What Else is New?

[hcap]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/21-1

Published on Sunday, June 21, 2009 by The Observer/UK
Confidential Memo Reveals US Plan to Provoke an Invasion of Iraq

by Jamie Doward, Gaby Hinsliff and Mark Townsend

A confidential record of a meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq, outlining their intention to go to war without a second United Nations resolution, will be an explosive issue for the official inquiry into the UK's role in toppling Saddam Hussein.

The memo, written on 31 January 2003, almost two months before the invasion and seen by the Observer, confirms that as the two men became increasingly aware UN inspectors would fail to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) they had to contemplate alternative scenarios that might trigger a second resolution legitimising military action.

Bush told Blair the US had drawn up a provocative plan "to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover". Bush said that if Saddam fired at the planes this would put the Iraqi leader in breach of UN resolutions.


.................................................. ............................

Another straw that breaks the neocons' proverbial
"camels back".

R.I.P. WMDs as the justification for war.

So neos, why didn't we wait for the UN inspectors to finish their job??
Bush and Blair would have been exposed for the liars that they are.
So no matter all your bleating and whining about "everybody thought Saddam had WMDs" -NOT TRUE at ALL!!!-the lie was in play all along.

[Tom]

Good title. :sleeping:

[jballscalls]

let's worry more about getting out of this mess that were in now, and the possible huge mess we are going into. JMHO.

[boxcar]

let's worry more about getting out of this mess that were in now, and the possible huge mess we are going into. JMHO.

You might as well talk to a brick wall. Cap is hopelessly stuck on stupid. If you don't believe me, look at his tag line. He hates Bush so much that he can't accept the fact that he's no longer president. If he ever comes to accept this fact, all that hate that had an object outside of himself would probably be turned inward, and we'll no longer hear from 'cap because he would have jumped off some 42-story building.

Boxcar

[delayjf]

A confidential record of a meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq, outlining their intention to go to war without a second United Nations resolution, will be an explosive issue for the official inquiry into the UK's role in toppling Saddam Hussein.

The memo, written on 31 January 2003, almost two months before the invasion and seen by the Observer, confirms that as the two men became increasingly aware UN inspectors would fail to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) they had to contemplate alternative scenarios that might trigger a second resolution legitimising military action.

Bush told Blair the US had drawn up a provocative plan "to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover". Bush said that if Saddam fired at the planes this would put the Iraqi leader in breach of UN resolutions.

This is idiotic.

Probably came from the same “observer” used by Woodward.
So the grand plan was to fly a high altitude spy plane low enough and slow enough over Iraq so that the UN markings are clearly visible from the ground in order to entice the Iraqi’s to fire upon the aircraft. :lol:

Why would this even be necessary when Iraq is already guilty of firing at US aircraft flying in the no-fly zone.

Also, given the top secret nature of the U-2, I doubt there are any U2’s under UN Command. I can find nothing that states that the UN has U2 among its inventory. So now imagine their surprise when informed that one of the UN’s U2s was fired upon.

[boxcar]

This is idiotic.

Probably came from the same “observer” used by Woodward.
So the grand plan was to fly a high altitude spy plane low enough and slow enough over Iraq so that the UN markings are clearly visible from the ground in order to entice the Iraqi’s to fire upon the aircraft. :lol:

Why would this even be necessary when Iraq is already guilty of firing at US aircraft flying in the no-fly zone.

Also, given the top secret nature of the U-2, I doubt there are any U2’s under UN Command. I can find nothing that states that the UN has U2 among its inventory. So now imagine their surprise when informed that one of the UN’s U2s was fired upon.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Goes to show just how easily the mind-numbed, brain-waveless, robotic Left can be duped.

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

What else is new? I'll tell you what isn't new...everything you just posted! :lol:

Everything you just wrote was in Oliver Stone's "W" movie, including the U2 thingy....

