The Man Who Sold the War

[rubydick]

This is one of the more interesting pieces I''ve come across lately, written by James Bamford. Bambord has authored several important books, particularly his book on the supersecret NSA.

Below is a brief excerpt:

The Man Who Sold the War

Meet John Rendon, Bush''s general in the propaganda war

By JAMES BAMFORD

The road to war in Iraq led through many unlikely places. One of them was a chic hotel nestled among the strip bars and brothels that cater to foreigners in the town of Pattaya, on the Gulf of Thailand.

On December 17th, 2001, in a small room within the sound of the crashing tide, a CIA officer attached metal electrodes to the ring and index fingers of a man sitting pensively in a padded chair. The officer then stretched a black rubber tube, pleated like an accordion, around the man''s chest and another across his abdomen. Finally, he slipped a thick cuff over the man''s brachial artery, on the inside of his upper arm.

Strapped to the polygraph machine was Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a forty-three-year-old Iraqi who had fled his homeland in Kurdistan and was now determined to bring down Saddam Hussein. For hours, as thin mechanical styluses traced black lines on rolling graph paper, al-Haideri laid out an explosive tale. Answering yes and no to a series of questions, he insisted repeatedly that he was a civil engineer who had helped Saddam''s men to secretly bury tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The illegal arms, according to al-Haideri, were buried in subterranean wells, hidden in private villas, even stashed beneath the Saddam Hussein Hospital, the largest medical facility in Baghdad....

 

[perry]

The fact of the matter that many people do not now want to admit. Key demoncratic leaders were just as convinced that Saddam had to go, and war was the option, as their were republican leaders. This extends back into the Clinton administration.

Of course, now that things have not gone well - eveyone blames President Bush; and forgets how many key democratic leaders were on the forfront of agreeing and arguing for war up front.

Do your homework folks. Don''t just go off of what people are saying now - look what they said in the months prior to congressional authorization for the war.

Perry

 

[crafftygrrl]

My husband is an accomplished attorney. Two of his former partners are:

1. Jim Woolsey, ex-Director of the CIA under President Clinton. During his time at the CIA and the build up to the war, he was convinced that the Iraqis under Saddam were up to no good, to put it mildly. He also spoke to the law firm earlier this year. He said in order to produce stability in the world, the US needs to wean itself from foreign oil. We need to pursue hydrogen/hybrid technology for transportation. If we all drove hydrogen powered cars, our demand for oil would be reduced 500 fold. My husband and I have agreed that all our future car purchases will be hybrids. (I also believe we need to stop building enormous 6,000-12,000+ s.f. homes that will be used by a family of 4, that cost $2,000 a month to heat or air condition.)

2. Steve Hadley, current National Security Adviser. Mark worked with him for years, and says he is an honest man. A real straight shooter. I don''t trust the news media. When I have truly known about a topic, they always gets it wrong.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/20/2005 4:52:03 PM
Author: crafftygrrl
My husband and I have agreed that all our future car purchases will be hybrids.

Would it surprise you to know that we just bought a hybrid? Nothing about you and me would surprise me at this point! We are the proud parents of a new 2006 Honda Civic hybrid. From Leesburg Honda .

Deb

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/20/2005 4:52:03 PM
Author: crafftygrrl
I don''t trust the news media. When I have truly known about a topic, they always gets it wrong.

I feel about the news media the way I feel about politicians. One cannot trust them without checking on what he is told, but that does not mean that they are completely useless or always wrong. Sometimes they unearth secrets that the American people have a right to know and that have been buried by the powerful and guilty. Seymour Hersh did this when he exposed what happened at My Lai. Woodward and Bernstein did that with Watergate.

Richard Hughes lived in Southeast Asia and saw that what the US media reported happening in his neighborhood was not what he saw happening outside his front door. I have asked him to write a bit about his own life here, because I found his life (what I heard of it) fascinating.

Deborah

 

[perry]

Very interesting on the hybreds and the hydrogen car concept.

I had been planning to write a post on how to get to reasonable energy indepence - which included production of hydrogen for use in transportation systems (my estimate is that aproximately 75% of transportation could relatively easily be converted to hydrogen over a 10 - 15 year period - if we had a non-hydrocarbon source of that hydrogen). In the end, with current technology, nuclear power plants is the only energy souce we have that can make a realistic dent that we can start constructing now (even then it takes 4-5 years before physical construction starts due to the appropriate reviews and licesnsing issues, and another 3-5 years for construction and training of the plant crew: 3 companies have construction applications in progress with the timeline of the first one scheduled for potential approval in the end of 2006). Their are other possibilities that are 20+ years out (assuming they get the appropriate R&D); but, I don''t think we have the time to wait arround.

