'Where Are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?'
In the past two decades I have had the opportunity to participate in certain experiences pertaining to my work that fall into the category of "no one will ever believe this." I usually file these away, calling on them only when events transpire that breathe new life into these extraordinary memories. Ron Suskind, a noted and accomplished journalist, has written a new book, "The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism," in which he claims that the "White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush [Tahir Jalil Habbush, the director of the Mukhabarat], to Saddam [Hussein], backdated to July 1, 2001." According to Suskind, the letter said that "9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq-thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President's Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq."
This is an extraordinary charge, which both the White House and the CIA vehemently deny. Suskind outlines a scenario which dates to the summer and fall of 2003, troubled times for the Bush administration as its case for invading Iraq was unraveling. I cannot independently confirm Suskind's findings, but I, too, heard a similar story, from a source I trust implicitly. In my former line of work, intelligence, it was understood that establishing patterns of behavior was important. Past patterns of behavior tend to repeat themselves, and are thus of interest when assessing a set of seemingly separate circumstances around the same source. Of course, given the nature of the story line, it is better if I introduce this information within its proper context.
In the summer of 2003 I was approached by Harper's Magazine to do a story on the work of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), a CIA-sponsored operation investigating Saddam's weapons-of-mass-destruction programs in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. David Kay, a former International Atomic Energy Agency inspector who served briefly in Iraq in 1991 and 1992, was at that time the head of the ISG. By October 2003 the group had prepared a so-called interim report, which claimed to have eyewitness evidence of Iraqi WMD-related activities prior to the invasion in March. The key to the ISG's interim report was the testimony of "cooperative sources," Iraqis of unstated pedigree purportedly providing the ISG with unverifiable information. With one exception-an Iraqi nuclear scientist who had been killed by coalition forces-David Kay failed to provide the name or WMD association of any of the sources he used for his report, making any effort to verify their assertions impossible. Many of the senior Iraqis who had openly contradicted Kay's report were, and still are to this day, muzzled behind the walls of an American prison in Baghdad. But there was another group of Iraqis, the former scientists and technicians involved in Iraq's WMD programs who were known to have been interviewed by the ISG, and who were released back into Iraqi society. These scientists held the key to deciphering the vague pronouncements of the ISG interim report, and could help to distinguish between fact and fiction.
Many of these scientists remained intimidated by their ISG experience, which often involved lengthy imprisonment and harsh interrogation. Loath to run afoul of their American occupiers, and tethered financially to a monthly stipend designed to keep them from exporting their WMD know-how out of Iraq (and, it has been suggested, from talking too freely with the media), these Iraqi scientists possessed a wealth of data which was difficult to tap into. In my own effort to research the veracity of David Kay's assertions, I made use of my connections within the community of former Iraqi WMD scientists to try to gain access to what they knew. One in particular, who, because of ongoing security concerns, will be identified only as Mohammed, worked to facilitate my visit, arranging for meetings with Iraqis who possessed firsthand knowledge about not only the past WMD programs but also the ongoing efforts of the ISG.
"You are welcome to Baghdad," Mohammed wrote me in mid-October 2003, after I had informed him of my intent to travel there and what my purpose was. "You can have my full support." After a back-and-forth exchange of e-mails with Mohammed on the subject of my visit, I finalized my agenda and reconfirmed the interviews I wanted arranged. I followed my e-mail to Mohammed on Nov. 5 with a detailed communication to the Coalition Provisional Authority, outlining both my proposed schedule in Iraq and requests for interviews with CPA and ISG officials and tours of related facilities.
My schedule had me departing the United States two days later. That morning, I did one final check of my e-mail and found a disturbing communication from Mohammed. In it, he reiterated how dangerous the situation had become in Baghdad. But he said more: "I understand that there are some people who wish to bury any new facts concerning the subject of WMD in Iraq. They are ready to liquidate any person or group who ventures into this subject." Iraqi officials who had been involved with WMD, Mohammed said, " ... are not ready to give interviews because that endangers their life. It would endanger your life as well. I am serious in my warning," he wrote. "Nobody can guarantee your life. Nor the fate of the material you will be collecting in Baghdad."
"I request that you adjourn your scheduled trip to Baghdad," Mohammed pleaded. "If you decide to continue with your intention, then I am very sorry to tell you that taking the overall environment in my country I am not able to support your mission. The main reason would be to preserve my life during or after it is concluded."
One does not view such a communication lightly. I immediately contacted Lewis Lapham at Harper's Magazine, as well as some trusted colleagues with experience in journalism and intelligence affairs. All agreed that in this case, discretion was the better part of valor. My trip to Baghdad was called off, but not the pursuit of the fate of Iraq's WMD. The journey of discovery had simply been re-routed, and instead of going to Mohammed, I brought Mohammed to me. Mohammed made his way to Amman, Jordan, where we met over a period of five days in December 2003 to discuss Iraq's past proscribed weapons programs. Before we could move forward on that complex topic, however, I needed to clear up the canceled Baghdad trip and, in particular, Mohammed's e-mail regarding a threat to his, and my, life.
"This was very real," Mohammed said. "I had made several important contacts in regards to your trip." I asked him to elaborate. "As you know, the situation inside Iraq is very dangerous and confused, and many people were hesitant to meet with you." Who were they afraid of? "The Americans," he said. "They were afraid of what the Americans might do if it was found out that they had met with you."
One of the contacts Mohammed had arranged for me to meet with while in Baghdad was a former official in the Iraqi Mukhabarat, the intelligence arm of Saddam Hussein's regime, who was intimately familiar with that organization's surveillance of U.N. weapons inspectors, both in Iraq and in New York. "The Mukhabarat never went away," Mohammed said. "They just disappeared into the shadows. They are still very much a presence in Baghdad and Iraq."
Mohammed had passed on my proposed schedule to the Mukhabarat official, who told Mohammed he "would check with his sources" to see if my visit was feasible or not. On the evening of Dec. 5, 2003, the Mukhabarat agent appeared at Mohammed's home. "You must cancel the visit," he told Mohammed. "Mr. Ritter's life is at risk if he comes here, as well as the life of any Iraqi he meets with."
The Mukhabarat had been preparing for the American occupation of Iraq for months before the initiation of hostilities in March 2003. By January 2003, orders had been issued to the various Mukhabarat departments to begin preparations for an American occupation. Mukhabarat personnel were instructed that in the case of the occupation of Iraq by the United States, they were to return to their homes and await further instructions. Those agents who were able to do so were encouraged to join the ranks of the various opposition parties that were expected to follow the Americans into Iraq, and to actively cooperate with the American occupiers. In this manner, the Mukhabarat was able to establish a network of informers inside the very ranks of the organizations that were seeking its demise. According to Mohammed, the Mukhabarat had been very successful in this regard. And it was this success, he said, that led to the warning from the Mukhabarat about the threat to my life, and the lives of those who cooperated with me, if I were to go to Baghdad.
According to Mohammed, Baghdad in late 2003 crawled with assassination squads. In addition to simple criminal gangs interested in extortion and murder, there were squads of killers who worked on behalf of the various political forces vying for power inside occupied Baghdad, settling old scores and eliminating potential competitors. One of the major themes among those positioning themselves for a leading role in post-Saddam Iraq was de-Baathification, a policy of identifying and neutralizing the members of the former ruling party, which was associated with the most horrific abuses of the regime of Saddam Hussein. De-Baathification was a primary objective of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), and major policy initiatives were passed to remove the Baathists from positions of power and influence. Opponents of the regime of Saddam Hussein were only too willing to aid and assist the CPA in its crusade against the Baathists, using their own networks of informants to locate Baathist members and sympathizers for the American occupiers. Given the abuses of power that occurred in Iraq under the Baathists, however, oftentimes the members of the newly empowered opposition took matters into their own hands, meting out street justice in the form of targeted assassination.
Among the more effective, and brutal, of these politically motivated assassination units were those run by SCIRI (the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq) and its armed militia, the Badr Brigade. Their efforts to exterminate Baath Party remnants still loyal to Saddam Hussein, or those who were accused of committing crimes against SCIRI or its sympathizers, attracted the attention of the "black" side of the CPA-run de-Baathification efforts -covert operations run by the CIA and elite Special Operations units of the United States military. An abortive effort to formally acknowledge the role played by the various anti-Saddam militias in confronting the Baath holdouts offered a glimpse into what is an unspoken element of the U.S. policy regarding de-Baathification -let the Iraqis do the dirty work. And the Badr militia stood out among those willing and able to take the fight to the Baathist holdouts. For that reason, the Badr militia not only attracted the attention of the CPA but also the Mukhabarat, which, according to Mohammed, had infiltrated the SCIRI-run militia.
