Report Says Iraq Didn't Have WMD

[BaliBabyDoc]

My basic premise was that morale in Iraq is not HIGH or confidence that we will prevail. Technically Bush didn't even report back from the frontline . . . he reported back from the airport . . . granted it's pretty dangerous there as well.

I noted explicitly that I quoted the article selectively but I do not think I misrepresented the statistics. It is always difficult to analyze polling when you use a mean value (average) and then assess responses that lie to either side. Unless you define the 'average' then everyone will apply their own definition. Accordingly, the only useful values are the extremes.

9. How likely is it that you will stay in the military after your current obligation is complete?
340 Very likely 18%
245 likely 13%
353 possible 18%
333 not likely 17%
611 very unlikely 32%

For this item possible could mean anything. On any given day if you ask me if I will ever use my preternatural neuropsychopharmacology skills at PFE, BMS, JNJ, GSK, or LLY . . . the typical answer would be (very unlikely) . . . . when the bills are due (not likely) . . . and when the wife is talking about Maserati Spyder (possible). I don't know what typical retention looks like and I imagine that Iraq is no picnic but considering.

13. How do you rate your unit's morale?
53 very high 3%
252 high 13%
653 average 34%
540 low 28%
412 very low 21%

Does average in Tikrit mean the same as Mosul or Baghdad? To assume average belongs in the "good" column (or bad) is just that . . . an assumption. But the values at the somewhat unambiguous extremes . . . do not portend high morale as a satisfactory descriptor for US forces in the region. Then again maybe the sample sux so all conclusions are suspect.

In summary, President Bush has a habit of distortion. Some say he's a slow wit. Some say he's a liar. Some say he's a straight-talker that doesn't get bogged down with DC wonk. Personally, I think he's a slow wit, liar but typically he says what he means to best of his limited ability.

Defending our nation is a worthwhile endeavor and everyone that chooses (or old farts . . . drafted) to perform that duty deserves our respect and consideration. But by his actions, Bush shows the US military even less consideration than his equally impressive draft-dodging predecessor. Stop Loss orders are likely a function of low morale and that low morale is likely a function of misuse and abuse of our military.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I draw great pleasure in seeing how much this infuriates you.

No kidding, he must be foaming at the mouth.

No ones gonna mistake what's on your mouths for "foam" now are they.

let's see if we can get this thread back on-topic.

I can understand why you'd want a topic change. No sense in continually highlighting your inability to comprehend even the simplest English.

Stop Loss orders are likely a function of low morale and that low morale is likely a function of misuse and abuse of our military.

I don't think the stop loss order was in effect in Aug. when this survey was done. The low morale is more probably caused by the fact that they were on deployment, in the desert, in August. Similar retention, morale and mission "stats" would be received from any unit, from any service, that was deployed, at any time. At least that has been my experience. We have always given "command climate" surveys both in port and at sea and I don't think I have to tell you what the differences were. Especially among the younger, first term, guys.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
By the way, the full report is available on the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace home page. There is also a short summary of their findings (below), as well as other information and resources on various topics. Their server(s) seem a little overloaded at the moment, so be gentle.

Here is the summary:

WMD IN IRAQ - Evidence and Implications

WMD in IRAQ: Evidence and Implications, a new study from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, details what the U.S. and international intelligence communities understood about Iraq's weapons programs before the war and outlines policy reforms to improve threat assessments, deter transfer of WMD to terrorists, strengthen the UN weapons inspection process, and avoid politicization of the intelligence process.

The report distills a massive amount of data into side-by-side comparisons of pre-war intelligence, the official presentation of that intelligence, and what is now known about Iraq's programs.

The authors of the report are: Jessica T. Mathews, president; George Perkovich, vice president for studies, and Joseph Cirincione, senior associate and non-proliferation project director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.


SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Changes to U.S. Policy

• Revise the National Security Strategy to eliminate a U.S. policy of unilateral preventive war, i.e., preemptive war in absence of imminent threat.
• Create a nonpartisan, independent commission to establish a clearer picture of what the intelligence community knew and believed it knew about Iraq's weapons program.
• Consider changing the post of Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) from a political appointment to a career appointment, based on the outcomes of the independent commission.
• Make the security of poorly protected nuclear weapons and stockpiles of plutonium and highly enriched uranium a much higher priority for national security policy.

International Action

• The United States and United Nations should together produce a complete history and inventory of Iraq's WMD and missile programs.
• The UN Secretary General should commission a high-level analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the WMD inspection processes in Iraq, and how inspections could be strengthened in the future.
• The UN Security Council should consider creating a permanent, international, nonproliferation inspection capability.
• Make the transfer of WMD a violation of international law.

Changes to Threat Assessments

• Recognize distinctions in the degree of threat posed by the different forms of "weapons of mass destruction" - chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons pose vastly different risks and cost-benefit calculations of actions to combat them.
• Recognize red flags indicating that sound intelligence practices are not being followed.
• Examine and debate the assertion that the combined threat of evil states and terrorism calls for acting on the basis of worst-case reasoning.
• Examine assumption that states will likely transfer WMD to terrorists.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Iraq WMD Was Not An Immediate Threat

• Iraq's nuclear program had been suspended for many years; Iraq focused on preserving a latent, dual-use chemical and probably biological weapons capability, not weapons production.
• Iraqi nerve agents had lost most of their lethality as early as 1991.
• Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, and UN inspections and sanctions effectively destroyed Iraq's large-scale chemical weapon production capabilities.

Inspections Were Working

• Post-war searches suggest the UN inspections were on track to find what was there.
• International constraints, sanctions, procurement, investigations, and the export/import control mechanism appear to have been considerably more effective than was thought.

Intelligence Failed and Was Misrepresented

• Intelligence community overestimated the chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.
• Intelligence community appears to have been unduly influenced by policymakers' views.
• Officials misrepresented threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missiles programs over and above intelligence findings.

Terrorist Connection Missing

• No solid evidence of cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda.
• No evidence that Iraq would have transferred WMD to terrorists-and much evidence to counter it.
• No evidence to suggest that deterrence was no longer operable.

Post-War WMD Search Ignored Key Resources

• Past relationships with Iraqi scientists and officials, and credibility of UNMOVIC experts represent a vital resource that has been ignored when it should be being fully exploited.
• Data from the seven years of UNSCOM/IAEA inspections are absolutely essential. Direct involvement of those who compiled the more-than-30-million- page record is needed.

War Was Not the Best-Or Only-Option

• There were at least two options preferable to a war undertaken without international support: allowing the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspections to continue until obstructed or completed, or imposing a tougher program of "coercive inspections."

Download the report at www.ceip.org/WMD or contact Maura Keaney at 202-939-2372 or mkeaney@ceip.org.

If UQ is done frothing, let's see if we can get this thread back on-topic. It is an important report, the most comprehensive indictment yet of the Bush administration's rush to war.

(The good news is the CEIP server(s) seem to be back up.)

I think their last finding is the most important. War Was Not the Best-Or Only-Option

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ldir
I think their last finding is the most important. War Was Not the Best-Or Only-Option

Yep, especially coupled with "Inspections were working." There was no reason to rush into war.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ldir
I think their last finding is the most important. War Was Not the Best-Or Only-Option

Yep, especially coupled with "Inspections were working." There was no reason to rush into war.

This is what I questioned in another thread. Many here condemn France for not backing us in our attempt at getting UN approval before the attack. France was simply asking for a month or two longer than we were asking for.

link
French President Jacques Chirac said Sunday he was willing to accept a one-month or two-month deadline for Iraq to disarm, provided the move was endorsed by the chief U.N. weapons inspectors. But U.S. officials dismissed the idea as a nonstarter and Germany opposed it, saying it wanted no ultimatum.

