Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (105965)	7/17/2003 8:58:29 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Cheney Under Pressure to Quit Over False War Evidence Anger grows on both sides of Atlantic at misleading claims on eve of Iraq conflict By Andrew Buncombe and Marie Woolf The Independent Wednesday 16 July 2003 Dick Cheney, the US Vice-President and the administration's most outspoken hawk over Iraq, faced demands for his resignation last night as he was accused of using false evidence to build the case for war. He was accused of using his office to insist that a false claim about Iraq's efforts to buy uranium from Africa to restart its nuclear program be included in George Bush's State of the Union address - overriding the concerns of the CIA director, George Tenet. Mr Cheney was also accused of knowingly misleading Congress when the administration sought its authorization for the use of force to oust Saddam Hussein. The allegations against Mr Cheney have come most vocally from a group of senior former intelligence officials who believe that information from the intelligence community was selectively used to support a war fought for political reasons. In an open letter to President George Bush, the group have asked that he demand Mr Cheney's resignation. In a further development, it was reported in an Italian newspaper today that an African diplomat offered Italian intelligence services documents relating to Saddam's alleged attempts to buy uranium in Africa. The report in La Repubblica, largely based on unidentified Italian secret services sources, also linked a theft at the Niger embassy in Rome during the 2001 New Year's holiday to the affair. La Repubblica, quoting a source from Sismi, the Italian military intelligence service, said that in late 2001 or early 2002, M16 obtained the documents. The source implied that Italian colleagues provided the information to British intelligence officials. "There were several meetings, at a higher level, almost always in London," the source was quoted as saying. "Despite this positive climate, we don't know if it was the English who passed on that stuff to the CIA. It's rather probable." The source, La Repubblica reported, said the Italian Foreign Ministry had raised "strong objections" and "protests" about the information provided by Italian intelligence. The paper published what it said were copies of four documents used to bolster the claim that Saddam was trying to buy uranium. In January 2001, the Niger embassy reported a theft occurred while the mission was closed during the New Year's holiday, the paper said. Little was missing – a watch and three small bottles of perfume. Drawers were overturned, closets were opened and paper was all over the place. As the clamor for a full inquest into the African uranium claims grew on both sides of the Atlantic, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, was accused by MPs of lacking "credibility" after he admitted knowing a month before the war that documents making the assertion were forgeries. Mr Straw said in a statement he had known that letters given to the UN nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, about the Niger claim were fake as early as February. Mr Straw also claimed that the Government's case for military action was not based on "intelligence reports". Labour MPs, including Tam Dalyell, the father of the House, asked why Mr Straw had not told MPs that the documents were fake in advance of the vote to approve military action on 18 March. "He now says the Government knew it was a forgery in February. Why didn't he tell us before Parliament voted for war?" he said. "Also if the case for war is not based on intelligence, what is it based on?" Last night the Labour-dominated Foreign Affairs Committee asked Mr Straw to reveal what he knew about the Niger claim. Donald Anderson, the committee's chairman, wrote to Mr Straw asking him when the CIA first questioned the Niger connection, and why ministers had not admitted earlier that there were doubts about the claims. The committee also asked whether the CIA had questioned any other claims in the September dossier on Iraq's weapons. The letter, signed by 11 MPs of all parties, called on Mr Straw to confirm The Independent's report that technical documents and centrifuge parts found at the home of an Iraqi nuclear scientist in Baghdad had lain buried for 12 years. The letter also asked Mr Straw to reveal when he knew that the former US ambassador Joseph Wilson had found claims about Niger-Iraq links to be false. Last week the White House admitted that the claim that Iraq was seeking "significant quantities of uranium from Africa" - based on faked documents provided by the Italian intelligence services - should not have been included in President Bush's speech of 28 January. In Washington there is no conclusive proof that Mr Cheney was responsible for insisting that the claim be made in the