But hey, thanks for posting your "coup" and congrats to commondreams for breaking such a covert story....:lol:


http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/21-1

Published on Sunday, June 21, 2009 by The Observer/UK
Confidential Memo Reveals US Plan to Provoke an Invasion of Iraq

by Jamie Doward, Gaby Hinsliff and Mark Townsend

A confidential record of a meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq, outlining their intention to go to war without a second United Nations resolution, will be an explosive issue for the official inquiry into the UK's role in toppling Saddam Hussein.

The memo, written on 31 January 2003, almost two months before the invasion and seen by the Observer, confirms that as the two men became increasingly aware UN inspectors would fail to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) they had to contemplate alternative scenarios that might trigger a second resolution legitimising military action.

Bush told Blair the US had drawn up a provocative plan "to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover". Bush said that if Saddam fired at the planes this would put the Iraqi leader in breach of UN resolutions.


.................................................. ............................

Another straw that breaks the neocons' proverbial
"camels back".

R.I.P. WMDs as the justification for war.

So neos, why didn't we wait for the UN inspectors to finish their job??
Bush and Blair would have been exposed for the liars that they are.
So no matter all your bleating and whining about "everybody thought Saddam had WMDs" -NOT TRUE at ALL!!!-the lie was in play all along.

[Snag]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/21-1

Published on Sunday, June 21, 2009 by The Observer/UK
Confidential Memo Reveals US Plan to Provoke an Invasion of Iraq

by Jamie Doward, Gaby Hinsliff and Mark Townsend

A confidential record of a meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq, outlining their intention to go to war without a second United Nations resolution, will be an explosive issue for the official inquiry into the UK's role in toppling Saddam Hussein.

The memo, written on 31 January 2003, almost two months before the invasion and seen by the Observer, confirms that as the two men became increasingly aware UN inspectors would fail to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) they had to contemplate alternative scenarios that might trigger a second resolution legitimising military action.

Don't you find the first statement in this article starts with a "confidential report" and "seen by the Observer" a bit strange. It was a memo written by whom? Is the Observer the only one to have seen this memo? Is it not confidential any more?

The holes in this story are bigger than the holes in the ozone use to be.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Did you miss all the reports of dual use equiptment, shooting at female no-zone pilots, secretly selling oil for weapons, or did you just let Saddam slide on those and other violations?

[Lefty]

libs have to keep "ragging" on Bush/Cheney, cause they can't find anything good to say about Obama/Biden

[rastajenk]

Just a brief glance at the comments under the linked piece is enough to realize what kind of moonbats lap up such lunacy.

[Tom]

What else is new? I'll tell you what isn't new...everything you just posted! :lol:

Everything you just wrote was in Oliver Stone's "W" movie, including the U2 thingy....

But hey, thanks for posting your "coup" and congrats to commondreams for breaking such a covert story....:lol:


I thought that "fish" smelled old! :lol:

[Secretariat]

Hcap,

Good post, but it's been evident for a long time the Iraq War was a war of choice, not of necessity. No 911 connection. No WMD stockpiles. Cheney and Rumsfield wanted it, and GW nodded his head like a bobblehead.

I can understand you want some accountability for lying to the American people. I don't think it will happen. Obama doesn't have the stomach for it and prefers the Gerald Ford approach.

But I appreciate you documenting the betrayal that led to the loss of so many fine soldiers and countless Iraqis who had nothing to do with 911.

................................

"What's the difference?" - GWs response when asked by a reporter about the failure to find WMD stockpiles.

[boxcar]

Hcap,

Good post, but it's been evident for a long time the Iraq War was a war of choice, not of necessity. No 911 connection. No WMD stockpiles. Cheney and Rumsfield wanted it, and GW nodded his head like a bobblehead.

I can understand you want some accountability for lying to the American people. I don't think it will happen. Obama doesn't have the stomach for it and prefers the Gerald Ford approach.

But I appreciate you documenting the betrayal that led to the loss of so many fine soldiers and countless Iraqis who had nothing to do with 911.

................................

"What's the difference?" - GWs response when asked by a reporter about the failure to find WMD stockpiles.

