Timeline of delay and deception

  1. 17 September 2002


    White House Chronicles Past Iraqi Obstruction of Inspections
    Timeline shows a pattern of deception, delay, and disregard for U.N.

    Following is a timeline released by the White House September 17 chronicling Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations resolutions regarding inspections since the 1991 Gulf War:


    The White House
    Office of the Press Secretary
    For Immediate Release
    September 17, 2002

    Timeline: Saddam Hussein's Deception and Defiance
    We've heard "unconditional" before

    Last week, the President of the United States focused the world's attention on Iraq's continued defiance of UN resolutions. Saddam Hussein's regime claimed yesterday that Iraq would comply unconditionally. While this new statement is evidence that world pressure can force the Iraqi regime to respond, it is also a return to form. Time after time, "without conditions" has meant deception, delay, and disregard for the United Nations.


    "I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions." -- Naji Sabri, Iraq's minister of foreign affairs, September 16, 2002 (emphasis added)

    The following timeline details the Iraqi regime's repeated pattern of accepting inspections "without conditions" and then demanding conditions, often at gunpoint. This information is derived from an October 1998 UNSCOM report and excerpted from: http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/uns_chro.htm.



    DATE ACTION
    April 3, 1991 U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), Section C, declares that Iraq shall accept unconditionally, under international supervision, the "destruction, removal or rendering harmless" of its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometers (emphasis added). One week later, Iraq accepts Resolution 687. Its provisions were reiterated and reinforced in subsequent action by the United Nations in June and August of 1991.

    May 1991 Iraq accepts the privileges and immunities of the Special Commission (UNSCOM) and its personnel. These guarantees include the right of "unrestricted freedom of entry and exit without delay or hindrance of its personnel, property, supplies, equipment ... (emphasis added)."

    June 1991 Iraqi personnel fire warning shots to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles.
    September 1991 Iraqi officials confiscate documents from the inspectors. The inspectors refuse to yield a second set of documents. In response, Iraq refuses to allow the team to leave the site with these documents. A four-day standoff ensues, but Iraq permits the team to leave with the documents after a statement from the Security Council threatens enforcement actions.

    October 11, 1991 The Security Council adopts Resolution 715, which approves joint UNSCOM and IAEA plans for ongoing monitoring and verification. UNSCOM's plan establishes that Iraq shall "accept unconditionally the inspectors and all other personnel designated by the Special Commission" (emphasis added).

    October 1991 Iraq states that it considers the Ongoing Monitoring and Verification Plans adopted by Resolution 715 to be unlawful and states that it is not ready to comply with Resolution 715.

    February 1992 Iraq refuses to comply with an UNSCOM/IAEA decision to destroy certain facilities used in proscribed programs and related items.

    April 1992 Iraq calls for a halt to UNSCOM's aerial surveillance flights, stating that the aircraft and its pilot might be endangered. The President of the Security Council issues a statement reaffirming UNSCOM's right to conduct such flights. Iraq says that it does not intend to carry out any military action aimed at UNSCOM's aerial flights.

    July 6-29, 1992 Iraq refuses an inspection team access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture. UNSCOM said it had reliable information that the site contained archives related to proscribed activities. Inspectors gained access only after members of the Council threatened enforcement action.

    January 1993 Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM to use its own aircraft to fly into Iraq.

    June-July 1993 Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM inspectors to install remote-controlled monitoring cameras at two missile engine test stands.

    November 26, 1993 Iraq accepts Resolution 715 and the plans for ongoing monitoring and verification.

    October 15, 1994 The Security Council adopts Resolution 949, which demands that Iraq "cooperate fully" with UNSCOM and that it withdraw all military units deployed to southern Iraq to their original positions (emphasis added). Iraq withdraws its forces and resumes working with UNSCOM.

    March 1996 Iraqi security forces refuse UNSCOM teams access to five sites designated for inspection. The teams enter the sites after delays of up to 17 hours.