speech. But there is clear evidence of Mr Cheney's interest in the alleged Niger deal. Joseph Wilson, a former US ambassador, said he was asked by the CIA to go to Niger and investigate the claim in a request from the Vice-President's office. Mr Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, has admitted that during a briefing from the CIA "the Vice-President asked a question about the implication of the report". There have been reports from CIA officials that in the months before the war Mr Cheney made a "multiple number" of personal visits to its headquarters in Virginia to meet officials analyzing intelligence relating to Iraq. "[He] sent signals, intended or otherwise, that a certain output was desired from here," one senior CIA official told reporters. The CIA director, Mr Tenet, said he accepted responsibility for approving the speech but said his officers had only "concurred" with White House officials that by naming the British Government as the source of the Niger claim it was "factually correct". Britain has stood by the claim, saying it has evidence in addition to the Italian documents truthout.org

To: GST who wrote (105965)	7/17/2003 8:22:09 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think he has come to the conclusion that Kim Jong Il is evil and loathsome and that it is immoral to negotiate with him Close. I think, "he has come to the conclusion that Kim Jong Il is evil and loathsome and that it is worse than useless to negotiate with him, especially unilaterally" would sum it up. The neighbors have to be out in front, presenting a united front, especially China. Otherwise, the neigbors cower in fear when N Korea blusters and beat up on the US for not giving in to blackmail. Mr Perry should remember that the 1994 deal was not exactly a shining success in containing N Korean arms programs or making them stop killing their own people. Quite the reverse.

To: GST who wrote (105965)	7/17/2003 11:07:58 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"The nuclear programme now under way in North Korea poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities," How is that different than what we faced for the past 50 years? Only if Kim Il Song gives a nuke to a terrorist regime will we likely face an actual nuclear attack from N. Korean uranium. And should he do so, it will be evident that N. Korean Uranium was what fueled any such explosion as a post-event analysis is conducted. And then Pyongyang will glow in the dark.. Nuclear weapons are for the purpose of preserving a regime. This is what Saddam sought to achieve.. It is what Iran seeks to achieve. Saddam, in order to intimidate neighboring Arab regimes, and unite the Arab "nation" behind him as a new "Saladin".. The Iranians, in order to preserve their regime from outside interference. But those two countries are located in a region that is of economic significance to the entire world, while N. Korea is not. And N. Korea borders China, which seemingly would have little desire to see Kim possess nukes and stir up more turmoil on the peninsula. China knows that Japan and S. Korea feel extremely threatened by Kim's nuclear program. They also know that these nations will increase their defense spending and potentially "go nuke" themselves in order to possess their own national deterrence. This threatens China's stability, as well as their desire to control and influence the region. So I say Mr. Perry is wrong. Kim Il Sung is bottled up on a peninsula, with no where to go, no where to expand. His nuclear program will only place an excessive economic burden on his already devastated economy. Kim Il Sung is a savvy "poker player", willing to push confrontation to the brink until he gets the other side to cave in and appease his demands. This includes paying "attention" to him in the media, the White House, and the UN. He believes even bad publicity is good since he is able to focus the world's attention upon himself. Mr Perry said with uncharacteristic bluntness: "The reason we don't have a policy on this and aren't negotiating is the President himself. I think he has come to the conclusion that Kim Jong Il is evil and loathsome and that it is immoral to negotiate with him." Again.. Mr. Perry is wrong. Our policy is that any talks about N. Korea's nuclear programme MUST BE multi-national, including China, Japan, and S. Korea. Kim Il Sung wishes to force a "one on one" negotiation with the US, who's only presence on the peninsula consists of 37,000 troops (against Kim's 1 million man army) And Mr. Perry, it would seem to me, is more than willing to play right into the hands of Kim Il Sung by supporting direct negotiations between Bush and Kim. And that's just plain stupid.. Which thus causes me to question Mr. Perry's claim of being an "expert" on Korea affairs. He certainly doen't understand the use of power and strategic gamesmanship, or even high stakes poker. Hawk Apparently he's never read Sun Tzu. Hawk