I will continue to work on my post on the subject. I have been gathering bits and pieces of the puzze here and their (I have probably put 20 hours of research into the subject, and probably need another 10-20 hours to have the major pieces and to be able to answer most questions in the post). I would like to get this done this year yet.

Perry

 

[rubydick]

Date: 11/20/2005 3:27:14 PM
Author: perry
The fact of the matter that many people do not now want to admit. Key demoncratic leaders were just as convinced that Saddam had to go, and war was the option, as their were republican leaders. This extends back into the Clinton administration.

Of course, now that things have not gone well - eveyone blames President Bush; and forgets how many key democratic leaders were on the forfront of agreeing and arguing for war up front.

Do your homework folks. Don''t just go off of what people are saying now - look what they said in the months prior to congressional authorization for the war.

Perry

Actually, I did my homework, which was why I was out on the streets protesting prior to the war, as were many Americans and millions more around the world.

Now if you had asked me if Saddam should be overthrown, I would have answered yes then and believe it was good that he was overthrown. I think virtually all people can agree on that. But as one much wiser than I once said: "if you get people asking the wrong question, the answer doesn''t matter."

The question is not should Saddam have been overthrown. The question is how best to do that. Do you do it via popular uprising, stealth assassination, insider coup, or via a military invasion by a foreign force. Fact is that Clinton had his shot at the latter and did not take the bait. This is despite the fact that he was urged to do so by the neo-con death cult back in 1988 (then known as the Project for the New American Century). Wanna know some others that did not take the bait? France, Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and so many other nations that Bush couldn''t bribe or strong-arm into supporting the invasion. This is why he invaded without UN approval (and let''s not forget that he tried mightily to get that approval).

The question that is left unasked by Perry is whether or not Congress (and the public) was given full information prior to the vote? Here''s one senator''s take on that:

What I Knew Before the Invasion

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/20/2005 6:56:47 PM
Author: perry

I had been planning to write a post on how to get to reasonable energy indepence - which included production of hydrogen for use in transportation systems (my estimate is that aproximately 75% of transportation could relatively easily be converted to hydrogen over a 10 - 15 year period - if we had a non-hydrocarbon source of that hydrogen). In the end, with current technology, nuclear power plants is the only energy souce we have that can make a realistic dent that we can start constructing now (even then it takes 4-5 years before physical construction starts due to the appropriate reviews and licesnsing issues, and another 3-5 years for construction and training of the plant crew: 3 companies have construction applications in progress with the timeline of the first one scheduled for potential approval in the end of 2006). Their are other possibilities that are 20+ years out (assuming they get the appropriate R&D); but, I don''t think we have the time to wait arround.

It is clear to me that we have to stop using so much fossil fuel both because it harms the US and because it harms the environment (not to mention that the supply is finite). I think that the big oil companies try to make consumers forget the realities once a crisis has passed because they want to keep consumers in their thrall. And we consumers are all far too ready to fell into the trap of a quick fix of fossil fuel.

Frankly, however, nuclear energy scares me silly. When I saw people unable to evacuate in the face of Hurricane katrina I thought of what a joke it is to think people could evacuate the site of a nuclear accident.

I am partial to the use of solar energy. I wonder if it would not be lucrative for people to refine solar panels for heating homes and water while the car manufacturers try alternatives to gasoline for automobiles.

Deborah

 

[perry]

Sorry Richard: I don''t buy it. I think it is political grandstanding after the fact. The key point here is: "As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, and the run-up to the Iraq war, I probably had as much access to the intelligence on which the war was predicated as any other member of Congress."

The fact is that the key leaders in the US Congress have the same access to top level intelegence on key issues as does the Presedent. The Chairman of the Senate Committe on Intelegence would have access to everything.

It is also well known that, especially the CIA, has been not the most reliable intelegence organization in the US (their have been congressional hearings on this in the past). It is also known that it takes time to change things - a long time due to inertia in many of the US government agencies (most senior US agents and analysist have outlived a dozen boses and "changes" in policies - and they do not change much). The Senior Senator certainly knew those things.

Bob can justly claim that he voted no on the authorization for good reasons. I don''t buy that he did not know - or could not have known - how shaky the intelegence was on certain issues.