Mohammed's Mukhabarat connection had disturbing news. According to the source, the CPA had passed to the Badr militia my name, the dates of my planned trip to Baghdad, my proposed agenda and a list of Iraqis I had planned to meet with, including Mohammed. This information was in turn passed on to the unit in the Badr militia which specialized in targeted assassination in Baghdad. "Mr. Ritter cannot come to Iraq," the Mukhabarat agent told Mohammed. "If he does, his life is at risk, your life is at risk, and everyone associated with his visit's life will be at risk." And so Mohammed sent his e-mailed warning to me.
On the surface, Mohammed's story was too much to believe. I was willing to accept any account that held that specific Iraqi groups, such as Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, were opposed to my visit to the extent that they might issue threats in an effort to intimidate me from coming. But the concept of the United States government being involved boggled the mind.
The problem with disbelieving was there were too many pieces of this puzzle that seemed to fit together. The timing of the threat coincided too neatly with my communication with the CPA about my plans while in Baghdad. People in the CPA certainly had the information if they decided to pass it on-I had telephoned and sent faxes and e-mails providing my dates of travel, where I wanted to stay and how I wanted to interact with the CPA. The ability of the U.S. intelligence community to monitor my e-mail communications with Mohammed was a given. And then there was the disturbing fact that, since the time that I had notified the CPA of my intent to travel to Iraq to write this story for Harper's Magazine, I had been red-flagged by the United States government. On both occasions that I left the United States on assignment for Harper's Magazine (once to London and Prague, the other to Amman), I had been pulled aside by U.S. immigration and customs officials upon my return for special treatment.
Apparently taking their cues from computer instructions, the customs officials involved were very interested in where I had traveled, whom I had met with, and any documents I might be carrying. When I asked a senior customs official in Washington's Dulles Airport what the problem was, he simply shrugged. "I guess it's just because you are who you are," he said. A customs officer in New York's JFK Airport, after looking at instructions sent to him on his computer, looked up to me. "You used to work for the U.S. government?" he asked. Prompted again by the computer, he called over a supervisor, who was very interested in documents I had in my possession concerning Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction programs. In both cases, the only thing that seemed to save me from an even greater intrusion into my personal belongings was a letter from Lewis Lapham identifying me with Harper's Magazine. The letter was carefully examined by customs officers and photocopied, and became the apparent subject of intense exchanges between the customs officers and whoever was on the other end of the computer. In both cases, my First Amendment rights prevailed over the concerns of the U.S. government, and I was allowed to proceed with my notes intact.
Mohammed's dire warning aside, it seemed clear that my new assignment for Harper's Magazine had caught the attention of someone in the U.S. government. What about my probing into the weapons-of-mass-destruction issue could prompt such extreme measures? What would make the U.S. government so afraid as to justify its attempt to intimidate a journalist-even an activist journalist such as myself-from carrying out his work? As a former weapons inspector with the United Nations, I was intimately familiar with the fraudulent case made by the Bush administration before the 2003 invasion, and had quite publicly challenged the president's allegations. I do not believe the Bush administration would undertake any activity, directly or indirectly, beyond simply harassing me, because of my stance on pre-war WMD claims. However, knowing that I was going to Baghdad to meet with Iraqis who had firsthand knowledge of what had transpired since the invasion was another matter. What could I have learned that troubled them so? I will relay the story as I received it from Mohammed.
On a bright morning one day in late June 2003 Mohammed waited patiently on the side of a street in the Jadariyah district of Baghdad. As a former official in the ousted regime of Saddam Hussein, he had knowledge of programs and activities of interest to the Americans who now occupied the palaces of the former Iraqi president; these programs and activities included but were not limited to weapons of mass destruction. Mohammed had been summoned to a meeting with a special intelligence cell that reported not to David Kay's Iraq Survey Group, but instead directly to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Shortly before 9 in the morning, a small convoy consisting of three unmarked Toyota Land Cruisers pulled up alongside Mohammed. Seated in the front passenger seat of the lead vehicle was a short, stocky blond woman named Stacey. One might not have guessed from her plain khaki cargo pants and simple white T-shirt that she was a lieutenant commander in the United States Navy. Stacey motioned for Mohammed to enter the vehicle, and the small convoy sped off.
Crossing the 14th of July Bridge, the convoy turned right, into the grounds of the Republican Palace. Through gates once manned by the most elite forces of the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Special Republican Guard, the small convoy now negotiated checkpoints manned by the soldiers of Iraq's new master, the United States. The Land Cruisers snaked past the main palace building itself, where four large bronze heads of Saddam sporting a Moghul helmet stared impassively above them (these statues were later removed under the orders of the then-head of the CPA, Paul Bremer). The SUVs moved north toward the far end of the former palace complex, now known as the Green Zone. In front of the former offices of the Iraqi National Security Committee, the convoy turned right, cutting through some administrative buildings before emerging on an embankment road running alongside the Tigris River. Heading south, the three vehicles came upon a villa complex surrounded by small decorative ponds, each pond connected with a small footbridge. On each island was an open barbecue pit, complete with accompanying stack of firewood, of the type favored by the former Iraqi president. Disembarking from the Land Cruiser, Stacey led Mohammed to the main villa, where they were ushered in by security personnel wearing similar nondescript clothing.
Seated on a couch in the middle of the elaborately furnished villa was a small, thin woman in her late 30s with short blond hair who introduced herself as Carol. On the table before the couch were plates full of sweets and fruit slices, imported from Kuwait, which Carol invited Mohammed to taste. Stacey joined them, and soon she and Carol began questioning Mohammed. About five minutes into the session, the two women were joined by a third person, an Army lieutenant colonel who introduced himself as Dave. Dave was dressed in the same khaki trousers as Stacey and Carol, but sported a gray T-shirt emblazoned with the seal of the United States and the words "U.S. Embassy Kuwait." A short, athletic-looking man with gray hair, Dave quickly took over the proceedings, with Carol and Stacey taking notes. For four hours Dave questioned Mohammed about various matters dealing with the Iraqi's former work.
The final line of questioning focused on weapons of mass destruction. Dave was on his feet, pacing before Mohammed, before turning to him and asking straight out, "Where are the weapons of mass destruction?" Mohammed, who had intimate knowledge of certain aspects of the Iraqi WMD effort, replied straight back: "There are no WMD in Iraq."
Dave continued pacing back and forth in front of Mohammed. "My president," he said, "is in trouble. Can you help him?"
Mohammed was taken aback by the question. "Excuse me?" he asked. "Could you repeat yourself?"
Dave sat down next to the Iraqi. "George Bush is in trouble. Our people did not find any WMD in Iraq. Can you help us?"
Mohammed looked back at Dave. "How?"
"Can we prepare something for that? We could bring in some nuclear material from the former Soviet Union, and pretend they are Iraqi."
Mohammed, stunned by the unexpected nature of the request, indicated that such a ploy could be easily uncovered by forensic examination of the evidence by outside experts, such as UNSCOM (the United Nations Special Commission) or the IAEA, who would undoubtedly be called in to verify such a finding. Dave sat in silence for a few moments, before springing to his feet. "I have to leave for a meeting," he said. "Stacey will show you out."
Mohammed was to meet again with Dave, Stacey and Carol in the weeks that followed. The subject of WMD, Iraqi or otherwise, was never again broached by Dave or anyone else in his team.
In my extensive dealings with him, Mohammed has never lied to me or exaggerated about events he was personally involved in. His story establishes a pattern of behavior which shows how the Bush administration, especially when operating in the form of small, ideologically motivated teams functioning outside the norms and conventions of the mainstream, was able to consider (in Mohammed's case) manufacturing data and circumstances to bolster its false case for invading Iraq, and (per author Ron Suskind) actually manufacture such data and circumstances. I trust Mohammed. And so I am willing to believe Suskind and his sources about similar cases of fraud, this time in the form of the CIA's manufactured Mukhabarat document.
