recently, is that, as I look back now, I believe it would have been better to stop the looting that was found right after the war."

Bremer, whom President Bush appointed as head of the Iraq occupation, had said Monday that the United States failed to stop widespread looting after toppling the Iraqi leader and "paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness."

"We never had enough troops on the ground," he said then.

[billybob2002 0]

*Goes outside the library*

Hmmm.. the anti-war folk's bi-weekly "protest" is in full-swing... couple of people standing around with posters...

*Goes back inside the library*

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3....2

Quote[/b] ]

Saddam Told Interrogators of Iran Fixation

6 minutes ago   White House - AP Cabinet & State

By LAURA MECKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was obsessed with his status in the Arab world, dreaming of weapons of mass destruction to pump up his prestige. And even as the United States fixated on him, he was fixated on his neighboring enemy, Iran.

That is the picture that emerges from interrogations of the former Iraqi leader since his capture last December, according to the final report of the chief U.S. arms inspector, which gives a first glimpse into what the United States has gleaned about Saddam's hopes, dreams and insecurities.

The report suggests that Saddam tried to improve relations with the United States in the 1990s, yet basked in his standing as the only leader to stand up to the world's superpower.

It says Saddam was determined that if Iran was to acquire nuclear weapons, so was Iraq (news - web sites).

And it says he was a narcissist who cared deeply about his legacy, making sure bricks were molded with his name in hopes people would admire them for centuries to come.

Weapons hunter Charles Duelfer had access to information from U.S. interrogations of Saddam over several months. The former Iraqi dictator apparently talked not because he wanted to help the United States, but because he was concerned with his legacy, the report says.

Much of his motivation in the quest for weapons of mass destruction came from neighboring Iran and the two countries' "long-standing rivalry over the centuries," including the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

"From Saddam's viewpoint, the Persian menace loomed large and was a challenge to his place in history," the report says.

"This was an important motivation in his views on WMD — especially as it became obvious that Iran was pursuing the very capabilities he was denied," said the report, which found no evidence that Iraq had produced any such weapons after 1991.

Saddam has been out of sight since his capture from a spider hole near Tikrit last December, except for an appearance in July at a preliminary hearing in Baghdad. Then, he defiantly scoffed at charges of war crimes and mass killings and said the charges had been engineered by President Bush (news - web sites) "to help him with his campaign."

Officials have said that interrogations of Saddam, first by the CIA (news - web sites) and then by the FBI (news - web sites), have yielded little helpful information about weapons programs and the insurgency in Iraq. But Tuesday's report shows they have provided new insight into his thinking.

Saddam was angry that other Persian Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, enjoyed good standing in the West.

"His regime views the Gulf Arabs as undeserving," the report said. "They did not earn respect; the West simply wanted their oil."

Iran, as much if not more than the United States, motivated his interest in nuclear weapons.

"Nuclear programs were seen by Saddam as both a powerful lever and symbol of prestige," the report. "He also did not want to be second to the Persians."

Despite years of hostility with the United States, Saddam had mixed feelings about the Americans and through the 1990s tested U.S. willingness to open a dialogue, the report said. He sent "very senior Iraqis" to make various proposals, such as assistance with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, working through intermediaries including Duelfer — the report's author.

At the same time, Saddam got a boost from America's hostility.

"He accrued power and prestige far beyond his inherent weight by positioning himself as the only leader to stand up to the last superpower," the report said.

At a Senate hearing, Duelfer was asked why — if Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion — he did not simply comply with U.S. and U.N. demands in an attempt to avert the war. Duelfer said Saddam's instincts were always to negotiate — to seek something in return before giving something up.

"He had not realized the nature of the ground shift in the international community," after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Duelfer said.

Until the end, Saddam saw himself as a great leader of a great nation, the report says. With an eye to history, he had bricks made for use in the historic city of Babylon molded with the phrase, "Made in the era of Saddam Hussein," mimicking the ancient bricks there.

"This narcissism characterizes his actions," the report says. "And while it is not always visible, it is always there."

[miles teg 1]

That report on Saddams view of Iran simply gives more reasons to support the notion that we invaded the wrong country if we should have invaded any country at all.

Any intelligence analyst worth a damn could have told you that the current regime in Iran would have been far easier to overthrow then Saddam's regime due to the intense hatred of the governing ayatollahs who have total control over their parliament. Furthermore Iran does possess WMD's (certainly chemical and possibly biological weapons) and its been known for a long time that they were pursuing developent of nuclear weapons.

