Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3]


BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq

Wolfgang 25 Apr 07 - 06:46 AM
Bobert 22 Apr 07 - 08:43 PM
dianavan 22 Apr 07 - 01:37 PM
akenaton 21 Apr 07 - 04:27 PM
Amos 21 Apr 07 - 04:00 PM
Dickey 21 Apr 07 - 02:58 PM
GUEST,282RA 21 Apr 07 - 02:55 PM
Dickey 21 Apr 07 - 02:41 PM
dianavan 21 Apr 07 - 12:24 PM
GUEST,282RA 21 Apr 07 - 11:39 AM
Bobert 20 Apr 07 - 08:34 PM
dianavan 20 Apr 07 - 02:43 PM
Donuel 20 Apr 07 - 12:39 PM
Teribus 20 Apr 07 - 11:50 AM
Stringsinger 20 Apr 07 - 10:48 AM
Amos 20 Apr 07 - 10:46 AM
Donuel 20 Apr 07 - 10:40 AM
Dickey 20 Apr 07 - 10:37 AM
Ron Davies 19 Apr 07 - 08:59 PM
Amos 19 Apr 07 - 02:24 PM
Amos 19 Apr 07 - 12:07 PM
beardedbruce 17 Apr 07 - 02:08 PM
Arne 17 Apr 07 - 01:57 PM
beardedbruce 17 Apr 07 - 07:10 AM
dianavan 17 Apr 07 - 01:20 AM
Amos 16 Apr 07 - 11:26 PM
Peace 16 Apr 07 - 11:14 PM
Dickey 16 Apr 07 - 11:11 PM
282RA 16 Apr 07 - 07:09 PM
dianavan 16 Apr 07 - 02:05 AM
GUEST,282RA 16 Apr 07 - 12:28 AM
Teribus 15 Apr 07 - 03:00 AM
Amos 15 Apr 07 - 01:13 AM
Dickey 15 Apr 07 - 12:14 AM
Dickey 15 Apr 07 - 12:01 AM
Bobert 14 Apr 07 - 01:47 PM
Amos 14 Apr 07 - 01:26 PM
Dickey 14 Apr 07 - 12:16 PM
Amos 14 Apr 07 - 12:08 PM
Donuel 14 Apr 07 - 11:57 AM
Amos 14 Apr 07 - 11:54 AM
Dickey 14 Apr 07 - 11:32 AM
Donuel 14 Apr 07 - 11:26 AM
Amos 14 Apr 07 - 11:24 AM
Dickey 14 Apr 07 - 11:13 AM
TIA 14 Apr 07 - 10:32 AM
beardedbruce 14 Apr 07 - 10:14 AM
Bobert 14 Apr 07 - 10:10 AM
Dickey 14 Apr 07 - 09:53 AM
Dickey 14 Apr 07 - 09:45 AM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 06:46 AM

The last thing the Middle East's main players want is US troops to leave Iraq (from THE GUARDIAN)

Across the region, ordinary people want the Americans out. But from Israel to al-Qaida, political groups and states have other ideas

An interesting view in my eyes.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 08:43 PM

Screw Iran ans screw Syria... These countries are being set up as straw men... This popular propaganda that the US is actually fighting a "proxy war" with Iran is just that: propaganda...

Recent intellegece reports suggest that Iraqi Al-Qeada (IAQ) has little or no real ties to bin Laden's group other than jihad, which is a real broadstroke...

No, this boils down to an extremely ill-thought-out venture that Pearle and Wolfowitz propsed to Bill Clinton in the early 90's and wer thrown out of the Oval Office... But Bush bit becuase of his daddy's run in with Saddam... This the the real story ina nutshell...

Okay, I will be the first to admit that things in Iraq are very messed up... I, as well as others, perdicted the exact scenerio that we no see in Iraq: a full fledge civil war...

What to do??? Ahhhhh, fir starters: not what we have been doing, that much is for sure... If---and this is big if--- there is to be a political solution among the various parties that are now engaged in "civil war" it cannot be accomplished with an occupying army in their country...

Politically speaking, Bush has circled the wagons and bought a few more months but a few more months isn't going to change amything in the final chapter of Bush's ***bad decision***... Years won't either...

This ain't about a victory... This is about when we collectively see that this was ****and is**** unwinable...

Like I said earlier, there will be a nimority of Bushites who will argue to the grave that this was was winable, regardless of its outcome, just as there are a small minority of folks who thought if the US had just stayed, and stayed, and stayed in Vietnam then the US would have "won" but...

...then again, there are folks who still argue that the US never landed on the moon...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 01:37 PM

Dickey and Amos - Iran is not a threat to us.

"The people of Iran are probably the most pro-Western in the world, though that will not stop them fighting like hell if we are foolish enough to attack them. Not that they will do so with nuclear weapons any time soon. Iran is rather bad at grand projects. Its sole nuclear power station has never produced a watt of electricity in more than three decades, the capital's TV tower is unfinished after 20 years of work and Tehran's airport took 30 years to build."

"This is not some medieval theocracy where females are hidden away or forced to do the will of their menfolk. Men and women sit in animated mixed groups at the lunch tables, conversing as equals. Headscarves are worn. It is still the absolute law. But they are worn in such a way as to make a fool of that law. They are pushed back as far as they can go without actually falling off, held in place by no more than a blast of hairspray, revealing the front parts of elaborate and often vertical hairstyles - frequently blonde."

Please read this wonderfully, informative article.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23393411-details/Iran:+A+nation+of+nose+jobs,+not+nuclear+war/article.do


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 04:27 PM

Very well said Amos!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 04:00 PM

I dunno what vibes you're thinking of, Dick, but asserting that brute force is the only thing Muslims understand is like claiming that women enjoy rape.

There is a war of ideas afoot here, but it is NOT the war between shallow-minded Christians and shallow-minded Muslims. It is, rather, the war between the idea of coercion and the idea of dialogue and understanding. It is the war between the idea of wiping out your competitiors, rather than simply out-creating them in a postive direction. It is a war between a sane future or one haunted by insane slaughter. You get to pick which side you're on.

Rationalizations and false generalizations won't work.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Dickey
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 02:58 PM

Amos: We got some vibes.

Brute force seems to be the only thing the Muslim extermists believe in.

I hope that there is a large majority of Muslims that are not extremeists that will eventually win out but it seems to me they do not object enough about the actions of the extremists. It seems they sit idly by until one of theirs gets killed and then they want to blame the US for their relative or friend being killed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 02:55 PM

>>I have no doubt that Iran is probably arming Shia Militia but al Sadr's army is mainly involved in reprisal killings. They are not doing the bombing. They are not suicide bombers and they do not set road side bombs. It is the Sunnis (who George Bush is protecting) that are responsible for most of the carnage in Iraq.<<

Again, this is not what the administration alleges. According to them, Iran is training insurgents to build IEDs and the armor-piercing explosives. So either a good chunk of the insurgency is Shiite or Iran is training Sunnis. Neither seems likely but that is their spiel.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Dickey
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 02:41 PM

"Its what is right for the Iraqi people."

