PNAC, WHIG and OSP - How the Bush administration misled Americans into war (1 Viewer)

[Jack Pott]

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was established in 1997 with the goal of promoting "American global leadership". Prior to Bush being elected president, several PNAC members (such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz) stated that an invasion of Iraq is part of a larger Middle East policy.

In September 2000, the PNAC issued a report entitled entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century". The document stated that: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." Here's the document:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Here's more info about the PNAC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

In August 2002, the White House created "The White House Iraq Group" (WHIG). WHIG was the marketing arm of the Republican Party whose purpose was to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the public. The task force was set up by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and chaired by Karl Rove to coordinate all the executive branch elements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. One example of the WHIG's functions and influence is the escalation of rhetoric about the danger that Iraq posed to the US, including the introduction of the term "mushroom cloud". Here's info about WHIG:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=White_House_Iraq_Group

In September 2002, the Bush administration created an agency called Office of Special Plans (OSP). Seymour Hersh wrote that, according to an unnamed Pentagon adviser, "OSP was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States." Here's Hersh's article:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030512fa_fact

Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked in the Pentagon, said the OSP manufactured scare stories about Iraq's weapons and ties to terrorists: "It wasn't intelligence‚ -- it was propaganda. They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together." Here are two articles by Kwiatkowski:

http://amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html

http://archive.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp/index_np.html

The allegations concerning the OSP are supported by an annexe to the first part of Senate Intelligence Committee's Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq published in July 2004. The review, which was highly critical of the CIA's Iraq intelligence generally but found its judgments were right on the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship, suggests that the OSP sought to discredit and cast doubt on CIA analysis in an effort to establish a connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism.

Here's more info about the OSP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

Much of the pre-war information came from The Iraqi National Congress. The INC was an umbrella Iraqi opposition group led by Ahmad Chalabi, who is said to have had political contacts within the PNAC, most notably with Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. Before the war, the CIA was largely skeptical of Chalabi and the INC. In December 2002, Robert Dreyfuss reported that the Bush administration actually preferred INC-supplied analyses of Iraq over analyses provided by long-standing analysts within the CIA:

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V13/22/dreyfuss-r.html

An Iraqi informant named "Curveball" was the source of pivotal information concerning WMD. The CIA claimed that it did not have "direct access" to Curveball, and that the mysterious informant instead communicated to Germany's intelligence service, which relayed the information to the United States Defense Intelligence Agency. He was described by German intelligence as an individual not living in Iraq and as an "out of control" and mentally unstable alcoholic.

Although there were wide doubts and questions about the claimed informant's reliability and background, assertions attributed to Curveball claiming that Iraq was creating biological agents in mobile weapons laboratories to elude inspectors appeared in more than 100 United States government reports between January 2000 and September 2001.

In November 2002, UN weapons inspectors investigated Curveball's claims, and found that details and information given by Curveball could not be verified.

The LA Times reported that Curveball was actually the brother of one of Ahmed Chalabi's top aides.

On June 26 2006, the Washington Post reported that "the CIA acknowledged that Curveball was a con artist who drove a taxi in Iraq and spun his engineering knowledge into a fantastic but plausible tale about secret bioweapons factories on wheels":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062401081.html

The informant's German handlers said they had told U.S. officials that his information was not proven and were shocked when Bush and Colin Powell used it in key prewar speeches. According to the Germans, Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons.

Here's info about Curveball:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...3.photogallery?coll=la-home-headlines&index=2

 

[cherokee]

I understand all the anger over why the US went into Iraq I really do.
What I don’t understand is why people waste so much time and energy jumping on every soapbox they come across screaming “ It was wrong” when people need to be concentrating on the MOST important task at hand and that’s rebuilding Iraq and turning the country 100 percent to the elected Iraqi government.

Is that not all of us should be focused on? If you believe Bush broke the law then start a petition and have him impeached. You can try him after this is over.

Personally right here and now I don’t care why we went into Iraq. What I do care about the MOST is how we get out, leaving in place a government that can handle its own and not a cesspool for every terrorist group in the world to vacation at.