The question is, what is Congress doing about this? At what point in time will it become clear that a crime against America has been committed, not by any foreign terrorist group, but rather the highest officials in the land, those entrusted with safeguarding the Constitution? If the rule of law is to have any meaning today, Congress has no choice but to institute proceedings mandated by the Constitution against those high officials who have committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the American people. Far from stating that impeachment is off the table, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi rightfully has no option but to instruct the House of Representatives to initiate investigations into the crime of fraud and other related obstructions of government undertaken by the administration of President George W. Bush. And if these investigations confirm that such crimes have indeed occurred, she must, as a servant of the Constitution, undertake impeachment proceedings. That Bush is a lame-duck president, and his time in office is short, is no excuse for failure to defend the rule of law to its fullest.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence specialist and was a chief weapons inspector for the United Nations in Iraq. He is the author of many books, including "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein" and "Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change."
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
142 Comments so far
Show AllThe American Liberty League is alive and well. It didn't die back it 1940 as some people thought. They just reinvented themselves.
Scott Ritter: Thank you. Your testimony should be written out and notarized to be used in a future trial of Bush and Cheney.
Miftin There are so many issues in the world... Gaza, Congo, prisons, war, destruction of nature, tens of thousands of preventable deaths daily and on and on. It is going on every minute we sit here writing. It is hard to absorb, and even harder to do something about everything.
Don't stop bringing up what concerns you. Gaza is certainly a tragedy and a disgrace.
"and then you say, "take a relaxing bath or something, this forum stuff just isn't worth all you seem to think it is."
miftin shows obvious signs of not enjoying her experiences in discussing things with me. By comparison, I'm kind of neutral about our discussion.
"Oh you fit right in with the neocommicons."
Translation: I will not discuss any of the points brought up by jakenewton and will instead cowardly use an ad hominem attack, which as we all should know is a classic fallacy of logic. *shrug*
LOL Jakenewton...
I can't even count all your posts between the hours of 8:10am and 12:09am August 13th-16th... and then you say, "take a relaxing bath or something, this forum stuff just isn't worth all you seem to think it is."
Oh you fit right in with the neocommicons. Have you considered a career in politics jakenewton? Maybe you're like already an intern or something cool like that.
The political spectrum is not a straight line with two ends. It is a broken circle with the ends closer to each other than to the "middle" where the status quo is maintained. We compose the majority--probably 2/3s or better. The next 4+4 year term should be Kucinich/Paul and Paul/Kucinich with the start by coin toss. Idealistic? Possible? This can only be spread by word of mouth---6 levels of separation--- means I/you can speak to everyone and change the world in two months. It's easy. It's patriotic. It will all fall together naturally---because its time has come.
ITS TIME HAS COME.
I'm worried about you miftin, take a relaxing bath or something, this forum stuff just isn't worth all you seem to think it is.
Like I said: When fools become the majority around here, CD will have to do something about it.
"wrong side of the argument"
This is baffling and tiresome to me. How is it I am on the wrong side when no one can counter the point I make? *I* think I am on the right side.
"Again, you're on the wrong side of the argument. Why do you constantly advocate for the US empire? "
Please explain why pointing out that there was documanted concern that Saddam would use WMD, and that this fact supports that they did not lie about WMD, amounts to "advocating for the US empire".
jakenewton: Again, you're on the wrong side of the argument. Why do you constantly advocate for the US empire? I really don't understand you Jake. Believe me I've tried. It seems to me, that you're just doing it for self-amusement... taking the most indefensible positions, while attacking everyone else. Frankly, it's tiring.
"So if you think I'm a fool, then present some facts of your own."
Are you really that dense? My participation in this discussion hinges almost completly on the *fact* that there was documented concern that Saddam would use his WMD as we can plainly read in the Downing Street Memo. Wise up.
Fools cannot be rebutted by arguments, but only by facts. So if you think I'm a fool, then present some facts of your own.
"Saying, essentially, "prove it" over and over does not constitute the testing of ideas. "
Actually, it does. Ideas test out as good when they are based on facts and reasoning, and demonstrated as such. Didn't they teach you that in library school?
Now, were *you* going to address the points made concerning the Downing Street Memo or not? Lucitanian has left plenty of slack for you.
Saying, essentially, "prove it" over and over does not constitute the testing of ideas. If he's a "troll" he isn't a very good one.
"Jakenewton is a TROLL."
You don't even know what a troll is. I'll admit I am a troll when you admit that CD public discussion area is a back slappin' high fivin' agreement fest where ideas are meant to go untested.
To all,
Jakenewton is a TROLL. He is trained in sophistry and his real mission is
to irritate you and raise your blood pressure and drain your energy
and waste you time. Ignore him.
SnowWolf is a mini TROLL. He is still in training.
And of course the veracity of Suskind's claims are far from settled.
Still no answer about the concern that Saddam would use his WMD? Focus.
Apropos our exchanges on lies on WMD and fixing the data, today's Democracy Now, I think shines some more light on what exactly the cabinet new about WMD in Iraq and what they tried to tell Bush, the truth that their were real doubts about the existance of WMD in Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: Ron Suskind interviewed Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, Britain's secret intelligence service. Dearlove said Britain received intelligence in the beginning of 2003 about Iraq's lack of WMDs, but the Bush administration buried the information. Dearlove told Suskind, "The problem was the Cheney crowd was in too much of a hurry, really. Bush never resisted them quite strongly enough."
RON SUSKIND: …….as Dearlove's comment reveals. And they said, "Let's exercise real intelligence." As Dearlove says, "We're better at this than you people. We have relationships where you often have none. Let's try to exercise the known and the knowable here, so that we can bring at least some clarity to this debate," which, of course, the British understood was gusty, full of assumption, without real evidence. That's why the meeting with Habbush was set up.
Listen or watch the whole interview and you might learn something especially about interpreting the word "fix".
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/14/after_ron_suskind_reveals_bush_admin
You continue to show a complete lack of focus. It's really quite simple. "They lied about WMD" means that they *knew* Saddam had none but said he did anyway. In the meeting documented by the Downing Street memo they expressed concern that Saddam would use his WMD. Ergo, they thought he had them and therefore did not lie when they said he had them. All the other BS you write doesn't address this.
"Fix" has several definitions, as you well know.
And no, if you repeat something you believe to be true even though it turns out to be a lie, or merely false, you are not a liar.
"Life's too short. Enjoy it."
Every single day.
jakenewton August 14th, 2008 8:29 am
My (really) final word:
If we redefine the word "lie", not to include any untruth that one believes to be true and repeats even though one knows it may be not true but one wants it to be true because one wants to make others do something based on such a truth,
And
If we redefine the word "fix" in the phrase "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" to mean anything but searching for, selecting, refining, exaggerating, and attaching data and information and disseminating it to suit the political objective.
And
If we redefine the word "question" in the phrase: "The military were continuing to ask lots of questions……. if Saddam used WMD on day one…? [followed by, as an interrogatory statement to the PM] You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.".
(Of course they've got questions if they didn't know the answers or the truth of the proposition, or if the military are having to accept false, incongruous or conflicting information which they may suspect and is even contradicted in the same memo (His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US….Saddam was not threatening his neighbours,… They can hardly say PM Sir your laying!)
The point being, you don't have to be the initiator of the lie to be a layer. You just have to repeat the lie you heard and keep repeating it and believe it yourself because you want to or your job depends on it.
Given these nuances,
Your contention is absolutely right and there was no lie about WMD and no intention to manipulate the facts to suit the case for war and Blair and Bush are not layers. They were just responsible for repeating the wrong information that they had been given (it can so easily happen to anybody) ….. and thereby sending a million Iraqis to their death and making four million into refugees.
And so we can clearly agree and the original point stands untouched here, by me or anyone else. And I thank you for your help at clearing up my language difficulties, and your patience in following my foolishness which seems to have trapped millions around the world. I wander why you do not have a job in government or at least in a PR or sales firm. You seem to believe your own BS the same as they do.
Life's too short. Enjoy it. For my part, I'll leave it to history to decide.
Bottom Line.
The Bush cabal is going to walk away from this mess with bigger, fatter bank accounts and absolutely no regrets. That is the biggest injustice to Americans. While Cheney and company drink $200 scotch and smoke contraband Cubans they will surely toast the American fools who voted for them and the meat grinder that netted them billions of dollars.
We are not exactly winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. We are fostering a whole generation of future terrorists whose lives will never be healed after their childhood friends were killed at a birthday party or some similarly incongruous visitation by battlefield death into childhood's happiness.
