Doesn't look like it.Originally posted by: Gaard
Were they right about anything concerning Iraq?
Los Angeles, Ca.--Vincent Cannistraro is the former Director of National Security Council Intelligence under Ronald Reagan (?84-?87) and the former Chief of Operations of the CIA?s Counterterrorism Center, who led the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. On April 3, 2005, he was interviewed on Ian Masters' Background Briefing radio program, which broadcasts from Los Angeles, California on public radio. In the interview, Mr. Cannistraro made a number of withering observations on the Bush administration and the process failures that led to war.
In perhaps the interview's most startling moment, Cannistraro asserts that the famous forged "Niger documents," cited by President George W. Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address as proof of Saddam Hussein's intention to develop nuclear-weapons, "were fabricated in the United States." This charge has not been previously made publicly by a person of Cannistraro's standing, authority and stature.
When interviewer Ian Masters asked if he would name the person or persons involved in the forgery, Cannistraro declined. Masters pressed, asking Cannistraro if he would respond to the proffered name of a well-known national security operative, who had previously been fired from the Reagan National Security Council and was involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. Cannistraro responded by saying "you're very close." The person about whom Mr. Cannistraro made that comment was cited by the BBC as an "ultra neo-conservative." This individual has strong ties to the Vice President's office and to the Pentagon.
The forged "Niger documents" are significant, because they justified, in part, America's "pre-emptive" attack on Iraq. The Iraq war--two-years on--has cost over 1,500 American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, well over a hundred billion dollars and, many journalists and commentators believe, unprecedented loss of U.S. prestige worldwide and the nation's immersion in a hopeless Iraqi quagmire--all of which define the worst foreign-policy debacle in American history.
Some quotes by Vincent Cannistraro from the Ian Masters interview transcript:
"So, yes, the NIE, which as we know now was corrupted by false intelligence and in some cases fabricated?deliberately fabricated?information, it played a critical role in getting the US Senate to vote in favor of war with Iraq."
"This, we know now, was all based on fabricated documents. But it?s not clear yet, either from this report, or from any other report, who fabricated the documents. The documents were fabricated by supporters of the policy in the United States. The policy being that you had to invade Iraq in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and you had to do it soon to avoid the catastrophe that would be produced by Saddam Hussein?s use of alleged weapons of mass destruction. "
"The Niger documents, for example, which apparently were produced in the United States, yet were funneled through the Italians."
"That?s why we were misled into saying what we did say, and doing what we did do . . . The case was that this was not a fact-based policy that the US government adopted. It was a policy-based decision that drove the intelligence, and not the other way around. And that?s, of course, the reverse of the process. You had a lot of people who played along to get along."
US Representative Walter Jones, a conservative Republican, does not hide his anger when he says bad information led him to vote for the Iraq war. "If I had known then what I know today, I wouldn't have voted for that resolution. Absolutely not," he said Thursday in an interview.
His comments reflect concerns of other Republican lawmakers in Congress, and polls show a lingering debate over the reasons for going to war have hurt the administration even as the Iraq operation shows signs of success.
A day earlier, during House Armed Services Committee testimony on the Iraq war, Jones demanded an apology from the administration of President George W. Bush.:thumbsup:
"To me, there should be somebody that is large enough to say, 'We made a mistake'," Jones said, almost in tears with frustration. He said he and other lawmakers want to ensure they are never again asked to authorize a war with bad information. Jones felt so bad he decided to write personal letters of condolence to the families of each of the more than 1,600 US soldiers killed.
Isn't it a crying shame that the leaders of the greatest nation on Earth don't have the balls to say anything like this.Originally posted by: conjur
"To me, there should be somebody that is large enough to say, 'We made a mistake'," Jones said, almost in tears with frustration.
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 6, 2005
Who?s Better Off?
Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq war, or regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort is: ?Aren?t the people of Iraq better off?? The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever committed. The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it?s too early to declare, ?Mission Accomplished.? But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever justified or legitimate. Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded good results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate? Do the ends justify the means?
The information Congress was given prior to the war was false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and did not conspire against the United States; our security was not threatened; we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil has not paid any of the bills. Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy resolution citing UN resolutions as justification for our invasion. After the fact we?re now told the real reason for the Iraq invasion was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off. Anyone who questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam Hussein, disapproving of democracy, or ?supporting terrorists.? It?s implied that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and doesn?t support the troops. In other words, one must march lock-step with the consensus or be ostracized.