AGBF: Solar is too small to replace transportation at this time, so is wind power. All forms of "alternate & renewable" generation makes up only 2% of the US electical generation (by power produced). Nuclear (with 104 mostly old plants) makes up something like 40% of electrical generation in the US based on power produced (with only 20% of the installed capacity).

Could altenates play a bigger role in the future. Yes. Are they of the scale, reliablility, and cost effectiveness at this time to make significant contributions - and allow the production of significant hydrogen in the near term. NO. I note that the US goverment is essentially giving all wind power away. you could build nuclear power plants and give the electicity away - and still make money based on how much the US is subsidizing wind power on a cost per KWH basis (and the arguments that the US government is massively subsidizing nuclear power are not true either: I''m trying to find how much money the nuclear plants are paying the US goverment each year (actually the rate payers - its a special charge built right into every KWH charged on every electric bill for every utility that gets gereration from a nuclear power plant: This surcahge is not charged for any other form of generation). The US govement is comming out many many billions of dollars per year ahead on the deal. OK so now they toss a few billion out as subsidies to get the next generation of plants through the modern process of licensing.

As far as your fear. Fear chemical plants and chemical transportation more. Bopahl killed something like 50,000 and maimed another 100,000 - in minutes. Their are other chemical spill problems way beyond anything the nuclear industry has ever had.

I will not say a problem could not occur in a US nuclear power plant. I cannot see how it could have a major affect on the population.d I work in one of the oldest designed plants out their (a 1st generation Westinghouse plant), and have worked in another one of the same vintage. There are major safety barriers upon major safety barriers, upon major safety barriers to prevent any meaningfull radiation exposure to the public - even if we melted a reactor core and breached the main cooling pipes.

There are also many people out their crying wolf and scaring the general public with very false and slanted stories. The fact is that people get as much radiation flying accross the us (one way) as the average US Nuclear plant worker gets in a year. Radiation is a basic fact of life, we all are - and everything we live in is somewhat radioactive. I don''t see the gereral popluation, nore the airline crews who have flown for many decades having radiation induced problems (and I would like to see the estimates on the total life dose of a retireing aircrew).

Please note the it was the Russians who did not build containment buildings arround power reactors (they do now).

I also admit that the long term waste issue is yet to be properely resolved; but I believe it to be solvable. But the chemical waste problem concerns me more (we''re not finding radioactive waste in our drinking water)

What most people do not understand. Most of the people at Nuclear Power Plants are skeptics. We do not automatically trust a systems or a design. We are trained to question everything. Every year a new group requestions basic design information and "is the plant safe." If we even think their is a problem that could affect plant safety we automatically raise the concern. Each year nuclear plants shut down in the US becuase of such questions. In the vast majority of cases - it turns out that there was not a significant issue when things are fully investigated and answered. However, we are praised for rasing the questions - even if the plant gets shutdown while it is being answered. Their are several hundred people at every nuke power plant who are always questioning. The end result is that while I am willing to admit that something can go wrong, and that even some of the safety equipment may fail - that their is enough backup equipment and redundant systems to contain the worst case - and protect the safety and health of the public.

For example: My job, in part, is to make sure the Containment Fan Coolers (CFC) will work in the case of a major reactor coolant line break or main steam line break in Containment (I also have to make sure a bunch of other things will work and are in good condition). Should such a break occur contaiment will fill with steam and pressurize. The CFC''s will condense that steam and keep contaiment pressure within design specifications. Their are 4 CFC''s, and only one needs to work to do the job. But what if they all fail.... There is a completely independent "Contaiment Spray System" that sprays a cold water mist into the top of contaiment creating rain and condensing steam. It is sized so that just one contaiment spray pump operation on just one contaiment spray header will all by itself keep contaiment pressure withing limits without any CFC''s. Of course their are several contaiment spray pumps and headers. In a real emergency situation - my guess is that we would not see much presurization of contaiment as it will most likely be hit - automatically - with 4 to 6 times the capacity to handle the problem.

But what happens if I leave. I have a fully trained back-up; and their are a dozen people who can step in and do my key job functions - just like I am trained as a backup for other people and can step in and do the key functions for several others.

The newer plants will be safer yet: Things have been learned over the years. Not all of it can be retrofitted into old plants.

I hope that helps keep you at ease.

Perry

 

[perry]

One thing I would like to point out in the article that Richard links.

