SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (29055)9/28/2003 6:53:39 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Respond to of 89467
 
Demanding answers from the lairs in the White House:Administration strikes back at charges of outdated, vague Iraq intelligence
WILLIAM C. MANN, Associated Press Writer Sunday, September 28, 2003
sfgate.com
(09-28) 13:07 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Bush administration on Sunday disputed assertions by leaders of the House intelligence committee that the United States went to war in Iraq on the basis of outdated and vague intelligence.

Senior U.S. officials said that premise would have assumed a dramatic change in behavior by Saddam Hussein -- the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction since the departure of U.N. inspectors in 1998.

"I just don't think that was plausible," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on "Fox News Sunday."

The White House defended President Bush's $87 billion request for rebuilding Iraq, and the Senate's top Republican appealed for maximum support from GOP colleagues when they take up the bill this week.

The administration's early estimate of the cost was about $60 billion, and a former Bush adviser was chastised for mentioning figures as high as $200 billion. The requested $87 billion would be in addition to $59 billion already spent.

"We did not have perfect foresight into what we were going to find in Iraq," Rice told NBC's "Meet the Press."

"The fact of the matter is ... this deteriorated infrastructure, one that was completely covered over by the gleaming pictures of Baghdad that made it look like a first-world city," Rice said. "The key here is that you could -- cannot put a price tag on security."

From Bush on down, U.S. officials made the case that war was necessary to remove the Iraqi president because of Iraq's stockpiles of illegal arms, including chemical weapons capable of use against approaching American soldiers.

But leaders of the House intelligence panel said in a letter last week to CIA Director George Tenet that those claims resulted largely from fragmentary and circumstantial evidence filled with uncertainties. The Washington Post reported Sunday on the letter from Reps. Porter Goss, R-Fla., and Jane Harman, D-Calif., chairman and ranking Democrat on the committee.

CIA spokesman Bill Harlow denied the allegations. "The notion that our community does not challenge standing judgments is absurd," he said Saturday in a statement.

Six months after the war began, and three months after the administration sent a CIA team led by former U.N. chief inspector David Kay to search, neither U.S. troops nor Kay's inspectors have reported finding weapons of mass destruction.

The letter reportedly cited "significant deficiencies" in the intelligence agencies' ability to collect fresh intelligence on Iraq after U.N. weapons inspectors left in 1998. Instead, the letter said, the agencies relied on "past assessments" and "some new `piecemeal' intelligence" that went largely unchallenged.

"There was enrichment of the intelligence from 1998 over the period leading up to the war," Rice said. "Nothing pointed to a reversal of Saddam Hussein's very active efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, to have very good programs in weapons of mass destruction. It was very clear that this had continued and that it was a gathering danger."

Secretary of State Colin Powell cited Saddam's use of poison gas against Kurdish civilians -- 5,000 died -- to put down unrest in 1988.

"Now, if you want to believe that he suddenly gave up that weapon and had no further interest in those sorts of weapons, whether it be chemical, biological, or nuclear, then I think you're -- it's a bit naive to believe that," Powell said on ABC's "This Week."

He said from 1998 until early this year, U.N. inspectors were unavailable in Iraq to draw on "and our intelligence community had to do the best they could. And I think they did a pretty good job."

Even with that gap in coverage, Powell said to assume that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction "defies the logic of the situation over the years and what we know about this regime."

Powell urged Congress to approve the Iraqi money, but acknowledged that the $20 billion or so for reconstruction rather than military operations could be a hard sell.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, in an e-mail to members of the GOP rank and file, wrote: "I ask that you devote your full energies to making the strong case for passing this legislation without delay."

The Tennessee Republican said, "The eyes of the world are upon us. Friend and foe alike, and especially terrorists, must understand that in the face of adversity, we will finish the job."

Frist said he expected a "small core of senators who will seek to defeat not only the funds to stabilize Iraq but will attempt to cut off funds for our troops now fighting there as well."

At the same time, he said, Republicans "must be careful to reach out to the many Democrats who will certainly join us on final passage."

Republican leaders oppose any effort to separate out the $20 billion from the main bill, calculating that few Democrats will want to oppose the entire request when so much of the money is designed to support American troops overseas.

Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., a presidential candidate, said he wanted more answers from the White House before he would support the reconstruction money.

"We can't give the president a blank check under these circumstances," he told Fox. "I think until we get our friends and allies to the table, until we have them participating and helping us share the costs, so the American taxpayer is not paying for this by themselves, that it is very difficult to calculate."

Powell told CNN's "Late Edition" that India, one of the countries the United States had been counting on to send troops, has decided not to largely because of "internal political domestic politics."



To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (29055)9/28/2003 7:03:43 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Putin tells Bush `no' on Iraq aid (Bush is done)
Russian rebuffs president on Iran too
By Bob Kemper
Washington Bureau
Published September 28, 2003

WASHINGTON -- President Bush was unable Saturday to win from Russian President Vladimir Putin a commitment to aid U.S. forces in Iraq or a pledge to end Russian assistance to Iran's nuclear power program.

While the two leaders underscored what they termed a close diplomatic and personal relationship, the meeting at Camp David nevertheless pointed up sharp differences between the nations and Bush's ongoing difficulty in rallying world support behind U.S. efforts in Iraq.




