NEWS: Another Part Of US Justification For Invading Iraq Admitted False

ArchAngel;

Do you only read what you want? He posted the title already.

Freedom_for_sumArchAngel

Originally posted by zappafan1

Why don't you tell us all what book it is in, and then explain why its not in the Dulfer report.

If more than a ton of enriched Uranium had been found everyone would have known about it.

Geez.... read the post.
The book is titled "Disinformation" Author: Richard Miniter
Publisher: Regnery Press

Although I do have the proverbial "little birds" in my ears, and some contacts through my ex-military days, alas I cannot explain to you why such information is not in the Dulfer report.
However, one might be.... information brought to light after the report was made. Another, possibly, so as not to provide information to the enemy as to how/where some things were discovered.

[edit on 16-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

The book is titled "Disinformation" Author: Richard Miniter
Publisher: Regnery Press

Although I do have the proverbial "little birds" in my ears, and some contacts through my ex-military days, alas I cannot explain to you why such information is not in the Dulfer report.
However, one might be.... information brought to light after the report was made. Another, possibly, so as not to provide information to the enemy as to how/where some things were discovered.

I cannot see ANY motive for not presenting as evidence more than a ton of enriched Uranium, or the tons of CW if they had really been found.

If it was found after the Dulfer report that would not stop the info from being presented in other reports.

I imagined that if things like that were found Bush would jump out of a plane, and parachute down in a staged event that includes him riding the warheads like an iron bull whipping his cowboy hat around.

I cannot see any reason why this author would have such information, and no one else does.

"Disinformation" is a pretty good title for the book.

Without confirmation from other sources, especially from the US STATE, it may as well be fiction.

Who do you trust more on what was found; Richard Miniter, or your government?

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Who do you trust more on what was found; Richard Miniter, or your government?

Interesting question ArchAngel.

The tone of your statement indicates that you trust the gov't more--correct? Yet, for some reason, you refuse to believe the government's reasons for going into Iraq.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

The tone of your statement indicates that you trust the gov't more--correct? Yet, for some reason, you refuse to believe the government's reasons for going into Iraq.

I refuse to believe the governments reasons because that flys in the face of rationality.

I trust the government more, on this single issue, because the claims are not confirmed by a single source, and the gov has no motive to hide it.

Quite the opposite. All the huff and puff in the Dulfer report shows they wanted something substantial.

Or maybe Bush is saving it for a Xmas present.

I reserve the right to trust, or to not trust depending on the issue.

Originally posted by zappafan1
Muadib: Excellent post, and great links. I, too, have posted links pertaining to the WMD's, proof of which show the movement of much to Syria and Libya, but to no avail.

Valhal: Yeah..... what the Iraqi people say may be off topic, but still relevant to the war. Oh..... and there were about 12 reasons given for the war, not just WMD's. One main iyem was removing Saddam from power, which is one thing Bush agreed with Clinton on.

Personally, I don't care if there were WMD's or not. If that's something everyone could agree on for the coalition to get that tyrant out of power, so be it.

Well, hang on just a minute zappafan, I agree with the statement "IF it had been to get Saddam out of power" and IF a large coalition agreed with that effort, I would have backed it 100% as well. The topic of this thread, and the contention of many - who by the way, don't have to be liberal or democrat - is that that WASN'T the reason sold to the American people or the coalition.

And, yes, I've watched us shuffle through several reasons as well. But the reason - the reason presented to the UN, the reason presented to Congress, the reason presented to the American people and the reason presented to the coalition prior to invasion was WMDs. And there weren't any. And we can kick every tin can in Iraq that could possibly be smelted down to make a warhead part in to one big pile and we still won't have a WMD, or a WMD program.

Originally posted by Valhall
Muaddib,
.........................
Your first post has significant value to the discussion, but that second one is nothing but diversion.

*val hands Muaddib a promissory note on response*

Diversion? not really Val. My first post was presenting some of the evidence of the wmd in Iraq, the second one was in response to those people who keep claiming that all, or most Iraqis want the coalition and US out, or that they were better off with Saddam in power. Perhaps I should have made it clear.

Should I now claim that you are providing a diversion when a lot of evidence has been presented in the past and which we have discussed many times, yet you say that there is no evidence to support the argument that Saddam had wmd?