However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own government that led to the regime change. In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself. The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein?s removal from power. The real question ought to be: ?Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime change while justifying war with false information?? Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national security is threatened.
How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of thousands of former inhabitants of Fallajah are not better off with their city flattened and their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their street, curfews, and the loss of basic utilities. One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical Journal, certainly are not better off. Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave.
Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Why is it that what is good for the goose isn?t always good for the gander?
Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does not create freedom. In our own history we note that freedom was achieved first and elections followed-- not the other way around.
One news report claimed that the Shiites actually received 56% of the vote, but such an outcome couldn?t be allowed for it would preclude a coalition of the Kurds and Shiites from controlling the Sunnis and preventing a theocracy from forming. This reminds us of the statement made months ago by Secretary Rumsfeld when asked about a Shiite theocracy emerging from a majority democratic vote, and he assured us that would not happen. Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don?t like the results.
Some have described Baghdad and especially the green zone, as being surrounded by unmanageable territory. The highways in and out of Baghdad are not yet secured. Many anticipate a civil war will break out sometime soon in Iraq; some claim it?s already underway.
We have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed to provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the hundreds of billions that American taxpayers have spent on the war. Some have justified our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf since 1990 because of a need to protect ?our? oil. Yet now that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the occupation supposedly is a great success, gasoline at the pumps is reaching record highs approaching $3 per gallon.
Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no government in place and the next election-- supposedly the real one-- is not likely to take place on time. Do the American people have any idea who really won the dubious election at all?
The oil-for-food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by corruption in the distribution of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq. Already there is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the accounting of these funds. The over-billing by Halliburton is no secret, but the process has not changed.
The whole process is corrupt. It just doesn?t make sense to most Americans to see their tax dollars used to fight an unnecessary and unjustified war. First they see American bombs destroying a country, and then American taxpayers are required to rebuild it. Today it?s easier to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq than to build a bridge in the United States. Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of Engineers? budget and operate on the cheap with our veterans as the expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.
One question the war promoters don?t want to hear asked, because they don?t want to face up to the answer, is this: ?Are Christian Iraqis better off today since we decided to build a new Iraq through force of arms?? The answer is plainly no.
Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion. Tariq Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein?s cabinet as Foreign Minister-- something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other Middle Eastern country. Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under attack and Christians are no longer safe. Many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria. It?s strange that the human rights advocates in the U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the persecution now going on against Christians in Iraq. Both the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims support the attacks on Christians. In fact, persecuting Christians is one of the few areas in which they agree-- the other being the removal of all foreign forces from Iraqi soil.
Considering the death, destruction, and continual chaos in Iraq, it?s difficult to accept the blanket statement that the Iraqis all feel much better off with the U.S. in control rather than Saddam Hussein. Security in the streets and criminal violence are not anywhere near being under control.
But there?s another question that is equally important: ?Are the American people better off because of the Iraq war??
One thing for sure, the 1,500 plus dead American soldiers aren?t better off. The nearly 20,000 severely injured or sickened American troops are not better off. The families, the wives, the husbands, children, parents, and friends of those who lost so much are not better off.
The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to re-enlist against their will-- a de facto draft-- are not feeling better off. They believe they have been deceived by their enlistment agreements.
The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over 200 billion dollars to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent. The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-butter policy are already getting a dose of what will become much worse.
Are our relationships with the rest of the world better off? I?d say no. Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are weaker than ever. The anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims around the world is greater than ever. This makes terrorist attacks more likely than they were before the invasion. Al Qaeda recruiting has accelerated. Iraq is being used as a training ground for al Qaeda terrorists, which it never was under Hussein?s rule. So as our military recruitment efforts suffer, Osama bin Laden benefits by attracting more terrorist volunteers.
Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now it?s more than twice that. I wonder who benefits from this?
Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national security and defense of this country. Military spending is up, but the way the money is spent distracts from true national defense and further undermines our credibility around the world.
The ongoing war?s lack of success has played a key role in diminishing morale in our military services. Recruitment is sharply down, and most branches face shortages of troops. Many young Americans rightly fear a coming draft-- which will be required if we do not reassess and change the unrealistic goals of our foreign policy.
The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and obscured, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and increase in the national debt. If these trends persist, inflation with economic stagnation will be the inevitable consequences of a misdirected policy.