Their is a statment about the concern that if Saddam were to get sufficient fissil nuclear material that he could have an atomic bomb within a year.

That is a true statement; but as itself presents a lie...

The fact is that almost any country in the world could build at least a crude WW II style atomic weapon within a year of acquiring sufficient fissil material (and many in less time than that). Their is no great mystry hear. The dificulties are entirely in getting the fissil material (high school students can now with computers solve the equations in minutes that took the highest mathamations years in WW II on explosive design for the "fat boy" bomb). I suspect that sufficent knowledge is known of the more advanced designs that more modern (lighter) warheads could easily be fabricated - including fusion bombs within the year as well. Only the most advanced designs would likely be beyond them. But any bomb that the US or Russia designed by the mid 60''s should be doable without a lot of problems. It is interesting to note that warhead design essentially stopped in the 80''s. How long before the details of the most advanced warheads leak out? You can already read the theory on how they operate and of many of the issues involved in fabricating them smalll enough for missle warheards.

Most of this information is completely in the public domain - of course how could their not be. Basic phisics is afterall basic physics. I tend to follow this subject, and have read extensively on it. Even the early neutron initiator designs has finally come out (after some photographs of warhead training mockups finally confirmed the long heald speculation on how to do it: The photos were from a non-US designed bomb; but the US bomb experts quickly certified the photos as real and the country involved was more than unhappy that those photographs ever got out).

Perry

 

[movie zombie]

as in all things, let the buyer beware....and most of congress was not: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

this administration was so anxious to get into iraq that it was pulling from afganistan a full year earlier and taking away from our efforts against real terrorists in afganistan.

peace, movie zombie

 

[perry]

Movie Zombie:

Yes, it''s true. But Bush had support from the Democrates on the issue.

In the end this is not a case of anyone deliberatly lying. It is a case of people wanting to find the evidence to support their view - and essentially ignoring the evidence against that view.

This is done all the time; and you are right. Congress was not "beware." So many in Congress - in both parties - were looking for the same supporting evidence. I think that most of them are shameless to now claim that they were mislead. They mislead themselves.

The core advantage of a multiparty system - and the very reason for the key committees to be ballanced in membership - and having access to the same intelegence as the Executive Branch - is to allow the challanging that is necessary to act with a correct knowlede of the risk involved.

Perry

 

[colormyworld]

The above post sounds to me like a description of a lynch mob. With the president as the leader of the mob.

 

[movie zombie]

perry, i think you also forget that both parties were bullied into acting quickly because if they didn''t, they were traitors to victims of 9/11. both parties failed in their duty to the american people. but that doesn''t mean they have to continue to fail the american people by continuing down the same path. we were told point blank it was WMD and it was known where they were at. now its nation building. i don''t buy the bait and switch tactic.

the iraqi''s have rec''d training from both the british and our military. its time we get out and let them do their job in their own country.

peace, movie zombie

 

[rubydick]

Date: 11/21/2005 6:21:31 PM
Author: perry
Movie Zombie:

Yes, it''s true. But Bush had support from the Democrates on the issue.

In the end this is not a case of anyone deliberatly lying. It is a case of people wanting to find the evidence to support their view - and essentially ignoring the evidence against that view.

This is done all the time; and you are right. Congress was not ''beware.'' So many in Congress - in both parties - were looking for the same supporting evidence. I think that most of them are shameless to now claim that they were mislead. They mislead themselves.

The core advantage of a multiparty system - and the very reason for the key committees to be ballanced in membership - and having access to the same intelegence as the Executive Branch - is to allow the challanging that is necessary to act with a correct knowlede of the risk involved.

Perry

Perry,

Just yesterday I watched on one of the talking head shows as someone described the difference between intel available to the Executive Branch and that of Congress as a funnel, with Congress at the bottom. Maybe it''s just me, but I have a hard time believing that the man in charge of the CIA, the Military, the NSA, etc. has no better access to info than those in the Legislature. Sorry, dude, but that one just don''t fly in these skies.

Which is why I provided the Graham link. Graham was in the legislature, on the intel committee, and he described in pretty basic terms how the exective branch had not even requested a National Intelligence Brief on the most basic questions of whether or not the removal of Saddam Hussein was justified by military invasion (in other words, was he really an iminent threat to the nation).

Intel committees exist for a reason. To keep secrets secret. To suggest that information available to those on such committees is freely available to all members of congress is plainly not true.

