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: GST who wrote (156042)1/12/2005 1:44:15 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The threat that the US put out for public consumption was NOT backed by other countries -- far from it

Here is one point (not the only one) where reality doesn't back you, so you part company from reality.

France and Russia vehemently opposed our intention to overthrow Saddam (we have a much better idea why, now that the Oil for Food records are public). Yet even they never tried to argue that the threat of Saddam's having CW and his working to get nukes was made up or exaggerated - why? Because their own intelligence services were telling them he had them, and trying to argue that a despot with a track record of using CW wouldn't use them in future, was a fool's argument.



To: GST who wrote (156042)1/12/2005 1:56:02 PM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 281500
 
The Boston Globe August 29, 2002
AN IRAQI ARSENAL: MANY INDICATIONS BUT NO FIRM PROOF
By Robert Schlesinger

WASHINGTON - The three chemical plants outside the Iraqi town of Fallujah were bombed by US planes during the Gulf War because they were part of the country's chemical weapons program. United Nations inspectors monitored the sites from 1994 until they left the country in 1998.

Like many similar facilities in Iraq, the Fallujah plants are operating once again. The Iraqi government publicly swears it no longer produces chemical weapons and yesterday took reporters on a tour of one of the Fallujah sites, which a plant manager described as "producing domestic insecticides and agricultural pesticides." But Saddam Hussein's government still refuses to let inspectors back into the country to verify those claims. "There's significant enough activity at the Fallujah facilities alone to create a presumption that they have an active chemical weapons program," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a research group based in Alexandria, Va. "The Fallujahs would have to be considered guilty until proven innocent."

Iraq's pursuit of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons - and its alleged possession of them - is at the heart of the public case the Bush administration has made for forcing Hussein from power.

"The Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue the nuclear program," Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech Monday. "These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam can hold the threat over anyone he chooses."

The Fallujah plants illustrate a broader dilemma for US officials: Although they can show that Iraq has the means, motivation, and opportunity to pursue such programs, no one has yet been able to produce irrefutable evidence that the Iraqis have an arsenal of such weapons.

"There are question marks in most of the weapons areas," said Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for the UN organization that would look for the weapons if Iraq allowed inspectors to return.

Although the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission remains publicly undecided on the question of whether Iraq currently has weapons of mass destruction, many defense specialists say that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

"My sense is that he would have biological weapons and chemical weapons, probably a small number of longer-range missiles [and is] certainly working on nuclear [weapons]," said Charles Duelfer, the former executive deputy chairman of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq, which initially handled the inspections.


Iraq has a long history with weapons of mass destruction. Hussein's government used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and again in 1988 to put down a Kurdish uprising. Iraqi stores ranged from basic mustard gas to lethal VX nerve gas. The Iraqi government was also pursuing a nuclear capacity at the time and could have had a nuclear weapon within six months at the time of the Gulf War, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency - a conclusion that stunned Western INTELLIGENCE officials.

They were equally surprised to learn in 1995 about the extent of the Iraqi biological weapons program. Four years of United Nations inspections turned up nothing to substantiate a biological program until Hussein Kamal, Hussein's son-in-law and then CHIEF of Iraq's bioweapons program, defected. Iraq then acknowledged its work making weapons out of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and aflatoxin, which causes cancer after a few years.

The inspectors were withdrawn in 1998 shortly before the United States bombed Iraq in Operation Desert Fox, and Hussein's government has not allowed them to return. The monitoring equipment they set up at key sites around the country has been dismantled. Judging Iraqi progress on amassing weapons of mass destruction since the inspectors departed is largely a combination of analysis, deduction, and inference from sources as diverse as spy satellite photos, Iraqi defector testimony, and other INTELLIGENCE. Hussein's motivations are another consideration.

A few skeptics doubt whether Iraq has made any progress in re stocking its deadly supplies. Scott Ritter, who led UN inspection efforts on the ground between 1991 and 1998, vocally questions whether any weapons of mass destruction are left in Iraq. UN teams eliminated the bulk of them, Ritter argues, and the rest have expired. "It's just insane to talk about an Iraqi capability unless you can substantiate that they have reacquired a manufacturing capability, and no one's done that yet," Ritter said. "Short of hard fact, we don't have a national security threat here."