Had we agreed, things might have been very, very different. UN approval. No silly feuds between countries. Hell, maybe a war might never have happened.

The answer I received was something about how we needed to go NOW because it was getting to hot out.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ldir
I think their last finding is the most important. War Was Not the Best-Or Only-Option

Yep, especially coupled with "Inspections were working." There was no reason to rush into war.

This is what I questioned in another thread. Many here condemn France for not backing us in our attempt at getting UN approval before the attack. France was simply asking for a month or two longer than we were asking for.

link
French President Jacques Chirac said Sunday he was willing to accept a one-month or two-month deadline for Iraq to disarm, provided the move was endorsed by the chief U.N. weapons inspectors. But U.S. officials dismissed the idea as a nonstarter and Germany opposed it, saying it wanted no ultimatum.

Had we agreed, things might have been very, very different. UN approval. No silly feuds between countries. Hell, maybe a war might never have happened.

The answer I received was something about how we needed to go NOW because it was getting to hot out.

Some even keep bashing Blitz. :shrug; Selective memory I guess.

 

[GrGr]

Articles of Impeachment, drafted by Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clarke


Articles of Impeachment
of

President George W. Bush

and Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
Attorney General John David Ashcroft

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John David Ashcroft have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with
impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law;
carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting
in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

4) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of
prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

5) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public
discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to
U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

6) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting
treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

7) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the
discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

8) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

9) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

10) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

11) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

12) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

13) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

14) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

15) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

16) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

17) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.

18) OFF WITH THEIR HEADS let the gooood times roll(# 18 was drafted by "special councel" GrGr )



Vote to impeach

 

[maluckey]

If Clinton, Kay, and Bush, with all the worlds resources ofor information, belived that there were WMD's, who did Carnegie group talk to? What are their sources? They don't say.


Facts:

Inspections had failed for 12 years.............Iraq was in clear violation of original peace treaty with the U.S., and had constatnly shown themselves to be aggressive. They frequenly vented their aggression with missiles launced at aircraft enforcing the No-Fly Zone.

They were in possession of illegal SSM's, and were in developmental stage of even further ranged weapons. They stated to the world that they would use Chemical weapons against the U.S. if we invaded. What would a reasonable person do?

OOh! OOH! I know! Let's give them 12 more years to comply with a peace treaty, and numerous U.N. resolutions!!!

.....That's called appeasement, or at the very least encouragement. It fails.

To state that war is not the only answer is true. There are ALWAYS options, some markedly better than others. No valid, unbiased sources for the Carnegie (admittedly Anti-War group), means no valid conclusions. Opinion and supposition can always be made to fit the occaison.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: maluckey
If Clinton, Kay, and Bush, with all the worlds resources ofor information, belived that there were WMD's, who did Carnegie group talk to? What are their sources? They don't say.


Facts:

Inspections had failed for 12 years.............Iraq was in clear violation of original peace treaty with the U.S., and had constatnly shown themselves to be aggressive. They frequenly vented their aggression with missiles launced at aircraft enforcing the No-Fly Zone.

They were in possession of illegal SSM's, and were in developmental stage of even further ranged weapons. They stated to the world that they would use Chemical weapons against the U.S. if we invaded. What would a reasonable person do?

OOh! OOH! I know! Let's give them 12 more years to comply with a peace treaty, and numerous U.N. resolutions!!!

.....That's called appeasement, or at the very least encouragement. It fails.

To state that war is not the only answer is true. There are ALWAYS options, some markedly better than others. No valid, unbiased sources for the Carnegie (admittedly Anti-War group), means no valid conclusions. Opinion and supposition can always be made to fit the occaison.

