You end terrorism through gaining respect. In my opinion that is th only way to do it.
You don't gain respect by waging war. You don't gain respect through hypocrisy and inconsistency. Neither do you gain it through obsequiousness. You gain it by setting an example, prospering, and teaching. You gain it by accepting and embracing. You gain it by making friends, not enemies.
So obviously this is not a war on terrorism.
Which leaves... liberation of iraq ... no, maybe not ... weapons of mass destruction ... well not yet anyway ... oil ... hmmmmm
President Musharref (Pakistan), and Karrzai, (Afghanistan -former UNOCAL exec)?
While one can overlook name mangling (it's Musharraf, and Karzai), one should be precise with facts, if you ask me.
So, Karzai wasn't an executive at Unocal, he worked as a consultant for that company in the 90s, (I think he also had a BMW dealership in the 70s, or was that another Mujahid?)
Quote:
?announce agreement to build proposed gas pipeline for UNOCAL from Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan. (Irish Times 02/10/02).
Unocal has completely abandoned the CentGas project in 1998, and is not involved in the current joint Afghan-Turkmen-Pakistani deal, which is a rather troubled one, notably funding-wise (due in large part to lack of interest from Western companies such as Unocal).
Quote:
So any rumors about all of the post 9/11 being about oil is not so far fetch.
A pipeline for natural gas is not about oil. And yes the rumors about all the post Nine-Eleven being about natural gas are just as far fetched.
Quote:
How many former Oil execs get to run countries. ( 1 - US, 2 - Afghanistan, 3 - ? Iraq ? )
Count Afghanistan an Iraq out, Saddam is no exec either, and never was.
Back in 2000, when Clinton ordered his unilateral attack on the Panserbs, guess what was the motive according to the usual geniuses, such as Chomsky?
You guessed right, some future Kosovo oil pipeline.
(Since I'm nobody's secretary I don't usually provide links, but consideration was taken of the unfamiliarity of most readers with the region in question)
Since most of AI seems to have realised that this war is a complex situation I shouldn't have to note that I agree with most, but not all, of this guy's analysis, yet remain firmly anti-war. But I will anyway.
I'm curious: how, precisely, are we going to end terrorism? Considering that it's a tactic and not an ideology, a war on terrorism makes about as much sense as a war on diplomacy. And we seem to be waging one of those, as well.
Now I definitely believe that the prospect of an ending to terrorism and the prosperity created as a result, as I spoke of above, beyond all other considerations, is what is driving this war. And that is the significant benefit to ourselves.
Please could you give an example -- ONE would do -- of terrorism ended by military activity?
I can give you an example of terrorism being ended by talking and changing if you want one.
Bush will rebuild Iraq using companies he's hand picked and paid for by Iraqi oil sales. Why is that hard to comprehend? Oh yeah, because you conservatives don't WANT to comprehend.
It's not the only way we'll profit either. What if the new U.S. friendly government in Iraq doesn't join OPEC? Or even if they are a member, what if like every other country in OPEC they cheat to make a few extra sales?
Bush will rebuild Iraq using companies he's hand picked and paid for by Iraqi oil sales. Why is that hard to comprehend? Oh yeah, because you conservatives don't WANT to comprehend.
It's not the only way we'll profit either. What if the new U.S. friendly government in Iraq doesn't join OPEC? Or even if they are a member, what if like every other country in OPEC they cheat to make a few extra sales?
What if Iraqi oil is no longer priced in euros (like it is now) but in dollars (which supports the US economy and is the real reason why oil is so important to that economy?).
Count Afghanistan an Iraq out, Saddam is no exec either, and never was.
...
Well, duh. But I would bet that most if not all the people put up for those wonderful "democratic" elections in the post-war Iraq will have a US or British Oil background.
This whole "War for Oil" thing has been debunked over and over. Here's one the best I've read recently. And it doesn't even come from Fox news! (which I don't think I've linked to in months and months and ??? months?)
The threat of war in Iraq has just one reason, say many critics: Western hunger for oil. Daniel Yergin examines whether the claim stands up.
A couple of things:
The business aspects of the oil situation are only presented as the simplistic "they want the oil" situation by people who don't really understand what that means. What I see more and more (and the main place I look are various energy and policy study papers by folks that you would consider right wing) has more to do with valuation of the dollar and economic security by being a leader of a coalition of oil-producing nations (read: friendly oil-producing regimes). In addition, western-based companies are the ones with the infrastructure, so to say that western oil companies won't profit dramatically is moronic.
Many of the people in the current administration have been involved with what is called "the Great Game," the battle for control over Central Asian oil. Afghanistan's political situation before we went in was a direct result of the Iranian/Pakistani competition. Cheney was directly involved and extremely influential in CentGas, the group formed to determine the pipeline route, as was Karzai. Throughout the mid-90's, Karzai was a negotiator for the CentGas project and being paid by Unocal (you didn't really think he just dropped out of the sky, did you?). You have to be in extrtemely deep denial to not realize that this is very important in shaping not only the politics of the region, but our involvement in those politics. As Cheney himself put it, "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian."
Also, western companies are already accepting contracts for rebuilding. However, today companies are global, especially oil companies. Oil companies work in many different sectors of the business, so an oil company does not necessarily mean Shell. The network is complex, as can be clearly seen with Cheney's rebuilding of Iraq in the 90's through European subsidiaries (which further demonstrates his involvement). But one important piece of the doctrine is to prevent russian companies from having too much control over the region. Any energy policy study will argue the importance of undermining russian control.
Latching on to an article like this shows you have not adequately examined not only the arguments against this world model, but also any papers concerning the situation or foreign policy papers put out by people advocating it. You are operating on a level that incorrectly assumes the world is simply a clash of large homogeneus entities that are, for the most part, mutually exclusive.
As for Iraq, the above does have a lot to do with it. But another major element is Israel. Before you argue with me, just look into the backgrounds of the planners of the war; Perle, Feith and Wolfowitz; and read their plans and arguments for it over especially the past ten years. It's not like it's a secret.