This much is fact: Iraq has rebuilt much of its industrial chemical capacity since the Gulf War. Hussein's regime has also imported numerous "dual-use" items - materials that have both civilian and weapons-oriented applications. Perhaps more importantly, virtually all the scientists and technicians who produced Iraq's original chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs are still in place. "Iraq retains intellectual capital in all these areas, including nuclear," Duelfer said. "We did not lobotomize all these scientists and technicians."

Trying to paint an accurate picture beyond these facts enters varying levels of speculation. Take the plant toured yesterday, for example. Reporters were shown a plant floor littered with barrels and sacks marked as containing agricultural pesticides, according to the Associated Press. "[But] with all due respect, I don't think journalists would be the people to make a snap judgment as to whether a facility is designed and equipped for chemical and biological weapons," Jean Pascal Zanders, a chemical and biological weapons specialist at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, told the AP.

Biological weapons are even more problematic, requiring even smaller, more easily hidden facilities.

Western INTELLIGENCE officials must also determine the credibility of Iraqis who have defected in the years since the Gulf War. Dr. Khidhir Hamzi, who ran the Iraqi nuclear weapons program before defecting in 1995, testified before Congress that Iraq is continuing its drive for nuclear weapons. A more recent defector, who also appears to be taken seriously by US INTELLIGENCE officials, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a civil engineer, talked about helping to build or maintain secret laboratories under wells and hospitals.

A GERMAN INTELLIGENCE report made public last year stated that Iraq has restarted its chemical weapons production and possibly its biological weapons program as well. More alarmingly, the report predicted that Iraq's progress in nuclear technology would allow the country to develop three nuclear weapons by 2005.

As recently as September of 2000, Hussein publicly exhorted his "Nuclear Mujahideen" to "defeat the enemy."
But the most compelling argument for concluding that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction programs, specialists say, is Hussein's history. He actively sought to acquire and develop these weapons before, and there is no reason to believe his intentions have changed. "No one would be talking about invading if he had a nuclear weapon, [because] Tel Aviv would be incinerated. This wouldn't even be on the table right now. So why wouldn't he want one?" said Duelfer. "All of a sudden he stopped? Why? To me it doesn't even pass the laugh test."

globalsecurity.org



To: GST who wrote (156042)1/12/2005 2:04:07 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Citing German intelligence estimates, Hamza said Iraq had more than 10 tons of uranium and one ton of slightly enriched uranium. Hamza said that could give Iraq enough weapons-grade uranium to build three nuclear weapons within three years.

In addition, Hamza said, Iraq is trying to extend the range of its missiles in order to reach Israel.

archives.cnn.com



To: GST who wrote (156042)1/12/2005 2:06:34 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
In February 2001, the BND compiled a further report and intelligence chief August Hanning told Spiegel magazine that, "Since the end of the UN inspections [December 1998], we have determined a jump in procurement efforts by Iraq," adding that Saddam was rebuilding destroyed weapons facilities "partly based on the German industrial standard".

According to the report:

Iraq has resumed its nuclear program and may be capable of producing an atomic bomb in three years;

Iraq is developing its Al Samoud and Ababil 100/Al Fatah short-range rockets, which can deliver a 300kg payload 150km. Medium-range rockets capable of carrying a warhead 3,000km could be built by 2005 - far enough to reach Europe;

Iraq is capable of manufacturing solid rocket fuel;

A Delhi-based company, blacklisted by the German government because of its alleged role in weapons proliferation, has acted as a buyer on Iraq's behalf. Deliveries have been made via Malaysia and Dubai. Indian companies have copied German machine tools down to the smallest detail and such equipment has been installed in numerous chemicals projects. [Note that such Indian cooperation with Iraq is something of a tradition: during the Iran-Iraq war India delivered precursors for warfare agents to Iraq - and later was found to have delivered quantities of the same materials to Iran. Baghdad's middleman at the time, an Iraqi with a German passport, founded a company in Singapore expressly for this purpose.]

Since the departure of the UN inspectors, the number of Iraqi sites involved in chemicals production has increased from 20 to 80. Of that total, a quarter could be involved in weapons production.