Goes to show what happens when someone is hardwired into the DU. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

I can understand you want some accountability for lying to the American people. I don't think it will happen. Obama doesn't have the stomach for it and prefers the Gerald Ford approach.Maybe Obama realizes that if he buys into your propaganda, he's going to have to not only indict Bush/Cheney, but also Clinton/Gore, our current VICE PRESIDENT Joe Biden and Lord knows who else...cause as you see, we have video evidence that the "lies" as you put them, have been propagated for a VERY long time...WELL BEFORE ol' "W" ever waltzed into town.

N5p-qIq32m8

[Secretariat]

Yuo know what PA. If Clinton and Gore and Biden need to be held accountable so be it, but Bush and Darth Vader defintely need to be.

When a President says this:

"Bush told Blair the US had drawn up a provocative plan "to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover". Bush said that if Saddam fired at the planes this would put the Iraqi leader in breach of UN resolutions."

In other words Bush was authorizing a Wag the dog plan that would put U2 pilots in danger of being shot at to begin a war under false pretenses. That my friend is a bit more than Billy Boy, Gore and Biden stated.

[Warren Henry]

Yuo know what PA. If Clinton and Gore and Biden need to be held accountable so be it, but Bush and Darth Vader defintely need to be.

When a President says this:

"Bush told Blair the US had drawn up a provocative plan "to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover". Bush said that if Saddam fired at the planes this would put the Iraqi leader in breach of UN resolutions."

In other words Bush was authorizing a Wag the dog plan that would put U2 pilots in danger of being shot at to begin a war under false pretenses. That my friend is a bit more than Billy Boy, Gore and Biden stated.

I thought we already discounted this theory?

If Bush was so evil and so powerful, why didn't he just arrange to have a little bit of WMD planted for the troops to find. Would have been easy to do.

[hcap]

Simple question. Why did bush and blair NOT wait for the UN inspectors to finish?
There was no conclusive evidence that Saddam had WMDs or was involved with Al Qada for that matter. After the UN was forced to remove resources from Iraq in the late 90s, the state of their weapons program was in doubt. Although you gentlemen believe it was a "slam dunk", that was not believed by most of the International community.

It was a not certainty. That's why the UN inspectors were there, and a second UN resolution was argued.

And 10 million protesters marched worldwide

The official policy of the Clinton administration was containment. Not war.
Georgie and pals morphed that into a crusade. So if even "everyone" believed in the tale of Saddams' WMDs being an existential, and imminent threat-which not "eveyone" did believe-the findings of the UN inspectors were vital and would have settled the question.

How much grief would have been avoided, and, blood, and treasure would have been saved if the UN inspectors were given a few more months?

Yes this is old news but public inquiries are coming. Obama is not going to look at it yet. But other countries are investigating. The Hague may be in the bush/blair/rummy gangs' future. And yes, this is why my tag line is so complimentary :ThmbDown: to the previous crusader rabbit preznit.

I used to believe Richard Milhous Nixon wad the worst preznit in my lifetime.
Now there is a tie for first place.

[hcap]

From the Observer.....

"Brown had believed that allowing the Chilcott inquiry to hold private hearings would allow witnesses to be candid. But after bereaved families and antiwar campaigners expressed outrage, the prime minister wrote to Chilcott to say that if the panel can show witnesses and national security issues will not be compromised by public hearings, he will change his stance.

Lord Guthrie, a former chief of the defence staff under Blair, described the memo as "quite shocking". He said that it underscored why the Chilcott inquiry must be seen to be a robust investigation: "It's important that the inquiry is not a whitewash as these inquiries often are."

This year, the Dutch government launched its own inquiry into its support for the war. Significantly, the inquiry will see all the intelligence shared with the Dutch intelligence services by MI5 and MI6. The inquiry intends to publish its report in November - suggesting that confidential information about the role played by the UK and the US could become public before Chilcott's inquiry reports next year."