The only realistic way to look at Iraq is as the convergence of various primary interests of various members of the adminsitration, hence why the resources are being put towards war. But to continue on with this BS about Saddam being direct threat to the American people is nothing less than ignorant. Denial is a strong thing, but it can be overcome.
As for Iraq, the above does have a lot to do with it. But another major element is Israel. Before you argue with me, just look into the backgrounds of the planners of the war; Perle, Feith and Wolfowitz; and read their plans and arguments for it over especially the past ten years. It's not like it's a secret.
Well, they *tried* to keep it a secret during Bush I...but the plan was leaked. And they had to bring in Cheney...CHENEY...to tone it down!
Please could you give an example -- ONE would do -- of terrorism ended by military activity?
Israel. If the Israeli response to the Palestinians has shown us anything, it's that shooting and bombing terrorists is the best and quickest way to get them to stop.
Latching on to an article like this shows you have not adequately examined not only the arguments against this world model, but also any papers concerning the situation or foreign policy papers put out by people advocating it. You are operating on a level that incorrectly assumes the world is simply a clash of large homogeneus entities that are, for the most part, mutually exclusive.
I am glad that Giant has come to the rescue to tell us what we have and have not done, and what we do and do not understand. I am so glad we have such great guidance.
Well, duh. But I would bet that most if not all the people put up for those wonderful "democratic" elections in the post-war Iraq will have a US or British Oil background.
But only time will tell.
What Hamid Karzai did in the 80s, was being involved in the Jihad against the Soviets, and that his political background is that of pre-coup Afghanistan: monarchist and moderate (before the 1974 Marxist coup by Daud Khan, Afghanistan was a constitutional monarchy with regular elections and women's vote, and lifestyle was westernised in the big cities, as in widespread availability of alcohol, a few tchadors, and no burqas).
Popular war hero Abdul Haq (of similar background to Karzai) having been executed by the Taliban shortly after the U.S. attack began, Karzai seemed suitable since, like Haq, he wasn't involved in the civil war which raged after the fall of the communist Najibullah.
Assuming the whole thing is ?manufactured? just like Afghanistan ?was?, then those people with oil background to be put up must have already been chosen.
Now, if you wish to better focus your bet on post-war Iraq, you could always look for those people with the required oil background among the various Iraqi opposition figures (they even got together in London recently), if you want.
Scott, I hope when you say "people who are anti-war and pro-Saddam" you do not group them together...they are separate views.
Quote:
Well eveyone has a right to be stupid.
Ignorance and stupidity are different Scott. Whether or not coming up with one's own analysis to a report/editorial like that at BBC is "ignorance" because the person's conclusion is not the same as yours is up to you I guess...in your view alone by the way.
Since my name was put forward as an inflexible anti-war (presumably) "leftist extremist", I guess I should reply.
First off, I am Pro-America and Anti-Bush. One day, I will be Pro America and Pro it's President. I look forward to the day when I feel more comfortable about these things. I don't believe that Bush gives a flying damn about the American people, that is, ordinary working people that comprise the huge majority of the US population. The economic priorities of his administration are lined squarely with Enron culture and elitism. If this criticism is seen by some as some variety of socialism, then so be it, and I stand by it.
Popular polls have shown that the American public largely suppports the war. Popular polls have also shown that some 50% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was in some way "personally responsible" for 9-11, and 82% of Americans believe that "Iraqis were on board those hijacked planes". If that were my belief too, I would be far more comfortable in supporting this war. Americans are "educated" (!) in current affairs by large media consortia, for example Clear Channel, Fox, CNN, etc, all of which are pro war to the point of being little more than Soviet-like administration propaganda vehicles, as opposed to a "free press".
As regards being anti-war or pro-war: America has been involved in numerous wars and 'military policing' since WW2.
Here's my feelings of 5 of them (actual wars, that is...incursions into places like Panama, Grenada, Somalia etc don't count here). Here's 2 pro and 2 against and one I now feel ambivalent about:
Pro: Re. WW2, we fought against Japan because they attacked us...(a most legitimate reason to go to war!), and we also ended up fighting Hitler in Europe as a member of allied coalition. I have no problem with that.
proThe US was attacked in devastating fashion on Sept 11, 2001. We went to war with al'qaida and the Taliban over that one. I supported it. Who didn't?
ambivalent: Gulf War in 1991: Iraq was $40 billion in debt from its 8 years war with Iran (which it could't win even with lots of US and western aid). At the same time Kuwait suddenly started overproducing oil, this resulted in the price of oil on the international market to collapse: Iraq was already broke and couldn't compete. At the same time Kuwait was slant-drilling from their border into Iraqi territory, looting oil from Iraq. After numerous complaints from the Iraqi government, then allied to the US, Hussein was assured that the US would not intervene should he invade Kuwait. (brief Kuwaiti history: http://www.arab.de/arabinfo/kuwaithis.htm ).
On this war, the US wasn't attacked, but an international coalition had the authority of the United Nations to retake Kuwait by driving the Iraqis out. That is fair enough, but...one of the big reasons we were given to support that war was the liberation of the Kuwaiti people. That holds no water..the Kuwaiti government has a horrible human rights record.
That war was absolutely about oil; if Iraq had invaded Jordan or Syria for example, nobody would have done a damn thing...there would have been no international coalition, no US involvement, merely an un-enforced UN resolution similar to the dozens of un-enforced UN security council resolutions condemning Israeli actions. (242 et al)
anti Vietnam: different story. US involvement was started by a lie and a fabrication (the Gulf of Tonkin fiasco), dutifully reported by the media to the American people to "justify" a war that has since been described by one of its chief promoters Robert McNamara as being "the worst mistake". If there was ever an act of treason against the US, namely lying to Congress and lying to the American people to start a war which killed 50,000 American troops for no reason, other than paranoia about communism, then that was it.
antiIraq 2003: Bush sold this war to the US people on the strength that Hussein was "months" away from having nuclear weapons. That was an extremely scary proposition for the US to deal with...a maniacal loose cannon like Hussein with nukes was an easy sell for Bush, a most compelling reason for public support. (Hussein had tried desperately to get united Arab support by attacking Israel with Scuds during the Gulf War, hoping that Israel would respond and uniting the Arab world behind Iraq. Luckily for everyone in the area, that ploy failed. A nuclear exchange between Israel and Iraq could have happened should Iraq under Hussein acquire nuclear weapons).