And they are the ones that should decide that by voting which was enabled by the toppling of Sadam. Maybe they will have to kill each other for 10 more years before they decide what is best.

Meanwhile you have al Qaeda and Iran stirring the violence, not the US. The US is trying to keep a lid on the violence like the police in a big city.

When The US pulls out, what happens then? All kisses ang hugs between Sunni and Shia? I don't think so.

Do you Believe it is best for the Iraqis if the US and the UK were to pull out?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 12:24 PM

282RA - If you look at the cities and other places that have been the most victimized, they are Shia. Shiites are not targetting Shiites. Sunnis are targeting Shiites. It appears that the bombs that have taken the greatest toll, have exploded in Shia towns, neighborhoods and market places.

The Bush administration SUSPECTS that Iran is arming the insurgency (both sides) but there is no proof that this is sanctioned by the Iranian govt. Its just more propaganda to deflect blame. In fact, the Sunni/al Qaeda militants have stated that they have the capability of making their own weapons. Some Iranian made weapons may have fallen into the hands of Sunnis but so have Russian and post Iraqi weapons.

I have no doubt that Iran is probably arming Shia Militia but al Sadr's army is mainly involved in reprisal killings. They are not doing the bombing. They are not suicide bombers and they do not set road side bombs. It is the Sunnis (who George Bush is protecting) that are responsible for most of the carnage in Iraq.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 11:39 AM

>>Who have been the victims of most of the bombs in Iraq? Its the Shiites! Saddam was a Sunni (Baathist)! Sunni are secularists and the people of Iraq have sufferred greatly as a result of U.S./Sunni and now al Qaeda bombings. Why would they want a Sunni govt.? Their alternative is a Shiite govt. Thats what they voted for.<<

According to the Bush administration, Iran is arming the insurgents who are killing most the American troops. So that means the Shia are doing most the killings since Iran is a Shiite nation who hate the Sunnis. If the administration is right, they're actually justifying leaving Saddam in power--as, of course, he should've been.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 08:34 PM

Well, when the Seanate Majority leade stands up and say "This war is lost," there is a good chance that things aren't excatly going too well... We're not talkin' about some freshman senator here but the majority leader...

I've been saying this along time now and evidence isn't exactly on the Bushite's side that I, or the good senator, are wrong in our assesments...

At some point in time the reality will set in with even the most partisan of the Bushites here that this war has been lost...

Okay, I recognize that there will be a small umber of them that will not accept the loss and will argue until the day they die that " we could have won if only ___________," just as those who argue that if we had just stayed in Vietnam then we would have eventually won...

This war was lost the day the Supreme Court stopped the recount in Florida in 2000!!!

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 02:43 PM

However that is one of the things that is causing the extremeists there to fight and kill each other. It is against their religion to treat men and women equally.


Dickey - This war is not about extemists killing and fighting each other about equal rights for women.

Its about who will hold power in Iraq. The people voted for a Shia majority government. For all you know, the woman with the purple finger voted for a Shia. It doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks is right. Its what is right for the Iraqi people.

Who have been the victims of most of the bombs in Iraq? Its the Shiites! Saddam was a Sunni (Baathist)! Sunni are secularists and the people of Iraq have sufferred greatly as a result of U.S./Sunni and now al Qaeda bombings. Why would they want a Sunni govt.? Their alternative is a Shiite govt. Thats what they voted for.

This is not a women's issue. Don't even try to use women as an excuse for this war. It has nothing to do with women's rights and all to do with power and that power is in the hands of men, not women. Doesn't matter what your religion is, women of the Middle East are culturally dominated by men. Life is more important than the veil, at this point.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:39 PM

The American Enterprise Institute is the think tank that sold Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld and other like minded meglomaniacs on an American ownership of the World. On the idea we could spend the new Peace dividend on an Iraq War that would then sustain itself on the oil profits.

Well, look at the freedom we sold Iraq. Look at the massive new American debt.

It failed.

The neocons lost that war.

The IRaq Parlament says so.

Congress says so.

Sure neocons can start a new one but we are down to nuclear options now.

The rats are leaving the ship now that they have stirred up a Islamic nationless hornets nest which is full of real and present danger.

Even Clear Channel sold ALL their TV stations today.

The president advertised for a War Cazr to take over.
There were no takers.

what more proof do you need that the war is lost?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 11:50 AM

"Then it (Iraq) becomes a satellite of the US. British Petroleum and Exxon can then rape the country of its oil."

Did the good Mr. Chomsky state exactly how this could be done Frank?

"North Vietnam and North Korea still remain pretty much the same despite US agression."

Well when you consider that there is now only a Vietnam (No North and South) that leaves us with North Korea. Care to provide some examples of US aggression with respect to that country Frank. If memory serves me correctly the only aggressor to have run roughshod over the Korean penninsula since the end of the Second World War has been North Korea itself, that aggression having been confronted successfully by a United Nations Force.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 10:48 AM

As Noam Chomsky has said in his interview with Amy Goodman, sure you can win in Iraq by utterly destroying the country and its people. Then it becomes a satellite of the US. British Petroleum and Exxon can then rape the country of its oil.

The same pattern followed historically in Vietnam and the difference is today there is more protest sooner than there was during the Viet war years. North Vietnam and North Korea still remain pretty much the same despite US agression.

You can't win in a foreign country by pre-emptive war unless you are prepared to utter destroy that country. You can occupy it but only for so long until the inhabitants of the country rise up to defeat the occupiers.

Iraq is a lose-lose proposition.

Frank Hamilton


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 10:46 AM

My hope is that the moderates will come together and oppose the extremists and gradually wind down the violence. That may be an impossible thing to some people but I think it is better to have a positive attitude rather than a defeatist attitude.



I agree completely. I do not have a defeatist attitude about the Middle East. But I think by being lured into a contest of brute force, which is an addiction that is well practiced in Iraq and other Muslim countries, we are being sucked into playing the wrong game. I much prefer the quiet certain courage of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the conquest of ideas over the slaughter of innocents as proof of might.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 10:40 AM

Clear Channel just sold ALL of their TV stations.

What do you think this means.

the neocons have lost?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 10:37 AM

Amos: I see you have the ability to back off which is good. My compliments.
I realize that I get overheated some times and revert to rhetoric.

My Colonel Beauregard scenario could be construed as biased and biggoted. I was trying to illustrate the fact that you do not ask the person with the advantage if they are taking advantage of someone, you ask the someone it they are being taken advantage of.

I think women in Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and still in Iraq some cases are not treated well but change is possible. The woman with the purple finger illustrates that. However that is one of the things that is causing the extremeists there to fight and kill each other. It is against their religion to treat men and women equally.

My hope is that the moderates will come together and oppose the extremists and gradually wind down the violence. That may be an impossible thing to some people but I think it is better to have a positive attitude rather than a defeatist attitude.

Who ever accomplished anything with a defeatist attitude?