Remember the 9/11 commission? While each panel member had security clearances, when they started digging deep, the Exective Branch demanded that information be restricted to just a couple members of that committe, on national security grounds. And that''s how it went down.

 

[rubydick]

The saddest thing in the above discussion is that it seems some never read Bamford's article. If they had, they'd realize that the man who sold the war (John Rendon) was once a Democratic operative.

This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It's a question of a small cabal who've taken over a government and committed criminal acts. The House Majority Leader is under indictment, the Senate Majority Leader is under investigation for security fraud, the chief aide to the Vice President has been indicted, the "architect" of the President has been notified by the Special Prosecutor that he is under investigation. All this has occurred during a period when one single party fully controls, the executive, legislative and judicial branches. And all some can muster is that "mistakes" were made on both sides? Many Democrats voted for this war. Many did not. But virtually every single Republican voted for it.

A strong case can be made that these were not "mistakes" but a willful desire to enact a radical and now clearly, disastrous, policy. The Downing Street Memo, in which it clearly stated that the "facts were being fixed around the policy" makes that pretty apparent.

I can admit that Clinton did some pretty bad things, both while Governor of Arkansas and later as President. I voted for him in 1996. I'd have no problem seeing him do time for his crimes. Why do Bush supporters have such a hard time admitting that Bush is a crook?

 

[portoar]

style="WIDTH: 99%; HEIGHT: 161px">Date: 11/20/2005 4:52:03 PM
Author: crafftygrrl
My husband is an accomplished attorney. Two of his former partners are:

1. Jim Woolsey, ex-Director of the CIA under President Clinton. During his time at the CIA and the build up to the war, he was convinced that the Iraqis under Saddam were up to no good, to put it mildly. He also spoke to the law firm earlier this year. He said in order to produce stability in the world, the US needs to wean itself from foreign oil. We need to pursue hydrogen/hybrid technology for transportation. If we all drove hydrogen powered cars, our demand for oil would be reduced 500 fold. My husband and I have agreed that all our future car purchases will be hybrids. (I also believe we need to stop building enormous 6,000-12,000+ s.f. homes that will be used by a family of 4, that cost $2,000 a month to heat or air condition.)

2. Steve Hadley, current National Security Adviser. Mark worked with him for years, and says he is an honest man. A real straight shooter. I don''t trust the news media. When I have truly known about a topic, they always gets it wrong.

Crafty girl, I completely agree! I live in an affluent neighborhood, and I''m a realtor. You wouldn''t believe how many people are out there buying ridiculously huge houses they don''t need! And all the new housing going up starts at around 3000 sf. I feel wasteful in our 2200 sf home (family of 4); we will probably downsize next home purchase. Luckily we are in a mild climate so we rarely have to turn on the heat, and we never heat our pool.

Also, all the SUVs on the road really gall me. I''m feeling sensitive about car wastefullness because 1) I put A LOT of miles on the road in my business and 2) my current car, PT Crusier, is a gas and oil guzzler. I can''t wait to get rid of it.

I was about to buy a BMW 325 for my business use, and just couldn''t stomach buying it for "realtor image". I veered off and am looking at the Honda Accord Hybrid. I haven''t bought it yet, mainly because husband is arguing I should just get a 4 cylinder (sp) Accord for almost the same gas mileage.

Who else here has hybrids, what did you buy, and how''s your gas mileage?

 

[movie zombie]

portoar, good topic that deserves its own thread, imo.

peace, movie zombie

 

[perry]

I have to agree with Richard''s concern about people not reading the links and trying to understand what they are trying to tell us (although we may disagree on what they mean).

How many people have actually read the text of the "Downing Street Memo" that shows that the British intellegence agencies had identified that the US argument was based on selective intellengence and that the general intellegence did not offer good support? Or are you working from news summaries....

I would like to restate my belief that:

1) I do not believe that Bush outright lied to the people of the US and Congress. For reasons I may not understand or know it is obvious that Bush did decide that it was best if the US removed Saddam from power, and the way to do that was with a military conguest of the country. The stated reason at the start was the concern on WMD''s and how Saddam would use them in the region and how unstabilizing that would be. I believe that he then, as most people do, assembled the pieces of evidence to support that case - and ignored the ones that did not. I don''t exactly call that a lie. That is how most people work (human nature).

2) Their was vast support amoung key people from the Clinton admininstarion and Congress for that action.

