The CIA made a mistake? Mmm, a strange mistake, a mistake which has cost the lives of thousand Iraqi’s.
————————————-
BBC WORLD
CIA director George Tenet has acknowledged his organisation was wrong to let President George W Bush tell the American people Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear material from Africa.
In a statement, Mr Tenet said CIA officials had failed to stop the allegation from being inserted into the president’s State of the Union address in January despite having doubts about its validity.
This, he said, was not the level of certainty required for presidential speeches.
The statement came as senior Democrats called for an independent inquiry into the way the Bush administration made the case for war.
The BBC’s Rob Watson in Washington says the White House strategy is now clear – to put an end to what has become an increasingly embarrassing row, the CIA has been assigned the blame.
However there are signs that Mr Tenet’s admission may not stop
President Bush has denied that he knowingly used false information.
In his January address, Mr Bush said: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Those 16 words, Mr Tenet said, should never have been included in the text written for the president.
American media reports earlier suggested that the CIA advised the White House to remove the claims from the speech.
Earlier this week, the White House acknowledged for the first time that the claim about Iraq seeking to buy uranium from Niger might be wrong.
Asked about this during a visit to Uganda, Mr Bush replied: “I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services.”
He did not answer when pressed on how the erroneous material came to be included in the address, stressing instead that his government took the right decision to invade Iraq.
Mr Bush’s national security adviser Condoleezza Rice insisted the president “did not knowingly say anything that we knew to be false”.
Putting the onus of responsibility on the intelligence services, she reiterated that the CIA had vetted the speech and cleared it “in its entirety”.
If anyone had any doubts about the uranium claim, “those doubts were not communicated to the president,” Ms Rice told reporters.
However, she said the CIA did make some changes to that particular sentence in the speech.
“Some specifics about amount and place were taken out,” she said.
“With the changes in that sentence, the speech was cleared.”
Senior US Democrats are demanding to know what Mr Bush knew and when he knew about the allegation, and who pressed for the allegation about attempts to buy uranium in Niger to be included in Mr Bush’s speech despite the doubts of US intelligence.
Our correspondent says that most worryingly of all, perhaps, for President Bush there now appears to be a shift in public opinion with the latest polls showing that a majority of Americans now believe the White House exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
By: Florida Dude - 15th July 2003 at 17:43
yep
By: Arabella-Cox - 15th July 2003 at 06:56
“A mad maniac who funds terrorist organisations (there is evidence) has been taken out of power. “
I agree saddam was not a nice person, but he also kept some other bad people in check… ie the Kurds and the religion from Iran from spreading. The Americans liked the latter,a dnt eh turks liked the former. Now we have the vaccuum I promised. A token US selected group of exiles have been appointed. I am sure those who stayed in Iraq will respect the wishes of those who ran away. When the majority of the people are Shia then it makes sense that the council created has an equal balance of every group. When election time comes there will be a big change… what are the Americans going to do then? Have quotas? Affirmative action so that minorities are always represented? doesn’t sound very democratic to me.
“and help build a new nation like the west.”
If that was what they wanted you’d have been met in the streets with flowers.
“another nation with a limited force, quite impressive.”
Of course crippling sanctions for 12 years and a previous bombardment in war at the start of the sanctions might have helped…
“If France really did’nt want us to go in then they would of stopped us. Did they or did anyones ahhhhhhhhhhhh mmmmmmmmmmmm ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh NOPE.”
Yeah, Your strength makes you right… of course. So up until about 1943 the Nazis were right too I guess.
By: Arthur - 14th July 2003 at 22:52
With this posting, i would like to register the phrase
WMD apologist
pl: WMD apoligists, adj: WMD apologistic, sub: WMD apologism
as copyright by me.
I also would like to use that freshly registred phrase on those who know very well it concerns them… no disrespect, Steve 😉
By: Geforce - 14th July 2003 at 22:24
At least you’re being honest. Posts like yours don’t need any feedback, unless you consider :rolleyes: to be one. Helps me a lot, because I’m way too lazy to type a full response. If all of them were as simple as you, my Anglo “I wanna be Americain because my country is no empire anymore”-friend 😉
By: Florida Dude - 14th July 2003 at 19:40
lets just look at it like this, at the end of day regardless of WMD Iraq might now have a future (debateable at the moment but it’s early days). A mad maniac who funds terrorist organisations (there is evidence) has been taken out of power.
Iraqi oil is now secure and will last the UK and the US another 40 years (at least the bits which are’nt sold on) .