Pork goes to War

Thomas Schatz New York Times
March 30, 2007

EMERGENCY spending bills are called "Christmas trees," for the unrelated "ornaments" that are added by members of Congress. (They are exempt from budget rules and are almost never vetoed, making them magnets for pork.) The nickname is usually not literal, but the Senate's version of the fiscal 2007 supplemental appropriations bill that passed yesterday includes, among scores of other nonessential items, money {$40 million] for Christmas-tree growers.

Behind all their lofty rhetoric about the Iraq war and bringing home the troops, members of the House and Senate were busy tacking on $20 billion and $18.5 billion respectively in unrelated spending to President Bush's $103 billion request. (He intends to veto the bill.)

Despite their campaign talk about earmark reform last fall, the new Democratic leadership shamelessly used pork to buy votes — before the vote, Representatives Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Peter DeFazio of Oregon acknowledged that add-ons for their districts would influence their decisions.

The heavyweights also led by example: the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, added $20 million to eradicate Mormon crickets, and David Obey of Wisconsin, the House Appropriations Committee chairman, came away with $283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract Program.
This chart, which is a partial list of some of the most egregious earmarks, shows that the new bosses are already feeding at the trough, and "war pork" threatens to sink their fiscal credibility.

Harry Reid: The war is lost. (but give me my pork and I will vote to extend it some more)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 08:59 PM

Amos--

Your Moyers article is indeed worth reading--and I'm sure the show is worth watching. And it's also true that the editorial page of the WSJ was one of the top cheerleaders for the Iraq war--and still thinks both that we will "win" and that it's essential to do so.

But in fact it was the Wall St Journal---the reporting--which showed me clearly the pathetically feeble nature of the Bush regime's case for the war. The reporting exposed the drivel that passed for logic in the Bush regime--and demolished the house of cards the regime built to justify its tragically stupid war.

I look for objective reporting when I can find it--and figured the WSJ was my best bet--certainly over blogs, the New York Times, and other media which can be easily attacked as biased.

So when the WSJ pointed out in great detail the extreme unlikeliness of an alliance between Saddam and Osama--particularly given their histories--that toppled one of the main pillars the Bush regime was using. The WSJ also severely questioned the WMD argument--and pointed out the propaganda windfall for Osama that the war was likely to be..

So even before the war I had enough of what I considered objective evidence to realize the Bush regime was far from making the case it needed to in order to justify the war.

And I called the White House comment line and told them so.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 02:24 PM

ALthough I will not retract my comments on Mister Dickey's photo-rhetoric, I do think he deserves an apology for mine.

Here is an article which changed my thinking. I also recommend the recent book called Infidel, which describes in detail what it like to grow up as a young woman under strict Muslim rules.

I think I had underestimated the degree to which law-by-priesthood and obsessions about imaginary rectitude had permeated Iranian culture since the eviction of the Shah Pahlavi regime.

A.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 12:07 PM

An interesting writeup concerning the web of media-hypnosis and administrative bullshit that ramped the nation into war.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 02:08 PM

Arne, old chum,

YOU have refuted nothing. The UN stated that Iraq was "NON_COMPLIANT" with the resolution, not me.


Arne is an eedjit and should be kept appropriately sedated and restrained for the duration of any social occasions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Arne
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 01:57 PM

BeardedBruce:

btw, UNR 1441 was 8 Nov 2002. With a 30 DAY time limit ( not met) for compliance.

That's a lie. I've refuted this hogwash of BB's previously, but like a good Dubya-butt-sucker, he just trots it out again a month or two later.

U.N. inspectors started inspections Nov. 27th, and Iraq handed over 12,000 pages of documentation on Dec. 7th.

There were complaints on the level of co-operation (including an unaccountable complaint that the 12,000 pages of documentation were too much, and intended to obfuscate things), but Iraq did formally "comply". Further issues with the level and nature of compliance were being worked out. But BeardedBruce thinks (as did Dubya) that the proper response is to go in immediately with full guns blazing (and in the process, ruin Iraq, kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and several thousand young U.S. soldiers, and shred the U.S. military and economy). BeardedBruce is an eedjit and should be kept appropriately sedated and restrained for the duration of any social occasions.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 07:10 AM

"Another plane is flown into the Pentagon in Washington D.C. No one in the building is hurt but everyone aboard the hijacked plane die."

Not quite accurate.

"The Pentagon attack killed 184 people: Fifty-three passengers and six crew members on board American Airlines Flight 77, and 125 military and civilian personnel inside the building."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 01:20 AM

Actually, Dickie, I would prefer that you not use women or women's issues to attempt to confirm your faulty logic. If you are a man, you don't have a clue about women's issues. If you want to feel sorry for women, take a look at Saudi Arabia, the U.S. ally.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:26 PM

Dickey:

Words of one syl-la-ble, pal. You tried to paint Iran as land which hangs wo-men by showing one pic-ture. Not log-i-cal. I e-ven showed you pic-tures of ma-ny o-ther wo-men in same land who not hanged, buy per-fume, smile. Your pic-ture not true as ex-ample, more as ex-cep-tion. See?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:14 PM

You're not a bigot. You're an asshole.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Dickey
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:11 PM

Amos:

Explain how the comparison of the fate of the two women is "an attempt at bigotry"

Would Dianvan prefer the purple finger over being hung from a crane?

None of you could debate your way out of a paper bag so you need to constantly use hostile personal attacks and straw man issues to bolster your faulty logic.

Huge cut and pasts are accepted from some people but jeered if posted by other people and I am accused of bigotry.

Bigot: One who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: 282RA
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 07:09 PM

[I've been trying to put together a road to American involvement in Iraq. This is sketchy and incomplete but it offers some possible answers.]

1992 – The Wolfowitz Doctrine was drawn up at the tail end of the Bush I presidency. After losing the election to Bill Clinton, the plan was presented to him on February 18 and presented as the Defense Planning Guidance for the fiscal years of 1994-99. Written by the U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the doctrine stated that the U.S. should act unilaterally to engage in "pre-emptive intervention" against other nations deemed as a threat i.e. any nation seeking superpower status. The United States, the doctrine stated, should be the only superpower and all other nations eliminated as potential rivals including not allowing them access to vital natural resources (such as oil) that could give them global leverage even if that natural resource was located within their own borders. The doctrine was leaked to the New York Times and created such an outcry due to its aggressively imperialist rhetoric that it was retracted and rewritten under the direction of Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell and re-released in April. Clinton shelved it.

2000 – George W. Bush elected 43rd U.S. president despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore. Richard Cheney became vice president and Colin Powell secretary of state. Scooter Libby became Cheney's chief-of-staff. According to Paul O'Neill, former Bush cabinet member and secretary of the treasury until resigning in 2002, "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go." From there, came the idea that the U.S. should topple him from power. "For me," said O'Neill, "the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap." During National Security Council meetings, O'Neill was surprised that no one raised any questions about why Iraq should be invaded. "It was all about finding a way to do it," O'Neill states. "That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this.'"