Should I be claiming that you are giving a diversion now on your statement that at first the only reason given for going to Iraq was for the wmd alone, and then the reason was changed, when you have said this before, and I presented a link with all the reasons given before the war started by president Bush to the UN and the world, and which includes the liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam's regime?

There were many reasons given to the UN and to the world for going to war with Iraq, the reasons were never changed Val.

I have no idea why you would think that I am trying to give any diversions.

I don't have any connection to the government, nor do i work for them like so many other people in these forums try to claim when someone disagrees with them.

Let's read again the reasons given before the war by president Bush, and see if it is true that the only reason given was wmd. Yes wmd was one of the main reasons, but the real main reason was that Saddam posed a threat to the US and to the world, which is true according to what the evidence says.

Anyways, here are excerpts to the speech given by president Bush to the UN in 2002. This is kind of long, but it clearly states all the reasons given for going to war with Iraq.

President Bush's address to the United Nations
September 12, 2002 Posted: 11:37 AM EDT (1537 GMT)

............
Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own.

In cells, in camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale. In one place and one regime, we find all these dangers in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear to him and to all, and he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations. He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge, by his deceptions and by his cruelties, Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities, which the council said threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights and that the regime's repression is all-pervasive.

Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation and rape.

Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents; and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise.

Last year, the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini and Armeni nationals remain unaccounted for; more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council through Resolution 687 demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.

Iraq's regime agreed that broke this promise.

In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder.

In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Amir of Kuwait and a former American president. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September 11. And Al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections.

Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with scud warheads, aerial bombs and aircraft spray tanks.

U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also reviewed that Iraq like maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War.

We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program, weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, and accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon.

Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.

And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of SCUD type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long range missiles that can inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council Resolutions.

In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself and to buy arms for his country.

By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens. In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely.

Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations.

The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations, and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.
...........

Excerpted from.
archives.cnn.com...

[edit on 16-12-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Diversion? not really Val. My first post was presenting some of the evidence of the wmd in Iraq, the second one was in response to those people who keep claiming that all, or most Iraqis want the coalition and US out, or that they were better off with Saddam in power. Perhaps I should have made it clear.

Should I now claim that you are providing a diversion when a lot of evidence has been presented in the past and which we have discussed many times, yet you say that there is no evidence to support the argument that Saddam had wmd?

Should I be claiming that you are giving a diversion now on your statement that at first the only reason given for going to Iraq was for the wmd alone, and then the reason was changed, when you have said this before, and I presented a link with all the reasons given before the war started by president Bush to the UN and the world, and which includes the liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam's regime?

There were many reasons given to the UN and to the world for going to war with Iraq, the reasons were never changed Val.

I have no idea why you would think that I am trying to give any diversions.

I don't have any connection to the government, nor do i work for them like so many other people in these forums try to claim when someone disagrees with them.

No, you misunderstood me. I was not accusing YOU of diverting anything. I was stating that turning to the topic of freedom of the Iraqi people would be a diversion from the topic of this thread.

I didn't think you were trying to do that intentionally...I was merely stating that would be the result. Now, I do believe that when politicians do this THEY are intentionally trying to divert, but I didn't think that of you.

P.S. That's my fault. I should have chosen my words better. I should have said digression, not diversion.

[edit on 12-16-2005 by Valhall]

I will admit that this Iraqi war started very badly when no WMD's were found. But, you have to understand that we are there now and to pull out now would only do more harm in the long run.

But, why does the lack of supported evidence for the war fall solely on the U.S.?
I mean... The U.S. wasn't the only country that thought removing Saddam would be a good thing.

WMDs were used as the excuse to invade Iraq because regime change is flat out illegal. Just thought I'd clarify that

Originally posted by Valhall

No, you misunderstood me. I was not accusing YOU of diverting anything. I was stating that turning to the topic of freedom of the Iraqi people would be a diversion from the topic of this thread

I didn't think you were trying to do that intentionally...I was merely stating that would be the result. Now, I do believe that when politicians do this THEY are intentionally trying to divert, but I didn't think that of you.

P.S. That's my fault. I should have chosen my words better. I should have said digression, not diversion.

[edit on 12-16-2005 by Valhall]

My bad, I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

You know that i tend to respond to people even thou the anwser is off topic.