Am I that wrong for thinking like that?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I understand all the anger over why the US went into Iraq I really do.
What I don’t understand is why people waste so much time and energy jumping on every soapbox they come across screaming “ It was wrong” when people need to be concentrating on the MOST important task at hand and that’s rebuilding Iraq and turning the country 100 percent to the elected Iraqi government.

Is that not all of us should be focused on? If you believe Bush broke the law then start a petition and have him impeached. You can try him after this is over.

Personally right here and now I don’t care why we went into Iraq. What I do care about the MOST is how we get out, leaving in place a government that can handle its own and not a cesspool for every terrorist group in the world to vacation at.

Am I that wrong for thinking like that?

One of the essential goals of the GWoT is to separate the insurgents (aQ et al) from the populace. This is primarily a politcal fight. The reasons why we went into Iraq played into th estioryline sold by the insurgents. As the DoD's Defense Science Board pointed out the terrorists bill of particulars has been more or less fulfiled by a number of US actions. The invasion of Iraq being chief among them.

Since this is a political contest, credibility and legitmcy are primary elenments that must be defended and maintained. Until we address the issues that led us into Iraq, we can't regain our former credibility. W/o that cred we're hampering our efforts to separate th populace from the terorists.

We may be able to get by w/o waging a smart counter-insurgency against aQ et al, but wouldn't it be better if we fought smarter instead of harder? Dealing with political baggage and fall-out from the invasion of Iraq etc is an essential step to regaining credibility in the Arab/Persian/Muslim world.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

[FONT=&quot] Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication[/FONT]

Worldwide anger and discontent are directed at America’s tarnished credibility[!] and ways the U.S. pursues its goals[!].

​

"The information campaign — or as some still would have it, “the war of ideas,” or the struggle for “hearts and minds” — is important to every war effort. In this war it is an essential objective ... But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.
American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists ...
Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering.

• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah ... to broad public support.

• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.​

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I understand all the anger over why the US went into Iraq I really do.
What I don’t understand is why people waste so much time and energy jumping on every soapbox they come across screaming “ It was wrong” when people need to be concentrating on the MOST important task at hand and that’s rebuilding Iraq and turning the country 100 percent to the elected Iraqi government.

Is that not all of us should be focused on? If you believe Bush broke the law then start a petition and have him impeached. You can try him after this is over.

Personally right here and now I don’t care why we went into Iraq. What I do care about the MOST is how we get out, leaving in place a government that can handle its own and not a cesspool for every terrorist group in the world to vacation at.

Am I that wrong for thinking like that?

You are essentially arguing that the ends will justify the means, so yes you are VERY wrong for thinking like that. Does our national credibility sell for so little?

 

[cherokee]

You are essentially arguing that the ends will justify the means, so yes you are VERY wrong for thinking like that. Does our national credibility sell for so little?

Both of you missed it.....


You are essentially, assuming that’s what I meant.
Where did I say anything about "ends will justify the means"
Did I not say if people thought/feel Bush is wrong they should do something?

MY POINT is to fix the damn mess. Would that not send a message to the world? My point is to direct the energy into fixing that place so we can get the HELL out. Then we can argue over what was done…

 

[Pen]

Jack's OP is an excellent overview of how we came to be in Iraq. It's significance isn't so much a view of the unchangeable past, but a history lesson from which we should learn and not repeat. You know...like Iran.

 

[ProudAmerican]

MY POINT is to fix the damn mess. Would that not send a message to the world? My point is to direct the energy into fixing that place so we can get the HELL out. Then we can argue over what was done…

this is the only logical thing to do, however, it would not serve the lefts political agenda.

 

[Vetforpeace]

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was established in 1997 with the goal of promoting "American global leadership". Prior to Bush being elected president, several PNAC members (such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz) stated that an invasion of Iraq is part of a larger Middle East policy.

