Iraq WMD, Case for War
What was the case for war? How was it justified?
Sunday, May 29, 2005
RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war - doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002
RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war - Sunday Times - Times Online: "May 29, 2005 | Michael Smith
THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.
The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.
The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make �regime change� in Iraq legal.
Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, told the meeting that �the US had already begun �spikes of activity� to put pressure on the regime�.
The new information, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, shows that the allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001, and that the RAF increased their attacks even more quickly than the Americans did. "
...
During 2000, RAF aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone over Iraq dropped 20.5 tons of bombs from a total of 155 tons dropped by the coalition, a mere 13%. During 2001 that figure rose slightly to 25 tons out of 107, or 23%.
However, between May 2002 and the second week in November, when the UN Security Council passed resolution 1441, which Goldsmith said made the war legal, British aircraft dropped 46 tons of bombs a month out of a total of 126.1 tons, or 36%.
RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war - Sunday Times - Times Online: "May 29, 2005 | Michael Smith
THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.
The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.
The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make �regime change� in Iraq legal.
Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, told the meeting that �the US had already begun �spikes of activity� to put pressure on the regime�.
The new information, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, shows that the allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001, and that the RAF increased their attacks even more quickly than the Americans did. "
...
During 2000, RAF aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone over Iraq dropped 20.5 tons of bombs from a total of 155 tons dropped by the coalition, a mere 13%. During 2001 that figure rose slightly to 25 tons out of 107, or 23%.
However, between May 2002 and the second week in November, when the UN Security Council passed resolution 1441, which Goldsmith said made the war legal, British aircraft dropped 46 tons of bombs a month out of a total of 126.1 tons, or 36%.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Aljazeera.Net - British lawmaker: Iraq war was for oil
Aljazeera.Net - British lawmaker: Iraq war was for oil: "By Adam Porter in Lisbon | Saturday 21 May 2005, 1:37 Makka Time, 22:37 GMT
Labour politician and former UK environment minister Michael Meacher has slammed Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush for starting a war, he says, to secure oil interests.
Speaking on Friday on the sidelines of the fourth International Workshop on Oil and Gas Depletion in Lisbon, Portugal, Meacher, a member of the British parliament, said: "The reason they attacked Iraq is nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, it was nothing to do with democracy in Iraq, it was nothing to do with the human rights abuses of Saddam Hussein."
When asked by Aljazeera.net whether the war in Iraq was about oil he said: "The connection is 100%. It is absolutely overwhelming."
Meacher connected the wars in Iraq with a desire by US and UK interests to dominate oil supplies in times of increasing market volatility. He also thought the war was designed to pressure Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil supplier.
Aljazeera.Net - British lawmaker: Iraq war was for oil: "By Adam Porter in Lisbon | Saturday 21 May 2005, 1:37 Makka Time, 22:37 GMT
Labour politician and former UK environment minister Michael Meacher has slammed Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush for starting a war, he says, to secure oil interests.
Speaking on Friday on the sidelines of the fourth International Workshop on Oil and Gas Depletion in Lisbon, Portugal, Meacher, a member of the British parliament, said: "The reason they attacked Iraq is nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, it was nothing to do with democracy in Iraq, it was nothing to do with the human rights abuses of Saddam Hussein."
When asked by Aljazeera.net whether the war in Iraq was about oil he said: "The connection is 100%. It is absolutely overwhelming."
Meacher connected the wars in Iraq with a desire by US and UK interests to dominate oil supplies in times of increasing market volatility. He also thought the war was designed to pressure Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil supplier.
Monday, May 23, 2005
many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein's alleged weapons programs
Prewar Findings Worried Analysts: "By Walter Pincus | Washington Post Staff Writer | Sunday, May 22, 2005; Page A26
On Jan. 24, 2003, four days before President Bush delivered his State of the Union address presenting the case for war against Iraq, the National Security Council staff put out a call for new intelligence to bolster claims that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear, chemical and biological weapons or programs.
...
Moreover, a close reading of the recent 600-page report by the president's commission on intelligence, and the previous report by the Senate panel, shows that as war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein's alleged weapons programs.
...