    March 19, 1996 The Security Council issues a presidential statement expressing its concern over Iraq's behavior, which it terms "a clear violation of Iraq's obligations under relevant resolutions." The council also demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM teams immediate,
    unconditional and unrestricted access to all sites designated for inspection (emphasis added).

    March 27, 1996 Security Council Resolution 1051 approves the export/import monitoring mechanism for Iraq and demands that Iraq meet unconditionally all its obligations under the mechanism and cooperate fully with the Special Commission and the director-general of the IAEA (emphasis added).

    June 1996 Iraq denies UNSCOM teams access to sites under investigation for their involvement in the "concealment mechanism" for proscribed items.

    June 12, 1997 The Security Council adopts Resolution 1060, which terms Iraq's actions a clear violation of the provisions of the council's earlier resolutions. It also demands that Iraq grant "immediate and unrestricted access" to all sites designated for inspection by UNSCOM (emphasis added).

    June 13, 1996 Despite the adoption of Resolution 1060, Iraq again denies access to another inspection team.
    November 1996 Iraq blocks UNSCOM from removing remnants of missile engines for in-depth analysis outside Iraq.

    June 1997 Iraqi escorts on board an UNSCOM helicopter try to physically prevent the UNSCOM pilot from flying the helicopter in the direction of its intended destination.

    June 21, 1997 Iraq again blocks UNSCOM teams from entering certain sites for inspection.

    June 21, 1997 The Security Council adopts Resolution 1115, which condemns Iraq's actions and demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any sites for inspection and officials for interviews (emphasis added).

    September 13, 1997 An Iraqi officer attacks an UNSCOM inspector on board an UNSCOM helicopter while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site designated for inspection.

    September 17, 1997 While seeking access to a site declared by Iraq to be "sensitive," UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape Iraqi guards moving files, burning documents, and dumping ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river.

    November 12, 1997 The Security Council adopts Resolution 1137, condemning Iraq for continually violating its obligations, including its decision to seek to impose conditions on cooperation with UNSCOM (emphasis added). The resolution also imposes a travel restriction on Iraqi officials who are responsible for or participated in instances of non-compliance.

    November 3, 1997 Iraq demands that US citizens working for UNSCOM leave Iraq immediately.

    December 22, 1997 The Security Council issues a statement calling upon the government of Iraq to cooperate fully with the commission and stresses that failure by Iraq to provide immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any site is an unacceptable and clear violation of Security Council resolutions (emphasis added).

    February 20-23, 1998 Iraq signs a Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations on February 23, 1998. Iraq pledges to accept all relevant Security Council resolutions, to cooperate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, and to grant to UNSCOM and the IAEA "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" for their inspections (emphasis added).

    August 5, 1998 The Revolutionary Command Council and the Ba'ath Party Command decide to stop cooperating with UNSCOM and the IAEA until the Security Council agrees to lift the oil embargo as a first step towards ending sanctions.

    http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02091701.htm
    •  
  2. 12 Comments

  3. by   Mkue
    Just pointing out that this did not start with Resolution 1441 in November. A pattern of delay, deceit and obstruction does not end with a new Resolution.
  4. by   Mkue
    6 January 2003 Saddam Hussein accuses the inspectors of being spies who were conducting "intelligence work" under pressure from the US.

    In a speech to mark the country's Armed Forces Day, he says that instead of searching for weapons of mass destruction the inspectors are making lists of scientists, asking questions in pursuit of hidden agendas and delving into legitimate military activity.



    16 January 2003 UN weapons inspectors find 12 empty chemical warheads while searching an ammunition storage depot. Baghdad insists they are not part of a banned weapons programme.

    Washington described the warheads as a "smouldering, not smoking gun".

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2752667.stm
  5. by   Mimi Wheeze
    If that doesn't answer why we must go to war, I don't know what will.

    Thanks, mkue.
  6. by   Mkue
    This alone is not a reason for war just to show the timeline of SH's deceit, delay and obstruction. I believe our President has the best knowledge of the whole situation in Iraq and that is how he is basing his decision. One that he has stood by.

