<div> </div>
<div>All-</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Research? Who does research, outside their professional life, in our specialized world where career and money dominate? As if, before supporting a military invasion of another nation, citizens have an obligation to investigate beyond the sound bites of political leaders? Iraq has WMDs that threaten the US with a "mushroom cloud over America," says the chief executive? Must be true. Politicians don't lie, do they? Especially born again devout religious political leaders. Iraq has ties to Al Queda? Why of course! Just don't ask why Bin Laden slipped away during the US invasion of Afghanistan, now in hiding in Afghanistan/Pakistan, in an area known as a sanctuary for Islamic militants, while the bulk of our military effort was refocused to invade a nation where Al Queda never found sanctuary, given the enmity because Saddam and Bin Laden. And if someone questions the honesty of a political leader who happens to be a "conservative" (though G. W. Bush makes a mockery of many essential conservative values), just call them a "left winger." That will put them in their place. As if deception and falsehoods uttered to justify taking the US to war is an issue that should not arouse the opposition of all beyond partisanship, regardless of political/economic orientation or religion.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It appears Bush/Cheney got away with it, their grand deception to scare monger the US public and the US Congress into invading and occupying Iraq, given the lack of public and congressional will to hold them accountable, the astonishing disinterest in facing the gravity of the implications of the president and vice president manipulating the public into war based on half truths, distortions, omissions of critical facts, and out right fabrications (yellow cake uranium supplied to Iraq evidence based on forged documents, with Ambassador Wilson and Valerie Plame attacked for their exposure of this fraud).
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Note that article three of Kucinich's articles of impeachment against Cheney focuses on military threats against Iran. We shall find out how serious these threats are.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The author of the book below provides ample documentation of distortions and deceptions involved in pushing for the invasion of Iraq:</div>
<div>------------------</div>
<div><strong><font size="5">Our Nation Betrayed: The Iraq WMD Intelligence Deception<br><br></font>Garland Favorito<br></strong></div>
<div>Although many reasons have been given for the March 19, 2003 invasion of Iraq, the invasion was based on one single overriding concern as explained by Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, on May 28, 2003: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on". However, since no significant evidence of those weapons was found, President Bush and Congress recently agreed to investigate the so-called intelligence "failure". But like many Congressional investigations, this one has been set up to avoid answering key questions while wasting millions of taxpayer dollars that do not even exist because of huge budget deficits. The focus of the investigation was limited so that it addresses only the gathering of intelligence but not how forthright the administration presented intelligence to Congress, the
U.N. or the American public. The Bush administration is also appointing all committee members so the investigation can hardly be independent. In addition, the scope was expanded to include intelligence on other countries such as Libya, Syria and North Korea and the time frame was pushed into 2005 so that the findings would not impact the 2004 election. Since the Congressional investigation has been corrupted, I have produced the following analysis of the exact intelligence known PRIOR to the invasion and what the investigation will never reveal to the American public.
<br><br><b>IRAQ WMD INTELLIGENCE SUMMARY</b><br><br>The following general points are key to understanding the Iraq WMD intelligence deception:<br>1. Public testimony by the U.N. weapons inspectors at the U.N. Security Council just 12 days BEFORE the Iraq invasion rebutted all
U.S. and British weapons charges against Iraq, which is why most of the rest of the world opposed the U.S. and British led invasion; <br><br>2. U.S. intelligence conclusions prior to October 2002 about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were very consistent with the conclusions of the
U.N. weapons inspectors, corroborating the fact that Iraq was not an imminent threat to U.S. security; <br><br>3. In October 2002, the CIA produced a declassified National Intelligence Estimate with false key judgments about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in spite of dissents from several other
U.S. intelligence agencies; <br>4. No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq after the U.S. and British led invasion in March 2003 and the evidence also corroborated U.N. weapons inspectors conclusions that no such weapons or programs had existed in Iraq since 1998;
<br><br>5. Many Bush administration officials made dozens of false statements to the U.N., Congress and the media about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction;<br><br>6. The rationale to invade Iraq under the premise of weapons of mass destruction originated in the Project for the New American Century whose advocates include key Bush administration personnel Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle and Richard Armitage;
<br><br>7. No "opposing" Democrats can truthfully say that they were misinformed by the Bush administration since all had access to the public U.N. weapons inspector testimony and some also had access to U.S. intelligence corroborating those
U.N. conclusions.<br><br>Detailed evidence for each of these points is provided in the following separate sections.<br><br><b>1. PUBLIC REBUTTAL OF U.S. CHARGES AGAINST IRAQ BY U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTORS</b><br><br>On March 7, 2003, just a week prior to the
U.S. and British led invasion of Iraq, the U.N. Security Council received testimony from the heads of the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons inspectors concerning any weapons of mass destruction possessed by Iraq. Their testimony represented the unanimous conclusion of over 100
U.N. weapons inspectors who were on site in Iraq for four months just prior to the invasion beginning in November, 2002. Unlike the Bush and Blair administrations, these inspectors, who were from all over the world, had had no vested interest in invading Iraq. They publicly refuted every charge that Secretary of State, Colin Powell, made about chemical and biological weapons could not be substantiated.