Who's next?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Bin Laden and Saddam were known to detest and fear each other, the one for his radical religious beliefs and the other for his aggressively secular rule and persecution of Islamists. Bin Laden labeled the Iraqi ruler an infidel and an apostate, had offered to go to battle against him after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and had frequently called for his overthrow.119 The fact that they were strategic adversaries does not rule out a tactical alliance based on a common antagonism to the United States. However, although there have been periodic meetings between Iraqi and Al Qaeda agents, and visits by Al Qaeda agents to Baghdad, the most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam?s government and Al Qaeda.

I'm still reading the report and checking sources but that is from pg. 48. I was surprised to read that because I constantly hear that there was no connection between AlQueda and Baghdad and that the reported meetings between agents had never happened. Interesting. Of course I'm sure that the meetings were held just to discuss the weather or something. No reason to be alarmed when those two parties meet.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Isn't it just as likely that in the unlikely event that Iraqi agents were talking with Al Qaeda contacts . . . they were discussing the possible overthrow of Saddam (overwelmingly unpopular despot)? Possibly even plots to take Kuwait or maybe even Saudi Arabia?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Isn't it just as likely that in the unlikely event that Iraqi agents were talking with Al Qaeda contacts . . . they were discussing the possible overthrow of Saddam (overwelmingly unpopular despot)? Possibly even plots to take Kuwait or maybe even Saudi Arabia?

Which makes it better or OK how?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Isn't it just as likely that in the unlikely event that Iraqi agents were talking with Al Qaeda contacts . . . they were discussing the possible overthrow of Saddam (overwelmingly unpopular despot)? Possibly even plots to take Kuwait or maybe even Saudi Arabia?

Which makes it better or OK how?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Isn't it just as likely that in the unlikely event that Iraqi agents were talking with Al Qaeda contacts . . . they were discussing the possible overthrow of Saddam (overwelmingly unpopular despot)? Possibly even plots to take Kuwait or maybe even Saudi Arabia?

Which makes it better or OK how?

Maybe they were exchanging recipes on Camel Toe Soup!

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Isn't it just as likely that in the unlikely event that Iraqi agents were talking with Al Qaeda contacts . . . they were discussing the possible overthrow of Saddam (overwelmingly unpopular despot)? Possibly even plots to take Kuwait or maybe even Saudi Arabia?

Which makes it better or OK how?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Bin Laden and Saddam were known to detest and fear each other, the one for his radical religious beliefs and the other for his aggressively secular rule and persecution of Islamists. Bin Laden labeled the Iraqi ruler an infidel and an apostate, had offered to go to battle against him after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and had frequently called for his overthrow.119 The fact that they were strategic adversaries does not rule out a tactical alliance based on a common antagonism to the United States. However, although there have been periodic meetings between Iraqi and Al Qaeda agents, and visits by Al Qaeda agents to Baghdad, the most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam?s government and Al Qaeda.

I'm still reading the report and checking sources but that is from pg. 48. I was surprised to read that because I constantly hear that there was no connection between AlQueda and Baghdad and that the reported meetings between agents had never happened. Interesting. Of course I'm sure that the meetings were held just to discuss the weather or something. No reason to be alarmed when those two parties meet.

Presuming these meetings took place, what constraints would you place on topics of discussion? I am curious as to your understanding of how things work.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Bin Laden and Saddam were known to detest and fear each other, the one for his radical religious beliefs and the other for his aggressively secular rule and persecution of Islamists. Bin Laden labeled the Iraqi ruler an infidel and an apostate, had offered to go to battle against him after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and had frequently called for his overthrow.119 The fact that they were strategic adversaries does not rule out a tactical alliance based on a common antagonism to the United States. However, although there have been periodic meetings between Iraqi and Al Qaeda agents, and visits by Al Qaeda agents to Baghdad, the most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam?s government and Al Qaeda.

I'm still reading the report and checking sources but that is from pg. 48. I was surprised to read that because I constantly hear that there was no connection between AlQueda and Baghdad and that the reported meetings between agents had never happened. Interesting. Of course I'm sure that the meetings were held just to discuss the weather or something. No reason to be alarmed when those two parties meet.