    Last edit by mkue on Mar 12, '03
  7. by   pickledpepperRN
    Standing by this plan for how long?
    http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/n...ac_030310.html

    The Plan
    Were Neo-Conservatives' 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?



    March 10
    -- Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power.
    The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
    In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.
    And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."
    That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.
    The next morning-before it was even clear who was behind the attacks-Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam's Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terrorism," according to Bob Woodward's book Bush At War.
    What started as a theory in 1997 was now on its way to becoming official U.S. foreign policy.
    Links to Bush Administration
    Some critics of the Bush administration's foreign policy, especially in Europe, have portrayed PNAC as, in the words of Scotland's Sunday Herald, "a secret blueprint for U.S. global domination."
    The group was never secret about its aims. In its 1998 open letter to Clinton, the group openly advocated unilateral U.S. action against Iraq because "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition" to enforce the inspections regime.
    "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," they wrote, foreshadowing the debate currently under way in the United Nations.
    Of the 18 people who signed the letter, 10 are now in the Bush administration. As well as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, they include Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; John Bolton, who is undersecretary of state for disarmament; and Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition. Other signatories include William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, and Richard Perle, chairman of the advisory Defense Science Board.
    According to Kristol, the group's thinking stemmed from the principles of Ronald Reagan: "A strong America. A morally grounded foreign policy ... that defended American security and American interests. And understanding that American leadership was key to not only world stability, but any hope for spreading democracy and freedom around the world."
    Pushing for a More Assertive Foreign Policy
    After the 1991 Gulf War ended with Saddam still in position as a potential threat, Kristol told Nightline, he and the others had a sense that "lots of terrible things were really being loosed upon the world because America was being too timid, and too weak, and too unassertive in the post-Cold War era." In reports, speeches, papers and books, they pushed for an aggressive foreign policy to defend U.S. interests around the globe.
    Clinton did order airstrikes against Iraq in 1998, but through the rest of his presidency and the beginning of Bush's, America's "containment" policy for Saddam lay dormant-until September 2001.
    "Before 9/11, this group ... could not win over the president to this extravagant image of what foreign policy required," said Ian Lustick, a Middle East expert at the University of Pennsylvania. "After 9/11, it was able to benefit from the gigantic eruption of political capital, combined with the supply of military preponderance in the hands of the president. And this small group, therefore, was able to gain direct contact and even control, now, of the White House."
    Like other critics, Lustick paints PNAC in conspiratorial tones: "This group, what I call the tom-tom beaters, have set an agenda and have made the president feel that he has to live up to their definitions of manliness, their definitions of success and fear, their definitions of failure."
    Kristol dismisses the allegations of conspiracy, but said the group redoubled its efforts after 9/11 to get its message out. "We made it very public that we thought that one consequence the president should draw from 9/11 is that it was unacceptable to sit back and let either terrorist groups or dictators developing weapons of mass destruction strike first, at us," he said.
    Predicting Vindication
    Now that American bombs could soon be falling on Iraq, Kristol admits to feeling "some sense of responsibility" for pushing for a war that will cost human lives. But, he said, he would also feel responsible if "something terrible" happened because of U.S. inaction.
    Kristol expressed regret that so many of America's traditional allies oppose military action against Iraq, but said the United States has no choice. "I think what we've learned over the last 10 years is that America has to lead. Other countries won't act. They will follow us, but they won't do it on their own," he said.
    Kristol believes the United States will be "vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when we liberate the people of Iraq." He predicts that many of the allies who have been reluctant to join the war effort would participate in efforts to rebuild and democratize Iraq.
    This report originally aired on Nightline on March 5, 2003.


    Copyright 2002 ABC
  8. by   pickledpepperRN
    Originally posted by Mimi Wheeze
    If that doesn't answer why we must go to war, I don't know what will.

    Thanks, mkue.
    Why?
  9. by   Brownms46
    And lets now forget how long the US and ole rummy, and chenney boy were playing footies with SH! Talk about deciet!