3) The congressional intellegence oversight committies have the same access as the president. The rarely use it, but can ask for the same briefings and even force the intellegence agencies to do things (note that having access and the power to request things is different from routinely using those powers). While it is true that the members of those committees have sworn an oath of secrecy, and cannot diviluge detailes. They can, and have in the past, put out the word that the intellegece appeared good - or lacking on an issue. I do not recall of anyone, nor can I quickly (my limited time searches) find any record from the congressional intellegence committees that indicated that they told people prior to the vote for war that their was a significant issue with the intellegence - that it was lacking in support of its conclusions (there were some who questioned it - as always - but I find no records of someone stating that the basic intellegence report and conclusions was likely flawed). That is all it would have taken to stop the invasion of Iraq.

Bob Graham now comes out and says that he basically knew that the released intellegnece report was flawed. So why didn''t he tell the other members of Congress that at the time? This is, afterall his basic job. To certify to the rest of the Senate that the necessarily "sanitized" intellegence reports are basically OK. He may claim now that he did not see the information presented to the president and the presidential advisers, and was thus mislead. But, by the laws of this land - setup to protect the people of the US - he had the right to ask for that information, and can be argued that in a case like this - a duty to demand the information. In a matter as grave as sending this nation to war - why didn''t he and his initelligence colleges demand that information and provide a more accurate report to the US people and Congress. Or were they actually satisfied with the concept that the US would invade Iraq and remove Saddam and destroy his govement at the time? Sorry folks, I see a lot of oportunist politcal grandstanding going on. If you wish to call what Bush did a lie; why not call what many members of congress are now doing a lie?

Let''s back up to prewar situations and look at what was going on; and what was actually found as a result of the war.

Note that I have stated in another thread that I do not connect the specific terriorst threat on the US by various fundamentalist groups with the war on Iraq. That is a very specific threat from a mutlitude of groups.

Iraq posed a different threat. All evidence indicated that Iraq was interested in persuing WMD''s for use in the area. Iraq had not given up their claim on Quwait, or on areas of Iran. Iraq had never co-operated well past the first few months with the international inspectors (they would often have to wait for access while watching trucks drive out the back) and often only saw "sanitized" spaces. Iraq had kicked out the international inspectors. Iraq had largly bypassed most of the UN sanctions with bribery and oil money. Their was a move afoot to remove the UN sanctions; becasue they were ineffective. I seriously doubt that you can find many who did not believe that Iraq under Saddam was a threat to the region''s stability - which would affect the rest of the world due to the high percentage of oil flowing from the region. Some people also called this type of threat as "terriorism." OK, I can see how you could call it that; but it is a different meaning than the threat demonstrated by 9/11/2001.

Quite honestly, from a WMD and area instability standpoint: I supported the concept of removing Saddam and his goverment system from power. I supported the war then, and do not believe that the US really made much of an error. I will admit that I think it has taken too long to develope areas that are self sufficient in Iraq (I remember sending an email to a freind after Bagdad fell that the US better be able to turn a good portion of the local control aspects of the goverment over to local control within a year, but that their would be US presence for about 5 years to rebuild and solidify things on a national scale. I will say, that I am disapointed that things did not work out that way).

What I find really interesting - is that few people really know, or seem to care, what was really found in relationship to WMDs and Saddams plans for them. What if the US had not invaded when it did?

I will conceed that the intellegence at the time; as verified by other sources and other nations, did not indicate that Saddam had much of an active WMD program, if any, prior to the Iraq invasion. But, what did the invasion actually find? Most are probably familiar with the facts that very little active weapons and active programs were found; and the press and public interest has largly stopped their. But, like many things. That is only a partial truth.

I know that most of you will not read, or even skim, a couple hundred page report. But such a report exist (actually several of them; and I skimmed one about a year ago). I did a bit of digging and found the following 19 page summary, which I will summarize after I provide the link for those who don''t want to read it:

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/documents/041006keyfindings.pdf

Key Points:

* The most knowlegable people tended not to talk about the status of Saddams WMD programs, and were evasive. Thus, the full truth is probably not known.

* Saddam considered WMDs a huge success for the country, and was intent on rebuilding his programs. He considered the use of chemical weapons to be a proven good tool.

* Saddam also needed the UN Sanctions lifted - and concluded that they never would be if he had active WMD programs. Thus, all large scale (production scale) programs were ended.

* It was well understood by Saddam''s close lieutenants that revival of the WMD programs would occur.