In September 2000, the PNAC issued a report entitled entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century". The document stated that: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." Here's the document:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Here's more info about the PNAC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

In August 2002, the White House created "The White House Iraq Group" (WHIG). WHIG was the marketing arm of the Republican Party whose purpose was to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the public. The task force was set up by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and chaired by Karl Rove to coordinate all the executive branch elements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. One example of the WHIG's functions and influence is the escalation of rhetoric about the danger that Iraq posed to the US, including the introduction of the term "mushroom cloud". Here's info about WHIG:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=White_House_Iraq_Group

In September 2002, the Bush administration created an agency called Office of Special Plans (OSP). Seymour Hersh wrote that, according to an unnamed Pentagon adviser, "OSP was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States." Here's Hersh's article:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030512fa_fact

Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked in the Pentagon, said the OSP manufactured scare stories about Iraq's weapons and ties to terrorists: "It wasn't intelligence‚ -- it was propaganda. They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together." Here are two articles by Kwiatkowski:

http://amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html

http://archive.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp/index_np.html

The allegations concerning the OSP are supported by an annexe to the first part of Senate Intelligence Committee's Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq published in July 2004. The review, which was highly critical of the CIA's Iraq intelligence generally but found its judgments were right on the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship, suggests that the OSP sought to discredit and cast doubt on CIA analysis in an effort to establish a connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism.

Here's more info about the OSP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

Much of the pre-war information came from The Iraqi National Congress. The INC was an umbrella Iraqi opposition group led by Ahmad Chalabi, who is said to have had political contacts within the PNAC, most notably with Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. Before the war, the CIA was largely skeptical of Chalabi and the INC. In December 2002, Robert Dreyfuss reported that the Bush administration actually preferred INC-supplied analyses of Iraq over analyses provided by long-standing analysts within the CIA:

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V13/22/dreyfuss-r.html

An Iraqi informant named "Curveball" was the source of pivotal information concerning WMD. The CIA claimed that it did not have "direct access" to Curveball, and that the mysterious informant instead communicated to Germany's intelligence service, which relayed the information to the United States Defense Intelligence Agency. He was described by German intelligence as an individual not living in Iraq and as an "out of control" and mentally unstable alcoholic.

Although there were wide doubts and questions about the claimed informant's reliability and background, assertions attributed to Curveball claiming that Iraq was creating biological agents in mobile weapons laboratories to elude inspectors appeared in more than 100 United States government reports between January 2000 and September 2001.

In November 2002, UN weapons inspectors investigated Curveball's claims, and found that details and information given by Curveball could not be verified.

The LA Times reported that Curveball was actually the brother of one of Ahmed Chalabi's top aides.

On June 26 2006, the Washington Post reported that "the CIA acknowledged that Curveball was a con artist who drove a taxi in Iraq and spun his engineering knowledge into a fantastic but plausible tale about secret bioweapons factories on wheels":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062401081.html

The informant's German handlers said they had told U.S. officials that his information was not proven and were shocked when Bush and Colin Powell used it in key prewar speeches. According to the Germans, Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons.

Here's info about Curveball:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...3.photogallery?coll=la-home-headlines&index=2

I'd like to thank you for the best post I've seen on ANY forum. Concise, complete and very enlightening. I always suspected Chalabi simply because of his status as an Iraqi Expatriot and Exile. He and his people got rich by supplying Bull to bolster the already agreed upon position.
I'm embarking on an investigation of my own concerning no-bid contracts by Halliburton among others and their ties to Iraqi oil.

Welcome aboard Mr.Pott! I, for one, salute you!

Bring our kids back Yesterday!

 

[ProudAmerican]

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002



------------------------------------------

certainly looks like Bush misled us alright. :roll:

 

[Vetforpeace]

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002



------------------------------------------

certainly looks like Bush misled us alright. :roll:

Yes, I agree that both Democrats and Gop alike were bamboozled by the Bush Gang. How can someone dismantle something that doesn't exist. Pretty neat trick if you can pull it off. That's just it. Set a standard so high that there was NO chance for compliance. You bet your sweet Bippy we were misled, and so were our representatives. Shame on them for not doing their due dilligence before signing on to this madness. Now, they have a chance to right a tremendous wrong. I hope they've got the guts to swallow their egos and do what needs to be done. Just like the rest of us.

Bring em' home now!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Both of you missed it.....


You are essentially, assuming that’s what I meant.
Where did I say anything about "ends will justify the means"
Did I not say if people thought/feel Bush is wrong they should do something?