Nuclear weapons has always been the big issue here, and rightly so. Iraq's procurement of materials to manufacture nuclear bombs was highlighted by Bush numerous times in the diplomatic lead up to the war, but the CIA has known since 2001 that the evidence in support of this was either fake or fabricated.
History will show if this war was one that could have been avoided, or was initiated illegally as was US involvement in the Vietnam War.
There are two legitimate ways for America to get involved in a war. Firstly, if we are either attacked, or are about to be attacked, and secondly if a United Nations Security council resolution authorizes it. Resolution 1441 does NOT authorize all out war...it states "serious consequences" if Iraq was found in "material breach". "Serious consequences" is not synomymous to "all out war".
We all detest Hussein, despite that the US was an allied to his regime until Gulf War 1. If he had been close to having nukes, this would have been a risk to the entire planet, so fair enough, disarm him by force, (even if that was on dodgy ground legally...the fate of the human race wins out here). But the nuclear "evidence" had been soundly debunked by all parties (except the White House) by the time the war started
Bio/chem weapons allegations are an unknown, and easily fabricated to justify an attack. (Btw, as an aside, the US military does not regard biological or chemical weapons as "WMD").
To use this war as an emotional hook to "liberate the Iraqi people" is a lie. Linking 9-11 to Iraq is a lie. At a cost of at least $75 billion so far, with defense contractors and oil service industry, all close to the Bush White House already lined up for $multi billion contracts for restocking with weapons used in the war, as well as reconstruction in Iraq, someone is going to make a killing off this. We-the-people are paying through the nose in order for a few very wealthy people to get even more extremely wealthy.
But the US people are buying it....it's hardly surprising considering that 82% believe that Iraqis attacked us on Sept 11 2001.
This extract from Rep. Henry Waxman's recent letter to President Bush is of interest:
Quote:
Dear Mr. President:
I am writing regarding a matter of grave concern. Upon your order, our armed forces will soon initiate the first preemptive war in our nation's history. The most persuasive justification for this war is that we must act to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons.In the last ten days, however, it has become incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence you and other Administration officials have cited regarding Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax. What's more, the Central Intelligence Agency questioned the veracity of the evidence at the same time you and other Administration officials were citing it in public statements. This is a breach of the highest order, and the American people are entitled to know how it happened.
As you know, I voted for the congressional resolution condemning Iraq and authorizing the use of force. Despite serious misgivings, I supported the resolution because I believed congressional approval would significantly improve the likelihood of effective U.N. action. Equally important, I believed that you had access to reliable intelligence information that merited deference.
Like many other members, I was particularly influenced by your views about Iraq's nuclear intentions. Although chemical and biological weapons can inflict casualties, no argument for attacking Iraq is as compelling as the possibility of Saddam Hussein brandishing nuclear bombs. That, obviously, is why the evidence in this area is so crucial, and why so many have looked to you for honest and credible information on Iraq's nuclear capability.
The evidence in question is correspondence that indicates that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an African country, Niger. For several months, this evidence has been a central part of the U.S. case against Iraq. On December 19, the State Department filed a response to Iraq's disarmament declaration to the U.N. Security Council. The State Department response stated: "The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger." A month later, in your State of the Union address, you stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Defense Secretary Rumsfeld subsequently cited the evidence in briefing reporters.
It has now been conceded that this evidence was a forgery. On March 7, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported that the evidence that Iraq sought nuclear materials from Niger was "not authentic." As subsequent media accounts indicated, the evidence contained "crude errors," such as a "childlike signature" and the use of stationary from a military government in Niger that has been out of power for over a decade.
Even more troubling, however, the CIA, which has been aware of this information since 2001, has never regarded the evidence as reliable. The implications of this fact are profound: it means that a key part of the case you have been building against Iraq is evidence that your own intelligence experts at the Central Intelligence Agency do not believe is credible.
It is hard to imagine how this situation could have developed. The two most obvious explanations - knowing deception or unfathomable incompetence - both have immediate and serious implications. It is thus imperative that you address this matter without delay and provide an alternative
explanation, if there is one.
The rest of this letter will explain my concerns in detail.
Use of the Evidence by U.S. Officials
The evidence that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from an African country was first revealed by the British government on September 24, 2002, when Prime Minister Tony Blair released a 50-page report on Iraqi efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. As the New York Times reported in a front-page article, one of the two "chief new elements" in the report was the claim that Iraq had "sought to acquire uranium in Africa that could be used to make nuclear weapons."[1]
This evidence subsequently became a significant part of the U.S. case against Iraq. On December 7, Iraq filed its weapons declaration with the United Nations Security Council. The U.S. response relied heavily on the evidence that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from Africa. For example, this is how the New York Times began its front-page article on December 13 describing the U.S. response:
American intelligence agencies have reached a preliminary conclusion that Iraq's 12,000 page declaration of its weapons program fails to account for chemical and biological agents missing when inspectors left Iraq four years ago, American officials and United Nations diplomats said today.
In addition, Iraq's declaration on its nuclear program, they say, leaves open a host of questions. Among them is why Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa in recent years.[2]
The official U.S. response was provided on December 19, when Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the Security Council. As the Los Angeles Times reported, "A one-page State Department fact sheet . . . lists what Washington considers the key omissions and deceptions in Baghdad's Dec. 7 weapons declaration."[3] One of the eight "key omissions and deceptions" was the failure to explain Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.
Specifically, the State Department fact sheet contains the following points under the heading "Nuclear Weapons": "The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger. Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?" A copy of this fact sheet is enclosed with this letter.
The Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Africa were deemed significant enough to be included in your State of the Union address to Congress. You stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."[4] As the Washington Post reported the next day, "the president seemed quite specific as he ticked off the allegations last night, including the news that Iraq had secured uranium from Africa for the purpose of making nuclear bombs."[5]
A day later, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at a news briefing that Iraq "recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."[6]
Knowledge of the Unreliability of the Evidence
The world first learned that the evidence linking Iraq to attempts to purchase uranium from Africa was forged from the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei. On March 7, Director ElBaradei reported to the U.N. Security Council:
Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.[7]
Recent accounts in the news media have provided additional details. According to the Washington Post, the faked evidence included "a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in the central African nation of Niger."[8] The article stated that the forgers "made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away - including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written."[9] CNN reported: one of the documents purports to be a letter signed by Tandjia Mamadou, the president of Niger, talking about the uranium deal with Iraq. On it [is] a childlike signature that is clearly not his. Another, written on paper from a 1980s military government in Niger, bears the date of October 2000 and the signature of a man who by then had not been foreign minister of Niger for 14 years.[10]
U.S. intelligence officials had doubts about the veracity of the evidence long before Director ElBaradei's report. The Los Angeles Times reported on March 15 that "the CIA first heard allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger in late 2001" when "the existence of the documents was reported to [the CIA] second- or third-hand." The Los Angeles Times quotes one CIA official as saying: "We included that in some of our reporting, although it was all caveated because we had concerns about the accuracy of that information."[11] The Washington Post reported on March 13: "The CIA .. . . had questions about 'whether they were accurate,' said one intelligence official, and it decided not to include them in its file on Iraq's program to procure weapons of mass destruction."[12]
There have been suggestions by some Administration officials that there may be other evidence besides the forged documents that shows Iraq tried to obtain uranium from an African country. For instance, CIA officials recently stated that "U.S. concerns regarding a possible uranium agreement between Niger and Iraq were not based solely on the documents which are now known to be fraudulent." The CIA provided this other information to the IAEA along with the forged documents. After reviewing this complete body of evidence, the IAEA stated: "we have found to date no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq."[13] Ultimately, the IAEA concluded that "these specific allegations are unfounded."[14]
Questions
These facts raise troubling questions. It appears that at the same time that you, Secretary Rumsfeld, and State Department officials were citing Iraq's efforts to obtain uranium from Africa as a crucial part of the case against Iraq, U.S. intelligence officials regarded this very same evidence as unreliable. If true, this is deeply disturbing: it would mean that your Administration asked the U.N. Security Council, the Congress, and the American people to rely on information that your own experts knew was not credible.
Your statement to Congress during the State of the Union, in particular, raises a host of questions. The statement is worded in a way that suggests it was carefully crafted to be both literally true and deliberately misleading at the same time. The statement itself - "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" - may be technically accurate, since this appears to be the British position. But given what the CIA knew at the time, the implication you intended - that there was credible evidence that Iraq sought uranium from Africa - was simply false.
To date, the White House has avoided explaining why the Administration relied on this forged evidence in building its case against Iraq. The first Administration response, which was provided to the Washington Post, was "we fell for it."[15] But this is no longer credible in light of the information from the CIA. Your spokesman, Ari Fleischer, was asked about this issue at a White House news briefing on March 14, but as the following transcript reveals, he claimed ignorance and avoided the question:
Q: Ari, as the president said in his State of the Union address, the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. And since then, the IAEA said that those were forged documents -
Mr. Fleischer: I'm sorry, whose statement was that?
Q: The President, in his State of the Union address. Since then, the IAEA has said those were forged documents. Was the administration aware of any doubts about these documents, the authenticity of the documents, from any government agency or department before it was submitted to the IAEA?
Mr. Fleisher: These are matters that are always reviewed with an eye toward the various information that comes in and is analyzed by a variety of different people. The President's concerns about Iraq come from multiple places, involving multiple threats that Iraq can possess, and these are matters that remain discussed.
Thank you [end of briefing].[16]
Plainly, more explanation is needed. I urge you to provide to me and to the relevant committees of Congress a full accounting of what you knew about the reliability of the evidence linking Iraq to uranium in Africa, when you knew this, and why you and senior officials in the Administration presented the evidence to the U.N. Security Council, the Congress, and the American people without disclosing the doubts of the CIA. In particular, I urge you to address:
1. Whether CIA officials communicated their doubts about the
credibility of the forged evidence to other Administration officials, including officials in the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and the White House;
2. Whether the CIA had any input into the "Fact Sheet" distributed by the State Department on December 19, 2002; and
3. Whether the CIA reviewed your statement in the State of the Union address regarding Iraq's attempts to obtain uranium from Africa and, if so, what the CIA said about the statement.
Given the urgency of the situation, I would appreciate an expeditious response to these questions.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member
Enclosure
[1] Blair Says Iraqis Could Launch Chemical Warheads in Minutes, New
York Times
(Sept. 25, 2002).
[2] Threats and Responses: Report by Iraq, Iraq Arms Report Has Big
Omissions,
U.S. Officials Say, New York Times (Dec. 13, 2002) (emphasis added).
[3] U.S. Issues a List of the Shortcomings in Iraqi Arms Declaration,
Los
Angeles Times (Dec. 20, 2002) (emphasis added).
[4] The President, State of the Union Address (Jan. 28, 2003) (online at
Apologies to the moderators for this 3-parter..this new UBB only allows a post of a measly 10,000 characters, and I know of no link in the web as of yet to Waxman's letter.
Comments
Originally posted by tonton
You end terrorism through gaining respect. In my opinion that is th only way to do it.
You don't gain respect by waging war. You don't gain respect through hypocrisy and inconsistency. Neither do you gain it through obsequiousness. You gain it by setting an example, prospering, and teaching. You gain it by accepting and embracing. You gain it by making friends, not enemies.
So obviously this is not a war on terrorism.
Which leaves... liberation of iraq ... no, maybe not ... weapons of mass destruction ... well not yet anyway ... oil ... hmmmmm
Originally posted by MrBillData
President Musharref (Pakistan), and Karrzai, (Afghanistan -former UNOCAL exec)?
While one can overlook name mangling (it's Musharraf, and Karzai), one should be precise with facts, if you ask me.
So, Karzai wasn't an executive at Unocal, he worked as a consultant for that company in the 90s, (I think he also had a BMW dealership in the 70s, or was that another Mujahid?)