    Cheney's oil company in shady deals with Iraq By Martin A. Lee

    Reality Bites Column copyright: San Francisco Bay Guardian

    Here's a whopper of a story you may have missed amid the cacophony of campaign ads and stump speeches in the run-up to the elections. During former defense secretary Richard Cheney's five-year tenure as chief executive of Halliburton, Inc., his oil services firm raked in big bucks from dubious commercial dealings with Iraq. Cheney left Halliburton with a $34 million retirement package last July when he became the GOP's vice-presidential candidate.

    Of course, U.S. firms aren't generally supposed to do business with Saddam Hussein. But thanks to legal loopholes large enough to steer an oil tanker through, Halliburton profited big-time from deals with the Iraqi dictatorship. Conducted discreetly through several Halliburton subsidiaries in Europe, these greasy transactions helped Saddam Hussein retain his grip on power while lining the pockets of Cheney and company.

    According to the Financial Times of London, between September 1988 and last winter, Cheney, as CEO of Halliburton, oversaw $23.8 million of business contracts for the sale of oil-industry equipment and services to Iraq through two of its subsidiaries, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which helped rebuild Iraq's war-damaged petroleum-production infrastructure. The combined value of these contracts exceeded those of any other U.S. company doing business with Baghdad.

    Halliburton was among more than a dozen American firms that supplied Iraq's petroleum industry with spare parts and retooled its oil rigs when U.N. sanctions were eased in 1998. Cheney's company utilized subsidiaries in France, Italy, Germany, and Austria so as not to draw undue attention to controversial business arrangements that might embarrass Washington and jeopardize lucrative ties to Iraq, which will pump $24 billion of petrol under the U.N.-administered oil-for-food program this year. Assisted by Halliburton, Hussein's government will earn another $1 billion by illegally exporting oil through black-market channels.

    With Cheney at the helm since 1995, Halliburton quickly grew into America's number-one oil-services company, the fifth-largest military contractor, and the biggest nonunion employer in the nation. Although Cheney claimed that the U.S. government "had absolutely nothing to do" with his firm's meteoric financial success, State Department documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times indicate that U.S. officials helped Halliburton secure major contracts in Asia and Africa. Halliburton now does business in 130 countries and employs more than 100,000 workers worldwide. Its 1999 income was a cool $15 billion.

    In addition to Iraq, Halliburton counts among its business partners several brutal dictatorships that have committed egregious human rights abuses, including the hated military regime in Burma (Myanmar). EarthRights, a Washington, D.C.-based human rights watchdog, condemned Halliburton for two energy-pipeline projects in Burma that led to the forced relocation of villages, rape, murder, indentured labor, and other crimes against humanity. A full report (this is a 45 page pdf file - there is also a brief summary) on the Burma connection, "Halliburton's Destructive Engagement," can be accessed on EarthRights' Web site, www.earthrights.org.

    Human rights activists have also criticized Cheney's company for its questionable role in Algeria, Angola, Bosnia, Croatia, Haiti, Rwanda, Somalia, Indonesia, and other volatile trouble spots. In Russia, Halliburton's partner, Tyumen Oil, has been accused of committing massive fraud to gain control of a Siberian oil field. And in oil-rich Nigeria, Halliburton worked with Shell and Chevron, which were implicated in gross human rights violations and environmental calamities in that country. Indeed, Cheney's firm increased its involvement in the Niger Delta after the military government executed several ecology activists and crushed popular protests against the oil industry.

    Halliburton also had business dealings in Iran and Libya, which remain on the State Department's list of terrorist states. Brown and Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, was fined $3.8 million for reexporting U.S. goods to Libya in violation of U.S. sanctions.

    But in terms of sheer hypocrisy, Halliburton's relationship with Saddam Hussein is hard to top. What's more, Cheney lied about his company's activities in Iraq when journalists fleetingly raised the issue during the campaign.