MY POINT is to fix the damn mess. Would that not send a message to the world? My point is to direct the energy into fixing that place so we can get the HELL out. Then we can argue over what was done…

Can't get out of it w/o acknowledgiong how we got into it. The two are the same thing, not separate, either/or options.

 

[Jack Pott]

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

------------------------------------------

certainly looks like Bush misled us alright. :roll:

There are two things that you should keep in mind when you post those quotes:

1. In the late 1990s and before the war most people (including Democrats) assumed that Iraq has WMD because the weapons inspectors left the country in 1998. But the difference between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration is that the Bush administration knew the evidence was weak. The Bush administration misled the Congress and the American people by presenting conjecture as evidence.

2. In 1998, Democrats such as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger predicted that Saddam Hussein (if unchecked) would again use WMD. However, those comments were used to justify continued sanctions on Iraq, not to invade it.

 

[Jack Pott]

Personally right here and now I don’t care why we went into Iraq.

If Bush and his gang were willing to lie to the American people in order to justify the invasion of Iraq, then there is no reason to think that they won't mislead Americans again. Dick Cheney still claims that there was a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, and Bush intimidates the American people by implying that the terrorists will win the War on Terror if Americans don't support the war in Iraq.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Yes, I agree that both Democrats and Gop alike were bamboozled by the Bush Gang. How can someone dismantle something that doesn't exist. Pretty neat trick if you can pull it off. That's just it. Set a standard so high that there was NO chance for compliance. You bet your sweet Bippy we were misled, and so were our representatives. Shame on them for not doing their due dilligence before signing on to this madness. Now, they have a chance to right a tremendous wrong. I hope they've got the guts to swallow their egos and do what needs to be done. Just like the rest of us.

Bring em' home now!

really? how in the world did the "Bush Gang" bamboozle people in 1998, before Bush took office?

lol.

---------------------------------------------------
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

---------------------------------------------

thats a neat trick, Bush bamboozeling all those folks years before he was even president.

 

[ProudAmerican]

However, those comments were used to justify continued sanctions on Iraq, not to invade it.

makes no difference whatsoever why the comments were used. THEY SAID THE EXACT SAME THING.

to claim Bush "misled" anyone is complete partisan horseshit when there were people from the other side making the exact same claims, years before.

either everyone got it wrong on a legitimate basis, or it was the Dems that lied first, and misled us all down this path.

 

[ProudAmerican]

If Bush and his gang were willing to lie to the American people in order to justify the invasion of Iraq, then there is no reason to think that they won't mislead Americans again. Dick Cheney still claims that there was a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, and Bush intimidates the American people by implying that the terrorists will win the War on Terror if Americans don't support the war in Iraq.

there is plenty of evidence to suggest there was an Iraq / AQ link. for anyone that isnt a partisan and wants to look into it with an open mind that is.

do a search on this site. there plenty of links posted.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

There are two things that you should keep in mind when you post those quotes:

1. In the late 1990s and before the war most people (including Democrats) assumed that Iraq has WMD because the weapons inspectors left the country in 1998. But the difference between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration is that the Bush administration knew the evidence was weak. The Bush administration misled the Congress and the American people by presenting conjecture as evidence.

All 14 members of the intelligence Community concluded in the 2002 NIE that Saddam had WMDs and the Senate Intelligence Committee found in their report that there was no intimidation or coercion on the part of the Bush Administration to get the intelligence community to misrepresent their findings to help Bush's case for war.

Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate

High Confidence

Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its
chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary
to UN resolutions.
We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons
and missiles.
Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once
it acquires sufficient weapons grade fissile material.


moderate confidence

Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient
material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007
to 2009.


Low Confidence

When Saddam would use weapons of mass-destruction.
Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against
the U.S. Homeland.
Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or
biological weapons with al-Qa'ida.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h072103.html

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD) PRESSURE CONCLUSIONS

(U) Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

(U) Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.