<br>During his verbal report, Mohammed Elbaradei, the chief U.N. nuclear weapons inspector dramatically refuted all Bush and Blair administration assertions against Iraq regarding its nuclear program. <br><br>· "The nuclear weapons program is defunct"
<br>· "There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities or prohibited activities"; <br>· "There is no indication that Iraq is attempting to import enriched uranium"; <br>· "There is no indication that Iraq is attempting to import tubes for uranium enrichment".
<br>· "There is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in centrifuge development"<br><br>Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector for chemical and biological weapons, indicated that they found nothing to support Bush / Blair claims and added.
<br>· "No evidence so far has been found for mobile biological weapons units"; <br>· "No underground facilities were found for chemical and biological weapons (so far)".<br><br>Also contrary to Bush administration claims and reports from our national news media of stymied inspections, Elbaradei told the
U.N. Security Council that:<br>· "Iraq has been forthcoming", <br>· "Inspections are moving forward" and <br>· They have made "important progress". <br><br>Blix corroborated Elbaradei's testimony as he told the council that chemical and biological weapons inspections had "few difficulties".
<br><br>But perhaps the most remarkable testimony was that of Elbaredei regarding documents supplied by the U.S., British and Israeli governments about the "agreement between Iraq and Nigeria for the sale of uranium between 1999 and 2001" that was purported to be for procurement of enriched uranium. Elbaredei stated: "Iraq has provided a comprehensive explanation of its relations with Niger". "The IA was able to review correspondence from the government of Niger and compare full format contents and signature of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement related documentation". "Based on thorough analysis the IA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are, in fact, not authentic"
<br><br>Thus, the U.S. and British governments had provided falsified documents to the U.N. to justify the invasion of Iraq. No wonder, Colin Powell stated illogically at the same meeting that: "We must not allow Iraq to shift the burden of proof onto the inspectors". The conclusions of the
U.N. weapons inspectors were further corroborated as being accurate by additional U.S. searches on the ground after the Bush / Blair administrations ignored the inspectors and invaded Iraq anyway.<br><br><b>2. U.S. INTELLIGENCE PRIOR TO OCTOBER 2002 WAS VERY CONSISTENT WITH
U.N. CONCLUSIONS</b><br><br>U.S. intelligence conclusions about Iraq weapons of mass destruction prior to October 2002 were almost totally consistent with the conclusions of the U.N. weapons inspectors. This has been proven by a thorough, recently released study of declassified intelligence from the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace entitled WMD in Iraq, Evidence and Implications. The entire study can be viewed by all at:
<a href="http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/IraqReport3.asp">http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/IraqReport3.asp</a>. Portions of the study were entered into the Congressional Record at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on February 4, 2004 to counter a claim by Sec. of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, that intelligence conclusions were consistent between the Bush and Clinton administrations. Rumsfeld offered no response to this study.
<br><br>The study contrasted the March 2003 conclusions of U.N. weapons inspectors, the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), U.S. intelligence prior to the October 2002 NIE and on ground survey results compiled after the March 2003 invasion by the Iraq Survey Group. The following table illustrates those conclusions on five key charges that were made against Iraq:
<br><br>March 2003 U.N. 2002 U.S. Intelligence Oct. 2002 NIE Post March 2003 Survey<br>Iraq reconstituted nuclear program after 1998 Probably Not Probably not Yes No<br>Iraq attempted to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons No Possibly Yes No
<br>Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from abroad No No Yes No<br>Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons Possibly Undetermined Yes No<br>Iraq had covert chemical weapons production facilities Undetermined Probably Not Yes No
<br>Iraq had current biological weapons facilities Undetermined Undetermined Yes No<br>Iraq reconstituted it biological weapons program Undetermined Yes Yes No<br>Iraq possessed 7+ mobile biological weapons labs Undetermined Not Mentioned Yes Probably Not
<br><br>In these examples of key charges against Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors were found to be the most accurate, closely followed by U.S. intelligence prior to October 2002. The only consistently inaccurate intelligence regarding these charges is the October 2002 NIE, produced by the Central Intelligence Agency and entitled Key Judgments from the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction". Details to support this table are provided in the subsequent sections.