Good Germans were those who had faith in their country and their leaders and turned their thoughts anywhere else but towards the questions they needed to ask.
" I am ignorant or disingenuous because I do not address this controversy,"
Exactly right. In the case your stupid man in the moon controversy this has been addressed by science, unlike your refusal to address the "fixed" question.
"I am no longer wasting my time with your circular arguments."
I defy you to cite a specific example of a circular argument used by me.
"There were no WMD "
*Everyone* knows this, it's not the subject under discussion. An example of your complete lack of focus in this conversation.
"and Bush and Blair are liars."
*This* is the issue, and the Downing Street Memo, heralded as a Smoking Gun, lends strong support to the very opposite conclusion where it states they had concern Saddam would use WMD. Your very best attempt on this point specifically was:
"They did not voice concern that Saddam would use them. They voiced concern that the PM "said" SH would use them."
The above statement is wrong at best and incoherent at worst. They simply recorded what was said at the meeting, namely, that Saddam might use WMD.
Bottom line, this original point stands untouched here, by you or anyone else.
"What an ass. If Iraq had had WMDs they would have used them when they were attacked "
And you are stupid. *Everyone* knows now that Saddam had no WMD. We are not discussing that, yet you somehow think we are. How incredibly stupid.
jakenewton August 13th, 2008 10:03 pm
I know I said I would not waste any more time but…
Let us say, I said categorically that you are an ass, and I have evidence to support that. I leave no room or doubt that you might not be an ass.
You take me to court for defamation of character and you of couse win because there is some possibility, some doubt that you are an ass.
Later by subsequent and in depth analysis it is proved beyond any doubt that you are not an ass.
That makes me a liar, and my initial statement a lie. It is irrelevant that I had gathered evidence, and you had given me plenty of indication of your "ass like" condition. There may have been "controversy" on the meaning of the word "ass" too, or on the veracity of the evidence presented…. On weighing the matter I ignored it all and I lined up all my pins only to make a categorical statement and make decisions based on that as a "fact".
But, finally there is no slither room, you are not an ass, and that makes me a liar.
Blair and Bush are liars and the governments they headed are dealing in the sophistry of lies. Their "good faith" or noble intentions cannot be questioned because no one can know either way what those intentions were, I think the worst you think the best, but in the case of war it is irrelevant, because their decisions were the most egregious acts in the world, that of making a war, and the massive deaths and destruction that is caused by them cannot be undone or repaired. We are not talking about a semantic error of judgement. There is no excuse.
There were no WMD and Bush and Blair are liars. (and you are not an ass, but I cannot say that catagorically)
jakenewton August 13th, 2008 10:03 pm
"It is ignorant or disingenuous for you to simply restate your thesis as to what the meaning of "fixed" was after being confronted with the ongoing controversy around it. Instead, you are to provide proof that that is what was meant, and/or disprove the alternate theories."
You are one of these people who say:
1, some people say there is a man on the moon.
2, therefore it is controversial to say there is not a man on the moon, because some people say there is.
3, I am ignorant or disingenuous because I do not address this controversy, which is of course real and material because….. you say so, or someone says so.
4, therefore also we must accept that there "is" a man on the moon, and I should stop repeating myself that there is NOT, because you say so.
It is as logical as " you are and Ass h.l. because I think you are"!
They launched a war of choice for a cause which was proved to be not there when many authoritative people including Hans Blix and the CIA where telling them for various reasons that there was little likely hood of finding any WMD there. In any case their apparent reason was unjustified and proved to be so post invasion. They (Bush and Blair) could have launched the war because they prayed together and God told them to do so, both of them being off their little rockers, who cares, they lied, deviated from fact knowingly or deliberately, with or without malice of forethought, they deviated from fact and selected only that data and opinion that suited their cause. Did they not for a moment doubt that they were wrong when millions upon millions of people told them so around the world? Did they just ignore the round logic of "proving a negative? Did they circumvent the traditional intelligence mechanisms to gather suspect data because, they thought it would be more accurate? Just like you and the man on the moon.
Even if Saddam had had WMD which he did not the invasion and occupation was still illegal and an act of terrorism by these governments contrary to the UN charter and a war crime.
I am no longer wasting my time with your circular arguments. Let us leave it to history to judge.
To JakeNewton,
Whether consciously or not, you are playing the neo-con think-tank game of semantics that tries to exonerate Bush and Blair by suggesting that their suspicion that Saddam Hussein had WMD excuses any and all of their attempts to tamper with public perception of the alleged reality of such a threat, moreover, that suspicion of such a threat represents sufficient reason to implement an unprovoked invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. Any president or Cheney-esque nosferatu or Congressperson or well-connected lobbyist or CEO can hire a PR firm to fly into some 3rd World country with loads of swell natural resources their backers want to exploit and create a pretext to generate SUSPICION of a national security threat. The very nature of relying upon suspicion as a war trigger is all too readily manipulated folly on its face. Exhibit A: THE 2003 IRAQ INVASION AND OCCUPATION.
One would have thought by now that the millions of dead, maimed or displaced Iraqis; the lack of WMD evidence; the lack of factional, ethnic and sectarian political reconciliation; and the estimated 3 to 5 Trillion dollar cost (and counting) of the Iraq War alone would have convinced any similar minded semantic slinkies of the utter and complete moral, economic, tactical and strategic failure of such a national security policy doctrine war trigger--as opposed to hard evidence of clear and present danger. But no, the hillbilly feudal sophistry of un-evidenced "grave and gathering threats" that rely on agit-prop and macho exhibitions of puffed-up corporatist McPatriotism still has its drill thralls, alas.
What was it the neo-cons used to love to say after the Supreme Court appointed their favorite goon to power? After Bush staged his "Mission Accomplished" charade on the aircraft carrier? "Get over it!" Iraq was and is a complete and total policy failure and an absolute disgrace and the spawn of more and more new disgraces. Your president is a failure. What you believe in is a failure. Blair is out of power and despised because he is a failure. Bush will soon be in the same condition. Neo-conservatism is a failure being propped up with the bloody soil of its own morally failed nation in its own mass media coffin like Undead Dick Cheney's wax simulacrum in Madame Taussaude's gallery of historical horrors. Get lost and good riddance to them and their idiotic legion of ammoral or immoral dupes.
@Atexan August 12th, 2008 5:29 pm
"Scott, You keep beating a dead horse. This is already a very old story."
Atexan, for you, it is. After all, you probably knew this in 2002.
But the media has never admitted it. Most of our politicians have never
admitted it. There are many who still deny it. We have our very own
example here on CD (SnowWolf) who tries to maintain that Iraq was a
threat to the world and simultaneously tries to push the line that "we"
were all fooled because Saddam pretended to be a threat to the world.
He is very much in the minority here on CD, but sadly there are many
like him out there who really do still think that we invaded because the
government because of faulty intelligence.
I want the the world to know that the WMD threat was a deliberately
contrived pack of lies from the beginning.
What an ass. If Iraq had had WMDs they would have used them when they were attacked and invaded. Then "we" didn't find any, and the entire world knows it except, apparently, this Jake guy and his mother.
I said:
"but the Downing Street Memo provides no evidence of such fabrication."
Then you said:
"Yes it does."
*Show* where it does, don't just say it.
"But your right, as in my opinion you are an ass h.l.,:
Step back in line.
"But in fact he did not and was not"
Only after invading did this become known for sure. I said that already and yopu have failed to address that point.
"and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
And I repeat, ranking Iraq's WMD capability as lesser than that of three doesn't mean that the capability was either "0" or "insignificant" as you stated in an earlier post. Nowhere in the memo is that stated. Please don't make this claim again without showing proof from the memo.
"WMD is mentioned specifically along with terrorism around which "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"
Absolutely untrue, in fact the "fixed" statement is quite isolated from any specific intelligence and facts.
"There is no missing this meaning."
It is ignorant or disingenuous for you to simply restate your thesis as to what the meaning of "fixed" was after being confronted with the ongoing controversy around it. Instead, you are to provide proof that that is what was meant, and/or disprove the alternate theories.
"They did not voice concern that Saddam would use them. They voiced concern that the PM "said" SH would use them."
Well so what? who else would we be talking about?
"At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. "
OOPS!! You forgot to quote this that was written just ahead of the above quote:
"Led by Hans Blix, the inspectors had reported little cooperation from Mr. Hussein, and no success finding any unconventional weapons."
