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


To: Don Hurst who wrote (146997)10/4/2004 10:49:40 PM
From: Ron  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Rumsfeld backs off al Qaeda assertions
Also concedes WMD claims about Iraq were proved wrong

From Jamie McIntyre
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appeared Monday to back off earlier statements suggesting Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda.

He also conceded that U.S. intelligence was "wrong" in its conclusions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"Why the intelligence proved wrong, I'm not in a position to say. I simply don't know," Rumsfeld said in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

When asked about any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

As recently as June, Vice President Dick Cheney was saying the opposite.

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview on CNBC's "Capitol Report."

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials." (Full story)

Before the war, in a speech in Atlanta, Georgia, in September 2002, Rumsfeld said the CIA had "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are in fact al Qaeda in Iraq."

In his speech Monday, Rumsfeld said the U.S. intelligence analysts have changed their assessment: "I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way."

The independent commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, found no evident that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out attacks against the United States.

The final report by the 9/11 commission, issued in July, also concluded that Iraqi officials might have met with Osama bin Laden or his aides in 1999, but there was "no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."

In June, President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq under Saddam's rule was in league with al Qaeda, saying that fugitive Islamist militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network.

"Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters at the White House. "He's the person who's still killing." (Full story)

But in his speech Monday, Rumsfeld questioned whether the Jordanian-born al-Zarqawi, who is suspected of being a major force in the current insurgency in Iraq, was working with al Qaeda even as he seemed to have a similar agenda.

"In the case of al Qaeda, my impression is most of the senior people have actually sworn an oath to Osama bin Laden," Rumsfeld said.

"And to my knowledge, even as of this late date, I don't believe Zarqawi ... has sworn an oath, even though what they're doing -- I mean, they're just two peas in a pod in terms of what they're doing."

On the question of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld dropped his common assertion that weapons "may yet be found." Instead, he said the world was "a lot better off" without Saddam in charge of Iraq.

"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction. And does everyone know he had them at one point? Certainly. Does everyone believe -- even those in the U.N. who voted the other way -- acknowledge the fact that he had filed a fraudulent declaration with the United Nations?" Rumsfeld said.

"And why the intelligence proved wrong, I'm not in a position to say. I simply don't know. But the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail than they were with him in power."

Rumsfeld also said the United States must remain steadfast in Iraq, lest the perception of wavering empower its enemies.

Comparing the war against terrorism to the Cold War, he credited a firm approach for the ultimate success of the United States against the Soviet Union.

Although many Americans failed to take communism seriously, the United States and its allies "showed perseverance and resolve," Rumsfeld said.

"Year after year, they fought for freedom. They dared to confront what many thought might be an unbeatable foe. And eventually, the Soviet regime collapsed," Rumsfeld said.

But the lesson "that weakness can be provocative" has to be relearned, he said.

To have second thoughts in Iraq, he said, "would embolden the extremists and make the world a far more dangerous place."

Asked if the "no-go" zones that exist in a number of major cities in Iraq would invalidate the results of January's planned elections, Rumsfeld was circumspect.

"It seems to me that that is up to the Iraqis, No. 1. They have a sovereign country. They're going to decide what their elections are. They're going to make every call with respect to it."

He added, "Needless to say, your first choice is to say that every -- we know every Iraqi deserves the right to vote. And one would anticipate that that would be the case.

That answer differed from the one he gave to a similar question last month, when he implied that voting need not be universal.

"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country, but some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," he said at that time.

"Well, that's -- so be it. Nothing's perfect in life. So you have an election that's not quite perfect."



Find this article at:
edition.cnn.com



To: Don Hurst who wrote (146997)10/5/2004 7:01:13 AM
From: Ron  Respond to of 281500
 
Bremer criticizes troop levels, then backs off
Tue Oct 5, 1:41 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. intervention in Iraq (news - web sites) was hampered early on by a lack of adequate forces and efforts to contain looting after the ouster of Saddam Hussein according to the former U.S. administrator in Iraq.

"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Paul Bremer said in a speech reported by The Washington Post on Tuesday. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

Bremer's comments echoed charges by administration critics who argue that the U.S. government failed to plan adequately to maintain security in post-war Iraq, the newspaper said.

In the speech on Monday at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, Bremer said U.S. plans for the postwar period erred in projecting what would happen after Hussein's demise, focusing on preparing for humanitarian relief and widespread refugee problems rather than a bloody insurgency now being waged by at least four well-armed factions, according to the Post.

"There was planning, but planning for a situation that didn't arise," Bremer was quoted as saying.

A Bremer aide told the newspaper that those comments, as well as similar remarks last month at DePauw University, were for private audiences and were supposed to have been off the record.

In a statement e-mailed to the Washington Post late on Monday, Bremer stressed that he fully supports the Bush administration's plan for training Iraqi security forces as well as its overall strategy for Iraq.

"I believe that we currently have sufficient troop levels in Iraq," he said in the statement.

---
Looks like Rove is losing his tight grip on things. First Rummie, now Bremer. Finger-pointing has begun.