Sadly however the Bush administration made a tremendous miscalculation in invading Iraq. Now, unless we start up a draft and dramatically increase the size of our military, invading Iran would be extremely difficult.

What I believe this week has shown is that Bush flat out lied to the American public. They twisted horrifically the facts in order to mislead the American public into believing we were going to war for righteous reasons and to protect our nation against terrorism.

In reality I strongly believe the real reason for the war was pure and simple: Oil.

Former US Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill, on 60 minutes showed classified documents drawn up before 9/11 which clearly showed Iraqi's oil fields devided up amongst several companies. This segement was eliminated from their web-cast of that night's show.

This crucial piece of evidence I believe is crucial in proving that the Bush administration's primary goal was to control the oil fields of Iraq in order to secure the flow of oil to the United States and give us the ability to gain more leverage against the EU and OPEC.

However for some wierd reason the Kerry campaign isn't using this information....well I guess for the same reason...it's classified. Still there must be some way to get ahold of that document.

The sad thing is that many Bush supporters would probably still support Bush even knowing this. Like Bush they are not willing to admit that they were wrong and like Bush, rationalize their actions to justify to themselves that they did the right thing.

Furthermore I see no signs from Bush that he has any clue about how to get America out of this mess in Iraq. Kerry has at least some clue (reaching out to the Islamic world for cooperation)...but still he needs to put forth a more detailed plan. What is a safe bet however is that indeed European leaders would much more likely be willing to deal with Kerry then with Bush. Europeans generally hate Bush and any politican that supports the Bush administration's actions in Iraq is usually committing political suicide.

But Kerry is another matter. At least his administration will likely have far fewer links to the oil industry and the whole mess in Iraq.

But if Bush wins the election I am deeply afraid of what his administration might be willing to do in their self-righteous ferver. I am also deeply afraid for this country's constitution.

On the plus side I think for more years of Bush will be enough to convince people that without a doubt, Bush is a disasterous and dangerous leader in a critical period in world history.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Blake 0]

wrong forum for this post  

[billybob2002 0]

http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.clickability.com/pt....ID=2006

Quote[/b] ]

Report links U.N. to Iraq bribes

NEW YORK (AP) -- The top U.S. arms inspector has accused the former head of the $60 billion U.N. oil-for-food program of accepting bribes in the form of vouchers for Iraqi oil sales from Saddam Hussein's government.

The report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, alleges the Iraqi government manipulated the U.N. program from 1996 to 2003 in order to acquire billions of dollars in illicit gains and to import illegal goods, including acquiring parts for missile systems.

The alleged schemes included an Iraqi system for allocating lucrative oil vouchers, which permitted recipients to purchase certain amounts of oil at a profit.

Benon Sevan, the former chief of the U.N. program, is among dozens of people who allegedly received the vouchers, according to the report, which said Saddam personally approved the list.

The secret voucher program was dominated by Russian, French and Chinese recipients, in that order, with Saddam spreading the wealth widely to prominent business men, politicians, foreign government ministries and political parties, the report said.

The report names former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, Indonesian president Megawati Sukarnoputri, and the Russian radical political figure Vladimir Zhirinovsky as voucher recipients, for example, and other foreign governments range from Yemen to Namibia.

The governments of Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Egypt did a brisk illicit oil trade with Iraq as well -- more than $8 billion from 1991 until 2003, the report said.

"These governments were full parties to all aspects of Iraq's unauthorized oil exports and imports," it said.

The officials whose names have emerged in the face of multiple ongoing investigations of corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program have previously denied wrongdoing. The program was designed to allow limited oil sales to pay for humanitarian goods.

Asked about the fresh allegations against Sevan, U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said the organization wouldn't talk about specifics and noted Paul Volcker, the former chief of the U.S. Federal Reserve, was conducting an independent investigation at the U.N.'s request.

"We are not going to comment on any specific allegation against Mr. Sevan or anyone else," Eckhard said.

"This is in the hands of Paul Volcker. We are cooperating with him fully. Benon Sevan is cooperating with him fully, and we will wait for Volcker's judgment. Benon, meanwhile, stands by his statement that he's done nothing wrong."

According to the Duelfer report, which got its information from the former Iraqi oil ministry, Sevan allegedly received vouchers for 7.3 million barrels of oil through various companies and representatives recommended to Iraqi ministries by Sevan. The financial take would have been in the range of $700,000 to $2 million, depending on oil prices.