2001 – A cell of al-Qaeda operating out of the Taliban-governed Afghanistan and under the leadership of Saudi native Osama bin Laden attacks and destroys the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11th. Two hijacked commercial passenger liners were flown into the WTC setting it ablaze and causing its collapse. Several thousand people lose their lives. Another plane is flown into the Pentagon in Washington D.C. No one in the building is hurt but everyone aboard the hijacked plane die. Another hijacked passenger liner crashed into a field in Pennsylvania before reaching its intended target which may have been the White House. All aboard are killed. Bush vows to find and punish those responsible especially bin Laden, his deputy al Zawahiri and Afghanistan's leader Mullah Omar.

A few days later, the CIA station chief in Rome received some documents from the Italy's intelligence service, SISMI (Servizio per le Informazioni e la Sicurezza Militaire), concerning the sale of 500 tons of uranium oxide called "yellowcake" from Niger to Iraq. MI6, the British spy agency, also had been investigating the claim which seemed to stem from a 1999 visit by the Iraqi ambassador to Niger where French officials wondered if Iraq might be trying to obtain yellowcake to make nuclear weapons or fuel rods (Niger being a former colony of France which still owns and oversees part of Niger's yellowcake industry). The Rome CIA station chief filed the documents with the CIA's Operations Directorate in Langley, Virginia and then promptly dismissed them as non-credible. Langley, in turn, sent copies to the CIA's European and Near Eastern divisions as well as to the CIA's Intelligence Directorate and to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Langley included the information in the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief that was distributed to senior policymakers and congressional intelligence committees in October. The brief made clear the information was dubious.

By November 20, the U.S. Embassy in Niger received copies of the documents and investigated the claims of Iraq attempting to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake from Niger and found it wanting. They communicated their findings to the State Department where analysts agreed that such a sale could not be kept secret and was therefore highly unlikely. Besides, Iraq had no had no plants to process the uranium.

The U.S. government pressured the French government to investigate the claims in the documents. After determining the documents were forgeries and even journeying to Niger to look around, French investigators found nothing.

2002 – In the wake of 9-11, Bush unveiled the National Security Strategy of the United States, a.k.a. the Bush Doctrine. A virtual rehash of the original Wolfowitz Doctrine a decade before, the Bush Doctrine stated that "military pre-emption" and unilateral action must be employed for purposes of "extending democracy, liberty, and security to all regions." Rather than deterring and containing threats as had been the past U.S. foreign policy, the Bush Doctrine advocated aggressive military action before any such threat could develop. The doctrine describes its foreign policy as "muscular."

On February 5, the CIA received more Iraq-Niger documents from SISMI and deputy commander in charge of U.S. armed forced in Europe, General Carlton Fulford, Jr. went to Niger to investigate a connection and found no evidence that one existed. The DIA also wrote a report on the documents, which were obvious forgeries that the CIA had failed to catch. When Vice-President Cheney read the DIA report, he demanded another investigation into the Iraq-Niger connection. The CIA sent a former ambassador to Iraq, Joseph C. Wilson IV, to Niger to assess the intelligence. Like those before him, Wilson learned that Niger had two uranium mines—Somair and Cominak. Both mines were owned and run by a multinational consortium consisting of France, Germany, Spain, Japan and, of course, Niger. To remove 500 tons of uranium (1/6 of Niger's annual output) from these mines to sell to another nation would require the approval of the consortium as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) not to mention the minister of mines and the prime minister of Niger (who would no doubt notify Niger's president).

In March, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) released a report titled Niger-Iraq: Sale of Niger Uranium to Iraq Unlikely. The large number of trucks needed to transport 500 tons of uranium to Iraqi cargo vessels would be prohibitive as well as requiring them to cross international boundaries in order to transport the cargo over a thousand miles to the proper ports. In short, far too many people would know about the deal if it had occurred which was so improbable that the intelligence could be dismissed outright. The matter was laid to rest…or should have been.

By September, the DoD released a report titled Iraq's Reemerging Nuclear Program which alleged that "Iraq has been vigorously trying to procure yellowcake and uranium ore." British intelligence sources made the same allegations later in the month which the British government released in a report of its own.

In October, a Milan reporter named Elisabetta Burba working for a newspaper called Panorama received a call from an Italian businessman named Rocco Martino who made money on the side selling various and sundry intelligence documents and he had sold some to Burba in the past and she found him a credible source. Martino called Burba and told her that he had some documents she might want to look at so she flew from Milan to Rome on October 7 and met Martino in a restaurant. He handed her a dossier containing papers written in French. Among the papers was a letter, written in all caps like a telex, from Niger's president, Mamadou Tandja, to Saddam Hussein confirming a deal to ship 500 tons of yellowcake in two phases to Iraq. The letter, bearing Niger's official letterhead, was dated October 27, 2000.

Without further analysis and checking, Burba could conclude nothing except, if the letter was genuine, it would blow the lid off a major covert operation. She took the dossier and its contents and told Martino she would need to corroborate the evidence and, if she could do so, would talk with him later about payment. Martino agreed. Burba flew back to Milan and showed her boss, Carlo Rosella, Panorma's editor, what she had obtained from Martino. Rosella suggested showing the documents to the Americans at the embassy in Rome. Burba flew back to Rome on October 9 and met with Ian Kelly at the American Embassy. They talked and then Burba gave Kelly the documents.

The same day Burba met with Martino in Rome, Bush gave a speech in Cincinnati where he stated that Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." By December, the State Department repeated the Iraq-Niger allegation prompting the government of Niger issued a strong denial of the charge.

2003 – On January 20, the White House included the allegation in a report to Congress while Paul Wolfowitz, now deputy defense secretary under Donald Rumsfeld, repeated the charge to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City the same day. Meanwhile, the New York Times published an op-ed piece called Why We Know Iraq Is Lying written by National Security Secretary Condoleezza Rice where she too repeated the allegation about Iraq trying to purchase uranium ore. Secretary of State Colin Powell asked, "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?" in a speech given before the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 26.   

Two days later, Bush delivered his State of the Union address to Congress and spoke of the need to attack Iraq alleging it was building an arsenal that can be used against any other country including the United States. To bolster his case, he offered several pieces of information supposedly gleaned from various intelligence agencies. One of them results in what are now known as "the 16 words": "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Iraq was under U.N. sanctions and not allowed to constitute any weapons programs. Yet, Bush insisted that Iraq had somehow stockpiled this frightening new weaponry that consisted of over 25,000 liters of anthrax ("enough doses to kill several million people"), over 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ("enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure"), approximately "500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" along with "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents." Serious allegations. Bush called these "weapons of mass destruction" which eventually became known simply as "WMD." How Saddam Hussein had managed to stockpile this huge arsenal under strict U.N. sanctions was not explained. Bush's assertions, however, were not met with doubt simply because the memory of the horror of 9-11 was still fresh in the minds of the American people.