?announce agreement to build proposed gas pipeline for UNOCAL from Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan. (Irish Times 02/10/02).
Unocal has completely abandoned the CentGas project in 1998, and is not involved in the current joint Afghan-Turkmen-Pakistani deal, which is a rather troubled one, notably funding-wise (due in large part to lack of interest from Western companies such as Unocal).
So any rumors about all of the post 9/11 being about oil is not so far fetch.
A pipeline for natural gas is not about oil. And yes the rumors about all the post Nine-Eleven being about natural gas are just as far fetched.
How many former Oil execs get to run countries. ( 1 - US, 2 - Afghanistan, 3 - ? Iraq ? )
Count Afghanistan an Iraq out, Saddam is no exec either, and never was.
Back in 2000, when Clinton ordered his unilateral attack on the Panserbs, guess what was the motive according to the usual geniuses, such as Chomsky?
You guessed right, some future Kosovo oil pipeline.
Some background:
Eurasianet 6-VI-2002 : Afghanistan Eyes a Pipeline, But Prospects Look Dim
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Central Asia pipeline deal signed, 27-XII-2002
(Since I'm nobody's secretary I don't usually provide links, but consideration was taken of the unfamiliarity of most readers with the region in question)
Bush is an idiot, but he was right about Saddam
and some follow-up reader's opinions
Saddam Is an Idiot, but He's Right About Bush
Since most of AI seems to have realised that this war is a complex situation I shouldn't have to note that I agree with most, but not all, of this guy's analysis, yet remain firmly anti-war. But I will anyway.
Originally posted by midwinter
I'm curious: how, precisely, are we going to end terrorism? Considering that it's a tactic and not an ideology, a war on terrorism makes about as much sense as a war on diplomacy. And we seem to be waging one of those, as well.
Cheers
Scott
Hilarious!
Originally posted by chweave1
Now I definitely believe that the prospect of an ending to terrorism and the prosperity created as a result, as I spoke of above, beyond all other considerations, is what is driving this war. And that is the significant benefit to ourselves.
Please could you give an example -- ONE would do -- of terrorism ended by military activity?
I can give you an example of terrorism being ended by talking and changing if you want one.
It's not the only way we'll profit either. What if the new U.S. friendly government in Iraq doesn't join OPEC? Or even if they are a member, what if like every other country in OPEC they cheat to make a few extra sales?
Originally posted by bunge
Bush will rebuild Iraq using companies he's hand picked and paid for by Iraqi oil sales. Why is that hard to comprehend? Oh yeah, because you conservatives don't WANT to comprehend.
It's not the only way we'll profit either. What if the new U.S. friendly government in Iraq doesn't join OPEC? Or even if they are a member, what if like every other country in OPEC they cheat to make a few extra sales?
What if Iraqi oil is no longer priced in euros (like it is now) but in dollars (which supports the US economy and is the real reason why oil is so important to that economy?).
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
...
Count Afghanistan an Iraq out, Saddam is no exec either, and never was.
...
Well, duh. But I would bet that most if not all the people put up for those wonderful "democratic" elections in the post-war Iraq will have a US or British Oil background.
But only time will tell.
Originally posted by Scott
This whole "War for Oil" thing has been debunked over and over. Here's one the best I've read recently. And it doesn't even come from Fox news!
The fight over Iraq's oil
Analysis
By Daniel Yergin
Cambridge Energy Research Associates
The threat of war in Iraq has just one reason, say many critics: Western hunger for oil. Daniel Yergin examines whether the claim stands up.
A couple of things:
The business aspects of the oil situation are only presented as the simplistic "they want the oil" situation by people who don't really understand what that means. What I see more and more (and the main place I look are various energy and policy study papers by folks that you would consider right wing) has more to do with valuation of the dollar and economic security by being a leader of a coalition of oil-producing nations (read: friendly oil-producing regimes). In addition, western-based companies are the ones with the infrastructure, so to say that western oil companies won't profit dramatically is moronic.
Many of the people in the current administration have been involved with what is called "the Great Game," the battle for control over Central Asian oil. Afghanistan's political situation before we went in was a direct result of the Iranian/Pakistani competition. Cheney was directly involved and extremely influential in CentGas, the group formed to determine the pipeline route, as was Karzai. Throughout the mid-90's, Karzai was a negotiator for the CentGas project and being paid by Unocal (you didn't really think he just dropped out of the sky, did you?). You have to be in extrtemely deep denial to not realize that this is very important in shaping not only the politics of the region, but our involvement in those politics. As Cheney himself put it, "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian."
Also, western companies are already accepting contracts for rebuilding. However, today companies are global, especially oil companies. Oil companies work in many different sectors of the business, so an oil company does not necessarily mean Shell. The network is complex, as can be clearly seen with Cheney's rebuilding of Iraq in the 90's through European subsidiaries (which further demonstrates his involvement). But one important piece of the doctrine is to prevent russian companies from having too much control over the region. Any energy policy study will argue the importance of undermining russian control.
Latching on to an article like this shows you have not adequately examined not only the arguments against this world model, but also any papers concerning the situation or foreign policy papers put out by people advocating it. You are operating on a level that incorrectly assumes the world is simply a clash of large homogeneus entities that are, for the most part, mutually exclusive.
As for Iraq, the above does have a lot to do with it. But another major element is Israel. Before you argue with me, just look into the backgrounds of the planners of the war; Perle, Feith and Wolfowitz; and read their plans and arguments for it over especially the past ten years. It's not like it's a secret.
The only realistic way to look at Iraq is as the convergence of various primary interests of various members of the adminsitration, hence why the resources are being put towards war. But to continue on with this BS about Saddam being direct threat to the American people is nothing less than ignorant. Denial is a strong thing, but it can be overcome.
Originally posted by Harald
Please could you give an example -- ONE would do -- of terrorism ended by military activity?
Excellent point.
Originally posted by giant
As for Iraq, the above does have a lot to do with it. But another major element is Israel. Before you argue with me, just look into the backgrounds of the planners of the war; Perle, Feith and Wolfowitz; and read their plans and arguments for it over especially the past ten years. It's not like it's a secret.