Summing up, WE did them a favour
WE took out a mad man in favour of killing the west
If the war was about oil then we got it and we’ll keep it, we earned it. The money earned from selling oil will go back to Iraq (after military debts are cleared) and help build a new nation like the west.
This war is over and and a new turn in power, the world just saw that it takes just over two weeks for 2 nations with part of their armies to take-over (useing this word accordingly) another nation with a limited force, quite impressive.
Oh and on a more personel note: at least my country can talk and walk, we don’t sit and watch the world go by and just voice our opinions to make a situation more stressful. If France really did’nt want us to go in then they would of stopped us. Did they or did anyones ahhhhhhhhhhhh mmmmmmmmmmmm ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh NOPE.
😀 😀 😀 😀 Oh look I won the Conversation 😀 😀 😀 😀 :p
By: Arabella-Cox - 14th July 2003 at 07:05
“In effect aren’t you saying that it was a poor show on behalf of the Coalition to preserve Iraq’s oil supplies, but, at the same time underline how absolutely essential that oil wealth is to eventual Iraqi prosperity?”
Or I could be trying to say that short of an underground nuclear explosion Iraqs oil was always safe and that nothing Saddam could do would change that. With the Oil safe why not expend a little more effort in protecting the Iraqi People.
All of Kuwaites oilfields burned. It was a waste and a serious polution problem, but avoiding the cities and racing to the oil fields tells the Iraqi people what the war was for.
Absolutely if the point is saving the oil. A completely fair comparison. Even with their infrastructure in ruins is it really likely that Iraq will have trouble getting loans? Kuwaiti oil is underground and completely safe from whatever Saddam could do to it. Iraqi oil is just as safe. That was the point. What wasn’t safe were the people and the US/UK coalition chose to deal with helping the people second.
“They do have conclusive evidence of the existence of large quantities of WMD and WMD component materials in Iraq just before the war started. Hans Blix and UNMOVIC provided that evidence and the Hussein regime was not able to, or chose not to, refute the evidence. “
Bollocks.
The so called evidence is records of material that Saddam has always claimed he has destroyed. Everyone working in those areas that has been captured since the war ended has said cooberated that assertion that they were destroyed.
“These people might not LIKE the yanks very much and might not WANT to collaborate!.”
But America is there to free the Iraqi people… how could they possibly think that?
“As to the other places who knows, who cares right now?. “
Yes, the oil is safe and will be on the market soon… who cares… ever?
“Until that time why give them less slack than we did with Hussein?”
I thought the whole idea behind the deadline was because he had already been given too much slack already? Besides, when has “fair” ever come into it?
“Why waste yet another year and why give him another year to work on his weapons programmes?
“
What weapons programs?
“design or the work of The Great Pumpkin!.”
I thought that was absolutely tip top secret… known only to Bush, his wife obviously, His wifes dietitian, the boys at the bridge club, a chap I met in the shop the other day called Bernard…
The difference is between Hooray we’ve been saved… what a jolly good bunch of chaps the West are for doing that for us, and Hooray we’ve been saved… the West are using us as little pawns in their big game again but this time we came out better than we normally do… not that they’d care the *******s…
“…and I’m looking for a clear point in there somewhere but all I’m seeing is a vague, soap-box, diatribe against US and British neo-colonialism???”
The west is making the same mistakes in the region they have always made… this sticking plaster won’t last.
By: Jonesy - 14th July 2003 at 06:37
Garry,
Isnt this sort of contradictory:
Of course there was a reason to do so. The point is there was also a reason to make the safety of the oil secondary to the safety of the Iraqi people. America chose the oil and the Iraqi people know it.
and
Yeah crippled like Kuwaite… it is now living on handouts… or not.
In effect aren’t you saying that it was a poor show on behalf of the Coalition to preserve Iraq’s oil supplies, but, at the same time underline how absolutely essential that oil wealth is to eventual Iraqi prosperity?
Looks a lot like casual yank and brit-bashing from over here buddy!.
Thats not to mention that your “crippled like Kuwait” comment is just a bit misleading, after all, on the one hand you have a small country like Kuwait that was conquered without too much infrastructure damage initially. Was then subject to a few months occupation, pillage and looting and then liberated. On the other hand we look at Iraq and see a nation who’s infrastructure took significant damage in 91 and has taken the hits from 12 years of economic sanctions and a despotic nutter who liked to build palaces instead of utilities infrastructure etc. You think there is anywhere near an honest comparison possible there?
Or they could have been listening to Bush and Blair saying they have conclusive evidence of the existance of large quanities of WMDs in Iraq… you’d think if they were so sure they could have given such firm information to the UNSCOM and they could show the world.