    Questioned by Sam Donaldson on ABC's This Week program in August, Cheney bluntly asserted that Halliburton had no dealings with the Iraqi regime while he was on board.

    Donaldson: I'm told, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Halliburton, through subsidiaries, was actually trying to do business in Iraq?

    Cheney: No. No. I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq - even arrangements that were supposedly legal.

    And that was it! ABC News and the other U.S. networks dropped the issue like a hot potato. As damning information about Halliburton surfaced in the European press, American reporters stuck to old routines and took their cues on how to cover the campaign from the two main political parties, both of which had very little to say about official U.S. support for abusive corporate policies at home and abroad.

    But why, in this instance, didn't the Democrats stomp and scream about Cheney's Iraq connection? The Gore campaign undoubtedly knew of Halliburton's smarmy business dealings from the get-go. Gore and Lieberman could have made hay about how the wannabe GOP veep had been in cahoots with Saddam. Such explosive revelations may well have swayed voters and boosted Gore's chances in what was shaping up to be a close electoral contest.

    The Democratic standard-bearers dropped the ball in part because Halliburton's conduct was generally in accordance with the foreign policy of the Clinton administration. Cheney is certainly not the only Washington mover and shaker to have been affiliated with a company trading in Iraq. Former CIA Director John Deutsch, who served in a Democratic administration, is a member of the board of directors of Schlumberger, the second-largest U.S. oil-services company, which also does business through subsidiaries in Iraq. Despite occasional rhetorical skirmishes, a bipartisan foreign-policy consensus prevails on Capital Hill, where the commitment to human rights, with a few notable exceptions, is about as deep as an oil slick.

    Truth be told, trading with the enemy is a time-honored American corporate practice - or perhaps "malpractice" would be a more appropriate description of big-business ties to repressive regimes. Given that Saddam Hussein, the pariah du jour, has often been compared to Hitler, it's worth pointing out that several blue-chip U.S. firms profited from extensive commercial dealings with Nazi Germany. Shockingly, some American companies - including Standard Oil, Ford, ITT, GM, and General Electric - secretly kept trading with the Nazi enemy while American soldiers fought and died during World War II.

    Today General Electric is among the companies that are back in business with Saddam Hussein, even as American jets and battleships attack Iraq on a weekly basis using weapons made by G.E. But the United Nations sanctions committee, dominated by U.S. officials, has routinely blocked medicines and other essential items from being delivered to Iraq through the oil-for-food program, claiming they have a potential military "dual use." These sanctions have taken a terrible toll on ordinary Iraqis, and on children in particular, while the likes of Halliburton and G.E. continue to lubricate their coffers.

    Martin A. Lee is author of The Beast Reawakens, a book about resurgent fascism.

    His column, Reality Bites, appears every Monday on sfbg.com.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Here's the latest from Democrats.com

    These are democrats who didn't sleep through 8 years of Clinton/Gore and they're not sleeping now. They update daily so check their website out: www.democrats.com

    __Anti-Bush Protests

    On 6/7 protest Bush in Des Moines, IA. On 6/8, protest Bush in Simsbury, CT. On 6/14, protest Bush at the Ohio State University commencement. On 6/27, protest Cheney in Charlotte, NC.
    http://legitgov.org/action.html


    __BushDaddy's CIA Let 2 Al Qaeda 911 Terrorists Live Openly in the US - We Want ANSWERS from Tenet!

    "A few days after the [Jan. 2000] Kuala Lumpur meeting [of Al Qaeda], NEWSWEEK has learned, the CIA tracked one of the terrorists, Nawaf Alhazmi, as he flew from the meeting to Los Angeles. Agents discovered that another of the men, Khalid Almihdhar, had already obtained a multiple-entry visa that allowed him to enter and leave the US as he pleased... Astonishingly, the CIA did nothing with this information... Instead, during the year and nine months after the CIA identified them as terrorists, Alhazmi and Almihdhar lived openly in the US, using their real names, obtaining driver's licenses, opening bank accounts and enrolling in flight schools-until the morning of 911, when they walked aboard American Airlines Flight 77 and crashed it into the Pentagon... When Almihdhar's visa expired, the State Department, not knowing any better, simply issued him a new one in June 2001-even though by then the CIA had linked him to one of the suspected bombers of the USS Cole in October 2000."
    http://www.msnbc.com/news/760647.asp


