On Iraq and the UN

from PolMach Forums
Some interesting links to look at on the US policy in Iraq and Americans views on the UN and multilateralism.....

Former Iraq administrator Bremer says that poor planning led to an "atmosphere of lawlessness" in Iraq and points to the two major mistakes we made in the invasion. 1) Not following the Powell doctrine (overwhelm with troops) and 2) not stopping the looting and violence immediately. For the rest:
Link

Zakaria's (Editor, Newsweek International) article is interesting. Did you know 66% of Americans approve of working within the UN even if it is a policy we don't like? Some other interesting finds from the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations...
Link

Rumsfeld now joins Powell in saying there are no WMD in Iraq. “It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction,” Rumsfeld said. “And why the intelligence proved wrong, I’m not in a position to say. I simply don’t know." He also backs up the 9/11 Commission finding of no collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaida. Rumsfeld said. “To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two." This was during a Q&A with the bipartisan Council on Foreign Relations.
Link

Just some food for thought.....
politics
15,288 views 24 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's actually a major step for Rumsfeld to admit no known link between Saddam and Al Qaida.

Maybe we'll see conspiracy theorists beginning to admit the same now.

So no WMD, no Al Qaida links? What was the reason for invasion again?

Paul.
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top

Reply #1 By: Citizen Solitair - 10/5/2004 2:40:38 AM
It's actually a major step for Rumsfeld to admit no known link between Saddam and Al Qaida.

Maybe we'll see conspiracy theorists beginning to admit the same now.

So no WMD, no Al Qaida links? What was the reason for invasion again?


Then they wouldn't be conspiracy theorists!!!

I agree with you though. I think it's important that the PM of Britain, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense all now say that they were wrong on WMD being in Iraq. I think the Bremer information is important too. The administrator on the ground in Iraq didn't think there was enough troops to provide security? I know he's not a general in charge of military ops but shouldn't someone in the administration have listened if he thought we needed more troops on the ground since he was right there in Iraq? Solitair, if you didn't get a chance to read the Zakaria article, give it a read....it's an interesting take on how Americans view themselves on global issues.
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you waht an expended view about our Policy in Iraq, as well as our domentic policy which combines the facts and opinions of over 28 sources, read "Four More For George W?" This book is receiving some great reader comments. Look at them on www.amazon.com.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Rumsfeld has actually backtracked on his statement about there being no ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The Guardian has the story: Link
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
What I like is that there are some people that still adamently proclaim there are WMD's and that Iraq is going swimmingly, come on guys, where are you?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
The CIA just released a report, that had been requested by VP Dick Cheney, that further undercuts the claims of President Bush and the VP about the Iraq-al-Qaida link. This is separate from the very same conclusion by the 9/11 Commission Report that said the same thing! It is time Bush admit the error we made by going into Ieaq and STOP TELLING the American people the Iraq War is any part of the War on Terrorism. The only reason there is terrorist activity in Iraq today is becaure of our invasion! We have traded an Evil Dictator for a terrorist Hot Bed. Some accomplishment!
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
What I like is that there are some people that still adamently proclaim there are WMD's and that Iraq is going swimmingly, come on guys, where are you?


All I can hear are crickets....

PRE DEBATE NOTE:
Kerry has called on Cheney to back Bremer's assertions about mistakes made in the war in Iraq...
Link
This could be a hint of what Edwards will ask Cheney tonight.

MORE ON THE GLOBAL TEST:
Bush either 1) is not good at reading comprehension or 2) willfully ignoring Kerry's statement about the "global test" as it is his new buzzword on the campaign trail (surpassing "mixed messages" but still behind "working hard" and "flip-flopper"). Of course if you read the Zakaria article in the original post above, you could see how this could backfire on Bush....just for reference here is what Kerry said:

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America," the Democrat told moderator Jim Lehrer during the debate.
"But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Here's an article where Kerry expands on the remarks above. Link
Particularly important is where Kerry says, "But I can do a better job of protecting America's security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere. If you do things that are illegitimate in the eyes of the other people, it's very hard to get them to share the burden and risk with you."