The 16 words played a large role in convincing the American public of the need to test the Bush Doctrine on Iraq. Invade and disarm Iraq before it gets a chance to use any of their illegal weapons. Let their oil revenues pay for reconstruction. On February 6, Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations about the need to take action against the machinations of the Iraq and Hussein. Powell's address was highly detailed and very specific about the threat Iraq posed. Audiotapes, satellite photographs, statements taken during interrogation of suspects seized in Afghanistan, intercepted radio messages, allegations made by Iraqi defectors and so on provided the details of Powell's address. If the rest of the world was still not convinced that Saddam Hussein posed a huge threat to global stability, the United States and Britain bought the allegations virtually without question.

The American press was virtually unanimous in its praise of Powell's speech calling it "impressive in its breadth and eloquence" (The San Francisco Chronicle), that the speech was "more than sufficient to dispel any lingering doubt about the threat the Iraqi dictator poses" (The Denver Post), that "Mr. Powell eliminated any reasonable doubt" (The Washington Times), that "Only the blind could ignore Powell's evidence" (The Dallas Morning News) and the San Jose Mercury News even added that Powell made his address "with no exaggeration, a rhetorical tool he didn't need."

Indeed the American press was complicit and instrumental in selling the Iraq invasion to the public. Few journalists or newspapers sat down to go over the evidence presented in Powell's speech. Had they done so, they would have been forced to retract their praise and recognize that exaggeration was virtually all Powell's speech was—exaggeration and outright lies. Whether Powell knew them to be lies remains a subject of debate but today we know for certain that they were deliberate deceptions. Regardless, Powell's speech along with Bush's SOTU address were enough for Congress to authorize Bush to invade Iraq on March 20.

Four months after Powell's speech, about three months after the United States had already invaded and began occupying Iraq having toppled Saddam from power, U.S. News & World Report became one of the first, if not the first, paper to question the allegations presented by Powell before the U.N. They printed one damning bit of evidence that tells us quite clearly that Powell knew full well that he was lying even as he addressed the U.N. assembly: Upon reading the original draft of the speech, Powell shouted, "I'm not reading this! This is bullshit!" Two months later, Charles J. Hanley, an AP reporter, meticulously critiqued Powell's speech to the U.N. and found it laden with falsehoods and errors which set off war critics. The American people began to grouse about the faulty data and even the necessity of the invasion but it was too late.

With Powell's speech thoroughly discredited, attention turned to Bush's SOTU address and its allegation contained in the 16 words regarding Iraq attempting to purchase uranium ore from Africa ostensibly for use in making nuclear weapons.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 02:05 AM

Well said, 282RA!

If the U.S. really gave a shit about the women of the Middle East, they would have invaded Saudi Arabia a long time ago.

There's something really slimy about men who try to use women's rights as a reason for war.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 12:28 AM

We kiss Saudi ass all the time and Saudi women must have a desultory life since they're not allowed to go to school, to work, to drive, to travel around the country without a husband to accompany them. Yet Saudi women seem to accept it. When the US knocked the Taliban out of power after 9-11, Afghan women were reluctant to remove the burkhas.

So if dickey or whoever is going to show a photo of a lynched Iranian woman as some kind of proof of how bad Iran is then why didn't we attack Iran rather than Iraq where women DID go to school, have jobs, could drive, etc. etc.? In fact, didn't Iraqi women already have the right to vote before we invaded? And, if so, don't their votes count for no less of a sham now than they did then? At least Saddam supplied then with the basic amenities of life. The govt they vote for now can offer them nothing. Actually it offers but it doesn't deliver.

More and more suicide bombers are women. Early in the invasion, I saw a teen Iraqi boy on some program say that he liked the Americans and wanted to work with them. His sister heard him and she started yelling that the Americans ruined their lives and that she hated them and that they should go home before they make things worse (which they did). We're not exactly seeing Arab women throwing themselves into the arms of the big strong American GI Joe begging to save them from the barbaric, chauvinistic Arab/Muslim men.

Whatever we think of their treatment, it only matters what they think. It's their culture and we're going to have to learn to respect it. Obviously the vast majority consider Islam and all its misogynistic values to be a lesser evil than being occupied by Americans.

I've been there and it's a different culture. Arab people are strange by our standards. They're not easy to understand. I think any Muslim society is that way for us. But we're strange to them too. It's not right of us to go charging into Iran to save their womenfolk. I don't think their womenfolk want to see our ass.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 03:00 AM

100 up


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 01:13 AM

Oh, bullshit, Dickey. You take one picture of a hanged woman, presumably Iranian, and say it represents the status of women in Iran. That is an attempt at bigotry. I have no idea what you thought you were doing, but it was pure codswallop to make the insinuation.

It is not my strawman -- I just said it was the kind of thing your friend Rush would try to pull. Making sweeping nasty generalizations from precious little specifics and making them look like a widespread situation was a specialty of his, and yours. It's just primitive chaos-mongering. No-one should be fooled by it, althugh it can get people riled up.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Dickey
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 12:14 AM

John F. Kerry 2003

"As I said last summer in New York, for Democrats to win America's confidence we must first convince Americans we will keep them safe. You can't do that by avoiding the subjects of national security, foreign policy and military preparedness. Nor can we let our national security agenda be defined by those who reflexively oppose any U.S. military intervention anywhere...who see U.S. power as mostly a malignant force in world politics...who place a higher value on achieving multilateral consensus than necessarily protecting our vital interests....
...Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Dickey
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 12:01 AM

Amos: How did you make that connection? There is your use of a straw man issue again. No body said there was a connection but you imply someone did, compare them to Limbaugh.

Also you accuse me of being biggoted for showing the difference in the status of women in Iraq compared to women in Iran. As proof of this biggotry you say you asked a man about it and he said there is no problem. Your biggotry tells you that if a man says there is no problem, you can believe him but if a woman complains, she can't be believed.

In both instances, your logic is flawed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 01:47 PM

Donuel,

As long as there is breath in the lungs of Bushites there will never be a "Final Defeat" because they are "true believers", much like the horses in "Animal Farm" and will keep respinning the story until they drop in the field... Maybe they will succeed, much the way partisans and folks of other motivation have done to sanitize the Bush administartion's failures much the way that Abe Lincoln's failures have been respun, sanitized to the point where now most folks who haven't really bothered to study history think that Lioncoln was so kinda hero...

But ya' have to hand it to revisionist... They sometimes can pull of making chicken salad oyut of chiken sh*t...

So there will never be a "Final Defeat"... The current crop of partisans will pass the stories down to their kids who will pass the stories down to their kids and... Historians will be bought much as flat earth scientist are have been bought during Bush's first 6 years...

And the beat goes on...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 01:26 PM

It seems very off-the-wall to me that offenses against women in Iraq's pre-invasion prison system are being blamed on Iran. Kinda like something your man Limbaugh would come up with.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 12:16 PM

Amos: The friend was not a woman. And you call me biggoted? Ask an Iranian Woman

The Iraq Liberation Act
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, THE WHITE HOUSE, October 31, 1998.