Critics of the oil-for-food program and U.S. congressional investigators have long alleged that administration of the program was rife with corruption and failed to prevent illicit business deals and massive kickbacks to the Iraqi government.

The report said, "Saddam was able to subvert the UN OFF (oil-for-food) program to generate an estimated $1.7 billion in revenue outside U.N. control from 1997-2003."

And it said the voucher program, "provided Saddam with a useful method of rewarding countries, organizations and individuals willing to cooperate with Iraq to subvert U.N. sanctions."

"Once the oil for food program began, it provided all kind of levers for him (Saddam) to manipulate his way out of sanctions," Duelfer told Congress on Wednesday.

Congressional investigators praised Duelfer's report.

"Mr. Duelfer's conclusions show the full breadth of Saddam Hussein's corruption and manipulation of the U.N. Oil for Food program," said Henry Hyde, R-Ill., who chairs the House International Relations Committee.

Reports that Sevan had received oil vouchers first emerged in January when the Iraqi daily Al-Mada newspaper published a list of alleged recipients. But Duelfer's report provides new details and a new degree of credibility.

In April, the United Nations appointed Volcker to head the independent investigation of the growing scandal.

Four congressional panels have also been investigating the corruption and accusations that Saddam used leverage from the program to influence foreign governments and particularly members of the Security Council, who would vote whether to maintain sanctions.

   

[denoir 0]

..except for that there never was any money - or at least none they have been able to trace. Both the UN and various member countries have investigated for over a year now.

Except for some shady documents that look that they were made by the Iraqi oil ministry, there is no evidence. And not even those documents could be authenticated. The current Iraqi government did an investigation, but could not corroborate the docs.

So they could be new fakes or fakes made by Saddam for extortion purposes or something.

Did the oil-for-food program have problems with corruption? Most likely yes - various people have been suspected and all the big players have launched investigations during the entire time of the program. It has however not been proved.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.nbc4i.com/news/3746350/detail.html

Quote[/b] ]

Decorated Soldier Reportedly Attacked At Concert

Barton Cannot Return To Iraq Due To Injuries

POSTED: 5:54 pm EDT September 20, 2004

UPDATED: 10:15 am EDT September 21, 2004

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A local soldier back from the war in Iraq said he was beaten at an area concert because of what was printed on his T-shirt, NBC 4's Nancy Burton reported.

Foster Barton, 19, of Grove City, received a Purple Heart for his military service in Iraq. He almost lost his leg last month after a Humvee he was riding in ran over a landmine.

Barton said he was injured again Friday night in a crowded parking lot as he was leaving the Toby Keith concert at Germain Amphitheatre. The solider was injured so badly that he can't go back to Iraq as scheduled.

"I don't remember getting hit at all, really," said Barton, a member of the 1st Calvary Division. "He hit me in the back of the head. I fell and hit the ground. I was knocked unconscious and he continued to punch and kick me on the ground."

Barton and his family said he was beat up because he was wearing an Iraqi freedom T-shirt.

"It's not our fault," Barton said. "I'm just doing a job."

According to a Columbus police report, six witnesses who didn't know Barton said the person who beat him up was screaming profanities and making crude remarks about U.S. soldiers, Burton reported.

One witness, a friend of the alleged attacker, said Barton hit first. Police said they do not think that witness is credible since the six other witnesses said Barton was hit from behind.

Barton's mother said she has a message for her son's alleged attacker, who police said ran into the crowd after the incident and was not arrested.

"He needs our prayers, just like the insurgents, because he's a coward," Cindy Barton said.

After a two-week leave, Barton was supposed to return to Iraq Tuesday. But his broken nose will delay his return.

Barton is waiting for doctors to tell him when he can return to active duty. He said wants to go back as soon as possible because his unit was just attacked. Eleven soldiers were wounded and two were killed, he said.

[ralphwiggum 6]

out of all the places, Toby Keith concert....anyone wanna bet Toby Keith will either pay for the victim's bill or bring him on stage?

and about the oil vouchers: old claim, never substantiated.

[ralphwiggum 6]

.

http://www.cnn.com/2004....ex.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States, accustomed to giving advice on democracy, is in the unfamiliar position of getting some from international election observers schooled in Tajikistan, Ethiopia and other emerging democracies.

Two observer groups have been examining U.S. voting systems for compliance with international standards for free and fair elections.