* Iraq maintined an active series of small research labs up to just prior to the invasion, that had never been declared to the UN, where small scale chemcial and biological experiments were performed; which included experiments on humans. Most of these sites were sanitized by the time coliltion forces found them. Designes for a new generation of chemical weapons shells were found.

* Iraq tried to get foreign chemical weapons prior to the Iraq invasion to use on US forces.

* Iraq, using Oil For Food money, built an extensive industrial chemistry industry using whereever possible "dual use" technology (i.e. Equipment could be used for commercial chemicals - or for weapon chemicals).

* Iraq maintianed the expertise to quicly weaponize chemical agents.

* Iraq prevented the nuclear scientist from leaving the country and provided good paying jobs for these people, in positions where they would maintain their nuclear weapons knowledge base.

* Key (hard to reinvent) parts and drawings were found to have been buried by several of these scientest.

* "Seed" products for bioligical weapons were kept.

* Iraq had purchased rocket engines and did support work for the development of long range missiles. Iraq had the expertise to build new long range missiles.



My Conclusion:

In general, Iraq was poised to restart WMD production as soon as the UN Santions were lifted - which would have occured if the US had not invaded Iraq.


Thus; What if the US and its allies had not invaded, overthrown Iraq, and totally dismantled the goverment system. Then I suspect that we would today be looking at an Iraq with long range missiles capable of attacking any nation in the region. Chemical weapons would already be depolyed for use. The nuclear program would have restarted (and Iraq was very close to having the Atom Bomb prior to the Kuwait: The "nuclear" world was shocked to find out how close they were. Iraq had used a technique for purifying uranaium that every one else in the world ignored due to its cost. It was just a matter of time, and not that much time, before Iraq had the necessary quantity of fissile material for a bomb, and then more material would just keep kicking out of the production line).

In the end, the intellegence indicated that Iraq was seriously interested in WMDs, and intended to rebuild - and probably use (remember I skimmed a full several hundred page report earlier this year). While it turns out that there were not active production systems in place. All the preplanning and staging necessary to go active had occured, and Saddam was only waiting for the UN Sanctions to end before going active.

In essance, was the intellegence really that wrong?

I also find it disturbing that so many people focus on what was not found (no active WMD program) instead of looking at the sum of what was found. But who says that the press or politicians play fair. It''s all about public image. Politics also seems to get into self circling spirals - which often further deviate from the truth and blind people to the root causes. Human nature strikes again.

I do not claim to be a Bush supporter in general. I look at his various policies and either choose to support them, to not support them, or to not care. I will also, and have, support the Office of the President of the United States regardless of who is in office (and whom I voted for).

In this case, I support the decision to invade Iraq. I supported it prior to the invasion. I do not feel that I made a bad decission based on what was found. I do feel that a lot of garbage is being tossed arround on the issue. It tears my soul at times on how long it has been taking to reconstruct a working government for Iraq (although I understand the necessity of dismantling the prior one - I do not believe that assasination of Saddam would not have changed things in regards to WMD and area stability). Has the US goofed in some of what they have done. Yes. Have they had great successes in other things (rarely reported). Yes. In the end few things are simple, and their is always some bad with the good.

Perry.

 

[rubydick]

Perry,

There''s far too little reasonable discourse in this forum and from one of the occasionally unreasonable ones, I''ve got to contragulate you on a great post. While we don''t see eye-to-eye on each point, you make some great points and all are delivered in a reasonable manner. You have your opinions, you share them with the rest of us and clearly explain why you believe what you do. Bravo!

In answer to your post, I''ll try to keep it as simple as possible. There were a number of people who argued against the Bush attack on Iraq prior to the war, and many insiders have later gone public with their misgivings. These have included people such as Scott Ritter, Paul O''Neil, Richard Clarke, Joseph Wilson, Brent Scowcroft, to name but a few. Almost to a man they were Republicans who voted for Bush 2, they were people with political, military or diplomatic experience. In other words, they were people whose life experience told them that invading Iraq would be a collossal mistake.

Bob Graham is not a Johnny-come-lately to this party. He ran for President in 2004 despite having conducted some quite remarkable interview sessions with one person on 9/11. The details escape me right now, but Google them and you''ll strike gold.

When you state that: "All evidence indicated that Iraq was interested in persuing WMD''s for use in the area," you are obviously ignoring a tremendous body of evidence to the contrary.