Originally posted by subz
WMDs were used as the excuse to invade Iraq because regime change is flat out illegal. Just thought I'd clarify that

Subz, since when is it illegal when a regime was put on sanctions by the whole world yet that regime, and some countries, decided to piss on the sanctions that kept Saddam in check?..... Saddam broke every sanction that was placed on his regime, and he fired at US and British aircraft that were enforcing the no-fly zone so Saddam wouldn't go out of his way trying to commit genocide again....

I thought i should clarify that also.

Originally posted by subz
WMDs were used as the excuse to invade Iraq because regime change is flat out illegal. Just thought I'd clarify that

That's why we've generally used the CIA when regime change was the only goal.

BTW...isn't shooting at other nation's aircraft, who were trying to enforce the no-fly zone, a declaration of war against those countries?....

Iraq was supposed to abide by certain rules to ensure that they would not try to commit more genocide on the minorities in the norht and south of Iraq.

Here is a bit of info about the no-fly-zone.

The United States, United Kingdom and France proclaimed the no-fly zones (NFZs) in Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War to protect Kurds in the north and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by US, UK and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1996.

The United States and Britain argued that the patrols were authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 688, adopted April 5, 1991. The text "condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq", but does not specifically mention no-fly zones. Regardless of the legal status, the northern no-fly zone was often credited for giving the parts of the Kurdish region of Iraq de-facto independence after the First Gulf War.

The NFZs effectively ceased to exist with the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003.

Excerpted from.
en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 17-12-2005 by Muaddib]

BTW...isn't shooting at other nation's aircraft, who were trying to enforce the no-fly zone, a declaration of war against those countries?....

Heres a bit about the NFZs that I bet you never heard.

There was no UN resolution authorizing them.

If you think different please give the number of the resolution, and a small quote please.

This should be fun

Iraq was well within their rights to fire on hostile aircraft violating their airspace.

[edit on 17-12-2005 by ArchAngel]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Subz, since when is it illegal when a regime was put on sanctions by the whole world yet that regime, and some countries, decided to piss on the sanctions that kept Saddam in check?.....

Are we talking about regime change being illegal still? I cant tell. Also there are plenty of American firms implicated in the Oil for Food scandal. So the same countries that "piss on the sanctions" were the ones invading. It's not as cut and dried as you would like to make out.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Saddam broke every sanction that was placed on his regime, and he fired at US and British aircraft that were enforcing the no-fly zone so Saddam wouldn't go out of his way trying to commit genocide again....

I thought i should clarify that also.

The no-fly zones were illegal impositions placed on Iraq by Britain and the United States with no UN authourity. The no-fly zones themselves were declarations of War against Iraq due to the violations of sovereign airspace.

The way I picture any argument is to use the old axiom of "do unto others as you would have them do you". Try it, would you ever accept Iraqi no-fly zones placed on the United States if the situations were reversed? I know I wouldn't. So why is this any different.

So classing Iraq's shooting at these planes in the no-fly zones as acts of war is wrong. It's the other way around, the breaching of Iraqi airspace by the United States and Britain was an act of war. That Iraq was firing on them was an act of self defense and completely accepted under International Law.

I'll stand by my previous post, there is no legal mechanism that directly allows for regime change. It's just not an acceptable norm in international relations.

Originally posted by subz
Are we talking about regime change being illegal still? I cant tell. Also there are plenty of American firms implicated in the Oil for Food scandal. So the same countries that "piss on the sanctions" were the ones invading. It's not as cut and dried as you would like to make out.

You are the one, of many, who still claiming regime change was illegal despite the facts.

Originally posted by subz
The no-fly zones were illegal impositions placed on Iraq by Britain and the United States with no UN authourity. The no-fly zones themselves were declarations of War against Iraq due to the violations of sovereign airspace.

First of all France was also part of the countries which placed the no-fly zone on Iraq, but i guess since it doesn't corroborate your story of only blaming the US, and Britain for everything that happens in the world you don't mention it.

Second, that I remember correctly the reason why the no fly zone was put in effect was because Saddam was subsequently committing genocide against his own people...but of course, it seems that you believe this is no excuse for trying to help these people.

We should have just let them get exterminated, then you could complain how the US alone did not do anything to stop this....

