The reason the IWR is important

[ProSense]

Bush violated it:

Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?

By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jun. 06, 2003

Senator Graham seems to believe there is a serious chance that it is the final scenario that reflects reality. Indeed, Graham told CNN "there's been a pattern of manipulation by this administration."

Graham has good reason to complain. According to the New York Times, he was one of the few members of the Senate who saw the national intelligence estimate that was the basis for Bush's decisions. After reviewing it, Senator Graham requested that the Bush Administration declassify the information before the Senate voted on the Administration's resolution requesting use of the military in Iraq.

But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent Graham a letter discussing the findings. Graham then complained that Tenet's letter only addressed "findings that supported the administration's position on Iraq," and ignored information that raised questions about intelligence. In short, Graham suggested that the Administration, by cherrypicking only evidence to its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its conclusion.

Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decisionmaking process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggests manipulation, if not misuse of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "(t)he country swims on a sea of oil."

more...

Why A Special Prosecutor's Investigation Is Needed To Sort Out the Niger Uranium And Related WMDs Mess

By JOHN W. DEAN
----

Friday, Jul. 18, 2003

Purported Bush Fact 1: "The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax - enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it. "

Source: Bush cites 1999 Report to the UN Security Council]. But most all the Report's numbers are estimates, in which UNSCOM had varying degrees of confidence.

Snip…

It short, in the State of the Union, the president transformed UNSCOM estimates, guesses, and approximations into a declaration of an exact amounts, which is a deception. He did the same with his statement about Botulinum toxin.

Snip…

Purported Bush Fact 2: "The Union Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin - enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it."

Source: Bush cited the same UNSCOM Report. Again, he transformed estimates, or best guesses - based on the work of the UNSCOM inspectors and informants of uncertain reliability - into solid fact.

Snip…

Purported Bush Fact 4: "U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

Source: Bush cites "U.S. intelligence" for this information, but it appears to have first come from UNSCOM. If so, he seems to have double the number of existing munitions that might be, as he argued "capable of delivering chemical agents."

Snip…

Purported Bush Fact 5: "From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

Source: The three informants have still not been identified - even though the Administration now has the opportunity to offer asylum to them and their families, and then to disclose their identities, or at least enough identifying information for the public to know that they actually exist, and see why the government was prone to believe them.

Snip…

Purported Bush Fact 6: "The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb."

Source: The IAEA did provide some information to this effect, but the IAEA's own source was Iraq itself. According to Garry B. Dillon, the 1997-99 head of IAEA's Iraq inspection team, Iraq was begrudgingly cooperating with UNSCOM and IAEA inspections until August 1998.

Moreover, a crucial qualifier was left out: Whatever the program looked like in the early or mid-1990s, by 1998, the IAEA was confident it was utterly ineffective.

Snip…

Purported Bush Fact 7: "The British government has learned Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Source: Media accounts have shown that the uranium story was untrue - and that at least some in the Bush Administration knew it. I will not reiterate all of the relevant news reports here, but I will highlight a few.

Snip…

Purported Bush Fact 8: "Our intelligence sources tell us that has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

Source: Bush is apparently referring to the CIA's October 2002 report - but again, qualifiers were left out, to transform a statement of belief into one of purported fact.

more...

A Fig Leaf Of Legality

John Prados
May 02, 2005

John Prados is a senior fellow with the National Security Archive in Washington, DC. He is author of Hoodwinked: The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War (The New Press).

It has been rumored that the brief, antiseptic legal opinion—citing that a legal basis for the Iraq war did exist—that British Prime Minister Tony Blair received from his attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, did not actually reflect the advice of the top British government lawyer. That turns out to be true.

Last week, when portions of Lord Goldsmith’s original opinion began to leak, the prime minister’s office rushed to release the original document. Goldsmith’s advice, rendered in a baker’s dozen of pages of closely reasoned text on March 7, 2003, diverges significantly from his previously released single-page approval for war. But its greatest significance is that the Goldsmith opinion puts before the public legal reasoning that undermines the justification in international law Bush used to wage an aggressive war against Iraq. That, in turn, negates Bush’s Congressional authorization to use force.

Lord Goldsmith’s opinion strips the legal arguments down to their core and shows how flawed they were. These can be addressed in five areas, and a few further points on legality this side of the Atlantic will complete the story.

Foremost is the matter of the U.N. Security Council action (Resolution 1441) passed on Nov. 8, 2002. Debate has long raged over whether 1441—by itself or in combination with earlier Security Council resolutions enacted during and after the Gulf War—authorized a resort to force against Iraq. Lord Goldsmith supplies an exhaustive analysis of the operative paragraphs of Resolution 1441 that shows how it required further U.N. action to approve force.

Snip...