They do have conclusive evidence of the existence of large quantities of WMD and WMD component materials in Iraq just before the war started. Hans Blix and UNMOVIC provided that evidence and the Hussein regime was not able to, or chose not to, refute the evidence.
You’d think high up Iraqi figures would hand over information on WMDs for their freedom… but it hasn’t happened.Either Saddam was a wonderful guy and he has their full loyalty or Bush and Blair were full of Sh!t.
Or the fact that the higher echelons in that regime know the dangers that crossing Hussein brings with it and be he dead or alive, if they wish to live in Iraq and have families at any time in the future, they keep their bloody mouths shut. That is dependent, of course, on which people actually know anything of substance. You could have a dozen different former-chieftains giving a dozen different stories out there right now. There are lots of reasons why HUMINT hasnt come through. The first one that came to mind, ironically seeings as I’m talking to you, though was simple anti-americanism. These people might not LIKE the yanks very much and might not WANT to collaborate!.
You couldn’t say the Iraqi people are better off at the moment, but without Saddam they probably have a better future ahead. I wonder when America will invade Iran, Syria, North Korea, Zimbabwe, etc etc etc
Well some of them seem to think the absence of the Mukhabarat and “special police” institutions is a good thing right now. Sure, theyre not very pleased about an occupying presence in their country – their a proud people so of course their not happy about it, eventually, though they’ll be better off. As to the other places who knows, who cares right now?. IMO when those other places commit acts of aggression, have had UN resolutions placed on them, ignored them and squander a good few years of diplomatic effort to peacefully resolve whatever situations are faced THEN we can go off with the US and blow bits off them too. Until that time why give them less slack than we did with Hussein?
Why invade at all? It was only politicians that wanted that anyway. You’ve already waited 12 years, why not give Saddam until the right time next year to invade him?
Hmmm leave US/UK troops out in the desert for 12 months and then try for an invasion – good idea Garry!. We saw conclusively that the only time compliance was seen with the UN/UNMOVIC was near Blix’s deadlines and under the credible threat of force. Leave those troops dangling over the border and that credibility of threat evaporates and Hussein goes back to prevaricating and yanking UNMOVICs chain. Why waste yet another year and why give him another year to work on his weapons programmes?
It clearly wasn’t anything to do with saving the Iraqi people… that was an accident.
Who cares if it was an accident or not? I think the definition may be important to neo-intellectuals like us debating long into the night, but, to the Shi’a in Southern Iraq, for example, it may be that Saddam being gone is enough all by itself and they wouldnt care less if it was accident, design or the work of The Great Pumpkin!.
Now the US is going to set up a government from the people who ran away from Iraq… much like the British drew up the borders in the region how many years ago? What the British did was called imperialism though… and that is considered bad now… but the US is the Good guys, they can’t do bad things… just like the Bad guys can’t do good things like keep the Kurds or Iranians in check…
…and I’m looking for a clear point in there somewhere but all I’m seeing is a vague, soap-box, diatribe against US and British neo-colonialism???
By: Arabella-Cox - 14th July 2003 at 05:00
“Or that if you want to rebuild a country you should make sure its number one natural resource is secure and survives any conflict?”
Yes… I really don’t think even if all those explosives had gone off and they had let them burn for 2 years that all of Iraqs oil would be gone. In fact the contracts to put the fires out most likely would have gone to American companies anyway so the more burning wells the more money Iraq owes the US.
If they had gone to protect the Iraqi people from Saddams loyal forces instead of bypassing the cities and going straight for the oil fields then perhaps the US might have fooled the world into thinking it wasn’t about the oil.
“I was demonstrating that there was a reason to do so.”
Of course there was a reason to do so. The point is there was also a reason to make the safety of the oil secondary to the safety of the Iraqi people. America chose the oil and the Iraqi people know it.
“Its the fact that Hussein was prepared to utterly cripple the prospect of his “beloved” country being able to recover post-Saddam.”
Yeah crippled like Kuwaite… it is now living on handouts… or not.
“completely ignoring the fact that UNSCOM were there for YEARS and were still turning up new finds until Hussein effectively booted them out in 1998.”
Or they could have been listening to Bush and Blair saying they have conclusive evidence of the existance of large quanities of WMDs in Iraq… you’d think if they were so sure they could have given such firm information to the UNSCOM and they could show the world. Or now that they occupy the country they could ask all of the people they have captured or turned themselves in where all these weapons are. Most defectors during the cold war were often keen to buy safe passage to the west by bringing them somethign they knew they would want… like Victor bringing not just a Mig-25, but its flight manual as well. You’d think high up Iraqi figures would hand over information on WMDs for their freedom… but it hasn’t happened. Either Saddam was a wonderful guy and he has their full loyalty or Bush and Blair were full of Sh!t.
You couldn’t say the Iraqi people are better off at the moment, but without Saddam they probably have a better future ahead. I wonder when America will invade Iran, Syria, North Korea, Zimbabwe, etc etc etc.
“Why put additional burdens on the troops to satisfy politicians who were most likely NEVER going to be satisfied with an aggressive military posture and as EASILY manipulated by Hussein’s mucking about as they had been for the past few years!?”
Why invade at all? It was only politicians that wanted that anyway. You’ve already waited 12 years, why not give Saddam until the right time next year to invade him?
Was the real reason for the invasion based on the price of oil? Or was it the cost of the troop buildup, or nofly zones? It clearly wasn’t anything to do with saving the Iraqi people… that was an accident.
Now the US is going to set up a government from the people who ran away from Iraq… much like the British drew up the borders in the region how many years ago? What the British did was called imperialism though… and that is considered bad now… but the US is the Good guys, they can’t do bad things… just like the Bad guys can’t do good things like keep the Kurds or Iranians in check…
By: SOC - 13th July 2003 at 21:56
Garry made a typical comment about the US just going in to secure the oil fields; I was demonstrating that there was a reason to do so. That was just a response to his post is all.
By: Jonesy - 13th July 2003 at 18:47
Fair enough Ben Hans Blix asked Bush to wait. Hans Blix though himself had mentioned that the only times co-operation was forthcoming from the Regime was near a deadline though and the UNMOVIC inspectors themselves are on record as saying that some of the sites they attended werent just “clean” of any kinds of prohibited substance or material but they were actually clinically sanitised.
Is it full marks to the Iraqi management team for running clean establishments and paying full attention to health and hygiene in the workplace or a more sinister agenda in play? You may believe the optimistic side of that if you wish. I dont.
Two things that Hans Blix wilfully (IMO) failed to comprehend though was that the ONLY reason he wasnt getting UNSCOM’d out of the country was the steady buildup of US and UK troops in theatre. Simple equation no coalition troops = no compliance with UNMOVIC. The other thing was that desert fighting is best not undertaken in the middle of summer but when the temperatures are as cool as possible. Waiting a “few months” til about now-ish would mean US and UK troops fighting the environmental conditions at the same time as the Iraqi’s. Why do that? Why put additional burdens on the troops to satisfy politicians who were most likely NEVER going to be satisfied with an aggressive military posture and as EASILY manipulated by Hussein’s mucking about as they had been for the past few years!?
By: Geforce - 13th July 2003 at 18:31
Steve
Well, Steve, it’s way too early to find out wheter Gulf War II TM was a real succes. Afghanistan was also going to become a democracy … well, the burka’s are back, and women are still treated bad, girls don’t get an education. We’ll see about Iraq in two to ten years.
When Hans Blix asked the “coalition” to wait some more months so UNMOVIC could find the WMD’s – if there were any – Bush simply said no and started the war. Now the same Bush asks us to wait some more months so the US Army could find the WMD’s. BS
If a byproduct of this is that Saddam is gone
You are talking about byproducts. My god, so there are also spin-offs in war these days? It’s like the little toys you can find in your Mc Donnald’s happy meal or Corn Flakes. A nice extra. Sorry guys, we missed the goal “WMD’s”, but hé, we can give you something else “democracy”. Give me a break!
What do the explosives themselves or the possesion of them have to do with anything though Ben?
Ask that to SOC. I don’t know why he said that in the first place because it has little to do with WMD’s.
as they certainly seem capable of in Basra from the MoD reports I’ve read
MoD Reports huh? Well, these reports I would class in the same category as comical Ali’s reports. Only the latter can’t post his on a website.
By: Jonesy - 13th July 2003 at 18:24
Hmm, explosives are no WMD’s. In fact, name me one country which does not have explosives.
What do the explosives themselves or the possesion of them have to do with anything though Ben? Its the fact that Hussein was prepared to utterly cripple the prospect of his “beloved” country being able to recover post-Saddam. It would appear that the hope was that he could dissappear and, with the country in a mess through no oil revenues to rebuild, he could step back in at some later time and be welcomed by a jubilant Iraqi people as a latter-day messiah bringing them order and security (Mukhabarat style) saving them from the nasty Yanks et al.
People making excuses for Hussein now stating things like “well its been 4 months now were are the bombs”, “he didnt have any in the first place” and all the other similar veined, happy clapper, delusional bull**** are completely ignoring the fact that UNSCOM were there for YEARS and were still turning up new finds until Hussein effectively booted them out in 1998. They also completely ignore the fact that UNMOVIC were, peacefully, unable to get Hussein to produce documentry or personal evidence of tens of thousands of litres of material that he wasnt allowed to have by UN decree.
If, as it now seems is being believed, that Hussein ordered all that material destroyed a couple of days prior to Iraqi Freedom commencing then Iraqi Freedom achieved everything that UNSCOM and UNMOVIC utterly FAILED to do in a decade of work. Its just a shame, for him and some of the civillian populace that he was responsible for, that Saddam wasnt able to get that information out, for whatever reason, before the balloon went up.
If there are no longer WMDs or WMD construction facilities in Iraq so much the better, like I said, that was what the UN demanded 12 years ago and its about time it happened. If a byproduct of this is that Saddam is gone and the Iraqi people are willing and able to have a crack at responsible self-governance (as they certainly seem capable of in Basra from the MoD reports I’ve read) then so much the better for them.
By: Geforce - 13th July 2003 at 18:22
Originally posted by Florida Dude
… why argue over different opinions when ours don’t even matter?
Hehe, I never said your opinion doesn’t matter. Otherwise I wouldn’t have posted it in the first place. But I don’t think this subject – the fact that a so called “just” war might have been manipulated – is so unimportant that it doesn’t deserve a place on a military forum like this. And since this is a forum, why should I avoid these subjects? The fact that you don’t like to hear them or don’t find any arguments will only makes it easier for us to win this conversation.
Ben
By: Arthur - 13th July 2003 at 18:14
Originally posted by Florida Dude
…why argue over different opinions when ours don’t even matter?
I happen to believe in democracy. Logical consequence is that my opinion matters. I don’t really care if your political preference is with a more autoritarian form of government, but i suggest you to allow people with an opinion to ventilate that opinion. Even if it goes against your personal beliefs.
:devil:
By: Florida Dude - 13th July 2003 at 16:30
my only point is why did you post in the first place, you knew it was only going to start a fresh round of bickering and as i have said before why argue over different opinions when ours don’t even matter?
By: Geforce - 13th July 2003 at 08:40
Originally posted by Florida Dude
If you feel that “the big bad democracies” are able to just take over another countrie then why be afraid, you can’t stop it from happening.If you are afraid and we have struck fear into your life then we succeded in what we hoped to do, scare you so you can’t resist.
Remember there is only one guarentee in life.
What is the point you are trying to make?
By: Florida Dude - 13th July 2003 at 08:14
If you feel that “the big bad democracies” are able to just take over another countrie then why be afraid, you can’t stop it from happening.
If you are afraid and we have struck fear into your life then we succeded in what we hoped to do, scare you so you can’t resist.
Remember there is only one guarentee in life.
I don’t think the vatican has explosives!
By: Geforce - 13th July 2003 at 07:26
Hmm, explosives are no WMD’s. In fact, name me one country which does not have explosives. And the fact that he broke his promise, com’on on what would you expect. The guy (1) is a dictator, like he would care about that. Seems like nobody has an answer to my question, only Vortex sarcastic smile can replace a thousand words. It’s says “OK, we were wrong, but what r ya (2) gonna do about that? We are the strongest, so it doesn’t matter anymore who was right or wrong!”.
And for the last time, Eric. I am no lefty. If everyone who doesn’t like the US politics would be a “lefty” as you point out, then there must be like 5 billion socialists/communists (3) on this planet. Have reasons to feel unsafe at night, Eric, because one day, the 5 billion of us are going to take over your country, burn down your house and eat your children, to quote an Italian PM. (4) :rolleyes:
__________________________
(1) Saddam Hussein, if you have already forgotten him.
(2) Sorry for the Spelling 😉
(3) You know, there is a difference between these two words, but it seems like for most of you, it would be too much asked to actually see the difference. Is it stupidity or just laziness?
(4) Silvio Berlusconi
By: SOC - 13th July 2003 at 05:45
Why does it not suprise me that you make no mention of the explosives found at some of the oil wells in Northern Iraq, and Saddam’s statement that there would be no such destruction of any oil wells? Or that if you want to rebuild a country you should make sure its number one natural resource is secure and survives any conflict?
By: Arabella-Cox - 13th July 2003 at 04:42
“Doesn’t it scare you if “democracies” can start a war just because they feel it’s right?”
I think the fact that they don’t seem to be too concerned about WMDs and whether they find them or not, except possibly for face saving value, just goes to show you what it was really all about… cities bypassed, oilfields secure…
Sign In
July 12, 2003 at 8:26 am