<br><br><br><b>3. THE OCTOBER 2002 NIE MADE FALSE JUDGMENTS ABOUT IRAQ IN SPITE OF DISSENTS FROM OTHER U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES</b><br><br>The CIA's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), is more than simply inaccurate. It is a collection of false, deceptive and speculative judgments with dissenting
U.S. intelligence conclusions that were not usually mentioned during Congressional testimony. In nearly every case of incorrectly stated judgments, the change from an accurate to inaccurate judgment occurred when this document was created as shown in the previous table. The judgments were found to be false by the
U.N. and contradicted by other U.S. intelligence agencies, some of whose conclusions were even stated in the same document. Here are several examples of the false judgments including contradictory findings or statements of dissent from the State Dept. Intelligence Bureau (State/INR), Dept. of Energy Intelligence (DOE) and
U.S. Air Force intelligence and a partially declassified Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document:<br><br><b>3A. NUCLEAR WEAPONS FALSE JUDGMENTS AND DISSENTS</b><br><br>October 2002 NIE: "Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors - as well as Iraq's attempts to acquire magnets, high speed balancing machines and machine tools - provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program"
<br>October 2002 NIE State INR Dissent: "The activities we have detected do not add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider an integrated, comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment". The State Dept. Intelligence bureau also concluded "The tubes were not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapons".
<br>October 2002 NIE State INR Dissent: "Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and find unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose". "The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapons program"
<br><br>October 2002 NIE DOE dissent "...the tubes probably are not part of the program".<br><br>October 2002 NIE: "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellow cake"<br>October 2002, NIE State/INR dissent: "Claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious"
<br><br>October 2002 NIE: "In the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program"<br>October 2002 NIE State/INR dissent: "INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of
U.N. inspectors or to project a timeline for completion of activities it does not now see happening"<br><br><b>3B. CHEMICAL WEAPONS FALSE JUDGMENTS AND DISSENTS</b><br><br>October 2002 NIE: "Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents", "...the regime has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX", "Iraq probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 (MT) of CW agents - much of it added in the last year"
<br>U.S. Air Force dissent: "The Director, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, U.S. Air Force, does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents. The small size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability"
<br><br><b>3C. BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS FALSE JUDGMENTS AND CONTRADICTORY FINDINGS</b><br><br>October 2002 NIE: "We judge that all key aspects - R&D, production and weaponization - of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced that they were before the Gulf War"
<br>March 7, 2003 U.N. testimony: "No evidence so far has been found for mobile biological weapons units". "No underground facilities were found for chemical and biological weapons (so far)"<br><br><b>
3D. MIISSILE FALSE JUDGMENTS AND CONTRADICTORY FINDINGS</b><br><br>October 2002 NIE: "Baghdad has exceeded U.N. range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles"<br>2002 U.N. Tests: The U.N. found that 13 of 40 Al Samoud 2 missiles exceeded the range when NOT equipped with payloads or guidance systems.
<br><br><b>3E. OTHER FALSE JUDGMENTS AND CONTRADICTORY FINDINGS</b><br><br>October 2002 NIE: "Iraq would probably attempt clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable…" "The Iraqi Intelligence Service probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against the
U.S. and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the U.S. takes action against Iraq"<br>March 2003 Invasion: Proven false by time and events<br><br>The basis for some of the false intelligence judgments in the October 2002 NIE may have originated from defectors provided by the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmed Chalabi who the
U.N. knew was not credible. Chalabi was placed in charge of the Congress by the Bush administration despite not having lived in Iraq since 1956. He was also wanted in Jordan since 1992 to serve a 22-year sentence for a 60 million dollar bank fraud resulting from the collapse of the Petra bank he founded in 1977.
<br><br>Regardless of the source of the judgments, this CIA document falsely stated that Iraq was significantly advancing its nuclear, chemical, biological and missile weaponry, all of which were blatantly false accusations as explained in the previous and subsequent sections. In a review of the basic summary text body, I found 20 false judgments, 7 deceptive assertions and only 6 essentially true statements that could not be disputed as false or deceptive. Many of the judgments are also speculative rather than being factually based, as you would expect in a credible intelligence document. It should be clear to any unbiased observer that the extent of false judgments, deceptions and speculations mean that this CIA document cannot possibly be an intelligence "failure" or "mistake". It could only be a deliberate creation of false, deceptive and speculative information to justify a planned Iraq invasion.
<br><br><br><b>4. NO SIGNIFICANT POST INVASION EVIDENCE OF WEAPONS WAS UNCOVERED</b><br><br>President Bush and CIA director Tenet selected David Kay to head the Iraq Survey Group for weapons evidence gathering after the invasion. The appointment gave them good reason to expect a report consistent with the October 2002 NIE and favorable to the administration charges against Iraq. Kay was one of the only
U.S. weapons inspectors who supported the charges against Iraq right up until the March 2003 invasion. He frequently opposed former U.N. weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, who stated facts that have now been proven to be true about how Iraq was not a threat to
U.S. security.<br><br>Although David Kay is frequently referred to now as a CIA analyst, his relationship with the CIA was not so publicly well known when he was a U.N. weapons inspector in 1998. Although supposedly an impartial inspector, Kay was actually working for the CIA, which likely explains why his conclusions at that time conflicted with most other
U.N. weapons inspectors. Kay was ultimately responsible for getting the U.N. weapons inspectors kicked out of Iraq in December 1998 after his U.S. team passed bombing target information back to the Clinton administration. President Bill Clinton subsequently bombed Iraq on December 18, 1998 in a futile attempt to avoid his own impeachment the day before the House vote.
<br><br>In his January 20, 2004 State of the Union address President Bush referenced the October 2, 2003 testimony of David Kay before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Bush cleverly stated: "already the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations". This is a very deceptive statement since Kay's testimony had already closed the door on three of the four investigative areas regarding weapons of mass destruction.
<br><br>In regards to nuclear weapons Kay testified: "We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material". In regards to chemical weapons Kay testified: Multiple sources with varied access and reliability have told ISG that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce and fill new CW munitions was reduced, if not completely destroyed…". In regards to CIA claims of missiles exceeding their range limits, Kay testified: "We have not discovered documentary or material evidence to corroborate those claims".
<br><br>Kay gave the most favorable report possible for the administration under the circumstances by leaving the door open on some potential biological activities and equipment as stated by President Bush. These involved CCHF and Brucella agents, a special type of botulinuum B and trailers that were the "strongest evidence to date" of biological weapons according to the May 28, 2003 CIA/DIA report entitled Iraqi Mobile Biological Agent Production Plants. However, after DIA engineers determined that the trailers were used for hydrogen weather balloons and Kay's team found that Iraq never weaponized any of the agents, Kay was forced to conclude that there were no biological weapons either. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee in his January 28, 2004 testimony that: "It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing".
<br><br>Kay's opening statement was actually more accurate: "…we were almost all wrong and I certainly include myself here". In reality, several U.S. intelligence agencies, such as the State/INR, DIA, DOE and Air Force intelligence got it right as explained in the previous section. Kay, who had access to the intelligence from these agencies and was well acquainted with fellow
U.N. weapons inspectors who contradicted his views, has little excuse for being "all wrong" prior to the invasion. His complete reversal after the invasion could be attributed to less pressure from the Bush administration, which had already accomplished its objectives in the invasion or more pressure from his team of inspectors in demanding a forthright survey. But perhaps the most important point of all in Kay's testimony is that he further corroborated the findings of
U.N. weapons inspectors in that Iraq not only had no weapons or programs of mass destruction but also had none of significance since the U.N. inspectors left in 1998.<br><br><br><b>5. MANY BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS MADE FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE
U.N., CONGRESS AND THE MEDIA<br></b><br>Despite U.N testimony just prior to the invasion, many officials in the Bush administration continued to emphatically state that they KNEW Iraq had various types of weapons capabilities, were conducting specific activities to support weapons programs or were an imminent threat to
U.S. security. The evidence indicates that these officials have made false or deceptive statements or produced misleading reports regarding Iraq weapons of mass destruction, Iraq links to terrorism or Iraq's cooperation with weapons inspectors. They include President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary Of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, General Tommy Franks, Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith. Here are some over two-dozen examples of false or deceptive information disseminated by Bush administration officials along with the contradictory findings that illustrate those deceptions:
<br><br><b>5A. FALSE OR DECEPTIVE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS</b><br><br>Donald Rumsfeld - Senate Armed Services Committee testimony and public statements - Sept 19, 2002: (Saddam) "amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons and that we know he continues to hide chemical and biological weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12-24 hours and placing them in residential neighborhoods". Rumsfeld stated five times to the committee variations of: "We know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"
<br><br>DIA - Iraq: Key WMD facilities and Operational Support Study- September 2002. "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has or will establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities".
<br><br>DOD private briefing to Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida according to Nelson's 2/4/2002 Senate Armed Services Committee testimony:: "I was told not only that (Iraq) had weapons of mass destruction .... but there were also unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that could be put on ships off the Eastern Seaboard and flown over Eastern Seaboard cities with weapons of mass destruction". "However, I was not told that there was a dispute in the intelligence community over the veracity of that information". "...it was Air Force intelligence that specifically discounted that, ... it was not true". "...Why was I not told that there was this disagreement in the intelligence community instead of being told that it was gospel truth that those UAVs could be flown over Eastern Seaboard cities?" DOD requested to answer in a closed session even though Nelson's question and the answer should not be classified.
<br><br>Douglas Feith - Letter to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairs - October 27, 2003: (Stated still classified connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda)<br>DOD statement on news reports of Al Qaeda and Iraq connection - November 15, 2003: (Referencing Feith Oct. 27 letter) "News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq are inaccurate". "The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions"
<br>U.N. Monitoring Group on Al Qaeda - June 2003: "Nothing has come to our notice that would indicate links…"<br><br><b>5B. FALSE OR DECEPTIVE CHARGES TO THE UNITED NATIONS (U.N.)</b><br><br>Colin Powell - U.N. Security Council address - February 5, 2003: "Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries even after the inspections resumed" "We also have intelligence from multiple sources that Iraq is attempting to acquire magnets and high-speed balancing machines to enrich uranium"
<br><br>Mohammed Elbaredei - U.N. Security Council testimony- March 7, 2003: "The nuclear weapons program is defunct". "There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities or prohibited activities". There is no indication that Iraq is attempting to import enriched uranium"; "There is no indication that Iraq is attempting to import tubes for uranium enrichment". "There is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in centrifuge development"
<br><br>Colin Powell U.N Security Council Address - February 5, 2003: "We have first hand descriptions of biological weapons on wheels and rails", "We know that Iraq has at least 7 of these mobile biological facilities", "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more"
<br><br>Hans Blix - U.N. Security Council testimony- March 7, 2003: "No evidence so far has been found for mobile biological weapons units"; "No underground facilities were found for chemical and biological weapons…"
<br><br>Colin Powell - Address to U.N. Security Council - February 5, 2003: "The issue before us is not how much time we are willing to give the inspectors to be frustrated by Iraqi obstruction. But how much longer are we willing to put up with Iraq's non-compliance before we as a council, we as the United Nations, say 'Enough is Enough' "
<br><br>Mohammed Elbaredei, Hans Blix - U.N. Security Council testimony - March 7, 2003: "Iraq has been forthcoming", "inspections are moving forward", they have made "important progress" and have had "few difficulties".
<br><br>Colin Powell - U.N. Security Council address- February 5, 2003: " "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent".<br><br>David Kay - Congressional Intelligence Committee testimony - October 2, 2003: "Multiple sources with varied access and reliability have told ISG that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce and fill new CW munitions was reduced, if not completely destroyed…".
<br><br><b>5C. FALSE OR DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT IRAQ OBSTRUCTION OF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTORS</b><br><br>Condoleezza Rice - NBC Meet the Press - February 16, 2003: "We have sources who tell us that the Iraqis, through their intelligence efforts, are working very hard to frustrate the inspectors"
<br><br>Colin Powell - Center for Strategic and International Studies speech - March 5, 2003: "Inspections will amount to little more than casting at shadows unless Iraq lifts the fog of denial and deception that prevents inspectors from seeing the true magnitude of what they are up against"
<br><br>Mohammed Elbaredei, Hans Blix - U.N. Security Council testimony - March 7, 2003: "Iraq has been forthcoming", "inspections are moving forward", they have made "important progress" and have had "few difficulties".
<br><br><b>5D. FALSE OR DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT IRAQ CONNECTIONS AL QAEDA AND TERRORISM<br></b><br>George W. Bush - State of the Union - January 28, 2003: "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists including members of Al Qaeda.
<br><br>George W. Bush - Radio Address - February 8, 2003: "Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks".<br><br>George Tenet - Senate Testimony - February 11, 2003: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of Osama Bin Laden.
<br><br>U.N. Monitoring Group on Al Qaeda - June 2003: "Nothing has come to our notice that would indicate links…"<br><br><b>5E. FALSE OR DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT IRAQI NUCLEAR WEAPONS</b><br><br>Dick Cheney - Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention - August 26, 2002: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction", "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon"
<br><br>Dick Cheney - NBC's Meet the Press - September 8, 2002: "We do know with absolute certainty that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon"
<br><br>George W. Bush - Address on Iraq - October 7, 2002: "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons"
<br><br>George W. Bush - Address to the Nation on War with Iraq - March 17, 2003: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised"
<br><br>George W. Bush - Address to Iraq - October 7, 2002: "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons"
<br><br>Mohammed Elbaredei - U.N. Security Council testimony- March 7, 2003: "The nuclear weapons program is defunct". "There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities or prohibited activities". There is no indication that Iraq is attempting to import enriched uranium"; "There is no indication that Iraq is attempting to import tubes for uranium enrichment". "There is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in centrifuge development"
<br><br><b>5F. FALSE OR DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT IRAQI CHEMICAL WEAPONS</b><br><br>Colin Powell - Fox News Sunday, September 8, 2002: "There is no doubt that he has chemical weapons stocks"<br>George W. Bush - Address on Iraq October 7, 2002: "We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas" (repeated with 500 tons in January 28, 2003 State of the Union)
<br>George W. Bush - Radio Address - February 8, 2003: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
<br>Donald Rumsfeld - Press Conference - March 30, 2003: "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." referring to the 100-500 metric tons of chemical weapons which have never been found.
<br>Hans Blix - U.N. Security Council testimony- March 7, 2003: "No underground facilities were found for chemical and biological weapons…"<br><br><b>5G. FALSE OR DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT IRAQI BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
</b><br>George W. Bush - United Nations Address Sept 12, 2002: Right now Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons<br>Hans Blix - U.N. Security Council testimony- March 7, 2003: "No evidence so far has been found for mobile biological weapons units"; "No underground facilities were found for chemical and biological weapons…"
<br><br><b>5H. FALSE OR DECEPTIVE GENERAL STATEMENTS TO THE MEDIA</b> </div>
<div>
<p align="left">Tommy Franks - Pentagon Press Briefing - March 22, 2003: "There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." -
<br>Victoria Clark - Pentagon Press Briefing - March 22, 2003: "One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites:"<br>Colin Powell - (Response to U.N. Weapons Inspectors Testimony) - Mar 8, 2003: "So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not."
<br>Ari Fleisher - White House Press Briefing - December 2, 2002: "If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."<br>Ari Fleisher - White House Press Briefing - January 9, 2003: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
<br>Ari Fleisher - White House Press Briefing - March 21, 2003: "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly ... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes"
<br>David Kay - Senate Armed Services Committee testimony - October 2, 2003: "We were all wrong…"<br><br>The only rational explanation that President George W. Bush could possibly offer to justify so many false statements or deceptive reports by people in his administration is that they were deceived by the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate produced by the CIA. However, the President has been very supportive of Director Tenet throughout the ordeal of trying to explain all the discrepancies. Perhaps the best indicator to determine whether the deception originated solely from the CIA or from the Bush administration in general can be found in the Project For the New American Century (PNAC).
<br><br><b>6. THE INVASION OF IRAQ ON THE PREMISE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WAS PLANNED BY PNAC IN 1997</b><br><br>PNAC, is a very powerful non-profit organization founded in 1997 on principles that include "American global leadership", "national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities" and "America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles". The 25 signatures on the statement of principles include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Steve Forbes and Gary Bauer.
<a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm">www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm</a><br><br>PNAC began advocating the overthrow of Saddam Hussein shortly after its inception. In its open January 26, 1998 letter to President Bill Clinton the authors wrote: "Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use, or threaten to use, weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy". "We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts". Some of the 18 signatures included Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Richard Armitage and co-founder William Kristol.
<a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm">http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm</a><br><br>(Note: PNAC's power is illustrated by another open letter to Bill Clinton dated September 20, 1998, advocating the overthrow of Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic in advance of the March 24, 1999 attack. It stated: "We are certain, however, that after seven years of aggression and genocide in the Balkans, the removal of Milosevic represents the only genuine possibility of a durable peace".
<br><a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans_pdf_04.pdf">www.newamericancentury.org/balkans_pdf_04.pdf</a>. Like Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the charges of genocide were known by many to be false at the time of the initial bombing campaign. There were roughly a couple of dozen deaths in Kosovo during 1999 before the bombing began and the March 25, 1999 Senate Armed Services briefing given by the Clinton administration indicated that a third of the deaths in 1998 were Serbians who were normally aligned with Milosevic. Many of these deaths occurred from a civil war between the Yugoslavian government and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The KLA was backed by both the CIA and Osama Bin Laden, who was working with
U.S., British, German and Canadian intelligence agencies to arm, train and equip the KLA at the same time he was accused of the African embassy bombings. On August 14, 2001, under the guise of "environmental concerns", NATO "defense" forces confiscated the Trepca mining complex from the Yugoslavian people for a French, Swedish and American based partnership named ITT Kosovo.)
<br><br>After the letter to Bill Clinton did not result in action against Iraq, Kristol, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Wolfowitz signed and sent another open letter on May 29,1998 to Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott and Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. That letter again advocated the overthrow of the Iraqi leader: "
U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place". On September 20, 2001, just 9 days after the 9/11 attacks, PNAC members drafted yet another letter, this time to President George W, Bush, stating: "But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq".
<br><br>It is astounding that PNAC members would continually advocate the removal of Saddam Hussein even while there was almost no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no links between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. In fact, the evidence presented in the previous sections show that Iraq actually had no such weapons when PNAC continually advocated the removal of Saddam Hussein in 1998 on the false weapons of mass destruction premise. The PNAC documents clearly identify some of the men behind this false premise became key officials in the Bush administration. These include Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paull Wolfowitz and Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Since these men were all appointed as high-level officials of the Bush administration, it is clear that the CIA was not sole source of deception regarding Iraq. The CIA merely gave the President the exact report that the these administration officials wanted when it handed over the blatantly false October 2002 NIE.
<br><br><b>7. DEMOCRATS CANNOT TRUTHFULLY CLAIM TO BE MISINFORMED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION</b><br>Several Democrats, including presidential candidates who assisted the Bush administration in the invasion, have implied that Bush officials misinformed them or that they otherwise oppose what the Bush administration did. Sen. John Kerry voted for the resolution to allow George W. Bush to invade Iraq at his discretion and then claimed Bush "did not do it right". Former House Speaker Dick Gephart co-authored the resolution and got many Democrats in the House to vote for it. Sen. John Edwards, a member the Senate Intelligence Committee, had access to previously mentioned
U.S. intelligence indicating Iraq was not an imminent threat to American security but voted to allow the Bush administration to invade anyway. Sen. Joe Lieberman also voted for the measure and still claims Saddam Hussein was a threat to America despite overwhelming evidence presented in this and other documents.
<br><br>All of these individuals had access to the March 7, 2003 public testimony of the head U.N. weapons inspectors representing over 100 inspectors who were onsite for over four months just prior to the invasion. The inspectors specifically refuted every charge that the
U.S. government made against Iraq in regards to nuclear weapons and testified that every charge the U.S. made against Iraq regarding chemical and biological weapons was unsubstantiated. Any one of these four Democrats mentioned could have pointed this out BEFORE the invasion and took a stand against it but none did. Therefore, they are also culpable for what the invasion has done to both Iraq and America. None can honestly claim that they were misinformed, particularly John Kerry, the Skull and Bones fraternity brother of George W. Bush.
<br><br><br><b>8. MOTIVATIONS FOR THE IRAQ INVASION</b><br>The extent of false statements and deception by so many high level Bush administration officials naturally raises the question as to what would be their motives for going to such an extreme to invade Iraq. The key to answering such as question is to determine who benefits from the invasion. Defining the exact motives that these individuals may have had is outside the scope of this analysis. However, the following obvious potential motives should be evaluated by anyone who chooses to perform such a further investigation. These include:
<br>· Oil - Iraq has the second largest untapped oil reserves in the world, which fell under the firm control of Bush administration officials, several of whom, such as Dick Cheney and Condoeezza Rice, previously held key positions in the oil business;
<br><br>· Contracts - Dick Cheney was the former CEO of Haliburton whose parent company Kellogg, Brown and Root is allocated to receive up to 2.3 billion dollars in grants for reconstruction and oil servicing contracts after the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions;
<br><br>· Investments - Former President George H.W. Bush and several of his colleagues, such as Frank Carlucci, who signed the PNAC letter on Yugoslavia, have undisclosed amounts of investments in private funds of the Carlyle Group which, in turn, invests secretly in aerospace and defense companies who profit by supplying
U.S. military equipment and replenishing it during times of conflict;<br><br>· Zionism - Key participants of the Iraqi invasion, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Doug Feith are four of 25 Zionists appointed to key Bush administration posts as identified by Free American magazine. Perle, Wolfowitz and Feith had been previously reprimanded, investigated or fired, respectively, for leaking classified information to representatives of the Israeli government. Zionists place allegiance to Israel over and above allegiance to the
U.S. interests. Israel has considered Iraq one of its greatest adversaries ever since Saddam Hussein removed known Zionists from the Iraqi government when the Revolutionary Command Council granted him power in 1979.<br><br>
Additional highly reasonable motives come from Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, A DOD insider who worked in the Near East South Asia policy office from which Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld spun off the notoriously deceptive Office of Special Plans, headed by Doug Feith. She suggests:
<br>· "One of those reasons is that sanctions and containment were working and everybody pretty much knew it. Many companies around the world were preparing to do business with Iraq in anticipation of a lifting of sanctions. But the
U.S. and the U.K. had been bombing northern and southern Iraq since 1991. So it was very unlikely that we would be in any kind of position to gain significant contracts in any post-sanctions Iraq. And those sanctions were going to be lifted soon, Saddam would still be in place, and we would get no financial benefit."
<br><br>· "The second reason has to do with our military-basing posture in the region. We had been very dissatisfied with our relations with Saudi Arabia, particularly the restrictions on our basing. And also there was dissatisfaction from the people of Saudi Arabia. So we were looking for alternate strategic locations beyond Kuwait, beyond Qatar, to secure something we had been searching for since the days of Carter - to secure the energy lines of communication in the region. Bases in Iraq, then, were very important - that is, if you hold that is America's role in the world. Saddam Hussein was not about to invite us in."
<br><br>· "The last reason is the conversion, the switch Saddam Hussein made in the Food for Oil program, from the dollar to the euro. He did this, by the way, long before 9/11, in November 2000 - selling his oil for euros. The oil sales permitted in that program aren't very much. But when the sanctions would be lifted, the sales from the country with the second largest oil reserves on the planet would have been moving to the euro. The
U.S. dollar is in a sensitive period because we are a debtor nation now. Our currency is still popular, but it's not backed up like it used to be. If oil, a very solid commodity, is traded on the euro that could cause massive, almost glacial, shifts in confidence in trading on the dollar. So one of the first executive orders that Bush signed in May [2003] switched trading on Iraq's oil back to the dollar."
<br><br>Whatever the motives of these individuals were it is clear that they were in direct conflict with the interests of American citizens. The unprecedented, preemptive American invasion of a nation that never attacked us has resulted in the slaughter of thousands of Iraqis, deaths of 500+
U.S. soldiers and costs to the American taxpayers that will probably exceed 100 billion dollars or over $300 per person. Such an act is a far more treasonous and impeachable offense than even the charges leveled against former President Bill Clinton for selling dual use technology to the Communist Chinese military in exchange for millions of dollars in campaign contributions. If we are to maintain a viable federal government, President George W. Bush and the officials who orchestrated this deception must be held accountable to the American citizens.
<br><br>Garland Favorito <<a href="mailto:garlandf@msn.com">garlandf@msn.com</a>><br>Out Nation Betrayed<br><a href="http://www.blackforestpress.com/cat_law_politics.htm">www.blackforestpress.com/cat_law_politics.htm
</a> </p></div>
<div>-----------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/6/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">deb</b> <<a href="mailto:debismith@moscow.com">debismith@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Yep. As if Pat had done any research, and could have unwittingly entered<br>into entertaining a thought that wasn't right wing, let alone her very own
<br>thoughts, ouch, ouch, stop, stop---oooooo spare me the spasms!!! ADVICE:<br>just delete anything from Pat, spare youirself the repeat, and you will feel<br>much better in the am, and she likely will fare better as well without your
<br>response... regurgitation of right wing crap is not fun, and she is impelled<br>to do it way too often----that esophogus must be burning----------<br>Debi R-S<br><br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: "Andreas Schou" <
<a href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">ophite@gmail.com</a>><br>To: "Pat Kraut" <<a href="mailto:pkraut@moscow.com">pkraut@moscow.com</a>><br>Cc: "vision2020" <<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">
vision2020@moscow.com</a>><br>Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:08 PM<br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Kucinich Introduces Impeachment Articles<br>AgainstCheney<br><br><br>> On 9/6/07, Pat Kraut <<a href="mailto:pkraut@moscow.com">
pkraut@moscow.com</a>> wrote:<br>>><br>>><br>>> What a colossal waste of time, money and energy...it is not going to<br>>> happen<br>>> and there is no reason why it should. We have some real issues to work on
<br>>> and this is not one of them but it sure helps me know more about who to<br>>> vote<br>>> for this election.<br>><br>> Pat --<br>><br>></blockquote></div>