The very idea disgusts some Republicans, who say it sends a message of weakness and compromises U.S. sovereignty. (Special Report: America Votes 2004)

Some Democrats say the scrutiny is overdue.

Former President Carter, for one, has said some U.S. voting systems don't meet international standards "even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair." (Disabled hail e-voting despite doubts)

The observers already have found problems typical in countries with far less than 200 years of voting experience.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a 55-state security group, said ballot secrecy is at risk because of the way some overseas ballots are being handled.

The Bush administration invited the OSCE observers as part of a standing agreement among member states.

David MacDonald, a Canadian member of a team organized by the San Francisco human rights group Global Exchange, said observers were shocked to find that partisan officials run U.S. elections.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]out of all the places, Toby Keith concert....anyone wanna bet Toby Keith will either pay for the victim's bill or bring him on stage?

and about the oil vouchers: old claim, never substantiated.

Charles Duelfer report likely will put the issue back in the public light.

hehe...Toby Keith...

Quote[/b] ]. cnn

Wrong thread, NEWBIE!!!!  

[ralphwiggum 6]

it's n00b!

[Balschoiw 0]

An article that somes up the developements of the last days and puts them into context.

Bush's case for war in ruins

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON - Is there anything at all left of the Bush administration's case for going to war in Iraq or, for that matter, the way it has been fought?

The answer seems increasingly doubtful given what appears to be an accelerating cascade of news, leaks and admissions by senior administration officials over the past several weeks. Consider what has been disclosed in just the last few days.

On Monday, Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York that he had never seen any "strong, hard evidence that links" ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein with the al-Qaeda terrorist network, which was one of the administration's two major justifications for the war.

One day later, the New York Times confirmed reports by Knight Ridder newspapers about the existence of a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) study on the Iraq-based Jordanian "arch-jihadi", Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which had found no concrete evidence to support the administration's prewar insistence that Saddam's government had given him safe haven or that he coordinates his actions in any way with al-Qaeda.

On Wednesday, Charles Duelfer, the chief US weapons inspector in Iraq and head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, pounded the final nail in the coffin of the second most commonly cited justification for the March 2003 invasion. His final report concluded not only that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) at the time of the invasion, but that he made no effort to reconstitute them after United Nations weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

Indeed, the report, which was based an 18-month search for Iraq's weapons and covered more than 1,200 suspect sites in Iraq, a review of more than 41 million documents, interviews with Saddam, his top staff and many Iraqi weapons-program scientists and engineers, concluded that while Saddam was hoping to rebuild a WMD program - particularly one of nuclear weapons - his ability to do so had actually deteriorated over the previous five years, in stark contrast to the administration's warnings and Bush's current campaign rhetoric that Saddam posed "a gathering threat" to the United States and its allies.

As Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin put it, the latest findings mean that the Bush administration had "created a worst-case scenario on virtually no evidence".

If that were not enough to throw the administration on the defensive, consider what else has come out over the past week or so, as well as the sources of the information.

On Monday, the former US viceroy in Baghdad, Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) chief Paul Bremer, was quoted as telling an insurance group the administration "never had enough troops on the ground" in Iraq, whether during the invasion, to prevent looting, or over the months that followed.

This has been precisely the critique of quite a number of retired military officers, many Democrats - most especially, of course, presidential candidate Senator John Kerry - and a number of prominent Republican senators, who themselves have become increasingly vocal about the administration's performance in Iraq.

And while White House officials tried hard to convince reporters that Bremer had never requested more troops, two "senior officials" contacted by the New York Times on Tuesday admitted that the CPA chief, who has been prominently mentioned as a possible secretary of state in a second Bush term, had indeed pressed for more forces, even before he went to Baghdad in June 2003.

The Bremer story broke just one day after the Times ran an unusually long investigative report on how another specific and highly questionable pre-war administration allegation - that 60,000 aluminum tubes Baghdad tried to buy in early 2001 was firm evidence Saddam Hussein was trying to build a nuclear weapon.

Based primarily on interviews with officials throughout the US intelligence community, the report found that nuclear-engineering experts at the Energy Department had shot down the notion - which originated with a junior CIA analyst who, according to the Times, "got his facts wrong, even about the size of the tubes" - within 24 hours of its being raised in 2001, and did so in four detailed reports that followed.