The only other references I saw are on page 44. Most were unsupported remarks; this bit cites specific intelligence information:

In November, the Weekly Standard published excerpts from a classified annex to a memo dated October 27, 2003 by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The article claimed that Feith's list of fifty incidents of alleged Iraqi?Al Qaeda contacts proved "an operational relationship from the early 1990s," and that "there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda to plot against Americans."

The Department of Defense issued a statement saying the memo had been misinterpreted, saying that the items were raw intelligence previously considered and did not represent new information. "The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions."

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Bin Laden and Saddam were known to detest and fear each other, the one for his radical religious beliefs and the other for his aggressively secular rule and persecution of Islamists. Bin Laden labeled the Iraqi ruler an infidel and an apostate, had offered to go to battle against him after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and had frequently called for his overthrow.119 The fact that they were strategic adversaries does not rule out a tactical alliance based on a common antagonism to the United States. However, although there have been periodic meetings between Iraqi and Al Qaeda agents, and visits by Al Qaeda agents to Baghdad, the most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam?s government and Al Qaeda.

I'm still reading the report and checking sources but that is from pg. 48. I was surprised to read that because I constantly hear that there was no connection between AlQueda and Baghdad and that the reported meetings between agents had never happened. Interesting. Of course I'm sure that the meetings were held just to discuss the weather or something. No reason to be alarmed when those two parties meet.

Presuming these meetings took place, what constraints would you place on topics of discussion? I am curious as to your understanding of how things work.

I don't understand what you mean by "constraints on topics of discussion".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Bin Laden and Saddam were known to detest and fear each other, the one for his radical religious beliefs and the other for his aggressively secular rule and persecution of Islamists. Bin Laden labeled the Iraqi ruler an infidel and an apostate, had offered to go to battle against him after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and had frequently called for his overthrow.119 The fact that they were strategic adversaries does not rule out a tactical alliance based on a common antagonism to the United States. However, although there have been periodic meetings between Iraqi and Al Qaeda agents, and visits by Al Qaeda agents to Baghdad, the most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam?s government and Al Qaeda.

I'm still reading the report and checking sources but that is from pg. 48. I was surprised to read that because I constantly hear that there was no connection between AlQueda and Baghdad and that the reported meetings between agents had never happened. Interesting. Of course I'm sure that the meetings were held just to discuss the weather or something. No reason to be alarmed when those two parties meet.

Presuming these meetings took place, what constraints would you place on topics of discussion? I am curious as to your understanding of how things work.

I don't understand what you mean by "constraints on topics of discussion".

I may be wrong in my understanding, but you seem to have offered the choice between Al Queda and Saddam conspiring, or making a visit to discuss the weather or some such insignificant topic. I seek clarification before I make an incorrect assumption and expound on a non existent point.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I think this comes back to why people like Perle, Frum, et al produce corrupt policy. There's only ONE thing they (Iraq/Al Qaeda) could possibly be talking about, "killing Americans." Even Clinton codified overt and covert activity to depose Saddam . . . arguably a laudable goal (but process matters). Is it possible they discussed establishing Al Qaeda cells within Iraq for the purpose of attacking Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or dare I say . . . a future occupying power?

Personally, I don't care if they were discussing minicolumns in the pathophysiology of autism. Of course, Bushies will claim they were definitely discussing transfer of WMD technology AND materials. Curiously, they present no proof . . . either before or after the war. No weapons no documents no people that can substantitively link Saddam to Al Qaeda. Yet a substantial portion of the US population believe such links exist. Fortunately, the President's aptitude may be improving since he no longer claims such links exist. Unfortunately, he's transferred his idiocy to a subset of the American public . . . disproportionately to the people that watch FOXNews.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Bin Laden and Saddam were known to detest and fear each other, the one for his radical religious beliefs and the other for his aggressively secular rule and persecution of Islamists. Bin Laden labeled the Iraqi ruler an infidel and an apostate, had offered to go to battle against him after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and had frequently called for his overthrow.119 The fact that they were strategic adversaries does not rule out a tactical alliance based on a common antagonism to the United States. However, although there have been periodic meetings between Iraqi and Al Qaeda agents, and visits by Al Qaeda agents to Baghdad, the most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam?s government and Al Qaeda.