Finally, there is the broad principle of proportionality. Force used against Iraq in service of the U.N. resolutions “must have as its objective the enforcement of the terms of the cease-fire ,” needed to be limited to achieving that objective, and had to be proportional to “securing compliance with Iraq’s disarmament obligations.” In other words, Goldsmith explicitly noted, “regime change cannot be the objective of military action.”

George Bush sought a congressional resolution authorizing force and secured it on Oct. 10, 2002. That resolution explicitly restricted the use of force to compelling adherence with “relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions,” and continuing threats from Iraq. This was not a blanket declaration of war. The resolution’s contingent authority evaporates if its conditions are not met.

We now know that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and very little in the way of programs to develop them. That is why the weapons inspectors, quite rightly, were not going to report a material breach—the inspectors could find no evidence of weapons. Iraq was in compliance with the Gulf War resolutions and had not invaded anyone—hence no threat to international peace and security. Washington’s assertion otherwise remained crucial to cover an aggressive war with a fig leaf of legality. That fig leaf has now disappeared.

This is what Congress will consider during hearings on Iraq.

[ProSense]

1. Another issue for

Congress.

[tritsofme]

2. As I have said many times

Lets look at the text one more time maybe?

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

The only thing this resolution forces the POTUS to do is make a determination. If he determined that invading Iraq defended the US and enforced UN resolutions, that is all that is necessary to act. The resolution doesn't make it clear that these determinations must be made in good faith.

The resolution only offers support for further diplomatic action, there is no contigent authority based on this support, all the authority comes from Section 3 of the resolution.

This is what people signed up for, not some fantasy resolution that you trumpet.

[ProSense]

3. Thanks for kicking the thread, but it's still Bush's war. It's his fantasy. n/t

[GreenArrow]

4. there's plenty of guilt to go around

Leaders go nowhere without followers.

[sandnsea]

5. That's how the Constitution set it up

The President determines when and how troops are deployed. All Congress can ever do is give the President authority to use troops. This resolution put conditions on the use of troops, which Bush ignored. The reason we can't hold him accountable for starting a war based on lies is because people like you keep insisting he had the authority to do whatever he wanted, when he clearly didn't as John Dean so clearly laid out. He most certainly didn't have the authority to go to war to liberate anybody.

[CTLawGuy]

6. well wasn't Bush

"enforcing" UN resolutions, or protecting the US from the "threat" that the resolution ITSELF said existed?

"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;"

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

The grant of authority was so vague that Bush could do almost anything to "enforce" UN resolutions or "protect" the US from the "continuing threat."

That's why this was such terrible legislation.

[sandnsea]

7. That's what the world believed

Including all the so-called anti-war heroes, every blessed one of them. And almost every one of them called for threats of force and war, if necessary, they just didn't have to vote on it.

[SOS]

8. If indeed anyone believed it,

then they were woefully misinformed about Iraq's history from 1981-2003.

The Israelis bombed Osirak in 1981.
Iraq was hammered in the Iraq/Iran war of the 1980s.
Iraq was smashed again in 1991.
Sanctions throughout the 1990s.
UN weapons inspectors in the 1990s-2000s.
Massive bombing in 1998-1999 during Clinton's Operation Desert Fox. 450 targets destroyed.
By 2002, Iraq's GDP (including the oil) was smaller than Guatemala.

And this was the grave threat to the US? This was the nation behind 9/11? This was the nation that could nuke London in 45 minutes?
How could anyone take Bush's propaganda seriously?

[ProSense]

9. "Woefully misinformed:"

STATEMENT OF
GENERAL (RETIRED) WESLEY K. CLARK
U.S. ARMY
BEFORE THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEPTEMBER 26, 2002

Mr. Chairman, Representative Skelton, Distinguished Members of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This is a Committee that has been strongly supportive of the men and women in uniform, and I want to thank you personally for the assistance and support that you gave me, and have given so many others.

In October 1994, Saddam Hussein moved several Republican Guards divisions back into the attack positions just north of the Kuwaiti border, the same attack positions that had been occupied just prior to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. It was a foolish and to our minds unexpected and threatening move. We quickly deployed additional military forces to the region, preparing to enter a full-fledged battle against Iraq to defend Kuwait, and we also went to the United Nations. After a few tense days Saddam backed off, the divisions were removed, and we acted through the United Nations to further tighten the no-fly zone and regulate Iraqi troop movements.

But it was a signal warning about Saddam Hussein: he is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. Were he to acquire such capabilities, we and our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks. Saddam might use such weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his neighbors, he might threaten American forces in the region, he might strike directly against Israel, or Israel, weighing the possibilities of nuclear blackmail or aggression, might feel compelled to strike Iraq first.

Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required. But what makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors, who provided some assistance in impeding his development programs, have been absent from Iraq for over four years. And the sanctions regime, designed to restrict his access to weapons materials and the resources needed to procure them, has continuously eroded. At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed.

In addition, Saddam Hussein’s current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law.

Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President’s clear determination to act if the United Nations can’t provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.

[sandnsea]

10. Thank you

I love our clairvoyants who claim to 'know' things that their very own heroes didn't know. :crazy:

[SOS]

11. Not clairvoyant

Just able to identify the manufacture of a phony "grave threat" when I see one.
And btw my heroes are Kennedy, Byrd et al. The "clairvoyant" ones who voted no to this catastrophic nightmare.

[sandnsea]

13. That's not what they said

Everybody believed Iraq had WMD and WMD programs, and was looking to reconstitute nuclear programs. At the very least, they took the possibility serious enough to call for a stringent disarmament strategy, even Dennis Kucinich. The idea that anybody on DU "knew" anything about the status of WMD in Iraq in 2002 is absolutely ludicrous. People mistake skepticism, cynicism and political animosity for 'knowing'. It's not the same thing.

This is what Ted Kennedy said. In no way did he ever say that there was no threat in Iraq, and certainly didn't believe it was manufactured at the time. He simply didn't believe it was time to officially consider war, that's all.


"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

"I have come here today to express my view that America should not go to war against Iraq unless and until other reasonable alternatives are exhausted."

"The President's challenge to the United Nations requires a renewed effort to enforce the will of the international community to disarm Saddam. Resorting to war is not America's only or best course at this juncture. There are realistic alternatives between doing nothing and declaring unilateral or immediate war. War should be a last resort, not the first response. Let us follow that course, and the world will be with us – even if, in the end, we have to move to the ultimate sanction of armed conflict."


http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0930-05.htm

[SOS]

12. Amazing

3,000 dead Americans, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, 2 million Iraqi exiles, 2 million internally displaced Iraqis,
half a trillion dollars, America's global image ruined and a US more hated by Islamic militants than ever before.

Based on ideas like:

"At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials"

The US and Israel had bombed every single facility they had, during 4 different bombing campaigns over 20 years.
That's why Powell had to use a picture of a squatters camp, without electricity, and present it as a WMD manufacturing facility at his UN presentation.
(A photo discredited by German journalists in Iraq within 48 hours)

Bush asked about the feasability of invading Iraq at his first cabinet meeting in January 2001.
The entire WMD issue was chosen to jusify the war, because they felt it would "sell" to the American public.

[MH1]

14. Interesting statement. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

16. I'm not sure what you are reading......but it is clear to me.

Clark never asserts in his statement that Saddam had nuclear weapons that could reach the United States or that Saddam was even close to getting them or that there was an imminent threat to the United States.

Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required.

In other words, Saddam didn't and wouldn't have Nuclear weapons even close to the near future, and yes, he had been pursuing nuclear weapons forever, and? Clark rightly states that the "best" public assessment was that even if Saddam he really tried, he might get some of what he would need in two years. Don't sound like Wes felt that anything was "emminent" or "urgent" from what I read here. Doesn't sound like he's painting the picture of a Mushroom cloud in our immediate future like others did.

And yes, Clark like all of us was for Inspectors to go back into Iraq and felt that their absence in the last 4 years was not a good thing. Should he not have wanted inspectors on the ground? Should he had stated that the inspector idea should not be pursued?

And of course Saddam "might" get Nuclear Weapons "someday". I don't think anyone ever said that he would never be able to if he kept trying! :eyes:

And everyone thought that Saddam had Biological type weapons possibly in his arsenal....and that would have violated the UN resolutions on that issue. And? Clark didn't seem to be saying that we should go to war because of this at this time. So again, I'm not sure what the "bolding" of his words on this is supposed to "show".

As for Saddam Hussein being called a violent, unpredictable and malovent leader, that was not in dispute far as I know. Was Wes Clark to call Saddam Hussein "predictable, non violent and nice"? Clark doesn't say this justified war on Saddam or even a blank check to do so.

And so yeah....Wes Clark felt that Iraq wasn't an issue that should be ignored forever......his statement in fact by using the word not "indefinitely" oosponed but that it should "one day" be dealt with emphasizes the lack of imminence or urgency.

Clark supported that Bush should take this to the United Nation, as he clearly states. I also supported that. And? If the United Nations didn't do anything meaningful, then yes, Clark supported that we continue on with Diplomatic efforts. Nothing wrong with that either.

So what was the point of posting Clark's testimony? Did Clark state that we should go to war and give Bush and Blank check to do so? If so, I don't read that in his statement.

[ProSense]

15. More...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3039406&mesg_id=3040559