Clearly they are referring to whether Hans Blix's people were going to find weapons and with "little cooperation from Mr. Hussein" they expressed doubts that they would in the coming weeks.
Nothing in that link suggests they didn't think Saddam had WMD.
"The reasons for war as WMD were made up, and that is a fact, not an opinion,"
Nope, an opinion still, one that must be backed by facts and reasoning, which you clearly have not done. Please don't respond by simply repeating things without support, like I showed you did at several points in your last post.
primitivedreamer:
I admire Scott Ritter's dogged determination to expose the Bush administration's deceptions, obfuscations and outright lies. But he is verbose, for sure. Maybe he could set off some of his points as bulleted items...
Atexan:
Ritter's piece is timely because it corroborates Suskind's new book. Thus, it is not old news. And I, and I'm sure many like me, fervently hope he NEVER goes away.
SnowWolf,
"I'm aghast at some posts I see here…"
I'm glad you're finally realizing that you're out of your element here.
BTW- you're also off topic.
Hey SnowWolf, read a book called "Deterring Democracy" by Noam Chomsky then get back to me on it. After that I'll recommend another 600 books.
I'm aghast at some posts I see here...unbelieveable
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/11-08-2008/106058-georgiaossetiapublicopinion-0
Pravada commentary.
Russia did go to the Security Council to seek a ceasefire, but the US and the UK refused to support it.
What about the 3 million Afghans?
Yeah, right. According to Suskind, he wrote his book for the purpose of "restoring America's moral place in the world." In other words, the world needs to be brought to the point where they can believe USrael's lies again, so they can continue to control it.
SnowWolf August 13th, 2008 3:25 pm
Go defecate your aspersions and vicious generalities of no value somewhere else where someone can appreciate your intelligence. I am sure this forum values your odorous and odious contribution as highly as I do.
That was the last byte. I feed the troll no more.
Ron Suskind: "You can't hurt cats if you are the United States at this moment." What kind of Zionist crap is this? "Restore moral energy"? This is BS. These people are fighting Bush because they want the world to begin believing the lies of the U.S./Israel again. "Trying to restore America to its proper place." This is a load of crap.
When talking today about his close talks with Bhutto on Democracy Now (during the last 6 months of her life), Ron Suskind referred to Bhutto as wanting to act as a buffer between bin Laden and Musharref. He completely disregards Bhutto's own statement to BBC journalist David Frost that bin Laden was killed years ago. And Goodman didn't challenge him on it. Suskind seems most concerned about "restoring America's moral authority in the world." America's moral authority? America has never had any moral authority in the world. America has had no moral authority in the world since we invaded the Philippines in the late 1800s.
jakenewton August 13th, 2008 2:59 pm
"but the Downing Street Memo provides no evidence of such fabrication."
Yes it does. But your right, as in my opinion you are an ass h.l., of course nothing can prove that they did or did not know for a fact that SH did not have WMD or was not a terrorist threat. But in fact he did not and was not, the UN and US intelligence had large amounts of data to attest that the bulk if not all of WMD had been destroyed long before. And even in this memo it is affirmed that "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
While the responsible for "intel" talks about regime change and not WMD as a reason:
"John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based."
WMD is mentioned specifically along with terrorism around which "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"
There is no missing this meaning.
"..voiced concern that Saddam would use them shows this to be unsettled at best" They did not voice concern that Saddam would use them. They voiced concern that the PM "said" SH would use them. CAN YOU PLEASE READ.
The downing street memo clearly shows that they were planning for a war making an apparent case for it around "assumed" WMD and terror links purported by the PM and the Americans, knowing full well that the legitimacy was more than weak. This is what is meant by war of aggression. The memo even mentioning in passing:
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
What is refered to as "Iraqi casus belli" links to and appears in another Memo Mr. Manning wrote (Quoting from the NYTimes March 2006:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5070&en=dfc6c3... )
At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war.
"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
It also described the president as saying, "The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction.
A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo does not indicate how Mr. Blair responded to the idea.
Those in the Downing Street meeting reffered to by that memo where not concerned with the minimal threat if any of WMD but with justifying and coordinating an aggressive war on Iraq for the purpose of regime change, with WMD as one of the "apparent" threats to justify such aggression. However they knew and stated the SH was "not a threat to Iraq's neighbors" by apparent report, yet the PM had "said" WMD could threatened Kuwait or Israel. A fabrication or a contradiction?
So no. The reasons for war as WMD were made up, and that is a fact, not an opinion, and it is clear in this document read contextually with other existing reports and the events as they unfolded.
"The U.S. government targeted journalists in Iraq"
the way they shamelessly shill for the Terrorists we might as WELL put them on the target list
Theres more anti-semitism here than the whole frigging Third Reich (gee did I spell that right?)
you are definitely on the wrong side in this one...all of you who think the Pali's (I'll shorten it so you don't whine about my spelling) are blameless here...they could have had their little state 60 years ago but they just can't bear to live alongside those dirty Joo's
I'll take Israel for an ally any day...
"aren't you the one who rejects wikipedia as a source when it disagrees with you?"
I subscribe to no such rule. Wikipedia is useful but limited.
"To be WMD they must be 1, a threat "
Did you just make this up?
"Based on the factual info they had they knew that they were neither."
The fact that they voiced concern that Saddam would use them shows this to be unsettled at best. They would be both a threat and deliverable in that case.
"The facts are that Iraq did not posses WMD.."
This was only found out after the invasion.
"That the CDS or the Defence Secretary suspected that Saddam may possibly possess limited WMD resources and asked hypothetical questions of the PM based on that possibility does not mean that they did not assist in "fabricating" evidence, "
Agreed, but the Downing Street Memo provides no evidence of such fabrication.
"That does not necessarily mean he believes Saddam has WMD it means the PM said…."
Why would he say it if he "knew" that Saddam had none?
""0" is in fact very much less."
If anyone knew that it was "0", we don't learn this from the Downing Street Memo.
"The reasons for war as WMD were made up, and that is a fact."
No, that is an "opinion".
SnowWolf August 13th, 2008 2:12 pm
"The Palistinians do not want to Co-exist…" Thank you for your opinion. It is as valuable as it is factual, constructive, and meaningful. I'll give you a zero and you cannot even spell either. Not a very good attempt in defence of Zionist apartheid aggression and state terror.
Hard to believe the U.S. government would target an American citizen? The U.S. government targeted journalists in Iraq -- more than once (think Bagdad Hotel)and killed them. Then claimed it was unintentional --. I wouldn't put anything past the U.S. government.
As I sat eating my lunch I read with increasing despair and disgust the article by Scott Ritter.
Not to mention what Ron Suskind has written.
I simply cannot read much more of this kind of stuff anymore as I am nauseous with the stench.
No one and I mean NO ONE is going to hold anyone accountable. That is the main point we all need to accept. We need to soak it all in and understand. NO ONE will be held responsible.
Our government is tacitly and remarkably adept at being involved in the largest crimes against humanity and NO ONE lifts a finger.
NO ONE.
NOT ONE.
NOT EVEN ME.
I have no power. I can do nothing. Don't give me any crap about how I can make a difference. It's BS. The highest form of hypocrisy is to pretend that we can do something about these crimes.
These people are not interested in who we are, what we do and how much we cry. Forget it.
Of all people Scott Ritter needs to bite the silver bullet and recognize the depths of depravity this government is willing to indulge in. Unless we find ourselves some major
beneficent muckrakers we are destined for the same fate other countries are experiencing.
GW BUSH has stuck his pointy little finger cackling that ridiculously evil laugh at one too many a power. Forget where we are. Obama cannot help. They have him cornered. He now owes his life to those who control him. They don't call it the Swecret Service because we know who directs them.
God can't help us either. He can't even begin to forgive us.
The Palistinians do not want to Co-exist...they want to destroy Israel (as does most of the other Mideast countries...) Jordan and Egypt got smart (or perhaps they just got tired of Israel mopping the desert with them)...if the Pali's laid down their arms there would be peace...if the Israeli's laid down theirs there would be another Holocaust ...
re 1:58pm
that's "disingenuous." and aren't you the one who rejects wikipedia as a source when it disagrees with you?
jakenewton August 13th, 2008 12:25 pm
Were there WMD?: To be WMD they must be 1, a threat and 2, deliverable. Based on the factual info they had they knew that they were neither.