I'm still reading the report and checking sources but that is from pg. 48. I was surprised to read that because I constantly hear that there was no connection between AlQueda and Baghdad and that the reported meetings between agents had never happened. Interesting. Of course I'm sure that the meetings were held just to discuss the weather or something. No reason to be alarmed when those two parties meet.

Presuming these meetings took place, what constraints would you place on topics of discussion? I am curious as to your understanding of how things work.

I don't understand what you mean by "constraints on topics of discussion".

I may be wrong in my understanding, but you seem to have offered the choice between Al Queda and Saddam conspiring, or making a visit to discuss the weather or some such insignificant topic. I seek clarification before I make an incorrect assumption and expound on a non existent point.

I offered no choices as to their discussion only the suggestion that whatever they were discussing it probably wasn't as something as benign as the weather. Of course now, according to the anti-Bush, it doesn't matter what they were discussing nor does it even matter that they were there.

It's funny because I've heard a lot of people on this board massively criticizing the admin for not assuming the worst case scenario when they were presented with very vague evidence prior to 9/11 and yet when presented with the info that AlQueda and Iraqi agents met it is unthinkable to assume anything but the most benign scenario. I wish those people would pick a standard and stick to it or is the standard just to criticize Bush, Perle, et al?

 

[dahunan]

The uproar about towards Bush's pre-911 Intel is that Conddoleeza later went out and LIED saying that we never thought that someone would hijack a plane and use it as a missile.... that was a disgusting lie which only made everyone more suspicious.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Jason
Although your feelings are noble, and for most, admirable as well, I think even you would admit that this administration, along with those in recent memory, don't share your mindset. Or they just feel that the consequences of such noble actions would be too great. Either way, it's nondebatable that the Iraqis would still be under Saddams control if the threat of WMD (real or not) were not there.

I'm sure that's true. I don't want to *assume* that the president had any specific motive, I'm only saying that taking out Saddam was a worthy cause, whether the president intended it to be so or not.

go and ask the soldiers and their families what their viewpoint is. all the soldiers [and their families] i know all agree with the President.
the American taxpayer on the other hand, their viewpoint changes with the tide of the war. at the beginning they supported it, in the middle [now] it looks as if we may be there for a while, so they oppose it. we catch Saddam, approval soars. all that is reported is bad news about death and ambushes, approval plunges

I personally know about half a dozen soldiers, 4 of whom were in Iraq during the major combat (marines) and two of whom were not sent. All of them stand firmly in their conviction that they did the RIGHT thing, WMD or not. It's sad sometimes to hear the tales of the living conditions in which they found the people of Iraq; living in filth with "homes" that most of us wouldn't move into even if the rent were ultra-cheap, etc. I'm disturbed that we see or hear so little of the positive happenings in Iraq when there is also a lot of good going on, but then, it's the sensational bad news stories that garner ratings. You're right though: Public opinion is an enormous pendulum that swings quickly and easily with the current news.

Just a simple question here for all that think we did the right thing in Iraq and all our troops are jim dandy happy they are there.

I'm by no means an expert on the military, but isn't the whole point of it to protect and defend our country and way of life? If that is so, please explain to me how our soldiers dying and getting wounded over there is accomplishing that? If we did nothing, we would have been attacked by Iraq? Our way of life was going to be threatened by Iraq if we didn't act?

I know most of the people arguing in this forum seem to have all the answers, so hopefully they will enlighten me.