On the day before the president's speech, the Berlin station chief warned about using Curveball's information on the mobile biological units in Bush's speech. The station chief warned that the German intelligence service considered Curveball "problematical" and said its officers had been unable to confirm his assertions. The station chief recommended that CIA headquarters give "serious consideration" before using that unverified information, according to the commission report.
The next day, Bush told the world: "We know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile weapons labs . . . designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors." He attributed that information to "three Iraqi defectors."
Prewar Findings Worried Analysts: "By Walter Pincus | Washington Post Staff Writer | Sunday, May 22, 2005; Page A26
On Jan. 24, 2003, four days before President Bush delivered his State of the Union address presenting the case for war against Iraq, the National Security Council staff put out a call for new intelligence to bolster claims that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear, chemical and biological weapons or programs.
...
Moreover, a close reading of the recent 600-page report by the president's commission on intelligence, and the previous report by the Senate panel, shows that as war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein's alleged weapons programs.
...
On the day before the president's speech, the Berlin station chief warned about using Curveball's information on the mobile biological units in Bush's speech. The station chief warned that the German intelligence service considered Curveball "problematical" and said its officers had been unable to confirm his assertions. The station chief recommended that CIA headquarters give "serious consideration" before using that unverified information, according to the commission report.
The next day, Bush told the world: "We know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile weapons labs . . . designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors." He attributed that information to "three Iraqi defectors."
REMEMBER THESE?
REMEMBER THESE?: "
But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them. George W. Bush, President Interview with TVP Poland 5/30/2003
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor CNN Late Edition 9/8/2002
How the United States should react if Iraq acquired WMD. 'The first line of defense...should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence--if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.' Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs 2/1/2000
We are greatly concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction...In the case of Saddam Hussein, we've got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons.. A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President Detroit, Fund-Raiser 6/20/2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President Speech to VFW National Convention 8/26/2002
There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Response to Question From Press 9/6/2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George W. Bush, President Speech to UN General Assembly 9/12/2002
Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have George W. Bush, President Radio Address 10/5/2002
...
etc. etc.
...
I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 7/9/2003
REMEMBER THESE?: "
But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them. George W. Bush, President Interview with TVP Poland 5/30/2003
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor CNN Late Edition 9/8/2002
How the United States should react if Iraq acquired WMD. 'The first line of defense...should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence--if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.' Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs 2/1/2000
We are greatly concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction...In the case of Saddam Hussein, we've got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons.. A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President Detroit, Fund-Raiser 6/20/2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President Speech to VFW National Convention 8/26/2002
There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Response to Question From Press 9/6/2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George W. Bush, President Speech to UN General Assembly 9/12/2002
Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have George W. Bush, President Radio Address 10/5/2002
...
etc. etc.
...
I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 7/9/2003
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Iraq: "We've had no evidence" and "take the necessary actions against thosed who aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001"
Bush's Words Come Back to Haunt Him: ""We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11." - G.W. Bush 9/18/2003
Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely, GEORGE W. BUSH
Bush's Words Come Back to Haunt Him: ""We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11." - G.W. Bush 9/18/2003
Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely, GEORGE W. BUSH
Thursday, May 12, 2005
'Iraq was Invaded to Secure Israel,' says Senator Hollings, and 'Everybody Knows It.'
'Iraq was Invaded to Secure Israel,' says Senator Hollings, and 'Everybody Knows It.': "July 16, 2004 | By Mark Weber | July 16, 2004
When a prominent American political figure speaks boldly about Jewish-Zionist power, that's news. So the recent remarks by South Carolina's senior Senator that Iraq was invaded 'to secure Israel,' and that 'everybody' in Washington knows it, are indeed remarkable.
Ernest 'Fritz' Hollings, a Democrat who has represented his state in the US Senate since 1966, is now serving his final term in Washington. That fact may also help explain why he's now willing to defy the pro-Israel lobby and speak candidly about its power.
It began with an essay about the Iraq war that appeared in the May 6 issue of the daily Post and Courier of Charleston.
'With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country?,' he wrote. 'The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel. Led by [Paul] Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there had been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area.'
Several Zionist organizations, as well as some prominent Jewish political figures, quickly chastised Hollings, and his remarks were denounced as anti-Semitic.
But he didn't back down. Instead, he rose in the Senate on May 20 to defend and explain his essay."
'Iraq was Invaded to Secure Israel,' says Senator Hollings, and 'Everybody Knows It.': "July 16, 2004 | By Mark Weber | July 16, 2004
When a prominent American political figure speaks boldly about Jewish-Zionist power, that's news. So the recent remarks by South Carolina's senior Senator that Iraq was invaded 'to secure Israel,' and that 'everybody' in Washington knows it, are indeed remarkable.
Ernest 'Fritz' Hollings, a Democrat who has represented his state in the US Senate since 1966, is now serving his final term in Washington. That fact may also help explain why he's now willing to defy the pro-Israel lobby and speak candidly about its power.
It began with an essay about the Iraq war that appeared in the May 6 issue of the daily Post and Courier of Charleston.
'With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country?,' he wrote. 'The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel. Led by [Paul] Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there had been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area.'
Several Zionist organizations, as well as some prominent Jewish political figures, quickly chastised Hollings, and his remarks were denounced as anti-Semitic.
But he didn't back down. Instead, he rose in the Senate on May 20 to defend and explain his essay."
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Head of UK intelligence: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam -- But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"
AlterNet: They Lied to Us: "By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted May 10, 2005.
I thought it was time we moved past the now unhelpful, "How did we get into this mess?" However, I cannot let this astounding Downing Street memo go unmentioned.
Meanwhile, back in Iraq. I was going to leave out of this column everything about how we got into Iraq, or whether it was wise, and or whether the infamous "they" knowingly lied to us. (Although I did plan to point out I would be nobly refraining from poking at that pus-riddled question.)
Since I believe one of our greatest strengths as Americans is shrewd practicality, I thought it was time we moved past the now unhelpful, "How did we get into his mess?" to the more utilitarian, "What the hell do we do now?"
However, I cannot let this astounding Downing Street memo go unmentioned.
On May 1, the Sunday Times of London printed a secret memo that went to the defense secretary, foreign secretary, attorney general and other high officials. It is the minutes of their meeting on Iraq with Tony Blair. The memo was written by Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aide. It has been confirmed as legitimate and is dated July 23, 2002. I suppose the correct clich�is "smoking gun."
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. (There it is.) The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
AlterNet: They Lied to Us: "By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted May 10, 2005.
I thought it was time we moved past the now unhelpful, "How did we get into this mess?" However, I cannot let this astounding Downing Street memo go unmentioned.
Meanwhile, back in Iraq. I was going to leave out of this column everything about how we got into Iraq, or whether it was wise, and or whether the infamous "they" knowingly lied to us. (Although I did plan to point out I would be nobly refraining from poking at that pus-riddled question.)
Since I believe one of our greatest strengths as Americans is shrewd practicality, I thought it was time we moved past the now unhelpful, "How did we get into his mess?" to the more utilitarian, "What the hell do we do now?"
However, I cannot let this astounding Downing Street memo go unmentioned.
On May 1, the Sunday Times of London printed a secret memo that went to the defense secretary, foreign secretary, attorney general and other high officials. It is the minutes of their meeting on Iraq with Tony Blair. The memo was written by Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aide. It has been confirmed as legitimate and is dated July 23, 2002. I suppose the correct clich�is "smoking gun."
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. (There it is.) The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Bush asked to explain UK war memo: "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war
CNN.com - Bush asked to explain UK war memo - May 11, 2005: "Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Posted: 2336 GMT (0736 HKT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002 -- well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval.
The Times of London newspaper published the memo -- actually minutes of a high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 -- on May 1.
British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and Michael Boyce, then Britain's Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would have been "irresponsible" not to prepare for the possibility.
CNN.com - Bush asked to explain UK war memo - May 11, 2005: "Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Posted: 2336 GMT (0736 HKT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002 -- well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval.
The Times of London newspaper published the memo -- actually minutes of a high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 -- on May 1.
British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and Michael Boyce, then Britain's Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would have been "irresponsible" not to prepare for the possibility.