Aside from the now-discredited report that Iraq tried to buy uranium "yellowcake" from Niger, as well as the testimony of a self-proclaimed Iraqi nuclear scientist handled by the exiled Iraqi National Congress, the tubes were the only evidence for any nuclear program at all, according to the Times report.

While doubts within the intelligence agencies persisted, the administration, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, raised the specter of a "mushroom cloud" as the only proof, and worked to keep both the public and the Congress in the dark about the dissenting views in the Energy and State departments.

These latest revelations come against a background as well of what has become an escalating battle between the White House and CIA career officers, who apparently are seriously concerned about the agency being blamed for mistaken estimates in the lead-up to the war, especially in the super-heated environment of a presidential campaign and amid considerable politicking over a pending reorganization of the entire US intelligence community.

Thus, while Bush and Cheney last month were fending off charges by Kerry and the Democrats that the situation in Iraq was increasingly chaotic as a result of administration incompetence, CIA officials leaked details of a classified National Intelligence Estimate delivered to the White House in August that concluded the best-case scenario in Iraq over the next 16 months was more of the instability and violence that have prevailed since April.

As likely, according to the leaked assessment, was that Iraq could dissolve into civil war.

A second document drafted two months before the invasion by the National Intelligence Council, which is chaired by the CIA, predicted a number of the challenges - including a strong anti-American insurgency and a surge in anti-American sentiment throughout the Muslim world - Washington would face as a result of war.

The two leaks provoked an outraged response titled "The CIA's insurgency" by editorial writers at the the Wall Street Journal, which was one of the leading voices for war, as well as from other neo-conservative voices.

James Pavitt, a career CIA officer who retired as head of the agency's clandestine service in July, told the Times he had never in his 31-year career seen such "viciousness and vindictiveness" in the fight between the CIA and its political masters, but could not resist a kicker of his own.

"There was nothing in the intelligence [produced by the CIA] that was a casus belli" that would justify war with Iraq, he said, echoing Kerry.

Worth a read.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]out of all the places, Toby Keith concert....anyone wanna bet Toby Keith will either pay for the victim's bill or bring him on stage?

and about the oil vouchers: old claim, never substantiated.

Charles Duelfer report likely will put the issue back in the public light.

Indeed.

Quote[/b] ]The report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, alleges the Iraqi government manipulated the U.N. program from 1996 to 2003 in order to acquire billions of dollars in illicit gains and to import illegal goods, including acquiring parts for missile systems.

The alleged schemes included an Iraqi system for allocating lucrative oil vouchers, which permitted recipients to purchase certain amounts of oil at a profit.

Benon Sevan, the former chief of the U.N. program, is among dozens of people who allegedly received the vouchers, according to the report, which said Saddam personally approved the list.

The secret voucher program was dominated by Russian, French and Chinese recipients, in that order, with Saddam spreading the wealth widely to prominent business men, politicians, foreign government ministries and political parties, the report said.

The report names former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, Indonesian president Megawati Sukarnoputri, and the Russian radical political figure Vladimir Zhirinovsky as voucher recipients, for example, and other foreign governments range from Yemen to Namibia.

The governments of Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Egypt did a brisk illicit oil trade with Iraq as well — more than $8 billion from 1991 until 2003, the report said.

“These governments were full parties to all aspects of Iraq’s unauthorized oil exports and imports,†it said.

- CNN: Report links U.N. to Iraq bribes

EDIT: Oops. Already posted by BB.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]EDIT: Oops. Already posted by BB.

...........

Quote[/b] ]about the oil vouchers: old claim, never substantiated.

let me correct something...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....igation

Quote[/b] ]

Report: U.N. Program Full of Corruption

2 hours, 21 minutes ago   U.S. National - AP

By DESMOND BUTLER, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - Vivid allegations by the top U.S. arms inspector of widespread corruption at the U.N. oil-for-food program have added credibility to accusations the United Nations (news - web sites) looked the other way while Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s government skimmed billions of dollars and offered kickbacks to European and Arab countries and officials.

The inspector's report implicates the top U.N. official overseeing the $60 billion program, accusing him of accepting bribes in the form of vouchers for Iraqi oil sales, and details Iraqi manipulation to illegally enrich Saddam's government and influence Security Council members.

The alleged schemes included an Iraqi system for allocating lucrative oil vouchers, which permitted recipients to purchase certain amounts of oil at a profit, according to the report issued Wednesday by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq (news - web sites) Survey Group.