Well, they *tried* to keep it a secret during Bush I...but the plan was leaked. And they had to bring in Cheney...CHENEY...to tone it down!
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Harald
Please could you give an example -- ONE would do -- of terrorism ended by military activity?
Israel. If the Israeli response to the Palestinians has shown us anything, it's that shooting and bombing terrorists is the best and quickest way to get them to stop.
Oh. Wait. Um.
Nevermind.
Cheers
Scott
Latching on to an article like this shows you have not adequately examined not only the arguments against this world model, but also any papers concerning the situation or foreign policy papers put out by people advocating it. You are operating on a level that incorrectly assumes the world is simply a clash of large homogeneus entities that are, for the most part, mutually exclusive.
I am glad that Giant has come to the rescue to tell us what we have and have not done, and what we do and do not understand. I am so glad we have such great guidance.
Originally posted by MrBillData
Well, duh. But I would bet that most if not all the people put up for those wonderful "democratic" elections in the post-war Iraq will have a US or British Oil background.
But only time will tell.
What Hamid Karzai did in the 80s, was being involved in the Jihad against the Soviets, and that his political background is that of pre-coup Afghanistan: monarchist and moderate (before the 1974 Marxist coup by Daud Khan, Afghanistan was a constitutional monarchy with regular elections and women's vote, and lifestyle was westernised in the big cities, as in widespread availability of alcohol, a few tchadors, and no burqas).
Popular war hero Abdul Haq (of similar background to Karzai) having been executed by the Taliban shortly after the U.S. attack began, Karzai seemed suitable since, like Haq, he wasn't involved in the civil war which raged after the fall of the communist Najibullah.
Assuming the whole thing is ?manufactured? just like Afghanistan ?was?, then those people with oil background to be put up must have already been chosen.
Now, if you wish to better focus your bet on post-war Iraq, you could always look for those people with the required oil background among the various Iraqi opposition figures (they even got together in London recently), if you want.
Well eveyone has a right to be stupid.
Ignorance and stupidity are different Scott. Whether or not coming up with one's own analysis to a report/editorial like that at BBC is "ignorance" because the person's conclusion is not the same as yours is up to you I guess...in your view alone by the way.
Remember this for later ol buddy.
First off, I am Pro-America and Anti-Bush. One day, I will be Pro America and Pro it's President. I look forward to the day when I feel more comfortable about these things. I don't believe that Bush gives a flying damn about the American people, that is, ordinary working people that comprise the huge majority of the US population. The economic priorities of his administration are lined squarely with Enron culture and elitism. If this criticism is seen by some as some variety of socialism, then so be it, and I stand by it.
Popular polls have shown that the American public largely suppports the war. Popular polls have also shown that some 50% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was in some way "personally responsible" for 9-11, and 82% of Americans believe that "Iraqis were on board those hijacked planes". If that were my belief too, I would be far more comfortable in supporting this war. Americans are "educated" (!) in current affairs by large media consortia, for example Clear Channel, Fox, CNN, etc, all of which are pro war to the point of being little more than Soviet-like administration propaganda vehicles, as opposed to a "free press".
As regards being anti-war or pro-war: America has been involved in numerous wars and 'military policing' since WW2.
Here's my feelings of 5 of them (actual wars, that is...incursions into places like Panama, Grenada, Somalia etc don't count here). Here's 2 pro and 2 against and one I now feel ambivalent about:
Pro: Re. WW2, we fought against Japan because they attacked us...(a most legitimate reason to go to war!), and we also ended up fighting Hitler in Europe as a member of allied coalition. I have no problem with that.
proThe US was attacked in devastating fashion on Sept 11, 2001. We went to war with al'qaida and the Taliban over that one. I supported it. Who didn't?
ambivalent: Gulf War in 1991: Iraq was $40 billion in debt from its 8 years war with Iran (which it could't win even with lots of US and western aid). At the same time Kuwait suddenly started overproducing oil, this resulted in the price of oil on the international market to collapse: Iraq was already broke and couldn't compete. At the same time Kuwait was slant-drilling from their border into Iraqi territory, looting oil from Iraq. After numerous complaints from the Iraqi government, then allied to the US, Hussein was assured that the US would not intervene should he invade Kuwait. (brief Kuwaiti history: http://www.arab.de/arabinfo/kuwaithis.htm ).
On this war, the US wasn't attacked, but an international coalition had the authority of the United Nations to retake Kuwait by driving the Iraqis out. That is fair enough, but...one of the big reasons we were given to support that war was the liberation of the Kuwaiti people. That holds no water..the Kuwaiti government has a horrible human rights record.
That war was absolutely about oil; if Iraq had invaded Jordan or Syria for example, nobody would have done a damn thing...there would have been no international coalition, no US involvement, merely an un-enforced UN resolution similar to the dozens of un-enforced UN security council resolutions condemning Israeli actions. (242 et al)
anti Vietnam: different story. US involvement was started by a lie and a fabrication (the Gulf of Tonkin fiasco), dutifully reported by the media to the American people to "justify" a war that has since been described by one of its chief promoters Robert McNamara as being "the worst mistake". If there was ever an act of treason against the US, namely lying to Congress and lying to the American people to start a war which killed 50,000 American troops for no reason, other than paranoia about communism, then that was it.
antiIraq 2003: Bush sold this war to the US people on the strength that Hussein was "months" away from having nuclear weapons. That was an extremely scary proposition for the US to deal with...a maniacal loose cannon like Hussein with nukes was an easy sell for Bush, a most compelling reason for public support. (Hussein had tried desperately to get united Arab support by attacking Israel with Scuds during the Gulf War, hoping that Israel would respond and uniting the Arab world behind Iraq. Luckily for everyone in the area, that ploy failed. A nuclear exchange between Israel and Iraq could have happened should Iraq under Hussein acquire nuclear weapons).
Nuclear weapons has always been the big issue here, and rightly so. Iraq's procurement of materials to manufacture nuclear bombs was highlighted by Bush numerous times in the diplomatic lead up to the war, but the CIA has known since 2001 that the evidence in support of this was either fake or fabricated.