But who is "they"? Also in Britain "they" does not mean all the cabinet was privy to all the facts. In fact, the PM took ministers in to his office and took great pains to lie to them privately, individually and directly, "45 minute threat" etc. and all the rest.
Ministers given the wrong information will make the wrong provisions and statements.
The facts are that Iraq did not posses WMD..
That the CDS or the Defence Secretary suspected that Saddam may possibly possess limited WMD resources and asked hypothetical questions of the PM based on that possibility does not mean that they did not assist in "fabricating" evidence, to support such a conviction and the necessary "spin". Those fabrications are the lies of the British and American governments.
"The military were continuing to ask lots of questions."
They are following in the wake of US data and accepting such advise as given. But they are asking questions.
"what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."
"You said" is CDS addressing the PM. That does not necessarily mean he believes Saddam has WMD it means the PM said….
"Bush had made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
"0" is in fact very much less.
But Pres. Bush told the world, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Whereas at least the British head of intelligence did have doubts, many doubts and he is asking questions.
To say I believe you are an ass h.l. does not make you one and it does not make me a liar when I tell people what I believe you are and even if you can prove you are not (which is getting difficult, especially to prove a negative) my statement remains correct as long as my believe does not need to rest on fact.
The reasons for war as WMD were made up, and that is a fact. To say later intelligence was mistaken. Is pure hyperbole bull.
re 12:25pm
your clintonian parsing of the verb "to fix" betrays you for the sophist you are.
can you honestly see no difference between the phrases "the toaster is being fixed" and "the election is being fixed?"
"your clintonian parsing of the verb "to fix" betrays you for the sophist you are."
Are you ignorant or disengenuous? Read the wikipedia article on this. There remains a question as to the meaning of the word "fixed", especially considering that the same document shows they thought Saddam had WMD.
"Thank you for your excellent answer to Jake N."
Which I beat up on concerning the point of whether there were lies involved. I hope your mood is better now.
METAL: Thank you for laying things out so well and thoroughly. YOU should be a news commentator on a major network (if the whole thing was not designed for dis-information!)
LUCITANIA: Thank you for your excellent answer to Jake N. I was not in the mood to respond.
To SnowWolf: If you seriously believe that if the Palestinian elements who fire rockets into Israel were to lay down their weapons the Israelis would in any significant way help them--rather than bide their time to create or disproportionately react to any new pretext to continue their violent ghetto-ization of the Palestinians--then you haven't been paying attention to the history of the Occupation and you don't recognize the Likud or Kadima Party goals, let alone their methods. Ariel Sharon was the first one to test-case the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war on the Palestinians even before Bush used it himself.
To Greenerthanthou: There were hundreds of documents and hours of torture video pertaining to what went on inside Abu Ghraib and elsewhere that were part of the evidence of torture crimes submitted to certain key committees of Congress. This material was censored by Congress from getting into the hands of Big Media because of how horrific it was and how damaging it would be to Amurka's international image and domestic support for the war. Even several members of Congress who had access to this material reportedly could not or would not watch all of it due to its extreme nature. There are only scattered print media references to the atrocities documented, but the rape of two young boys and torture of a young girl by the mercenaries was said to be mild compared to some of the other video footage. The print media accounts of this showed up in both U.S. and British news. If you search this site you should be able to come up with some links.
Remember: There were over 70,000 Iraqis and foreign nationals rounded up and thrown into over 15 prisons and several large open-air prison camps in the first year after the invasion. The International Red Cross and even the Pentagon itself later stated that the vast majority of them--70% to 90%--were probably innocent. This included men, women and children. There was at least one open-air camp devoted to imprisoning several hundred children in the south of Iraq managed by U.S. forces and witnessed by the British.
The only glimpse at any atrocities that took place in these prisons was of those in Abu Ghraib because of the leaks. Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan has its own grisly record of torture-murders.
Every war has its dark and dirty secrets and the extent of this brutality, often taking place at the hands of legally unaccountable mercenary contractors, is as dark as the machinations that led to the invasion in the first place. There's a reason why these contractors still keep receiving billions of dollars in contracts and why their crimes are shoved under the rug. Run amok military-industrial complex being stage managed for domestic consumption by the Pentagon, Big Media and Republicon and Dimocratic whores in Congress.
Also: I did not say that Russia's attack on Georgia was unprovoked. I'm still reading reports to determine what I make of that situation. All sides have good reason for lying and distorting the facts of the situation before, during and after this event. Russia and Georgia had both been engaging in military posturing in the lead-up. I'm still not clear on what, precisely, the Georgian president is claiming that some S. Ossetian separatists actually did that triggered his decision to attack them. But S. Ossetia had declared itself independent in the 1990s--from both Georgia and Russia. Russia's claims on S. Ossetia are historical, not current. Russia should have gone through the UN to seek a cease-fire instead of preemptively surging into Georgia, but Bush has made a mockery of international law and Putin is taking advantage of it by behaving only too much like Bush. Who are we here in Bush's Amurka to call the kettle black?
"came "
same
It's obvious the politician profiteers just make up lies in order to make money from declaring unnecessary war. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? They're stored in the U.S. and in Israel.
"They may have believed there were, or may have been WMD,"
Of course. else they would not have discussed concerns about Saddam using them. This means they did not lie about WMD, as is so often charged.
"but if they did they also knew that they did not represent a significant threat."
They did *not* say that. Ranking Saddam's capability as lower than some other countries is not the came as deeming his capabilities as not significant, and they did voice concern over their use.
"The memo clearly indicates the need to "Fix" facts "
You know that this is *not* clear, and that there is an ongoing discussion as to what exactly was meant by the term "fixed".
"Even if Iraq had WMD it would not justify an invassion and occupation, lest they be a threat to the invador!"
Whether WMD are a threat to an invader or a justification for invasion are two quite different things.
SnowWolf August 13th, 2008 11:29 am
"stop firing rockets into Israel…lay down your damn weapons… and I bet the Israeli's might ……."
Continue to disregard UN mandates, illegally build on Palestinian land, murder Palestinian children, and deny Palestinians their rights including their right to return. I can almost guarantee it.
What a pointless response you make! Please go back to your Zionist propaganda land.
metal, thank you for your comments. You are absolutely right about the media.
2 points. I remember Rumsfield saying that there was video that was much worse, but I never heard what it was. You are saying that it was mercenaries raping children? where did you hear this? I assumed it was murder, but you're right, child raping is considered worse than murder, especially here in the US.
Also, 3 million dead Afghans? I've never heard that number before. What source is that?
And, I'm not doing a Jake newton here. I really want to know, so that I can quote it.
Thanks.
How hypocritical that a nation of people who claim to have suffered such persecution now inflict that same persecution on another people
They brought it all on theirselves...sorry
I have absolutely no sympathy for the Palis...stop firing rockets into Israel...lay down your damn weapons... and I bet the Israeli's might even help them
Oh, and metal. I disagree that Russia's attack on Georgia was unprovoked.
Attacking South Ossetia and killing thousands of Russian civilians and Russian soldiers was a major provocation.
miftin August 13th, 2008 1:04 am
People are dying of starvation in Gaza. Why is nobody on common Dreams talking about it?
Because it's politically incorrect to say anything that might be construed as critical of Israel - the third rail of politics - even if it's true.
How hypocritical that a nation of people who claim to have suffered such persecution now inflict that same persecution on another people.
Dave
Whenever there is a media shit-storm of the current magnitude with so many important stories and sub-stories hurtling around all at once, it is HIGHLY instructive to take a step back and try to objectively examine how the corporatist "mainstream" media is or decidedly isn't reacting to all the bits and pieces.
Many folks have understandably reached their news toxicity threshold, but too many of them have lapsed into relativism: It's the same type of news, so nothing is new or noteworthy. But each new story often has small details that can help better reevaluate and piece together older ones.
After Robert Fisk's piece on Margaret Hassan I at first reacted as I had when she was murdered: Thinking that it had the hallmarks of a CIA hit. But now, because of her earlier aid work on behalf of Palestinians (something I didn't know until I read Fisk's piece) I suspect certain Israelis might have considered her most expendable and her publicized death useful in terrorizing the Amurkan public (into more support for Israel's excesses for one thing) by blaming her murder on "Muslims." This makes me wonder how deeply involved the Mossad or other Israeli elements were or still are inside Iraq since the invasion.