One of the most significant consequences in times of war that we ought to be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal liberty. Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies armed conflict, regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to sacrifice personal freedoms in pursuit of victory. The real irony is that we are told we go hither and yon to fight for freedom and our Constitution, while carelessly sacrificing the very freedoms here at home we?re supposed to be fighting for. It makes no sense.
This willingness to give up hard-fought personal liberties has been especially noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September 11th war on terrorism. Security has replaced liberty as our main political goal, damaging the American spirit. Sadly, the whole process is done in the name of patriotism and in a spirit of growing militant nationalism.
These attitudes and fears surrounding the 9-11 tragedy, and our eagerness to go to war in the Middle East against countries not responsible for the attacks, have allowed a callousness to develop in our national psyche that justifies torture and rejects due process of law for those who are suspects and not convicted criminals.
We have come to accept pre-emptive war as necessary, constitutional, and morally justifiable. Starting a war without a proper declaration is now of no concern to most Americans or the U.S. Congress. Let?s hope and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S. Armed Forces are wrong.
A large segment of the Christian community and its leadership think nothing of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides itself on the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us that blessed are the peacemakers-- not the warmongers.
We casually accept our role as world policeman, and believe we have a moral obligation to practice nation building in our image regardless of the number of people who die in the process.
We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our country great. We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the Constitution, and the principle of neutrality while avoiding entangling alliances with the rest of the world. Spreading the message of hope and freedom by setting an example for the world has been replaced by a belief that use of armed might is the only practical tool to influence the world-- and we have accepted, as the only superpower, the principle of initiating war against others.
In the process, Congress and the people have endorsed a usurpation of their own authority, generously delivered to the executive and judicial branches-- not to mention international government bodies. The concept of national sovereignty is now seen as an issue that concerns only the fringe in our society.
Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue that drives political thought in this country. If this goal is replaced by an effort to promote world government, use force to plan the economy, regulate the people, and police the world, against the voluntary desires of the people, it can be done only with the establishment of a totalitarian state. There?s no need for that. It?s up to Congress and the American people to decide our fate, and there is still time to correct our mistakes.
No...say it ain't so. The Propagandist and his administration altered, exaggerated, and fabricated intelligence?WASHINGTON - A top Democratic senator on Friday released formerly classified documents that he said undercut top US officials? pre-Iraq war claims of a link between Saddam Hussein?s regime and the Al Qaeda terror network.
?These documents are additional compelling evidence that the Intelligence Community did not believe there was a cooperative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, despite public comments by the highest ranking officials in our government to the contrary,? said Senator Carl Levin.
The declassified documents undermine President George W. Bush?s administration claims regarding Iraq?s involvement in training Al Qaeda operatives and the likelihood of a meeting between September 11, 2001, hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001, Levin said in a statement.
Originally posted by: conjur
Iraq war logic...in a nutshell
http://www.minimumeffort.com/nutshell.html
:laugh:
Originally posted by: conjur
Iraq war logic...in a nutshell
http://www.minimumeffort.com/nutshell.html
:laugh:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In his final word, the CIA's top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has ''gone as far as feasible'' and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
''After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,'' wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.
''As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.''
In 92 pages posted online Monday evening, Duelfer provides a final look at an investigation that occupied over 1,000 military and civilian translators, weapons specialists and other experts at its peak. His latest addenda conclude a roughly 1,500-page report released last fall.
On Monday, Duelfer said there is no purpose in keeping many of the detainees who are in custody because of their knowledge on Iraq's weapons, although he did not provide any details about the current number. A U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the ultimate decision on their release will be made by the Iraqi authorities.
The survey group also provided warnings.
The addenda conclude that Saddam's programs created a pool of experts now available to develop and produce weapons and many will be seeking work. While most will probably turn to the ''benign civil sector,'' the danger remains that ''hostile foreign governments, terrorists or insurgents may seek Iraqi expertise.''
''Because a single individual can advance certain WMD activities, it remains an important concern,'' one addendum said.
Another addendum also noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons -- most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War. In an insurgent's hands, ''the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives,'' another addendum said.
And still another said the survey group found some potential nuclear-related equipment was ''missing from heavily damaged and looted sites.'' Yet, because of the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the survey group was unable to determine what happened to the equipment, which also had alternate civilian uses.
''Some of it probably has been sold for its scrap value. Other pieces might have been disassembled'' and converted into motors or condensers, an addendum said. ''Still others could have been taken intact to preserve their function.''