History will show if this war was one that could have been avoided, or was initiated illegally as was US involvement in the Vietnam War.
There are two legitimate ways for America to get involved in a war. Firstly, if we are either attacked, or are about to be attacked, and secondly if a United Nations Security council resolution authorizes it. Resolution 1441 does NOT authorize all out war...it states "serious consequences" if Iraq was found in "material breach". "Serious consequences" is not synomymous to "all out war".
We all detest Hussein, despite that the US was an allied to his regime until Gulf War 1. If he had been close to having nukes, this would have been a risk to the entire planet, so fair enough, disarm him by force, (even if that was on dodgy ground legally...the fate of the human race wins out here). But the nuclear "evidence" had been soundly debunked by all parties (except the White House) by the time the war started
Bio/chem weapons allegations are an unknown, and easily fabricated to justify an attack. (Btw, as an aside, the US military does not regard biological or chemical weapons as "WMD").
To use this war as an emotional hook to "liberate the Iraqi people" is a lie. Linking 9-11 to Iraq is a lie. At a cost of at least $75 billion so far, with defense contractors and oil service industry, all close to the Bush White House already lined up for $multi billion contracts for restocking with weapons used in the war, as well as reconstruction in Iraq, someone is going to make a killing off this. We-the-people are paying through the nose in order for a few very wealthy people to get even more extremely wealthy.
But the US people are buying it....it's hardly surprising considering that 82% believe that Iraqis attacked us on Sept 11 2001.
Oh dear.
This extract from Rep. Henry Waxman's recent letter to President Bush is of interest:
Dear Mr. President:
I am writing regarding a matter of grave concern. Upon your order, our armed forces will soon initiate the first preemptive war in our nation's history. The most persuasive justification for this war is that we must act to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons.In the last ten days, however, it has become incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence you and other Administration officials have cited regarding Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax. What's more, the Central Intelligence Agency questioned the veracity of the evidence at the same time you and other Administration officials were citing it in public statements. This is a breach of the highest order, and the American people are entitled to know how it happened.
As you know, I voted for the congressional resolution condemning Iraq and authorizing the use of force. Despite serious misgivings, I supported the resolution because I believed congressional approval would significantly improve the likelihood of effective U.N. action. Equally important, I believed that you had access to reliable intelligence information that merited deference.
Like many other members, I was particularly influenced by your views about Iraq's nuclear intentions. Although chemical and biological weapons can inflict casualties, no argument for attacking Iraq is as compelling as the possibility of Saddam Hussein brandishing nuclear bombs. That, obviously, is why the evidence in this area is so crucial, and why so many have looked to you for honest and credible information on Iraq's nuclear capability.
The evidence in question is correspondence that indicates that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an African country, Niger. For several months, this evidence has been a central part of the U.S. case against Iraq. On December 19, the State Department filed a response to Iraq's disarmament declaration to the U.N. Security Council. The State Department response stated: "The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger." A month later, in your State of the Union address, you stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Defense Secretary Rumsfeld subsequently cited the evidence in briefing reporters.
It has now been conceded that this evidence was a forgery. On March 7, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported that the evidence that Iraq sought nuclear materials from Niger was "not authentic." As subsequent media accounts indicated, the evidence contained "crude errors," such as a "childlike signature" and the use of stationary from a military government in Niger that has been out of power for over a decade.
Even more troubling, however, the CIA, which has been aware of this information since 2001, has never regarded the evidence as reliable. The implications of this fact are profound: it means that a key part of the case you have been building against Iraq is evidence that your own intelligence experts at the Central Intelligence Agency do not believe is credible.
It is hard to imagine how this situation could have developed. The two most obvious explanations - knowing deception or unfathomable incompetence - both have immediate and serious implications. It is thus imperative that you address this matter without delay and provide an alternative
explanation, if there is one.
The rest of this letter will explain my concerns in detail.
Use of the Evidence by U.S. Officials
The evidence that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from an African country was first revealed by the British government on September 24, 2002, when Prime Minister Tony Blair released a 50-page report on Iraqi efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. As the New York Times reported in a front-page article, one of the two "chief new elements" in the report was the claim that Iraq had "sought to acquire uranium in Africa that could be used to make nuclear weapons."[1]
This evidence subsequently became a significant part of the U.S. case against Iraq. On December 7, Iraq filed its weapons declaration with the United Nations Security Council. The U.S. response relied heavily on the evidence that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from Africa. For example, this is how the New York Times began its front-page article on December 13 describing the U.S. response:
American intelligence agencies have reached a preliminary conclusion that Iraq's 12,000 page declaration of its weapons program fails to account for chemical and biological agents missing when inspectors left Iraq four years ago, American officials and United Nations diplomats said today.
In addition, Iraq's declaration on its nuclear program, they say, leaves open a host of questions. Among them is why Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa in recent years.[2]
The official U.S. response was provided on December 19, when Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the Security Council. As the Los Angeles Times reported, "A one-page State Department fact sheet . . . lists what Washington considers the key omissions and deceptions in Baghdad's Dec. 7 weapons declaration."[3] One of the eight "key omissions and deceptions" was the failure to explain Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.
Specifically, the State Department fact sheet contains the following points under the heading "Nuclear Weapons": "The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger. Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?" A copy of this fact sheet is enclosed with this letter.
The Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Africa were deemed significant enough to be included in your State of the Union address to Congress. You stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."[4] As the Washington Post reported the next day, "the president seemed quite specific as he ticked off the allegations last night, including the news that Iraq had secured uranium from Africa for the purpose of making nuclear bombs."[5]
A day later, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at a news briefing that Iraq "recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."[6]
Knowledge of the Unreliability of the Evidence
The world first learned that the evidence linking Iraq to attempts to purchase uranium from Africa was forged from the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei. On March 7, Director ElBaradei reported to the U.N. Security Council:
Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.[7]
Recent accounts in the news media have provided additional details. According to the Washington Post, the faked evidence included "a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in the central African nation of Niger."[8] The article stated that the forgers "made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away - including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written."[9] CNN reported: one of the documents purports to be a letter signed by Tandjia Mamadou, the president of Niger, talking about the uranium deal with Iraq. On it [is] a childlike signature that is clearly not his. Another, written on paper from a 1980s military government in Niger, bears the date of October 2000 and the signature of a man who by then had not been foreign minister of Niger for 14 years.[10]
U.S. intelligence officials had doubts about the veracity of the evidence long before Director ElBaradei's report. The Los Angeles Times reported on March 15 that "the CIA first heard allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger in late 2001" when "the existence of the documents was reported to [the CIA] second- or third-hand." The Los Angeles Times quotes one CIA official as saying: "We included that in some of our reporting, although it was all caveated because we had concerns about the accuracy of that information."[11] The Washington Post reported on March 13: "The CIA .. . . had questions about 'whether they were accurate,' said one intelligence official, and it decided not to include them in its file on Iraq's program to procure weapons of mass destruction."[12]
(continued)
(Continued from previous post)
There have been suggestions by some Administration officials that there may be other evidence besides the forged documents that shows Iraq tried to obtain uranium from an African country. For instance, CIA officials recently stated that "U.S. concerns regarding a possible uranium agreement between Niger and Iraq were not based solely on the documents which are now known to be fraudulent." The CIA provided this other information to the IAEA along with the forged documents. After reviewing this complete body of evidence, the IAEA stated: "we have found to date no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq."[13] Ultimately, the IAEA concluded that "these specific allegations are unfounded."[14]
Questions
These facts raise troubling questions. It appears that at the same time that you, Secretary Rumsfeld, and State Department officials were citing Iraq's efforts to obtain uranium from Africa as a crucial part of the case against Iraq, U.S. intelligence officials regarded this very same evidence as unreliable. If true, this is deeply disturbing: it would mean that your Administration asked the U.N. Security Council, the Congress, and the American people to rely on information that your own experts knew was not credible.
Your statement to Congress during the State of the Union, in particular, raises a host of questions. The statement is worded in a way that suggests it was carefully crafted to be both literally true and deliberately misleading at the same time. The statement itself - "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" - may be technically accurate, since this appears to be the British position. But given what the CIA knew at the time, the implication you intended - that there was credible evidence that Iraq sought uranium from Africa - was simply false.
To date, the White House has avoided explaining why the Administration relied on this forged evidence in building its case against Iraq. The first Administration response, which was provided to the Washington Post, was "we fell for it."[15] But this is no longer credible in light of the information from the CIA. Your spokesman, Ari Fleischer, was asked about this issue at a White House news briefing on March 14, but as the following transcript reveals, he claimed ignorance and avoided the question:
Q: Ari, as the president said in his State of the Union address, the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. And since then, the IAEA said that those were forged documents -
Mr. Fleischer: I'm sorry, whose statement was that?
Q: The President, in his State of the Union address. Since then, the IAEA has said those were forged documents. Was the administration aware of any doubts about these documents, the authenticity of the documents, from any government agency or department before it was submitted to the IAEA?
Mr. Fleisher: These are matters that are always reviewed with an eye toward the various information that comes in and is analyzed by a variety of different people. The President's concerns about Iraq come from multiple places, involving multiple threats that Iraq can possess, and these are matters that remain discussed.
Thank you [end of briefing].[16]
Plainly, more explanation is needed. I urge you to provide to me and to the relevant committees of Congress a full accounting of what you knew about the reliability of the evidence linking Iraq to uranium in Africa, when you knew this, and why you and senior officials in the Administration presented the evidence to the U.N. Security Council, the Congress, and the American people without disclosing the doubts of the CIA. In particular, I urge you to address:
1. Whether CIA officials communicated their doubts about the
credibility of the forged evidence to other Administration officials, including officials in the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and the White House;
2. Whether the CIA had any input into the "Fact Sheet" distributed by the State Department on December 19, 2002; and
3. Whether the CIA reviewed your statement in the State of the Union address regarding Iraq's attempts to obtain uranium from Africa and, if so, what the CIA said about the statement.
Given the urgency of the situation, I would appreciate an expeditious response to these questions.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member
Enclosure
[1] Blair Says Iraqis Could Launch Chemical Warheads in Minutes, New
York Times
(Sept. 25, 2002).
[2] Threats and Responses: Report by Iraq, Iraq Arms Report Has Big
Omissions,
U.S. Officials Say, New York Times (Dec. 13, 2002) (emphasis added).
[3] U.S. Issues a List of the Shortcomings in Iraqi Arms Declaration,
Los
Angeles Times (Dec. 20, 2002) (emphasis added).
[4] The President, State of the Union Address (Jan. 28, 2003) (online at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html) (emphasis
added).
[5] A War Cry Tempered by Eloquence, Washington Post (Jan. 29, 2003).
[6] Press Conference with Donald Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, Cable
News
Network (Jan. 29, 2003) (emphasis added).
[7] IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, The Status of Nuclear
Inspections in Iraq: An Update (Mar. 7, 2002) (online at
www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Statements/ 2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml).
[8] Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake; U.N. Nuclear Inspector Says
Documents on
Purchases Were Forged, Washington Post (Mar. 8, 2003).
[9] Id.
[10] U.N. Saying Documents Were Faked, CNN American Morning with Paula
Zahn
(Mar. 14, 2003).
[11] Italy May Have Been Misled by Fake Iraq Arms Papers, U.S. Says, Los
Angeles Times (Mar. 15, 2003).
[12] FBI Probes Fake Evidence of Iraqi Nuclear Plans, Washington Post
(Mar. 13,
2003).
[13] IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, supra note 7 (emphasis
added).
[14] Id. (emphasis added).
[15] Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake, supra note 8.
[16] The White House, Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer (Mar. 14, 2003)
(online
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030314-12.html)
Apologies to the moderators for this 3-parter..this new UBB only allows a post of a measly 10,000 characters, and I know of no link in the web as of yet to Waxman's letter.
Look at this! Even a pretty PDF from Waxman's own frickin' website.