The Nicholas Berg detention and murder on cue always stunk to high heaven. The Daniel Pearle murder, however, I think probably was a Taliban and/or jihadist hit because it became immediately so useful to the neo-cons to fan the early flames of U.S. public support for their regime--which in its metastasis has re-configured the entire U.S. budget and shredded the Constitution. Regardless of whether Bin Laden was or was not an inside man, he couldn't have hoped for a better publicized murder of a prominent Jewish reporter for the Wall Street Journal, no less, to fan imperial domestic Police State/foreign retaliatory excess in Americans, the blindly pro-Kadima American corporate media and in Israelis.
When news leaked out that there was video footage of mercenary interrogators raping young children inside Abu Ghraib--who colluded to protect the mercenaries from ever being seriously investigated or held legally accountable? Bush, Paul Bremmer, both Parties in Congress (key members of whom had either seen or had knowledge of this video and worse), and Big Media who refused to investigate.
The corporatist U.S. media played a CRITICAL role in smoothing, soothing, omitting or dumbing the facts down on all these stories for domestic consumption. No intelligent questions and NO, under any circumstances, follow-up investigative reporting (an almost dead art that was once the flower of American journalism).
Even this current business between Georgia and Russia and U.S. interests in the Baku-Tiblisi pipeline (with the 130 U.S. "advisors" inside Georgia) smells mighty stinky. Interesting that the man trotted 'round by Big Media here and on BBC-Amurka to "explain" the situation was one of the most bloody-minded of the neo-liberal Iraq invasion/Bush II apologists, Richard Holbrooke.
Holbrooke was walking the characteristically stupid DLC corporatist tightrope of simultaneously pretending to bash Team Bush's response to the debacle as inadequate (offering no coherent explanation why) while fundamentally agreeing with Team Bush's assessment.
Then he launched an anti-Russia rant with dubiously insinuating language--"Ukraine is the real prize here"-- straight out of the Great Game politics of the British Empire circa 1880. As if Putin and Medvedev plan to blitzkrieg through Georgia to reconquer Georgia and Ukraine because of some separatists in South Ossetia. The fool even stared down his Russian counterpart on the PBS News Hour and threat-hinted at a renewed Cold War by using pre-adolescent reverse psychology: "What we DON'T want to see is a renewal of the Cold War."
Holbrooke's unspoken message: 'Sure Bush and Condileeeza have zero credibility lecturing Putin on unprovoked invasions and disproportionate use of force, and don't even mention my own behavior re Bosnia, but there might be a shiny new black Romulan DLC cowboy version 3.0 in office soon. I'll be his foreign policy minder from the [World Bank, IMF, State Department, Oil Companies] old guard because he's a foreign policy tool and, huff'n'puff, I'm mighty tough!'
His direct message: 'Putin, you better tow the current line about us pushing your oil and natural gas-rich former satellite nations into NATO and under our imperial military umbrella with our forward based missile "defense" system or...' I wanted to scream at the TV screen, "Or we'll run out of tax revenue and implode like imperial Spain, that's what!"
Putin has us by the balls. He doesn't even have to bomb the pipelines. Russia has most of the world's natural gas reserves and hasn't even scratched the surface. All he has to do is what the jihadists do: Sit back and watch us destroy our Constitution, any remaining credibility we had with respect to international law or opinion, and strangle ourselves economically with our own over-extended imperial histrionics and class elite-serving fiscal suicide. From that perspective Amurkan politics really has become dumbed down sordid white trash kabuki. Even the make-up is sloppy.
Whose interest would a renewed Cold War most serve in what order? Big Oil and natural gas, Big Weapons, and the latest bunch of suicidal suits -- Big Police State: Coercive Technologies/Surveillance/Prisons/Mercenaries-Are-US. Big Media will amplify foreign competition to drive up fossil fool profits. There will be pipelines and encompassing dictatorships for Big Weapons to protect.
But, first and foremost, it will be up to Big Media to intellectually, economically and dysinformationally imprison John Q. Public while deceiving him that he is still free--until the lie is so cruel that it is too late for him to do anything about it besides water the tree of liberty with his and his own family's blood or degenerate into a plodding, head down, service wage, corporate plow animal breeding little plow animals to fight future fossil fool wars until the global biosphere is rendered uninhabitable for human beings. I see them every other day on the train into town and the herd only looks more and more dejected.
If they wait too long to act, Big Police State will be too consolidated to allow any significant reform movement. Our courts are already a sham and getting worse every year. At that point Big Police will simply step in to maim, kill or physically imprison huge numbers of John Qs and/or send their kids to the oil wars.
Those of you who assail the corporate One Party State masquerading as a Two Party State do not scorn Big Media's pivotal role as fascist enabler and facilitator nearly enough. There are as many traitors to the Constitution and conspirators to commit mass murder among Big Media's corporate owners, editors and reporters like Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Judith Miller and Michael Gordon as there are in the top echelons of foreign policy-making surrounding Bush and Cheney. They all ought to be in the dock at the Hague together with Olmert and his cronies--even that necrotic bastard Ariel Sharon should be tried in absentia.
Big Media pigs still blacklist Scott Ritter with the exception of late night PBS news/talk-show host Tavis Smiley who may not have gotten the memo because he is an ultra-rare minority host of a nationally broadcast (non-cable sourced) TV show and, as unique media token, not really one of the boys.
Oh, the latest little tidbit big broadcast media serenely ignored early this week: The LA Times, rapidly being vivisected alive by corporatist interests, valiantly reported that they obtained documented proof that John McCain took out a marriage license for his mistress Cindy several months before he was divorced from his first wife Carol. Nary a peep in the McNews since.
Didn't Big Media and the Republicans impeach a president three general election cycles back for having an affair? Remember how the media went on about it for months and months? Media dipshits-in-chief like Jay Leno and Beavis and Butthead-for-Algernon cartoons like 'Family Guy' STILL make fun of Clinton the Lecher over ten years later. They didn't go on about Dickard Mildew Nixon THAT fucking long.
No nationally broadcast cartoons of Team Bush drenched in the blood of their innocent victims so far. No toons about CACI or Blackwater mercs raping, torturing or killing civilians. No late night chuckles from Dennis Miller about the 3.3 million Afghans killed since '01 or the 1 million Iraqis dead and 4 million displaced. He sure will tote Bush's 'global war on terrorism' bale, though. He was been obscenely well rewarded by the Establishment for his particular sell-out. He went from a failing liberal comic to right-wing NFL commentator and serial co-host on the Tonight Show overnight followed by his own new cable series. Big Media really pimps their best whores.
One must treat Big Media with extreme prejudice, but one must cross compare their propaganda diligently. If George Orwell were alive now he would have walls covered with propaganda time-lines and parallel real world corollaries. But it would take a room full of Sherlocks and Watsons to sort through it all on a weekly basis. "Tangled is the web we weave when first we practice to deceive." Amurka's webs of deception are so tangled now that they have, and could only ever have, entangled Amurka itself and dragged it down.
jakenewton August 13th, 2008 8:10 am
They may have believed there were, or may have been WMD, but if they did they also knew that they did not represent a significant threat. The memo clearly indicates the need to "Fix" facts to suit the legalities of military action, or rather illegalities' in this case. Even if Iraq had WMD it would not justify an invassion and occupation, lest they be a threat to the invador!
Quoting from Wiki : The most controversial paragraph is a report of a recent visit to Washington by head of the Secret Intelligence Service Sir Richard Dearlove (known in official terminology as 'C'):
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
Further:
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.
I would be curious to hear Mr. Ritter's thoughts on the real source of the 9/11 disaster. Surely with his connections, he could shed a little light on what appears to be a false flag operation, rather like what he talks about here. It is obvious that this illegitimate regime would do anything to further its agenda.
Alembic August 13th, 2008 6:07 am, Thank you for comprehending my comment.
Group hysteria can be equally harnessed to build as to tear down nations.
You ask, When the collective moral mind of a nation becomes clinically mad, who, then, is responsible for what?
Are the "citizenry's mental and moral collapse less deep than the causes of madness in the oligarchs who murderously misrule?"
Unfortunately the pathology of states does not follow that of humans.
If it did, I see Israel like a man in the supermarket parking lot waving a heavy pointed stick about him, while bodies, dead and dying, lie around. He is shouting, warning the others "They all want to kill me. I have to protect myself. They are threatening me. They have always been trying to kill me and my family. They tried before. They are all the same. I must kill them and take their property before they get a better weapon." Then he strikes again, and another victim is brought down by his attack. Surreptitiously he appropriates the victim's property, saying it is necessary for his own security, and he goes on and on doing this.