I don't think anyone here claims to have all the answers, nor even that *all* the soldiers are "jim dandy" about being in Iraq. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that people don't like being thousands of miles from home in semi-hostile territory that seems to be a magnet for terrorist scumbags.

As to your other question about how the actions in the middle east can help "protect our way of life," it's as simple as to point out that we all live on the same planet and that one dictator's dangerous tendencies (and more frighteningly, his sons') toward his own people *historically* spill over to affect other people. It happened when the Nazi's (National SOCIALIST Party, you know) became the main power in Germany, it happened when the Communists took over Russia in the Bolshevik revolution (Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, you know) and Iraq had already spilled over into Kuwait once before. In order to protect our way of life it's necessary to be proactive in erroding the power of tyrants everywhere. Sometimes that means subversive tactics, sometimes outright war, but if we are EVER to live in a world of PEACE, we *must* come to a point where the whole world respects the NATURAL RIGHTS of Human Beings and ALL governments are founded on the idea that those rights are to be protected. Governments should be the SERVANTS of the people, NOT the rulers.

If this Administration would have tried to sell this war to the American Public based on just liberating the Iraqi's they would have never have gotten the public approval to execute the invasion and occupation.

You're right; the educational system in the US has so fully cleansed the American people of any sort of forward though or ethical thought that it would have been impossible to get approval to save the lives of millions of people at the mercy of a brutal dictator. Unfortunately our last 30 odd years of education and cowing to the UN has left us with the twisted idea that even MURDERERS can have Sovereignty if they have their own flag and plot of land.

I think their last finding is the most important. War Was Not the Best-Or Only-Option

Because all your other options over the previous dozen years had drawn out such magnificent results, right? As if Iraq had existed in a state of PEACE prior to the US invasion, right?

Yep, especially coupled with "Inspections were working." There was no reason to rush into war.

Yeah, that 12 year "Rush to war" was just WAY too fast! They should have waited TWENTY years so that another MILLION or so Iraqi's could have been jailed, murdered, gassed or fed into the plastic shredder feet-first, right Bow? I'm so glad that we have compassionate men like you on our planet, or it would be a constant warzone!

Had we agreed, things might have been very, very different. UN approval. No silly feuds between countries. Hell, maybe a war might never have happened

I'll say it clearly: Screw the UN. For goodness sakes, people, how many of the countries that make up the UN's governing council *are* dictatorships!? And as for France...they were worried about one thing: Getting their payday for goods they sold to Saddam. In other words they were more interested in making money off the fear and oppression of the Iraqi people than anyone else, and you paint these people as the *good* guys?!

The uproar about towards Bush's pre-911 Intel is that Conddoleeza later went out and LIED saying that we never thought that someone would hijack a plane and use it as a missile.... that was a disgusting lie which only made everyone more suspicious.

Why would you think that was a lie? Did YOU assume someone would hijack a plane and use it as a missile? I can say with certainty I never did, and our policy on hijackings (take the hijackers where they want to go, passengers remain seated) clearly does NOT reflect anticipation that hijackers would use the plane as a missile. In a certain sense it was *precisely* the average American's good will that made the actions of the terrorists on 9/11 such a shock and surprise. In no previous hijacking had the hijackers used a plane in such a manner. I think it's *completely* believable and fair to say that they didn't expect what happened. Not to say they *shouldn't* have expected it, after all, it's their job to be more on top of these issues than everyday joe-blows like you and me, but at the same time I can't *entirely* fault them for not expecting something so savage.

On the bright side, American passengers no longer do as they're told on a hijacked plane, making it much more difficult for terrorists to pull the same stunt again.

Jason

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
By the way, the full report is available on the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace home page. There is also a short summary of their findings (below), as well as other information and resources on various topics. Their server(s) seem a little overloaded at the moment, so be gentle.