He said the Iraqi government manipulated the U.N. program from 1996 to 2003 to acquire billions of dollars in illicit gains and to import illegal goods, including parts for missile systems. The report estimates Saddam generated $10.9 billion in hard currency through illicit means from 1990 to 2003 during the entire U.N. sanctions period after the Gulf War (news - web sites).

The report also said vouchers "provided Saddam with a useful method of rewarding countries, organizations and individuals willing to cooperate with Iraq to subvert U.N. sanctions."

Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) jumped on the allegations.

"The suggestion is clearly there by Mr. Duelfer that Saddam had used the program in such a way that he had bought off foreign governments and was building support among them to take the sanctions down," Cheney said Thursday during an appearance in Miami.

Responding to the report, a high-ranking Republican congressman demanded the United Nation's independent inquiry speed up its timetable and release documents to Congressional investigators.

"The world cannot wait years for answers to the growing body of evidence implicating senior U.N. officials in outright corruption," said Rep. Henry Hyde (news, bio, voting record), who chairs the House International Relations Committee.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) in April appointed former Fed chairman Paul Volcker to lead an independent investigation. He has said his committee will not deliver a report before mid-2005. Volcker has refused to share with Congress documents for their probes, including 55 internal audits of the oil-for-food program produced by the United Nations.

The Duelfer report said Benon Sevan, the former chief of the U.N. program, is among dozens of people who allegedly received secret oil vouchers, with Saddam personally approving the list of recipients. The voucher list was dominated by Russian, French and Chinese recipients, in that order, with Saddam spreading the wealth widely to prominent business leaders, politicians, foreign government ministries and political parties, the report said.

U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard refused comment on "any specific allegation against Mr. Sevan or anyone else."

"This is in the hands of Paul Volcker," he added. "We are cooperating with him fully. Benon Sevan is cooperating with him fully, and we will wait for Volcker's judgment. Benon, meanwhile, stands by his statement that he's done nothing wrong."

The report also names former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, Indonesian president Megawati Sukarnoputri and the Russian radical political figure Vladimir Zhirinovsky as voucher recipients and other foreign governments range from Yemen to Namibia.

Zhirinovsky denied the allegations.

"I never took a drop (of oil), or a single dollar from Iraq or from any other country. I have never dealt with oil," Russia's Interfax news agency cited Zhirinovsky as saying Thursday. "I do not care what (bribes) someone might have received. I personally gained nothing."

Zhirinovsky has visited Iraq frequently and called for increased trade between the two countries. The oil companies mentioned included top Russian producers Yukos and Lukoil. Company officials could not immediately be reached to comment on the allegations.

In France, Foreign Ministry spokesman Herve Ladsous counseled caution.

"It is important to assure oneself very precisely on the veracity of this information," he said. "We understand that these accusations against companies and individuals were not verified either with the people themselves or with the authorities of the countries concerned."

Marty Natalegawa, a spokesman for the Indonesian foreign ministry said: "There is no credence to these allegations. It's a fact that we took part in the oil for food program, but this notion of vouchers is far fetched. There were no dealings other than the oil for food."

The names of American companies and individuals who may have been involved in oil deals weren't released because of U.S. privacy laws, the report said.

The program was designed to allow limited oil sales to pay for humanitarian goods.

The governments of Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Egypt also did a brisk illicit oil trade with Iraq — more than $8 billion from 1991 until 2003, the report said: "These governments were full parties to all aspects of Iraq's unauthorized oil exports and imports."

[billybob2002 0]

Here is the report...

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

Edit:

erm...here is the full report...

Quote[/b] ]http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/dciwmd93004rpt-3.pdf

[Frisbee 0]

Really now. If you openly state your opinion on such a polemic issue you're going to have to take in account some illiterate prick will resort to violence where his diplomatic skills fail him.

If I go out to a concert with a T-shirt "I support our troops" with a nice Stars&Stripes I'm going to get harassed, and maybe even beat up about it.

If I go out with a "I support Terrorism. Free Palestine! Allah ou akhbar!" type T-shirt with say, Bin Laden on it, the same thing would happen.

The latter is maybe less likely in Europe, and the first maybe less likely in the US, but still.

There're pricks like that everywhere, it's low and cowardly, but you shouldn't go cry to your mommy about it, imho.

Do you go to a concert to wave your opinion on politics in everybody's face, or do you go to listen to music and have fun?

Leave the politics at home kids.

[Akira 0]

I bet he was cryin' his head off too that he couldn't go back to Iraq