In the run-up to this war there was a systematic campaign to destroy anyone who uttered a discouraging word. Look up some of the pre-war interviews with Scott Ritter (prior to his BushCo takedown on trumped-up under-age sex charges that were never proven). Look up what happened to Phil Donohue, who had the top-rated show on MSNBC, but was fired and replaced by Joe (''an intern died in my office but nobody cared'') Scarborough because Donohue was having guests on that talked about how we had been taken to war in 1991 with similar lies, how the stories of Kuwaiti babies dying as Iraqi soldiers tore them from their incubators, how the photos regarding Iraqi troop buildup on the Saudi border the Bush 1 administration used to scare the bejesus (or should we say, the ''beallah'') out of the Saudis were fake (many thanks to the St. Pete Times journos who uncovered that lie!).

Ask yourself this: Why did the US go to war in 1991 to save a sliver of a Middle East monarchy that had never held a single free election? Democracy?

Examine the statements members of the Bush 2 administration made prior to the war, relative to those who dissented. Who was wrong? It''s not that "all evidence indicated" a particular position, it''s that anyone who declared au contraire was destroyed in a ruthless manner. And if they couldn''t bury the person, they went after family members (Joe Wilson).

Which is why I call the man by his proper name: Don Bush. But in this case, Michael isn''t President. By a cruel twist of fate, it''s Fredo. This isn''t something I''ve recently invented, something I''ve had from a radio station. I''ve been using that term for years. Because it fits.

If you want references to the above, e-mail me and I''ll be happy to provide them. Like I said before, I''m nothing if not a student of history. While it hasn''t been updated in many months, due to my work load in the gem area, I do have a political web site and a reading list to back up what I say. See my reading list here:

Dogskinreport.com: Recommended Reading

Finally, I will finish with this. I detest the father of George W. Bush. I''ve read many books, I''ve attended many journo sessions on him. To me, he is the other side of the Kennedy coin. Both attained power via family power, both via illegal actions. Both families developed dynasties. The difference to me is what do you do when you get that power? Do you simply use it to enrich those around you, or do you use it for the greater good? Kennedy gets a plus in my book, Bush a negative.

With Clinton, it''s a mixed bag. He enriched himself, but still managed to enrich the masses, too.

With Dubya, he''s clueless. Totally clueless. All he wants to do is show his dad that he''s worth something. The best thing that could happen to this nation is for George H.W. Bush to simply tell his eldest son that he loves him, no matter what he does. That he is proud of him. That he will be proud of him even if he doesn''t win in Iraq. And to ask him to come home.

We pay a terrible price when a father-son conflict is played out on the world stage.

Perry, thanks again for your comments. Maybe I''ll get you to come round to my way of thinking, maybe not. But thanks again for a great post. You are the man!!!

 

[valeria101]

Thanks for the deep probe in this thread and others... I almost never ventured in this side of Pricescope and that was so wrong.

Date: 11/20/2005 10:06:36 PM
Author: Richard Hughes



The question is not should Saddam have been overthrown. The question is how best to do that. Do you do it via popular uprising, stealth assassination, insider coup, or via a military invasion by a foreign force. Fact is that Clinton had his shot at the latter and did not take the bait.

The paragraph cited above prompted a question: was this unfortunate war about Saddam at all? Leaving aside the most silly of arbitrary justifications, what was it about anyway? The results seem to have thinned the initial justification as it never was. The choice between American dynastic moves and politically backed intelligence confusion is disturbing, and the arguments I hear about the matter fall somewhere between those. What am I missing?

 

[movie zombie]

i will echo richard that this has been a very useful discussion....perhaps the best re politics in this forum.

peace,movie zombie

 

[perry]

"Just because I’m paranoid, doesn’t mean I’m not really being followed.”

I agree; having survived an attempt on my life and a multiyear stalking incident.

I also agree that not everything that G. W. Bush, or the previous Presidents have done has met my support - and at times things have made them look downright stupid in my book. But, it all does seem to be somewhat evenly sharred among many Presidents.

Richards, comments has made me review the administrations and ask "who did I like best" when all was said and done. Gerald Ford pops to mind as one that I thought did a great job during his limited term. I give runner up status for Jimmy Carter as being the best ex president. Now their is a man who has worked to promote understanding and world peace far beyond what all the other ex presidents have done combined.

I''ve been working on my energy paper, and am going to move on to that topic. I think it is more important to our future than debating past decisions of various people. I am about 2/3 done and have decided to start posting it in pieces.

I wish all of you well.

Perry