The BND's warnings didn't stop with that report. In April 2001, Hanning told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper that Iraq was developing a new class of chemical weapons, reiterated his alert on Iraq's missile and nuclear programs, and said that several German companies had continued to deliver to Baghdad components needed for the production of poison gas. In March 2002, he told the New Yorker magazine that, "It is our estimate that Iraq will have an atomic bomb in three years." The German opposition parties' demand that the government make public what it knows is thus no irresponsible, idle, politically inspired chatter as the ruling Social Democrats and Greens charge. The irresponsible chatter and politicking is Herr Schroeder's.

atimes.com



To: GST who wrote (156042)1/12/2005 4:29:54 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
President of Fabricated Crises

washingtonpost.com

By Harold Meyerson

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Some presidents make the history books by managing crises. Lincoln had Fort Sumter, Roosevelt had the Depression and Pearl Harbor, and Kennedy had the missiles in Cuba. George W. Bush, of course, had Sept. 11, and for a while thereafter -- through the overthrow of the Taliban -- he earned his page in history, too.

But when historians look back at the Bush presidency, they're more likely to note that what sets Bush apart is not the crises he managed but the crises he fabricated. The fabricated crisis is the hallmark of the Bush presidency. To attain goals that he had set for himself before he took office -- the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the privatization of Social Security -- he concocted crises where there were none.

So Iraq became a clear and present danger to American hearths and homes, bristling with weapons of mass destruction, a nuclear attack just waiting to happen. And now, this week, the president is embarking on his second great scare campaign, this one to convince the American people that Social Security will collapse and that the only remedy is to cut benefits and redirect resources into private accounts.

In fact, Social Security is on a sounder footing now than it has been for most of its 70-year history. Without altering any of its particulars, its trustees say, it can pay full benefits straight through 2042. Over the next 75 years its shortfall will amount to just 0.7 percent of national income, according to the trustees, or 0.4 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That still amounts to a real chunk of change, but it pales alongside the 75-year cost of Bush's Medicare drug benefit, which is more than twice its size, or Bush's tax cuts if permanently extended, which would be nearly four times its size.

In short, Social Security is not facing a financial crisis at all. It is facing a need for some distinctly sub-cataclysmic adjustments over the next few decades that would increase its revenue and diminish its benefits.

Politically, however, Social Security is facing the gravest crisis it has ever known. For the first time in its history, it is confronted by a president, and just possibly by a working congressional majority, who are opposed to the program on ideological grounds, who view the New Deal as a repealable aberration in U.S. history, who would have voted against establishing the program had they been in Congress in 1935. But Bush doesn't need Karl Rove's counsel to know that repealing Social Security for reasons of ideology is a non-starter.

So it's time once more to fabricate a crisis. In Bushland, it's always time to fabricate a crisis. We have a crisis in medical malpractice costs, though the CBO says that malpractice costs amount to less than 2 percent of total health care costs. (In fact, what we have is a president who wants to diminish the financial, and thus political, clout of trial lawyers.) We have a crisis in judicial vacancies, though in fact Senate Democrats used the filibuster to block just 10 of Bush's 229 first-term judicial appointments.

With crisis concoction as its central task -- think of how many administration officials issued dire warnings of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein or, now, by Social Security's impending bankruptcy -- this presidency, more than any I can think of, has relied on the classic tools of propaganda. Indeed, it's almost impossible to imagine the Bush presidency absent the Fox News Network and right-wing talk radio.

With the blurring of fact and fiction so central to the Bush presidency's purposes, is it any wonder that government agencies ranging from Health and Human Services to the Office of National Drug Control Policy have been filming editorial messages as mock newscast segments, complete with mock reporters, and offering them to local television stations?

Is it any wonder that the Education Department paid commentator Armstrong Williams $241,000 to promote its No Child Left Behind programs? In this administration, it is the role of a government agency to turn out pro-Bush news by whatever means possible. Fox News viewership in the African American community wasn't very large, and here was Williams, who seemed to have learned during his clerkship for Clarence Thomas that it was rude to decline any gifts.

We've had plenty of presidents, Richard Nixon most notoriously, who divided the media into friendly and enemy camps. I can't think of one, however, so fundamentally invested in the spread of disinformation -- and so fundamentally indifferent to the corrosive effect of propaganda on democracy -- as Bush. That, too, should earn him a page in the history books.