Which is true. Have fun watching the debate tonight!!!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, Rumsfeld sort of backtracked. What he said was that the media misunderstood his comment -- that he hadn't seen any hard evidence of an Al-Qaeda Iraq connection -- to mean that he didn't think there was any evidence. Rumsfeld says that he meant that the CIA was responsible for determining whether there was a connection, not he. Basically, he's saying he's agnostic on the matter. Of course, the CIA has pretty consistently said -- as of late -- that there is no hard connection, and that the Bush adminstration ignored CIA warnings about this in the run-up to the Iraq War.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not surprised that Rumsfeld backtracked. He can't say one thing while the vice president states another in a presidential debate. Members of government need to support the official view whatever their personal beliefs. It is beginning to look like only Cheney and Bush still believe in this link though.

Paul.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
As far as Iraq is concerned the Administration was quite aware that there were no WMD in Iraq. The CIA is on record stating tbat the consignment of Alluminium rods which Powell in his notorious UN speech held up as evidence for making a centafuge turns out to be of the gauge to make small weapons. It is unlikely that the CIA was not aware of this fact.. As for Blair he, unlike George II, has successfully covered up, his governemnt's complicity in manufacturing "sexed up" reports on Iraq. Maybe Bush needsto take lessons in statecraft from his pet poodle, Tony Blair.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #10 By: Bahu Virupaksha - 10/6/2004 3:20:53 AM
As far as Iraq is concerned the Administration was quite aware that there were no WMD in Iraq. The CIA is on record stating tbat the consignment of Alluminium rods which Powell in his notorious UN speech held up as evidence for making a centafuge turns out to be of the gauge to make small weapons. It is unlikely that the CIA was not aware of this fact.. As for Blair he, unlike George II, has successfully covered up, his governemnt's complicity in manufacturing "sexed up" reports on Iraq. Maybe Bush needsto take lessons in statecraft from his pet poodle, Tony Blair.


At the time *everyone* believed the WMD's in Iraq. That *INCLUDES* the CIA. We went in based on intel that was given by our alphabet soup (CIA, NSA, etc) to the president
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
True,
but will the government have the integrity to stand up and say they got it wrong. They were the ones who sold this information to the public as being true. They were the ones who ridiculed other peoples assertions (such as France) that there was not enough proof. Making a decision to invade another country for pre-emptive reasons that later turned out to be false is a serious issue. They got it wrong and need to admit so. More important they need to reveal what they'll do in future to ensure that that American troops will never be sent to invade a foreign country because of false information again.

Or maybe WMD and 9/11 links were not why they invaded? In which case they need to make this clear and explain why these were the main reasons given to the American public if they weren't the real reasons.

Paul.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #12 By: Solitair - 10/6/2004 9:01:06 AM
True,
but will the government have the integrity to stand up and say they got it wrong. They were the ones who sold this information to the public as being true. They were the ones who ridiculed other peoples assertions (such as France) that there was not enough proof. Making a decision to invade another country for pre-emptive reasons that later turned out to be false is a serious issue. They got it wrong and need to admit so. More important they need to reveal what they'll do in future to ensure that that American troops will never be sent to invade a foreign country because of false information again.


You need to put your head on straight. The *government* didn't get it wrong! The CIA and British intel did! And just how are they supposed to stop possibly false info? Have them run the CIA and gather the intel themselves? Get a grip man, just what are you supposed to do if the people running the USA's fact finding org give you bad intel? Of course you can replace the people who were in charge of the CIA but whats to say the replacements won't be as bad?
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
So now the CIA has admitted that there were no stockpiles of WMD...

Link

Bush in a speech two years ago, "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

The CIA report: Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.

Of course the spin now is that Saddam had the "intention" to get WMD by being "ambiguous." (Warner-R, VA)
versus
The U.S. official said he believes Saddam decided to give up his weapons in 1991 and Iraq's nuclear program "was decaying" by 2001to the point where Iraq was -- if it even could restart the program -- "many years from a bomb."

-CNN
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok Drmiler,

Lets start with what we agree on.

CIA and British intelligence reports were wrong in amny ways. If you have a look at some of the declassifed reports though it becomes clear that the governments (both UK and US) took the reports far further and with far more definity than the intelligence communities wanted.