[rastajenk]

So you believe in maintaining the status quo. That allowing Saddam and his boys to remain in power for another 10, 20, 30 years or more would have gotten no more than a shoulder shrug. That free elections and the end of the mass murder of Iraqi citizens ain't no big deal. And that all the ripple effects in the region, some of which are yet to be known, are all worse than the stability that Saddam provided.

Is that the progressive view? Sounds sort of conservative to me, if we're just using the words without the current political infusion of invective.

[hcap]

Why would this even be necessary when Iraq is already guilty of firing at US aircraft flying in the no-fly zone.Bush and buddies could not ever in a million years SOLD the war based on that nonsense. WMDs and evil connections to Al Qada were the operative "sales" plan.

So you believe in maintaining the status quo. That allowing Saddam and his boys to remain in power for another 10, 20, 30 years or more would have gotten no more than a shoulder shrug.That argument as well would not have moved us to war.

[rastajenk]

That's not what I asked.

[hcap]

But it is the much more important answer. The war was based on lies, one of which was the overwhelming need to take Saddam out. The neocon knee jerk assumption of imminent danger.

Your assumption is not a given.

[Tom]

Nice dodge.

[delayjf]

Simple question. Why did bush and blair NOT wait for the UN inspectors to finish?
Because SH was leading the inspection teams around by the nose. SH admitted he was trying to deceive the world into believing he had WMD. Guess what, it worked. He also admitted that given the chance he would rebuild his WMD program.

There are enough politicians in DC that hated Bush and would love to hang him from the tallest tree, but they also know they got nothing on him and that the intel at the time supported Bush's decision. They won't go after him not because they want to put the war in the past but because they know they too would come out looking bad, and they would have too much to lose politically. It works out better for them to keep the public uninformed and maintain Bush's unpopularity.

Again, seriously, I understand your hatred for Bush, but how do you reconcile this "conspiracy" with the fact that the UN does not have U2s. On the facts this one is not even close.

[hcap]

Because SH was leading the inspection teams around by the nose. SH admitted he was trying to deceive the world into believing he had WMD. Guess what, it worked. He also admitted that given the chance he would rebuild his WMD program.Other than rebuilding if he could-which he could not, all Bull.

1-Saddam had provided a dossier on all weapons programs that turned out to be fairly accurate.

2-All efforts to find WMds during and after the war were useless.

3-Saddam offered to let the CIA come into Iraq and search. Bush didn't take him up on his offer.

4-None of the info given to the UN by the US led to anything.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

(CBS) While diplomatic maneuvering continues over Turkish bases and a new United Nations resolution, inside Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases.

....In fact, the U.S. claim that Iraq is developing missiles that could hit its neighbors – or U.S. troops in the region, or even Israel – is just one of the claims coming from Washington that inspectors here are finding increasingly unbelievable. The inspectors have become so frustrated trying to chase down unspecific or ambiguous U.S. leads that they've begun to express that anger privately in no uncertain terms.

....U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.

# Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing."

# Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing."

# Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight."

The inspectors do acknowledge, however, that they would not be here at all if not for the threat of U.S. military action.

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word. The inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis, who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game, and the United States, whose intelligence they've found to be circumstantial, outdated or just plain wrong.

.................................................. ..............

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2004/inspectionsiraq20040202.html

IAEA, UN Inspections in Iraq Worked
Newsweek Magazine Interviews Director General
Staff Report
02 February 2004
IAEA and Iraq


IAEA and UN inspections of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes worked, Newsweek magazine reports in its latest edition. The magazine cites the record of international inspections and of the US-led Iraq Survey Group, whose past leader, David Kay, recently stepped down and reported his findings.

Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria writes:

"We were all wrong," says weapons inspector David Kay. Actually, no. There was one group whose prewar estimates of Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities have turned out to be devastatingly close to reality - the U.N. inspectors.


.................................................. ...............

THIS IS WHY BUSH/BLAIR/RUMMY DID NOT WAIT!