Here is the summary:

WMD IN IRAQ - Evidence and Implications

WMD in IRAQ: Evidence and Implications, a new study from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, details what the U.S. and international intelligence communities understood about Iraq's weapons programs before the war and outlines policy reforms to improve threat assessments, deter transfer of WMD to terrorists, strengthen the UN weapons inspection process, and avoid politicization of the intelligence process.

The report distills a massive amount of data into side-by-side comparisons of pre-war intelligence, the official presentation of that intelligence, and what is now known about Iraq's programs.

The authors of the report are: Jessica T. Mathews, president; George Perkovich, vice president for studies, and Joseph Cirincione, senior associate and non-proliferation project director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.


SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Changes to U.S. Policy

• Revise the National Security Strategy to eliminate a U.S. policy of unilateral preventive war, i.e., preemptive war in absence of imminent threat.
• Create a nonpartisan, independent commission to establish a clearer picture of what the intelligence community knew and believed it knew about Iraq's weapons program.
• Consider changing the post of Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) from a political appointment to a career appointment, based on the outcomes of the independent commission.
• Make the security of poorly protected nuclear weapons and stockpiles of plutonium and highly enriched uranium a much higher priority for national security policy.

International Action

• The United States and United Nations should together produce a complete history and inventory of Iraq's WMD and missile programs.
• The UN Secretary General should commission a high-level analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the WMD inspection processes in Iraq, and how inspections could be strengthened in the future.
• The UN Security Council should consider creating a permanent, international, nonproliferation inspection capability.
• Make the transfer of WMD a violation of international law.

Changes to Threat Assessments

• Recognize distinctions in the degree of threat posed by the different forms of "weapons of mass destruction" - chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons pose vastly different risks and cost-benefit calculations of actions to combat them.
• Recognize red flags indicating that sound intelligence practices are not being followed.
• Examine and debate the assertion that the combined threat of evil states and terrorism calls for acting on the basis of worst-case reasoning.
• Examine assumption that states will likely transfer WMD to terrorists.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Iraq WMD Was Not An Immediate Threat

• Iraq's nuclear program had been suspended for many years; Iraq focused on preserving a latent, dual-use chemical and probably biological weapons capability, not weapons production.
• Iraqi nerve agents had lost most of their lethality as early as 1991.
• Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, and UN inspections and sanctions effectively destroyed Iraq's large-scale chemical weapon production capabilities.

Inspections Were Working

• Post-war searches suggest the UN inspections were on track to find what was there.
• International constraints, sanctions, procurement, investigations, and the export/import control mechanism appear to have been considerably more effective than was thought.

Intelligence Failed and Was Misrepresented

• Intelligence community overestimated the chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.
• Intelligence community appears to have been unduly influenced by policymakers' views.
• Officials misrepresented threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missiles programs over and above intelligence findings.

Terrorist Connection Missing

• No solid evidence of cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda.
• No evidence that Iraq would have transferred WMD to terrorists-and much evidence to counter it.
• No evidence to suggest that deterrence was no longer operable.

Post-War WMD Search Ignored Key Resources

• Past relationships with Iraqi scientists and officials, and credibility of UNMOVIC experts represent a vital resource that has been ignored when it should be being fully exploited.
• Data from the seven years of UNSCOM/IAEA inspections are absolutely essential. Direct involvement of those who compiled the more-than-30-million- page record is needed.

War Was Not the Best-Or Only-Option

• There were at least two options preferable to a war undertaken without international support: allowing the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspections to continue until obstructed or completed, or imposing a tougher program of "coercive inspections."

Download the report at www.ceip.org/WMD or contact Maura Keaney at 202-939-2372 or mkeaney@ceip.org.

This is another piece that should be required reading.

 

[Bowfinger]

Lately we seem to be besieged by P&N irregulars popping in with drive-by disinformation-ings. Rather than continually rehashing old ground, I thought it was time to bring some of the more informative threads back to the foreground. If they take a few minutes to educate themselves, we can save a lot of time and aggravation.

(Or not, but it's worth a try.)