TERRORISM PRESSURE CONCLUSIONS

(U) Conclusion 102. The Committee found that none of the analysts or other people interviewed by the Committee said that they were pressured to change their conclusions related to Iraq's links to terrorism. After 9/11, however, analysts were under tremendous pressure to make correct assessments, to avoid missing a credible threat, and to avoid an intelligence failure on the scale of 9/11. As a result, the Intelligence Community's assessments were bold and assertive in pointing out potential terrorist links. For instance, the June 2002 Central Intelligence Agency assessment Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship was, according to its Scope Note, "purposefully aggressive" in drawing connections between Iraq and al-Qaida in an effort to inform policymakers of the potential that such a relationship existed. All of the participants in the August 2002 coordination meeting on the September 2002 version of Iraqi Support/or Terrorism interviewed by the Committee agreed that while some changes were made to the paper as a result of the participation of two Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy staffers, their presence did not result in changes to their analytical judgments.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5403731/

2. In 1998, Democrats such as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger predicted that Saddam Hussein (if unchecked) would again use WMD. However, those comments were used to justify continued sanctions on Iraq, not to invade it.

U.S. policy in Iraq had been one of regime change since 1998.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

<<<CONTINUED FROM ABOVE>>>

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]H.R.4655
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President)) [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Bill Summary & Status for the 105th Congress [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]SUMMARY: [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif](REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 -- Passed House, amended) [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.[/FONT]

• [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. [/FONT]

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

The Iraq Liberation Act

October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

 

[Doremus Jessup]

This thread demonstrates how crappy the U.S.'s situation is. The OP was great, but then the W apologists come in and say, "Nuh Uh, it was Clinton and the Dems fault" (much like many other threads). Or, "No. There was/is WMD, W is justified." Or maybe some variant of those two.

Like Cherokee was saying, maybe the argument should revolve around what we are gonna do NOW that everything is so F'd?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

This thread demonstrates how crappy the U.S.'s situation is. The OP was great, but then the W apologists come in and say, "Nuh Uh, it was Clinton and the Dems fault" (much like many other threads). Or, "No. There was/is WMD, W is justified." Or maybe some variant of those two.

Like Cherokee was saying, maybe the argument should revolve around what we are gonna do NOW that everything is so F'd?

Umm no I think I effectively argued against his premise that the Bush administration misled us into war, I never said anything about the Democrats.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
there is plenty of evidence to suggest there was an Iraq / AQ link. for anyone that isnt a partisan and wants to look into it with an open mind that is.

do a search on this site. there plenty of links posted.

Your links won't even vouch for the validity of the assertions they are presenting.

 

[Jack Pott]

to claim Bush "misled" anyone is complete partisan horseshit when there were people from the other side making the exact same claims, years before.

Wrong. The Clinton administration did not cite the problematic intelligence that formed the core of the Bush administration's case for an invasion, such as allegations that Iraq sought uranium in Africa and tried to obtain aluminum tubes as part of a resurgent nuclear program.

1. Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA covert operations in Europe, said the CIA had evidence Iraq possessed no WMD six months before the invasion of Iraq. He has stated that senior White House officials dismissed intelligence information from his agency which reported Saddam Hussein had no WMD program:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi...ntelligence_ignored/?rss_id=Boston.com+/+News

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12485336/

2. Greg Thielmann, who served as a top intelligence official at the State Department, said the Bush administration distorted intelligence and presented conjecture as evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/08/iraq/main557542.shtml

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/thielmann.html

3. Paul R. Pillar, a CIA official who worked as the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia where he was considered the agency's lead analyst in counterterrorism, said the Bush administration ignored and distorted prewar evidence on a broad range of issues related to Iraq in its effort to justify the invasion of Iraq:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/i...rss&adxnnlx=1157465052-2Al6Tkry7BWcuGcTLdTUlQ

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1707520,00.html

 

[Jack Pott]

All 14 members of the intelligence Community concluded in the 2002 NIE that Saddam had WMDs and the Senate Intelligence Committee found in their report that there was no intimidation or coercion on the part of the Bush Administration to get the intelligence community to misrepresent their findings to help Bush's case for war.

A report by the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded in 2002 that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/07/iraq/main557473.shtml

 

[Jack Pott]

U.S. policy in Iraq had been one of regime change since 1998.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 stated that the US should support efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power PEACEFULLY by providing support to the Iraqi opposition. The Act didn't say the US should remove Saddam Hussein from power by using US Military.