Is he sane, just pretending to be mad, or just mad, thinking he and his friend the policeman are the only ones sane?
Now, his friend America comes along dressed as a policeman, wearing his authority, a gun, on his hip, and instead of pacifying and disarming this apparently deranged man, he says, "The man has got a point. He has a right to defend himself", while giving the perpetrator more effective weapons and then standing behind him, America says, "If anyone messes with this guy, he messes with me and my guns, and you know I shoot to kill".
Fortunately humans are treatable, given a will to recover, but unfortunately insane states seem to feed off their own or shared delusions and seldom face demise. This makes them ideal vehicles for sociopathic rulers. One can only conclude that the guy dressed as a policeman is as mad and/or delusional as the stick wielding thief and that they are working this show together.
I don't know if the onlookers can survive long enough before these two guys choke on their plunder, but some of them who have survived the first attacks are now getting pretty crazed too. That happens by being beaten over the head repeatedly.
One can only trust that what goes around comes around and that there is an underlying sanity and reason which will eventually prevail but as you said, "I do sincerely try to believe it. But I must admit it horrifies me that I have to try so hard to believe it."
I hope it is not the karmic logic pointed to elsewhere in a challenge made by the author above, "Just pick your city!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU21ASgYzKU
The foreign Corporation Merck & Co. Inc. wants to rule the world. The German owned parent company E-Merck located in Germany owns 70% of the stock and KGaA Merck Inc. ownes 30% of the stock the Chemical part of E-Merck and Merck subsidary located in New Jersey, They created Vioxx and killed 88,000 americans and injured 169,000 with heart attacks and strokes. kept Vioxx on the market for 5 years all the while they knew it was a killer, promoted it and market it. Did a mass murder and No one can prosecute them they are untouchable. Merck is protected by a shield that Congress put up in 1962 when they amended the FDA & FDCA ACT Public Law they preempted the Law by omitting any product liability remedy for an individual that is killed or injured by a defective prescription drug. Look it up on the Web. Judge Fallon wrote a Order and Reason in Gomez v. Merck case and states that there is NO LAW, No Federal or State for a remedy for any individual who is killed or damaged by a defective prescription drug. Fact is NO LAW for product liability. Why do you think all the cases are being dismissed from the courts? How can a Judge rule if he has NO LAW to prosecute for Murder or order a payment for damages. NO LAW. If your attorney does not know this he should know it. Why then did he file a Civil Product Liability case that ended up as a Class Action suit.????
Ritter, More of the same dribble. Come on you are an American don't you know we want to rule the world!!
Lie, God Dam it!!!!!
"****The Downing Street Memos proved Britain and the USA were in cahoots drumming up false Iraq stuff."
I wonder if you read the whole thing. The Downing Street memo proves that they thought Saddam had WMD. This passage is part of the memo:
"For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."
Why the concern that Saddam would use his WMD if they "knew" he didn't have any?
Please respond.
Like a rat running on a wheel
1)DON'T VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS WAR is a good start.
2) STOP WAITING FOR CONGRESS OR SOME ONE ELSE TO DO SOMETHING AND GET OFF YOU FAT BUM AND DO SOMETHING YOURSELF!!!!
LUCITANIAN 8/12 8pm said in his trenchant post:
"The crime in fact is what Americans are doing to themselves...
Agreed Lucitanian, this is certainly one dimension of The Crime.
But other dimensions surely embody what Americans are also doing to other nations and peoples as well, and to the global biosphere that sustains human life itself.
If, for sake of argument, such crimes and behaviors were committed by a single individual, the laws and standards of any sane society would judge the individual insane; remove him/her from further harm-doing, and mercifully weigh the influence of severe mental defect in determining punishment or treatment.
When the collective moral mind of a nation becomes clinically mad, who, then, is responsible for what? Since much of American society has today effectively distilled into a state of mass moral insanity, it's doubtful to me whether the government's actions can be said to reflect the 'consent' even of the leaders, let alone the governed.
To me, meaningful 'consent' presupposes the possession of moral sanity.
And isn't it precisely moral sanity that is now functionally gone from the minds of most US citizens and their leaders?
As I see it, we can only hope and act in the belief that the causes of the US citizenry's mental and moral collapse are less deep than the causes of maddness in the oligarchs who murderously misrule; that the citizenry's suddenly accelerated maddness is due in its worst aspects to a temporary, 9/11-manipulated mass-hypnosis, and is therefore potentially reversible, given time.
I say this. And I do sincerely try to believe it. But I must admit it horrifies me that I have to try so hard to believe it.
I have no trouble believing Ritter's article----particularly the story of the proposal to fake evidence of an Iraqi WMD program. After the American invasion of Iraq I confidently expected the American forces to "discover" evidence of such a program. As the months went by and turned into years, and there were still no triumphant paradings of "evidence", I began to wonder how incompetent the CIA really was. It appears that the planting of evidence that would pass credible inspection is too difficult for the CIA in its current state.
atexan.... the msm doesn't work so fast when it comes to outing the difficult truth. Scott is not beating the same dead horse... he is staying on message. It's a repub tactic. Have some faith.
elmysterio wrote:
"Ritter is NOT saying these things for your entertainment. This is an issue of incredible importance that has NOT been addressed sufficiently"
elmysterio:
I am not seeking entertainment, but as I said this has been already
an old news and I agree and believe Scott Ritter but he keeps beating the same dead horse.
If to you the subject is new and requires "more addressing", then you
must have been in a coma for many years.
The idiots pissed off the CIA in the lead up to the war. That is why the CIA didn't plant WMD's for them.
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m46386&hd=&size=1&l=e
People are dying of starvation in Gaza. Why is nobody on common Dreams talking about it?
The United States never would have invaded Iraq if Iraq had WMD. Obviously, they knew that Iraq didn't have WMD. They were lying all along, knew they were lying, and wanted to invent a false truth in order to cover up the lie.
As far as Congress is concerned, they won't do anything about it because THEY knew that Iraq didn't have WMD. The whole government knew. End of story.
If Nancy Pelosi could read this and not be affected by it, not want to pursue the issues raised here then:
a) She should not continue to represent anyone or
b) She is actually a puppet with no power whatsover.
Pelosy, Conyers, DNC all are big time complicit. Don't blame Bush alone.
VOTE ANYBODY BUT TWO PARTIES
double click double post.... please pardon the third
attack clown moshe dayan is on the loose.
watch him chase a golden goose.
"According to the source, the CPA had passed to the Badr militia my name, the dates of my planned trip to Baghdad, my proposed agenda and a list of Iraqis I had planned to meet with, including Mohammed. This information was in turn passed on to the unit in the Badr militia which specialized in targeted assassination in Baghdad."
sounds like the american government conspired to murder former UN chief weapons inspector, our friend Scott Ridder.
I wonder what laws the white house broke that would motivate them to call for/facilitate in the assassination of their own former Marine Corps WMD intelligence specialist? Must be a some real woppers. Boy, would I love to be a fly on some particular people's walls back then.
Funny isn't it. An American Citizen will not vote for a decent candidate 'because he could not win', preferring to vote for a 'winner' who may not line up at all with the voter's issues. Somehow....the people in this country must think they are holding a para-mutual ticket and if they vote for the horse in the lead they will get a pay-off. Someday, I hope We the People (especially those of us who are dumber than a bag of hammers) figure out it really does not work that way.
Veteran '66-68
Scott Ritter .... didnt I see him on to catch a predator? Funny to see who the real "chickenhawk" is.
noodles romanoff August 12th, 2008 6:42 pm - -
" If congress has only 9% approval rating, why the hell won't people elect more third party candidates? "
Because 91% of Americans believe that third party candidates can't win.
karlof1 wrote:
"If this is "obvious" and Obama is "on the same course," then why does he get so much support"
karlof1,
He gets so much support because he charesmatic, talented orator and
skillful bull-shit artist promising "change". But nothing will change.
If you listen to him or read his books, he is nothing but same old same.
His biggest campaign contributions came from Wall Street. He, exactly
like McCain is a war monger aligned with big Business/Money against the regular Joes/Janes. Vote for the Greens. It is the first necessary step in a long journey.