[hcap]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1


There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

1,625 UN and US inspectors spent two years searching 1,700 sites at a cost of more than $1bn. Yesterday they delivered their verdict

Saddam Hussein destroyed his last weapons of mass destruction more than a decade ago and his capacity to build new ones had been dwindling for years by the time of the Iraq invasion, according to a comprehensive US report released yesterday.

The report, the culmination of an intensive 15-month search by 1,200 inspectors from the CIA's Iraq Survey Group (ISG), concluded that Saddam had ambitions to restart at least chemical and nuclear programmes once sanctions were lifted.

However, concrete plans do not appear to have been laid down, let alone set in motion. Nor did Saddam issue direct verbal orders to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The main evidence of his intentions are his own cryptic remarks, and the meaning his aides inferred from them.

The ISG conclusions, delivered to Congress yesterday, are badly timed for George Bush's re-election bid, as they starkly contradict his pre-war claims as well as statements he has made on the campaign trail.

.................................................. .....................................

Of course for some reason even the trail to the sands of Syria came up cold.
But I'm sure some of you guys are still digging.

Whatever happenened to that old theory?
Are you still pushing that one? :lol: :lol: :lol: :bang: :bang:

[delayjf]

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

Wrong, American troops were treated for sarin gas and Al Queda attached chems to their IEDs. What we didn't find were large stockpiles of WMDs.

Saddam Hussein destroyed his last weapons of mass destruction more than a decade ago and his capacity to build new ones had been dwindling for years by the time of the Iraq invasion, according to a comprehensive US report released yesterday.

That means they were destroyed back in 1994, yet the Clinton administration claimed that Iraqi did possess WMDs as late as 1998. Apparently nobody in Congress or the Clinton administration was aware of that. The problem was not President Bush but bad intel. A prime example was the recent I.E. report about Iran's weapons programs were 7 years behind the times.

The main evidence of his intentions are his own cryptic remarks, and the meaning his aides inferred from them.

Saddam confessed to the FBI three years after the report you quote that he did intend to restart his WMD programs.

[Lefty]

What was found was almost 2 tons of uranium. I asked back when it was discovered what it might be for, but no answers. "Silence Of The Libs"

[Sailwolf]

So you believe in maintaining the status quo. That allowing Saddam and his boys to remain in power for another 10, 20, 30 years or more would have gotten no more than a shoulder shrug. That free elections and the end of the mass murder of Iraqi citizens ain't no big deal. And that all the ripple effects in the region, some of which are yet to be known, are all worse than the stability that Saddam provided.

Is that the progressive view? Sounds sort of conservative to me, if we're just using the words without the current political infusion of invective.


Based on that argument, we should invade North Korea!

[Lefty]

Nope. The idea was to get saddam before he could develop nukes. too late for that in N Korea, thanks to Clinton and Carter.

[BenDiesel26]

Nope. The idea was to get saddam before he could develop nukes. too late for that in N Korea, thanks to Clinton and Carter.

Remember when the Palestinians tried to kill Carter about a week ago? Such a peaceful group of barbarians.

[PaceAdvantage]

Bush and buddies could not ever in a million years SOLD the war based on that nonsense. WMDs and evil connections to Al Qada were the operative "sales" plan.

That argument as well would not have moved us to war.You forget all the snake oil sold to us by Clinton, Clinton and Biden as well as countless other Dems before Bush ever stepped into DC.

Don't forget those folks...they paved the way for good ol' "W"....perhaps one day they will see the "Hague" as well...:lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

I believe GWB's actions in Iraq have paved the way for the brave Iranian freedom fighters who recently took to the street in protest. They see what happened in Iraq and they want to bring that kind of revolution to Iran.

Too bad our man Obama doesn't see fit to help them achieve their goal, even through a little moral support...oh well...

Thank you GWB. Your vision of a democratic Middle East has started to take hold in Iran of all places. You were indeed a visionary....:ThmbUp:


http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/files/George%20W.%20Bush.JPG

[Greyfox]

Oppression, the internet, a youthful population, are what is pushing what is going on in Iran. What is going on there has hardly nothing to do with him

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/b/U/bush_whatmeworry.jpg

or today's American President.