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
    Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
    The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
    My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
    In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
    On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
    The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 12:08 PM

Women in Iran, alternative view.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 11:57 AM

I have a serious question.

What does a FINAL defeat have to look like for George W Bush to recognize it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 11:54 AM

Your bigotry is showing, good DIck. I spoke recently with an Iranian who is now a US citizen, and reurned to Tehran to visit his parents. The Shiite society of Iran is actually much more tolerant about Sharia law, and much mor e liberal towards women, then the Sunni.

None of which, BTW, has much bearing on the thread's title or topic.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 11:32 AM

Women in Iraq

Women in Iran


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 11:26 AM

Today the Baghdad bridege that was bobmbed did not fall into the river like the one last week.

The surge is officially considered a failure by the Parliment since the green zone bombing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 11:24 AM

The situation in 1998 and th esituation in 2002 were quite different. I don't see the logic of prorposing that a description of conditions in the past which have changed shuld be used as an explanation for action in the present. SSeems to me it is ignoring time itself, always a mistake.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 11:13 AM

Bobert: I appologize. I had that in mind when I was posting but I thought it would fit in one screen. I was in too much of a hurry and I failed to preview it. I will take more time in the future.

Now back to the good fight :D


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: TIA
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 10:32 AM

Amen BB


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 10:14 AM

I agree with Bobert on this one: Some quotes, and a link would have been better.

For one thing, most of those here will not bother to read what was posted, for fear of finding something they do not agree with. They can just ignore the clicky and attack the poster, instead.

"You can't teach a pig to sing"... Nor inform someone who wants to remain ignorant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 10:10 AM

Dickey,

Maybe you weren't here back when Joe Offer stated that cut and posts longer than a screen's worth are taboo...

This is about the longest one since then so maybe Joe's request needs to be revisited...

A link is just fine... Or, as Amos usually does, a short synopsis or a ccouple paragrapghs and a link...

Just good Cat/cyber manners...

Now back to the food fight...

Bobert:]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 09:53 AM

Clinton Letter on Weapons of Mass DestructionThe White House
Office of the Press Secretary
By President Clinton, November 12, 1998

Dear Mr. Speaker:

On November 14, 1994, in light of the dangers of the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons ("weapons of mass destruction" -- WMD) and of the means of delivering such weapons, I issued Executive Order 12938, and declared a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). Under section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), the national emergency terminates on the anniversary date of its declaration, unless I publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the Congress a notice of its continuation.

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. Indeed, on July 28, 1998, I issued Executive Order 13094 to strengthen Executive Order 12938 by, inter alia, broadening the types of proliferation activity that is subject to potential penalties. I am, therefore, advising the Congress that the national emergency declared on November 14, 1994, must continue in effect beyond November 14, 1998. Accordingly, I have extended the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12938, as amended, and have sent the attached notice of extension to the Federal Register for publication.

On July 28, 1998, I amended section 4 of Executive Order 12938 so that the United States Government could more effectively respond to the worldwide threat of weapons of mass destruction proliferation activities. The amendment to section 4 strengthens Executive Order 12938 in several significant ways. The amendment broadens the type of proliferation activity that subjects entities to potential penalties under the Executive order. The original Executive order provided for penalties for contributions to the efforts of any foreign country, project or entity to use, acquire, design, produce, or stockpile chemical or biological weapons; the amended Executive order also covers contributions to foreign programs for nuclear weapons and for missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, the amendment expands the original Executive order to include attempts to contribute to foreign proliferation activities, as well as actual contributions, and broadens the range of potential penalties to expressly include the prohibition of United States Government assistance to foreign persons, as well as the prohibition of United States Government procurement and imports into the United States.

The following report, which covers activities on or before October 31, 1998, is made pursuant to section 204 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1703) and section 401(c) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)), regarding activities taken and money spent pursuant to the emergency declaration. Additional information on nuclear, missile, and/or chemical and biological weapons (CBW) proliferation concerns and nonproliferation efforts is contained in the most recent annual Report on the Proliferation of Missiles and Essential Components of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons, provided to the Congress pursuant to section 1097 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-190), also known as the "Nonproliferation Report," and the most recent annual report provided to the Congress pursuant to section 308 of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-182), also known as the "CBW Report."

Nuclear Weapons

In May, India and Pakistan each conducted a series of nuclear tests. In response, I imposed sanctions on India and Pakistan as required by the Glenn Amendment. Beyond our unilateral response, world reaction was pronounced and included nearly universal condemnation across a broad range of international fora and a broad range of sanctions, including new restrictions on lending by international financial institutions unrelated to basic human needs and aid from the G-8 and other countries.

Since the mandatory imposition of U.S. sanctions, we have worked unilaterally, with other P-5 and G-8 members, and through the United Nations to dissuade India and Pakistan from taking further steps toward creating operational nuclear forces, to urge them to join multilateral arms control efforts, to persuade them to prevent an arms race and build confidence by practicing restraint, and to resume efforts to resolve their differences through dialogue. The P-5, G-8, and U.N. Security Council have called on India and Pakistan to take a broad range of concrete actions. The United States has over the past 5 months focused most intensely on several objectives that can be met over the short and medium term: an end to nuclear testing and prompt, unconditional adherence to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT); a moratorium on production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices, and engagement in productive negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT); restraint in deployment of nuclear-capable missiles and aircraft; and adoption of controls meeting international standards on exports of sensitive materials and technology.

Against this backdrop of international pressure on India and Pakistan, U.S. high-level dialogue with Indian and Pakistani officials has yielded some progress. Both governments, having already declared testing moratoria, indicated publicly that they are prepared to adhere to the CTBT under certain conditions. Both withdrew their opposition to negotiations on an FMCT in Geneva at the end of the 1998 Conference on Disarmament session. They have also pledged to institute strict control of sensitive exports that meet internationally accepted standards. In addition, they have resumed bilateral dialogue on outstanding disputes, including Kashmir, at the Foreign Secretary level.

In recognition of these positive steps and to encourage further progress, I decided on November 3 to exercise my authority under the Brownback provision of the 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill (Public Law 105-277) to waive some of the Glenn sanctions. Through this action, I have authorized the resumption of Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Trade and Development Agency, and International Military Education and Training programs in India and Pakistan and have lifted restrictions on U.S. banks in these countries. We will continue discussions with both governments at the senior and expert levels, and our diplomatic efforts in concert with the P-5 and in international fora.

So far, 150 countries have signed and 21 have ratified the CTBT. During 1998, CTBT signatories conducted numerous meetings of the Preparatory Commission (PrepCom) in Vienna, seeking to promote rapid completion of the International Monitoring System (IMS) established by the Treaty.

On September 23, 1997, I transmitted the CTBT to the Senate, requesting prompt advice and consent to ratification. The CTBT will serve several U.S. national security interests by prohibiting all nuclear explosions. It will constrain the development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons; end the development of advanced new types; contribute to the prevention of nuclear proliferation and the process of nuclear disarmament; and strengthen international peace and security. The CTBT marks a historic milestone in our drive to reduce the nuclear threat and to build a safer world.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) held its 1998 Plenary in Edinburgh, Scotland, March 30 to April 2, on the twentieth anniversary of the publication of the Nuclear Suppliers Guidelines. With 35 member states, the NSG is a mature, effective, and widely accepted export-control arrangement. Over the past 7 years the NSG has established a Dual-Use Regime (DUR), agreed to require full-scope safeguards as a condition of nuclear supply, created an effective Joint Information Exchange, and strengthened controls over technology and retransfers. The NSG is considering further activities to promote regime transparency, following the success of the 1997 Vienna transparency seminar, and is preparing for a transparency seminar in New York during the run-up to the 1999 NPT PrepCom.

The NSG is considering membership for Belarus, China, Cyprus, Kazakhstan and Turkey. China is the only major nuclear supplier that is not a member of the NSG, although China did join the Zangger Committee last year and recently has expressed an interest in learning more about the NSG.

The NPT Exporters (Zangger) Committee has demonstrated its continued relevance to the multilateral nonproliferation regime as the interpreter of Article III-2 of the NPT by the membership of China in October 1997 by recently agreeing to a statement deploring the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests. This is the first time the Zangger Committee has ever issued a statement not directly related to publication of its Guidelines. Furthermore, the Zangger Committee is considering a U.S. proposal to add conversion technology to the Trigger List.

Chemical and Biological Weapons

The export control regulations issued under the Enhanced Proliferation Control Initiative (EPCI) remain fully in force and continue to be applied by the Department of Commerce in order to control the export of items with potential use in chemical or biological weapons or unmanned delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction.

Chemical weapons (CW) continue to pose a very serious threat to our security and that of our allies. On April 29, 1997, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (the Chemical Weapons Convention or CWC) entered into force with 87 of the CWC's 165 signatories as original States Parties. The United States was among their number, having deposited its instrument of ratification on April 25. Russia ratified the CWC on November 5, 1997, and became a State Party on December 5, 1997. As of October 31, 1998, 120 countries (including Iran, Pakistan, and Ukraine) have become States Parties.

The implementing body for the CWC -- the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) -- was established at the entry into force (EIF) of the Convention on April 29, 1997. The OPCW, located in The Hague, has primary responsibility (along with States Parties) for implementing the CWC. It collects declarations, conducts inspections, and serves as a forum for consultation and cooperation among States Parties. It consists of the Conference of the States Parties, the Executive Council (EC), and the Technical Secretariat (TS).

The EC consists of 41 States Parties (including the United States) and acts as the governing body for the OPCW between annual meetings of the Conference of the States Parties. Since EIF, the EC has met numerous times to address issues such as scale of assessments, CW production facility conversion requests, facility and transitional verification arrangements, and staff regulations.

The TS carries out the verification provisions of the CWC, and presently has a staff of approximately 500, including about 200 inspectors trained and equipped to inspect military and industrial facilities throughout the world. The OPCW has conducted nearly 300 inspections in some 20 countries. It conducted nearly 100 such inspections in the United States. The OPCW maintains a permanent inspector presence at operational U.S. CW destruction facilities in Utah, Nevada, and Johnston Island.

The United States is determined to seek full implementation of the concrete measures in the CWC designed to raise the costs and risks for any state or terrorist attempting to engage in chemical weapons-related activities. The CWC's declaration requirements improve our knowledge of possible chemical weapons activities. Its inspection provisions provide for access to declared and undeclared facilities and locations, thus making clandestine chemical weapons production and stockpiling more difficult, more risky, and more expensive.

The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 was enacted into law in October 1998, as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277). Accordingly, we anticipate rapid promulgation of implementing regulations on submission of U.S. industrial declarations to the OPCW. Submission of these declarations will bring the United States into full compliance with the CWC. United States noncompliance to date has, among other things, undermined U.S. leadership in the organization as well as our ability to encourage other States Parties to make complete, accurate, and timely declarations.

Countries that refuse to join the CWC will be politically isolated and prohibited under the CWC from trading with States Parties in certain key chemicals. The relevant treaty provision is specifically designed to penalize in a concrete way countries that refuse to join the rest of the world in eliminating the threat of chemical weapons. We anticipate rapid promulgation of U.S. regulations implementing these CWC trade restrictions.

The United States also continues to play a leading role in the international effort to reduce the threat from biological weapons (BW). We are an active participant in the Ad Hoc Group (AHG) striving to complete a legally binding protocol to strengthen and enhance compliance with the 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stock-piling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (the Biological Weapons Convention or BWC). This Ad Hoc Group was mandated by the September 1994 BWC Special Conference. The Fourth BWC Review Conference, held in November/December 1996, urged the AHG to complete the protocol as soon as possible but not later than the next Review Conference to be held in 2001. Work is progressing on a draft rolling text through insertion of national views and clarification of existing text. We held four AHG negotiating sessions in 1998, and five are scheduled for 1999.

On January 27, 1998, during the State of the Union Address, I announced that the United States would take a leading role in the effort to erect stronger international barriers against the proliferation and use of BW by strengthening the BWC with a new international system to detect and deter cheating. The United States will work closely with U.S. industry to develop U.S. negotiating positions and then to reach international agreement on: declarations, nonchallenge clarifying visits, and challenge investigations. Other key issues to be resolved in the Ad Hoc Group in 1999 are details on mandatory declarations, placement of definitions related to declarations, and questions related to assistance and export controls.

On the margins of the 1998 U.N. General Assembly, senior United States Government representatives attended a Ministerial meeting hosted by the Government of New Zealand and sponsored by the Government of Australia to promote intensified work on the Compliance Protocol. I will continue to devote personal attention to this issue and encourage other heads of state to do the same.

The United States continued to be a leading participant in the 30-member Australia Group (AG) CBW nonproliferation regime. The United States attended the most recent annual AG Plenary Session from October 12-15, 1998, during which the Group continued to focus on strengthening AG export controls and sharing information to address the threat of CBW terrorism. At the behest of the United States, the AG first began in-depth political-level discussion of CBW proliferation and terrorism during the 1995 Plenary Session following the Tokyo subway nerve gas attack earlier that year. At the 1998 plenary, at the behest of the United States, AG participants shared information on legal and regulatory efforts each member has taken to counter this threat. The AG also reaffirmed its commitment to continue its active outreach program of briefings for non-AG countries, and to promote regional consultations on export controls and nonproliferation to further awareness and understanding of national policies in these areas.

The Group also reaffirmed the participants' shared belief that full adherence to the CWC and the BWC is the best way to achieve permanent global elimination of CBW, and that all States adhering to these Conventions have an obligation to ensure that their national activities support this goal. The AG participants continue to seek to ensure that all relevant national measures promote the object and purposes of the BWC and CWC. The AG participants reaffirmed their belief that existing national export licensing policies on chemical weapons-and biological weapons-related items help to fulfill their obligations established under Article I of the CWC and Article III of the BWC that States

Parties not assist, in any way, the acquisition, manufacture, or use of chemical or biological weapons. Given this understanding, the AG participants also reaffirmed their commitment to continuing the Group's activities, now that the CWC has entered into force.

During the last 6 months, we continued to examine closely intelligence and other reports of trade in CBW-related material and technology that might be relevant to sanctions provisions under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991. No new sanctions determinations were reached during this reporting period. The United States also continues to cooperate with its AG partners and other countries in stopping shipments of proliferation concern.

Missiles for Delivery of Weapons of Mass Destruction

The United States continues to carefully control exports that could contribute to unmanned delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction and to closely monitor activities of potential missile proliferation concern. We also continue to implement the U.S. missile sanctions law. In April 1998, we imposed Category I missile sanctions against North Korean and Pakistani entities for the transfer from North Korea to Pakistan of equipment and technology related to the Ghauri missile. Sanctions imposed against two North Korean entities in August 1997 for transfers involving Category II Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Annex items also remain in effect.

During this reporting period, MTCR Partners continued to work with each other and with potential non-Partner supplier and transshipment states to curb proliferation. Partners emphasized the need for implementing effective export control systems and cooperated to interdict shipments intended for use in missile programs of concern.

The United States was an active participant in the MTCR's highly productive May 1998 Reinforced Point of Contact (RPOC) Meeting. At the RPOC, MTCR Partners engaged in an in-depth discussion of regional missile proliferation concerns, focusing in particular on South Asia. They also discussed steps Partners could take to increase transparency and outreach to nonmembers, and reached consensus to admit the Czech Republic, Poland, and Ukraine to membership in the MTCR. (Reports on their membership have been submitted to the Congress pursuant to section 73A of the Arms Export Control Act.)

In May 1998, the United States was an active participant in the German-hosted MTCR workshop on brokering, catch-all controls, and other export control issues. In June, the United States played a leading role at the Swiss-hosted MTCR workshops on risk assessment in MTCR licensing decisions. The workshops involved the participation of MTCR Partners, as well as several non-MTCR members, and were successful in providing practical insights on export control and licensing issues. In particular, it helped participants identify risk factors and ways to assess them. The MTCR held its Thirteenth Plenary Meeting in Budapest,

Hungary on October 5-9. At the Plenary, the MTCR Partners shared information about activities and programs of missile proliferation concern and considered additional steps they can take, individually and collectively, to prevent the proliferation of delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction, focusing in particular on the threat posed by missile-related activities in South and North East Asia and the Middle East.

During their discussions, the Partners gave special attention to North Korean (DPRK) missile activities, expressing serious concern about the DPRK's missile export practices and its efforts to acquire increasingly long-range missiles. The MTCR Plenary Chairman issued a statement reflecting the Partners' concerns, noting in particular that the Partners urged the DPRK to refrain from further flight tests of WMD-capable missiles and to cease exports of equipment and technology for such missiles. The Partners also agreed to maintain special scrutiny over their missile-related exports in order not to support North Korean missile development in any way.

At Budapest, the Partners also discussed ways to further the MTCR's efforts to promote openness and outreach to nonmembers, including by sponsoring additional seminars and workshops for members and nonmembers. The Partners supported a U.S. proposal for an MTCR-sponsored workshop in 1999 on "intangible transfers of technology," in order to develop a greater understanding of how proliferators misuse the Internet, scientific conferences, plant visits, and student exchange programs to acquire sensitive technology and to identify steps countries can take to address this problem. They also agreed to give further consideration to a technical-level workshop for border guards and Customs authorities on export control enforcement. In addition, the Partners noted China's increased willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue on missile nonproliferation and export control issues, and renewed their previous invitation in principle to China to take the steps necessary to join the Regime.

The Partners also made additional progress at Budapest toward reformatting the MTCR Annex (the list of MTCR-controlled items) to improve clarity and uniformity of implementation while maintaining the coverage of the current Annex. They hope to complete this process in the near future.

During this reporting period, the United States also worked unilaterally and in coordination with its MTCR Partners to combat missile proliferation and to encourage nonmembers to export responsibly and to adhere to the MTCR Guidelines. Since my last report, we have continued missile nonproliferation discussions with China and North Korea and other countries in Central Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

In October 1998, the United States and the DPRK held a third round of missile talks, aimed at constraining DPRK missile production, deployment, flight-testing, and exports. The United States expressed serious concerns about North Korea's missile exports and indigenous missile activities, and made clear that we regard as highly destabilizing the DPRK's attempt on August 31 to use a Taepo Dong 1 missile to orbit a small satellite. We voiced strong opposition to North Korea's missile exports to other countries and made clear that further launches of long-range missiles or further exports of such missiles or their related technology would have very negative consequences for efforts to improve U.S.-North Korean relations. The talks concluded with an agreement to hold another round at the earliest practical date.

In response to reports of continuing Iranian efforts to acquire sensitive items from Russian entities for use in Iran's missile development program, the United States continued its high-level dialogue with Russia aimed at finding ways the United States and Russia can work together to cut off the flow of sensitive goods to Iran's ballistic missile development program. This effort has netted some positive results. For example, during this reporting period, Russia began implementing "catch-all" provisions imposing controls over the export of any material destined for a WMD or missile program, and provided detailed implementing guidance on these controls for Russian entities. Russia also agreed to meet regularly with the United States to discuss export control issues. In addition, at the summit in September, President Yeltsin and I announced the formation of seven bilateral working groups -- nuclear, missile, catch-all and internal compliance, conventional weapons, law enforcement, licensing, and customs -- for the rapid exchange of information on the wide range of nonproliferation issues.

In July, Russia launched special investigations of nine entities suspected of cooperating with foreign programs to acquire WMD and missile delivery systems. Russia subsequently took steps to end exports to Iran by three of these entities and to pursue two of the cases as smuggling issues. Consistent with the Russian action, the United States took action against seven of the nine entities in July pursuant in part to Executive Order 12938, as amended. We suspended all United States Government assistance to these seven entities and banned all U.S. exports to them and all of their imports to the United States."

http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/nuclear/Clinton111298.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 09:45 AM

"....SUBJECT: U.S. Policy on Counterterrorism (U)

It is the policy of the United States to deter, defeat and respond vigorously to all terrorist attacks on our territory and against our citizens, or facilities, whether they occur domestically, in international waters or airspace or on foreign territory. The United States regards all such terrorism as a potential threat to national security as well as a criminal act and will apply all appropriate means to combat it. In doing so, the U.S. shall pursue vigorously efforts to deter and preempt, apprehend and prosecute, or assist other governments to prosecute, individuals who perpetrate or plan to perpetrate such attacks. (U)

We shall work closely with friendly governments in carrying out our counterterrorism policy and will support Allied and friendly governments in combating terrorist threats against them. (U)

Furthermore, the United States shall seek to identify groups or states that sponsor or support such terrorists, isolate them and extract a heavy price for their actions. (U) ..."

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm


Bill Clinton 1998 :
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Al Gore 2002:
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 22 January 3:36 AM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.