Putin, who recently said that problems in securing and rebuilding postwar Iraq validated his decision not to support the U.S.-led war there, said Saturday that Russia wants to see Iraq returned to stability quickly.

But he made clear that Russia would not contribute troops or money to the effort unless the United Nations is allowed to play a much more prominent role than Bush has offered it.

The Russian president, ending an overnight visit with Bush at Camp David, also rebuffed U.S. entreaties to stop helping Iran build a nuclear reactor. The U.S. insists that oil-rich Iran wants the reactor so it can develop a nuclear bomb, but Putin has maintained that Russia's $800 million contract in Iran is not aiding a weapons program.

"Russia has no desire and no plans to contribute in any way to the creation of weapons of mass destruction, either in Iran or in any other . . . region in the world," Putin said.

Putin joined Bush in asserting opposition to Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb and called on Iran to cooperate with international nuclear weapons inspectors.

The International Atomic Energy Agency last week found traces of enriched uranium in an Iranian power plant, increasing international pressure on Iran to prove it is not secretly developing nuclear weapons by the IAEA's Oct. 1 deadline.

"We share a goal," Bush said, "and that is to make sure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon or a nuclear weapons program."

Putin also urged Bush to continue six-way negotiations with Pyongyang to end the threat of a nuclear buildup on the Korean Peninsula. But Putin, whose country has a short border and diplomatic relations with North Korea, also demanded guarantees that neither the U.S. nor any other nation would attack North Korea once it gives up nuclear weapons.

"Russia believes that ensuring [the] nuclear non-proliferation regime should be accompanied by extending to North Korea guarantees in this sphere of security," Putin said.

Despite their obvious comfort with each other as they walked and talked along the sun-bleached path of the presidential mountain retreat, Bush and Putin remain deeply divided over U.S. intervention in Iraq.

Opposition to war

Putin opposed Bush's decision to invade Iraq, with which Russia had diplomatic and commercial ties, without explicit UN approval. And last week, before departing Moscow for the United States, Putin said the difficulty the U.S. is having in pacifying Iraq validated his opposition to the invasion.

Before flying to Camp David on Friday night, Putin told the United Nations that Bush's decision to come back to the UN for help in rebuilding Iraq was evidence that the global body is "simply irreplaceable," a remark apparently meant to rebut Bush's statement that the UN would be relegated to irrelevance if it refused to back the Iraq invasion.

Despite Bush's insistence that the U.S. retain control of the military and reconstruction efforts, Putin told the UN, "Only with the active--and I want to stress this--practical assistance by the United Nations in its economic and civil transformation, only thus will Iraq assume a truly new, worthy place in the world community."

Bush left the UN last week without any commitments of money or troops to help in Iraq. His aides said it could take months to get a new UN resolution that would encourage other nations to assist reconstruction there.

A number of nations are withholding support until Bush gives the UN a more significant role in Iraq's reconstruction. Bush offered to allow the world body to help write an Iraqi Constitution and oversee elections, but world leaders want the UN to assume at least partial control of the reconstruction effort.

"We want to see Iraq a free, democratic and united state," Putin said with Bush at his side. But, the Russian leader added, Russia will not commit the troops or money Bush seeks until "we know the parameters of the resolution."

Having made little or no demonstrable progress on the urgent issues facing them, Bush and Putin went to great lengths in a joint news conference to emphasize the strength of their relations even in the face of disagreement.

"We have proven once again that our partnership is not subject to political dealmaking," Putin said. "Despite all the difficulties that we have to overcome, the spirit and the basic principles of our relationship have remained the same: mutual confidence, openness, predictability and consideration and respect of [the] interests of each other."

Kind words for Putin

Bush said, "Old suspicions are giving way to new understanding and respect. Vladimir and I had some very frank discussions about Iraq. I understood his position. He understood mine. Because we have got a trustworthy relationship, we are able to move beyond any disagreement over a single issue. Plus, I like him, he's a good fellow to spend quality time with."

"Thank you, George, for your warm words," Putin responded.

Putin offered an ominous story--the first time he has told it publicly, he said--about a potential Russia-U.S. conflict that was avoided because the two leaders have a warm relationship.

"When counterterrorist operations began in Afghanistan . . . we were approached by people who intended to fight against Americans in Afghanistan," Putin said. "And if by that time President Bush and I had not formed [an] appropriate relationship, as we have, . . . no one knows what turn would the developments in Afghanistan had taken."

Putin did not identify the nation or group that approached Russia.

Bush and Putin had established a personal relationship that, while tested by Bush's insistence on abandoning a nuclear weapons treaty and Putin's relations with nations that are part of Bush's "axis of evil," were cemented in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

On Chechnya

On Saturday, Putin used Bush's anti-terrorism rhetoric to recast Russia's military engagement in Chechnya, portraying Moscow's ongoing fight with separatists as a battle against terrorists. U.S. opposition to the Chechnya campaign has been softening considerably since the Sept. 11 attacks, culminating with Bush's explicit acceptance of the Chechen rebels as terrorists Saturday.

"Terrorists must be opposed wherever they spread chaos and destruction," Bush said, "including Chechnya."