It's just that simple.
(I should have mentioned an economy that is frightening to live in.)

[Hank]

I believe GWB's actions in Iraq have paved the way for the brave Iranian freedom fighters who recently took to the street in protest. They see what happened in Iraq and they want to bring that kind of revolution to Iran.

Too bad our man Obama doesn't see fit to help them achieve their goal, even through a little moral support...oh well...

Thank you GWB. Your vision of a democratic Middle East has started to take hold in Iran of all places. You were indeed a visionary....:ThmbUp:


http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/files/George%20W.%20Bush.JPG

Like I said before there was a time when I would given you the benefit of the doubt here .BUT now I know that you actually believe this drivel.I continue to be amazed at your complete detachment from reality.I hate to break the news to you but what is occurring in Iran is not a revolution that happened in 1979 when they threw our guy out. This protest will not result in an overthrow of the ayatollah.Your continued worship of the pathetic GWB makes perfect sense now. One ray of hope where you are concerned is that here in this post you admit that the real reason for the Iraq war was a foolish attempt at force fed democracy. And all the wmd, al qaeda connection crap, was a bald faced lie.Hopefully one day, you will return from the twilight zone.good luck

[dav4463]

I believe GWB's actions in Iraq have paved the way for the brave Iranian freedom fighters who recently took to the street in protest. They see what happened in Iraq and they want to bring that kind of revolution to Iran.

Too bad our man Obama doesn't see fit to help them achieve their goal, even through a little moral support...oh well...

Thank you GWB. Your vision of a democratic Middle East has started to take hold in Iran of all places. You were indeed a visionary....:ThmbUp:


http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/files/George%20W.%20Bush.JPG


I agree and so do many, many others. Our opinion is just as valid as any of the left-leaning hate Bush opinions.

[NJ Stinks]

I find it amazing that the Right here constantly bitches that the Left is following Obama like a bunch of sheep. Yet you guys continue to defend GWB going to war with Iraq like a bunch of lambs. :rolleyes:

And PA, you must have mutton chops! :p

[hcap]

Wrong, American troops were treated for sarin gas and Al Queda attached chems to their IEDs. What we didn't find were large stockpiles of WMDs.
Of course we didn't find LARGE stockpiles. Or for that matter any stockpiles.
The war war sold on "imminent" danger. There could be no imminent danger threatened by a few shells, or a few broken centrifuge part buried in a lone Iraqis' backyard. We were told a huge exagerration. Generally the best lies are not fabricated out of thin air. There usually is some semblance of truth-in this case 1/100 of truth. Mostly to persuade the easily persuadable.
Colin Powell told the world huge "stockpiles"-not a few 10 year old firecrackers!

That means they were destroyed back in 1994, yet the Clinton administration claimed that Iraqi did possess WMDs as late as 1998. Apparently nobody in Congress or the Clinton administration was aware of that. The problem was not President Bush but bad intel. A prime example was the recent I.E. report about Iran's weapons programs were 7 years behind the times.

There were caveats that required verification. That's why the UN inspectors were called in.........

DECLASSIFIED - KEY JUDGMENTS - FROM OCTOBER 2002
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE

Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
U.S. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY October 2002

"State/INR Alternative View of Iraq's Nuclear Program

The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon-related capabilities. The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to State/INR

Saddam confessed to the FBI three years after the report you quote that he did intend to restart his WMD programs.

Yeah he may have, but with a fully functional UN inspection regime, US flyovers and other peaceful safeguards, he would have continued to be a paper tiger

[rastajenk]

Fully functional UN inspections? The same UN that was undercutting its own Oil for Food sanctions?

US flyovers were peaceful safeguards?

Why is containment such an alluring siren to the anti-war types? Regime change is almost always preferred to containment.

[hcap]

Regime change is almost always preferred to containment.That is the neocon philosophy. A failure to everyone except those few neos that post here. One of the main reasons the repugs were soundly beaten in November.