So what decisions should the goverment be responsible for

- emphasing parts of the reports that they felt said what they wanted (Bush using nuclear link despite CIA protests in state of union address for example)
- repeatedly telling people that Saddam had WMD and was a growing threat. (despite others trying to argue otherwise, Blix, France)
- sending troops to war. (this is an executive decision, not a CIA decision)

I expect them to admit that they were wrong in these cases and to apologise for them. I don't expect them to take personal responsibility for the CIA's mistakes, though many people point to the fact that the president IS ultimately responsibly for the CIA.

What I don't uinderstand Drmiler is why you don't feel there should be any accountability or responsibility at government level. Yes the CIA got things wrong, but so did the government. It can't dump the blame for it's decisions purely on the CIA. They wanted a war and were completely unscientific in their analysis of the information. They knew what they wanted to see and immediately believed the parts of CIA reports they liked and ignored the others. I don't understand why you feel it's acceptable for your elected representatives to repeatedly lie to you and then pin the blame purely on bad intelligence.

Paul.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #15 By: Solitair - 10/7/2004 3:28:45 AM
Ok Drmiler,

Lets start with what we agree on.

CIA and British intelligence reports were wrong in amny ways. If you have a look at some of the declassifed reports though it becomes clear that the governments (both UK and US) took the reports far further and with far more definity than the intelligence communities wanted.

So what decisions should the goverment be responsible for

- emphasing parts of the reports that they felt said what they wanted (Bush using nuclear link despite CIA protests in state of union address for example)
- repeatedly telling people that Saddam had WMD and was a growing threat. (despite others trying to argue otherwise, Blix, France)
- sending troops to war. (this is an executive decision, not a CIA decision)

I expect them to admit that they were wrong in these cases and to apologise for them. I don't expect them to take personal responsibility for the CIA's mistakes, though many people point to the fact that the president IS ultimately responsibly for the CIA.

What I don't uinderstand Drmiler is why you don't feel there should be any accountability or responsibility at government level. Yes the CIA got things wrong, but so did the government. It can't dump the blame for it's decisions purely on the CIA. They wanted a war and were completely unscientific in their analysis of the information. They knew what they wanted to see and immediately believed the parts of CIA reports they liked and ignored the others. I don't understand why you feel it's acceptable for your elected representatives to repeatedly lie to you and then pin the blame purely on bad intelligence.


First off you are based your opinions on declassified documents only. I'd be willing to bet that there are a ton of them we ain't seen yet. And *until* you and I see ALL the documents we are operating blind.I am not saying that there should be no accountablity at government level. What I am saying is people are dumping ALL this shit on Bush. Which ain't fair! All he did was act on the intel reports he was given and the advice of the people around him. If you are saying this was all Bushs idea Then you are buying into the Dems spin and think Bush is the great evil mastermind.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of course it is not ALL Bush's fault.

In the UK we have had a formal inquiry so that we don;t have to wait 30 years to get to the truth. That revealed that Blair had not lied but had obviously emphasised intelligence that he wanted over conflicting results. He had failed to let the intelligence community do their job basically. Information coming from the US over the past two years suggests that Bush did the same. He interferred in the analysis and evaluation of data to ensure that the final reports were heavily biased.

Everyone involved has certain levels of responsibility. The three levels of responsibility are

intelligence community
elected representatives
governemnt

The intelligence community were responsible for obtaining the raw data, analysing it and forming reports based on that data. They made mistakes here andon the whole they have admitted these. They did not however argue a case for going to war or tell the American people that Saddam had to go. That was not their responsibility. They also had interference at the analysist level, with government doing it;s own analysis on much of the data ensuring that the data they wanted was emphasised more than it should have been.

The elected representatives totally failed. Where the hell were the intelligence oversight comittiees? Surely they must have seen the interference with analysis going on. Why didn't they flag the major problems with how the information was being presented and warped. Why didn't they ask serious questions about statements being made to the public that were known to be false.

The government (Bush, Blair, etc) hold responsibiltiy for the decisions they made and the way they sold the war. They walked over the intelligence community in their attempts to get data supporting their case for war. They made the case and then looked for justification. Most importantly of all they were the people who lied to the public. Whether knowingly or not doesn't change the fact that they lied. Only 2 years earlier a minister in Tony Blairs government resigned for unknowingly misleading parliament. Yet Tony Blair has done the same? It's this lack of integrity and trust that upsets me the most.

So yes, Bush is not to blame for all the wrongs. But he should stand up and take responsibility for his failings in this matter. Likewise Blair should do the same.

Paul.
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
Russian Intelligence, somebody forgot to add that one, it was US, British, and Russian intelligence that goofed, which is pretty bad when all three intelligence superpowers screw up, wonder if Israel's intelligence screwed up as well?

- GX
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
British intelligence didn't quite goof. Yes they got it wrong, but their initial reports acknowledged the weakness of some of the data and sources. In my mind that's an acceptable goof. here's what we think, BUT these are the intelligence problems ... ...

These 'problems' were then removed by the politicians.

They didn't so much goof, they let the politicians interfere.

Paul.
Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top
Former Iraq administrator Bremer says that poor planning led to an "atmosphere of lawlessness" in Iraq and points to the two major mistakes we made in the invasion. 1) Not following the Powell doctrine (overwhelm with troops) and 2) not stopping the looting and violence immediately


What I find interresting is that he waits until right before the election to bring this up, he didn't say it during the countless press briefings he had in Iraq, he didn't bring it up when he was finished with his job in Iraq, or in his final report. He waits until right before the election to do it. Lets keep in mind he was the one who absolved the Iraqi military and put thousands of soldiers out of work wandering the streets in Iraq with no way to support themselves or their families. As a matter of fact I believe it was at his suggestion that it be done. I think he bears some of the blame. I think he is just trying to say "Not my fault". And before you all bring it up, yes all of this is bush's responsibility over all, but you can't tell me bremer couldn't have forced his hand by using the media to his advantage.

As far as not overwhelming with troops, how long did it take us to take Baghdad? I don't think we needed more troops to overwhelm them. Yes i'll agree we needed more for the security AFTER the initial invasion, but not for the invasion itself. But we can also thank Turkey for that, seeing as they decided after we had the 4th Infantry division there not to let them go into Iraq from their country therefore delaying the most modern division in our military by almost a month. But somehow we still did it without them.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
The timing of any report or comment will be politically suspect coming up to an election. I expect both political sides will be making politically motivated comments in the coming days and weeks.

As Bremer was responsible for much of the planning he personally should be apologising for his mistakes. If he feels Washington was to blame then he should point that out, but only AFTER he apologises for his mistakes.

I'd also not throw too much blame at Turkey. The US bribed the Turkish government will Billions in aid (about 16B) in return for letting them use Turkey as a base. Turkey agreed, but it was the anger from the general population at such obvious bribery and corruption that caused Turkey to cancel the deal. Nothing wrong with the Turkish population being upset at the thouht of being bought. Wrong tactic and a bit of a much up (especially by the Turkish government)

paul.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Turkey agreed, but it was the anger from the general population at such obvious bribery and corruption that caused Turkey to cancel the deal.


You can't discount Turkey's hunger to enter the EU, and the anti-war nations they have to heel for in order to get into the club...
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
The UK, Spain and Portugal are all in the EU and were supporting the US. As were other countries trying to get into the EU. Not a good arguement I'm afraid it didn't stop others supporting the US and gaining entry in May this year.

Paul.
Reply #24 from PolMach Forums Top
British intelligence didn't quite goof. Yes they got it wrong, but their initial reports acknowledged the weakness of some of the data and sources. In my mind that's an acceptable goof. here's what we think, BUT these are the intelligence problems ... ...

These 'problems' were then removed by the politicians.

They didn't so much goof, they let the politicians interfere.


(As pointed out by Bakerstreet in the Duefler(sp?) Report) Though even Saddam's Generals did not know that Iraq possessed no WMDs. So when even the Generals of Iraq think they have WMDs, than I guess it was not a goof at all but Saddam pulling the wool over everybody's eyes.

Saddam is one crazy _________________________________________________ (fill in the blank with all terms that apply to Saddam) bastard!

- GX