Originally posted by subz
The way I picture any argument is to use the old axiom of "do unto others as you would have them do you". Try it, would you ever accept Iraqi no-fly zones placed on the United States if the situations were reversed? I know I wouldn't. So why is this any different.

The US is not seeking to exterminate minorities which Saddam was doing, so it is kind of hard to try to picture something like it happening to the US.....

Originally posted by subz
So classing Iraq's shooting at these planes in the no-fly zones as acts of war is wrong. It's the other way around, the breaching of Iraqi airspace by the United States and Britain was an act of war. That Iraq was firing on them was an act of self defense and completely accepted under International Law.

I'll stand by my previous post, there is no legal mechanism that directly allows for regime change. It's just not an acceptable norm in international relations.

Yet several sanctions were placed on that regime and the regime broke them all, but of course, according to you nothing should be done about such countries, even when they are committing genocide against their own people and trying to commit terrorist attacks on other nations.


[edit on 17-12-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
You are the one, of many, who still claiming regime change was illegal despite the facts.

Ah well, dont take my word for it.

In the case of Yugoslavia, the U.S. advocated for the establishment of a war crimes tribunal to try accused war criminals according to the highest international standards of due process. A strong argument can be made that states have an obligation to investigate and prosecute alleged war criminals and violators of human rights. In the case of Iraq, the perceived need for expedient regime change has come before any talk of justice.

The U.S. bent over backward in Yugoslavia to argue that none of its actions - not the bombing, the extensive sponsorship of civil society, or the war crimes investigations and trials - amounted to support for regime change.

jurist.law.pitt.edu...

Bent over backwards because it's well known that regime change is illegal. It goes on...

Forcible regime change violates the deeply enshrined principle that people should be allowed to choose their own government. The cornerstone human rights document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, provides that the only legitimate government is one based on the "will of the people." The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a convention ratified by the U.S., recognizes "self-determination" as a human right and specifies that "by virtue of that right" all peoples have the right to "freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

Armed interventions for regime change also run contrary to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force "against... [t]he political independence" of another state "or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." This includes the need to respect and to observe human rights and to promote self-determination. The definition of aggression adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1974 also provides that it if "the duty of States not to use armed force to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination." Violations of this duty may constitute an international crime.

jurist.law.pitt.edu...

So regime change breaks the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Charter itself. Shall I go on?

Originally posted by Muaddib
First of all France was also part of the countries which placed the no-fly zone on Iraq, but i guess since it doesn't corroborate your story of only blaming the US you don't mention it.

Oh no! That changes EVERYTHING! I sneakily mentioned Britain in the no-fly zones because I only blame the United States. Include as many nations as you desire, it does not change what the United States did here.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Second, that I remember correctly the reason why the no fly zone was put in effect was because Saddam was subsequently committing genocide against his own people...but of course, you are the kind of person who believes this is no excuse for trying to help these people.

Back the International Court of Justice and you wont have to break the law to stop this kind of thing. Will be a lot cheaper in terms of human lives and money to boot.

Originally posted by Muaddib
The US is not seeking to exterminate minorities which Saddam was doing, so it is kind of hard to try to picture something like it happening to the US.....

Nice try, so you really are completely devoid of empathy.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Yet several sanctions were placed on that regime and the regiome broke them all, but of course, according to you nothing should be done about such countries, even when they are committing genocide against their own people and trying to commit terrorist attacks on other nations.

Heh, sure, thats what I said isn't it. I just happen to believe it could of been handled better and with minimal loss of human life and devestation. How dare I.

[edit on 17/12/05 by subz]

You do realize that Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which was regime change? I guess, and based upon the legal presentation above, when he signed that he was breaking International Law, "Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Charter itself" by state sanctioning regime change?
Defining 'Regime Change'





seekerof

[edit on 17-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
You do realize that Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which was regime change? I guess, and based upon the legal presentation above, when he signed that he was breaking International Law, "Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Charter itself" by state sanctioning regime change?
Defining 'Regime Change'

Oh please, do you really think I give a damn whether or not Clinton was as bad as George W. Bush? Would it make you sleep easier at night if I were to say I think Clinton was a bad President who broke the law as well?

Here you go: Clinton broke the law

Happy? Partisanism is alive well!