[delayjf]

Of course we didn't find LARGE stockpiles. Or for that matter any stockpiles. The war war sold on "imminent" danger.
Unless you consider two tons of Uranium and 500 tons of yellow cake a “stockpile”. And for the umpteenth time, President Bush never said Iraq was an “imminent threat” – you can look it up.
In David Kay's statement on the interim report of the ISG[99] the following paragraphs are found:
"With regard to delivery systems, the ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War."
"ISG has gathered testimony from missile designers at Al Kindi State Company that Iraq has reinitiated work on converting SA-2 Surface-to-Air Missiles into ballistic missiles with a range goal of about 250 km. Engineering work was reportedly underway in early 2003, despite the presence of UNMOVIC. This program was not declared to the UN."

In a January 26, 2004 interview with Tom Brokaw of NBC news, Mr. Kay described Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs as being in a "rudimentary" stage. He also stated that "What we did find, and as others are investigating it, we found a lot of terrorist groups and individuals that passed through Iraq."[100] In responding to a question by Mr. Brokaw as to whether Iraq was a "gathering threat" as President Bush had asserted before the invasion, Mr. Kay answered:
Tom, an imminent threat is a political judgment. It’s not a technical judgment. I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.

In June 2004, the United States removed 2 tons of low-enriched uranium from Iraq, sufficient raw material for a single nuclear weapon.
In an AP story, below is the link.
On July 2008, 550 metric tonnes of "yellowcake" the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium, arrived in Montreal as part of a top-secret U.S. operation. This transport of the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment, included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a voyage across two oceans. The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars."
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/05/saddam-uranium.html

That is the neocon philosophy. A failure to everyone except those few neos that post here. One of the main reasons the repugs were soundly beaten in November.

As opposed to the pacifistic appeasement philosophy of the left which resulted in WWII and the deaths of tens of millions people.

[rastajenk]

So why should any regime that needs to be contained by allowed to maintain any authority at all? Makes no sense.

That's what kills me about the Darfur activists. For years we heard we should do "something." Like sanctions against a bunch of grass-eaters? A "peace-keeping force?" Half-assed measures don't work, and can be worse than doing nothing at all. Take the responsible bastards out completely, and make the country a ward of the world, or Egypt, or something like that, if you really want to do "something." The Darfur libs like to say that because Sudan doesn't have oil like Iraq (although they do have oil), we won't do anything. Truth is, since they don't have the stomach for regime change, or any idea of an "exit strategy", they can't put anything on the table.

Saddam had to be taken out then. I don't really care what kind of salesmanship efforts were used. It was, in fact, "mission accomplished." Bravo to BushCo.

[Tom]

hcap, you dodged this part of the quote.

Fully functional UN inspections? The same UN that was undercutting its own Oil for Food sanctions?

And this.....
One of the main reasons the repugs were soundly beaten in November.

Actually, that is one of the main reason for victory in 2004. Everyone was FOR regime change until the media manipulated reporting on Iraq to favor OBama.

Case in point - what kind of coverage do you think the MAJOR terror attack in Iraq this weekend would have gotten if Bush were still in office? As it is, it was hardly mentioned. We hardly hear anything negative from there
anymore.

[PaceAdvantage]

Dear Hank: THANKS AGAIN for the personal insults. Please, point out where I went after you like this and why you think I deserve to take the shit you've been dishing out lately.

---------------------------

BTW, I love that big picture of GWB....it gets the lefties here all in a tizzy....:lol:

GWB's stated goal all along was a Democratic Middle East. Is it any coincidence that with Iraq turned from a dictatorship into a democracy, their next door neighbor, Iran, would begin to follow suit?

Yes, the legacy of GWB is just starting to be written...much to the chagrin of those who wrote him off long ago...

And please...do I have to trot that video out AGAIN? Are you guys STILL going to tell me how Bush lied us into Iraq with false claims of WMDs?

How many times do I have to post this video before you folks GET IT?

N5p-qIq32m8

[Tom]

Hank didn't get his converter box by June 12. :lol: