Iraq WMD, Case for War
What was the case for war? How was it justified?
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Not One Claim Was True - stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, missiles, unmanned drones, nuclear weapons and ties to Al Qaeda
Not One Claim Was True - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: "By Joseph Cirincione | By John Prados
This article first appeared in the January/February 2005 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. To access this publication, visit www.thebulletin.org.
Hoodwinked: The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War
As George W. Bush and Dick Cheney lower their hands after being sworn in for their second terms, they will be smiling. And with good reason. They will have gotten away with the greatest con in the history of the American presidency. They willfully and systematically misled the American people and our closest allies on the most crucial question any government faces: Must we go to war?
Not one of the dozens of claims they made about Iraq’s alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, missiles, unmanned drones, or most importantly, Iraq’s nuclear weapons and ties to Al Qaeda, were true. Not one. Yet no one in the administration has been held accountable for the hundreds of false statements or—if you believe they made the statements in good faith—for their faulty judgments and incompetence. Almost all the key officials, save former CIA Director George Tenet, will still be in office to celebrate the administration’s reelection. (When Tenet resigned for “personal reasons,” Bush praised him for having done “a superb job”; he has since made more than $500,000 in speaking fees.)"
Not One Claim Was True - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: "By Joseph Cirincione | By John Prados
This article first appeared in the January/February 2005 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. To access this publication, visit www.thebulletin.org.
Hoodwinked: The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War
As George W. Bush and Dick Cheney lower their hands after being sworn in for their second terms, they will be smiling. And with good reason. They will have gotten away with the greatest con in the history of the American presidency. They willfully and systematically misled the American people and our closest allies on the most crucial question any government faces: Must we go to war?
Not one of the dozens of claims they made about Iraq’s alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, missiles, unmanned drones, or most importantly, Iraq’s nuclear weapons and ties to Al Qaeda, were true. Not one. Yet no one in the administration has been held accountable for the hundreds of false statements or—if you believe they made the statements in good faith—for their faulty judgments and incompetence. Almost all the key officials, save former CIA Director George Tenet, will still be in office to celebrate the administration’s reelection. (When Tenet resigned for “personal reasons,” Bush praised him for having done “a superb job”; he has since made more than $500,000 in speaking fees.)"
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Feith Says Pentagon Overdid WMD Rationale
Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Feith Says Pentagon Overdid WMD Rationale: "Friday July 15, 2005 2:01 AM | By ROBERT BURNS | AP Military Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The top policy adviser to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld says the Bush administration erred by building its public case for war against Saddam Hussein mainly on the claim that he possessed banned weapons.
The comment by Douglas J. Feith, in an interview with The Associated Press, is a rare admission of error about Iraq by a senior administration official. Feith, who is leaving after four years as the undersecretary of defense for policy, said he remains convinced that President Bush was correct in deciding that war against Iraq was necessary.
``I don't think there is any question that we as an administration, instead of giving proper emphasis to all major elements of the rationale for war, overemphasized the WMD aspect,'' he said, using the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction."
...
Feith has been accused by critics of having manipulated intelligence on Iraq to push the case for war, an accusation he vehemently denies. His chief critic in Congress on this point is Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who is delaying Senate confirmation of Feith's replacement, Eric Edelman, a former ambassador to Turkey, by demanding the Pentagon produce more documents on the intelligence controversy.
Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Feith Says Pentagon Overdid WMD Rationale: "Friday July 15, 2005 2:01 AM | By ROBERT BURNS | AP Military Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The top policy adviser to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld says the Bush administration erred by building its public case for war against Saddam Hussein mainly on the claim that he possessed banned weapons.
The comment by Douglas J. Feith, in an interview with The Associated Press, is a rare admission of error about Iraq by a senior administration official. Feith, who is leaving after four years as the undersecretary of defense for policy, said he remains convinced that President Bush was correct in deciding that war against Iraq was necessary.
``I don't think there is any question that we as an administration, instead of giving proper emphasis to all major elements of the rationale for war, overemphasized the WMD aspect,'' he said, using the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction."
...
Feith has been accused by critics of having manipulated intelligence on Iraq to push the case for war, an accusation he vehemently denies. His chief critic in Congress on this point is Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who is delaying Senate confirmation of Feith's replacement, Eric Edelman, a former ambassador to Turkey, by demanding the Pentagon produce more documents on the intelligence controversy.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
.S. quietly shifted policy towards Iraq to allow for surgical, pre-emptive airstrikes months before any attempt to seek UN or Congressional approval
The Raw Story | U.S. changed Iraq policy to begin airstrikes months before war: "John Byrne"
Did Bush lie to Congress about use of force?
The U.S. quietly shifted policy towards Iraq to allow for surgical, pre-emptive airstrikes months before any attempt to seek UN or Congressional approval for the use of force, RAW STORY can reveal.
The discovery, made by investigative blogger Ron Brynaert, raises questions of whether Britain and the United States violated a UN resolution to provide for the security of Iraqi citizenry in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War.
The change meant that the U.S. began systematically bombing air defense systems and other buildings, even beyond the No-Fly Zones established in the wake of the Gulf War. The U.S. justified these pre-emptive airstrikes under a 1991 UN Security Council resolution which says that Iraq must “remove the threat to international peace and security in the region.”
..
“I directed it,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at a Sept. 16, 2002 Pentagon press briefing in response to questions about the rising tide of Iraq airstrikes in 2002. "I don't like the idea of our planes being shot at. We're there implementing U.N. resolutions... And the idea that our planes go out and get shot at with impunity bothers me."
After repeated questioning about when the change was made, Rumsfeld was hesitant, and according to the transcript, reporters laughed.
"Less than a year -- less than a year and more than a week," the transcript records, “(Laughter.) I think less than six months and more than a month." ...
The Raw Story | U.S. changed Iraq policy to begin airstrikes months before war: "John Byrne"
Did Bush lie to Congress about use of force?
The U.S. quietly shifted policy towards Iraq to allow for surgical, pre-emptive airstrikes months before any attempt to seek UN or Congressional approval for the use of force, RAW STORY can reveal.
The discovery, made by investigative blogger Ron Brynaert, raises questions of whether Britain and the United States violated a UN resolution to provide for the security of Iraqi citizenry in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War.
The change meant that the U.S. began systematically bombing air defense systems and other buildings, even beyond the No-Fly Zones established in the wake of the Gulf War. The U.S. justified these pre-emptive airstrikes under a 1991 UN Security Council resolution which says that Iraq must “remove the threat to international peace and security in the region.”
..
“I directed it,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at a Sept. 16, 2002 Pentagon press briefing in response to questions about the rising tide of Iraq airstrikes in 2002. "I don't like the idea of our planes being shot at. We're there implementing U.N. resolutions... And the idea that our planes go out and get shot at with impunity bothers me."
After repeated questioning about when the change was made, Rumsfeld was hesitant, and according to the transcript, reporters laughed.
"Less than a year -- less than a year and more than a week," the transcript records, “(Laughter.) I think less than six months and more than a month." ...
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Mirror.co.uk - All News Archive - MI6 [BRITAIN'S spies] TOLD: LINK IRAQ AND BIN LADEN
Mirror.co.uk - News - All News Archive - MI6 TOLD: LINK IRAQ AND BIN LADEN: "1 February 2003 | By Oonagh Blackman
BRITAIN'S spies are being pressured by ministers to link Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
Both MI6 and military intelligence sources say claims of strong connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda are 'far-fetched'.
But No10 wants concrete evidence to justify war on Iraq.
An intelligence source said: 'The politicians are clutching at straws. There is intense pressure to come up with a smoking gun.
Advertisement
'But Iraq is secular and bin Laden is an Islamic fundamentalist. They're not natural allies.'
Last week Tony Blair said there are firm links between Saddam and al-Qaeda - but he could not be sure of their extent.
The Government refused to produce evidence, but hinted it will release details in the future."
Mirror.co.uk - News - All News Archive - MI6 TOLD: LINK IRAQ AND BIN LADEN: "1 February 2003 | By Oonagh Blackman
BRITAIN'S spies are being pressured by ministers to link Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
Both MI6 and military intelligence sources say claims of strong connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda are 'far-fetched'.
But No10 wants concrete evidence to justify war on Iraq.
An intelligence source said: 'The politicians are clutching at straws. There is intense pressure to come up with a smoking gun.
Advertisement
'But Iraq is secular and bin Laden is an Islamic fundamentalist. They're not natural allies.'
Last week Tony Blair said there are firm links between Saddam and al-Qaeda - but he could not be sure of their extent.
The Government refused to produce evidence, but hinted it will release details in the future."