Leaving the door to the investigation open just a crack, the U.S. official said a small team still operates under the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq, although the survey group officially disbanded earlier this month. Those staying on continue to examine documents and follow up on any reports of weapons of mass destruction.
In a statement accompanying the final installment, Duelfer said a surprise discovery would most likely be in the biological weapons area because clues, such as the size of the facilities used to develop them, would be comparatively small.
Among unanswered questions, Duelfer said a group formed to investigate whether WMD-related material was shipped out of Iraq before the invasion wasn't able to reach firm conclusions because the security situation limited and later halted their work. Investigators were focusing on transfers from Iraq to Syria.
No information gleaned from questioning Iraqis supported the possibility, one addendum said. The Iraq Survey Group believes ''it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.''
Originally posted by: conjur
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In his final word, the CIA's top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has ''gone as far as feasible'' and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
''After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,'' wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.
''As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.''
In 92 pages posted online Monday evening, Duelfer provides a final look at an investigation that occupied over 1,000 military and civilian translators, weapons specialists and other experts at its peak. His latest addenda conclude a roughly 1,500-page report released last fall.
On Monday, Duelfer said there is no purpose in keeping many of the detainees who are in custody because of their knowledge on Iraq's weapons, although he did not provide any details about the current number. A U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the ultimate decision on their release will be made by the Iraqi authorities.
The survey group also provided warnings.
The addenda conclude that Saddam's programs created a pool of experts now available to develop and produce weapons and many will be seeking work. While most will probably turn to the ''benign civil sector,'' the danger remains that ''hostile foreign governments, terrorists or insurgents may seek Iraqi expertise.''
''Because a single individual can advance certain WMD activities, it remains an important concern,'' one addendum said.
Another addendum also noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons -- most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War. In an insurgent's hands, ''the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives,'' another addendum said.
And still another said the survey group found some potential nuclear-related equipment was ''missing from heavily damaged and looted sites.'' Yet, because of the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the survey group was unable to determine what happened to the equipment, which also had alternate civilian uses.
''Some of it probably has been sold for its scrap value. Other pieces might have been disassembled'' and converted into motors or condensers, an addendum said. ''Still others could have been taken intact to preserve their function.''
Leaving the door to the investigation open just a crack, the U.S. official said a small team still operates under the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq, although the survey group officially disbanded earlier this month. Those staying on continue to examine documents and follow up on any reports of weapons of mass destruction.
In a statement accompanying the final installment, Duelfer said a surprise discovery would most likely be in the biological weapons area because clues, such as the size of the facilities used to develop them, would be comparatively small.
Among unanswered questions, Duelfer said a group formed to investigate whether WMD-related material was shipped out of Iraq before the invasion wasn't able to reach firm conclusions because the security situation limited and later halted their work. Investigators were focusing on transfers from Iraq to Syria.
No information gleaned from questioning Iraqis supported the possibility, one addendum said. The Iraq Survey Group believes ''it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.''
U.S. Weapons Inspector Finishes Iraq Work
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Weapons-Hunt.html?
U.S. Soldiers dead: 1,573
WMDs: 0
Originally posted by: conjur
oh yeah...the ones that caused zero damage?
Originally posted by: conjur
that word comes up a lot in administration releases (potential, possible, maybe, might, etc.)
Two relics from 20+ years ago != justification for the invasion.
As the fog from the Kool-Aid slowly lifts....NEW YORK Half of all Americans, exactly 50%, now say the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the Gallup Organization reported this morning.
"This is the highest percentage that Gallup has found on this measure since the question was first asked in late May 2003," the pollsters observed. "At that time, 31% said the administration deliberately misled Americans. This sentiment has gradually increased over time, to 39% in July 2003, 43% in January/February 2004, and 47% in October 2004."
Also, according to the latest poll, more than half of Americans, 54%, disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 43% approve. In early February, Americans were more evenly divided on the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq, with 50% approving and 48% disapproving.
Last week Gallup reported that 53% now believe that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "not worth it." But Frank Newport, editor in chief at Gallup, recalled today that although a majority of the public began to think the Vietnam war was a mistake in the summer of 1968, the United States did not pull out of Vietnam for more than five years, after thousands of more American lives were lost.
Good news and bad news.Gallup: 50% of Americans Now Say Bush Deliberately Misled Them on WMDs