    __FBI Refused Invitation to Train With Al Qaeda in Afghanistan before 911 - Why, Wasn't It Engraved?

    "The FBI had a chance to infiltrate an al Qaeda training camp in the months before the September 11 attacks-and possibly learn about the coming strike-but the proposal was rejected by top officials, U.S. News has learned. A special agent in an FBI field office was told by a confidential informant that he had been invited to a commando training course at a camp operated by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization in Afghanistan... The agent relayed the informant's remarks to supervisors in the field office, who passed the information to FBI headquarters in Washington, where it was referred to the Osama bin Laden unit in the bureau's Counterterrorism Division" - and squashed! As the story goes on and on, the King George keeps destroying our Constitution and our liberties when the information they had was more than sufficient if analyzed correctly. This is the New FBI: the Federal Bureau of Incompetence! Remember, it happened on Bush's watch!
    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/0...s/10fbi.b2.htm


    __Mueller Says Sept. 11 Could Not Have Been Prevented - That's a LIE!

    "FBI Director Robert Mueller, backpedaling from statements last week that more might have been done to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, said on Sunday that there was little likelihood the agency could have anticipated or prevented the strikes." But that's outrageous! Here are 8 actions that could have prevented 911: (1) canvassing flight schools for suspicious students present and past, (2) conducting a nation-wide manhunt for the two known terrorists who were already in the country, (3) double-checking passenger lists against terrorist suspects, (4) upgrading airport passenger screening, (5) hardening cockpit doors, (6) putting air marshalls on more flights, (7) giving pilots stun guns (89) patroling the skies with fighter jets. Mueller is still covering up the truth about 911 - he should be fired, and Bush should be impeached!
    http://www.msnbc.com/news/760369.asp


    __Even Republicans Are Outraged Over The Bush Reich's Plan For a Police State

    CNN reports, "The Justice Department's plan to give the FBI more domestic surveillance power 'has gone too far,' House Judiciary Committee Chairman [said Saturday. Jim] Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, said he has called Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller to appear before his committee "to justify why the 1976 regulations on domestic spying, that have worked so well for the last 25 or 26 years, have to be changed.'"
    http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/...nes/index.html


    __Thanks to the Courageous Stance of Coleen Rowley, the FBI's Search Warrant Policy Will Change

    "The director of the FBI will personally review all applications for search warrants related to terrorism investigations under a policy change quietly put into effect weeks ago in response to the furor over obstacles that hindered agents here investigating Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged '20th hijacker'... Search warrants sought under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will be quickly routed to Dale Watson, the FBI's chief of counterterrorism and counterintelligence, and to Mueller if the application is rejected by a mid-level supervisor... Rowley wrote that Minneapolis agents tried desperately to gain a warrant to search Moussaoui's laptop computer and personal belongings but were undermined by headquarters officials, who declined to seek FISA or criminal search warrants." But who will make sure the targets are true terrorists, not Bush's political opponents? Ashcroft cannot be trusted - he should be fired!
    http://www.msnbc.com/news/760866.asp


    __Does Al Qaeda Have a Mole in the FBI?

    Conservative columnist Peggy Noonan writes, "When an FBI field operative who is the chief legal counsel of her office [Coleen Rowley] tells the head of the FBI in Washington that they've been wondering, out in the field, if spies or moles made the fateful decisions, she is saying something huge. She is saying she thinks it is possible that spies within the FBI thwarted attempts to stop or diminish the attacks of Sept. 11. And she wants the FBI director to know this. She uses the word joke, but she knows what she's doing. She's saying: This may be true. When she put this information in a memo that she knows she herself will soon hand-deliver to the Senate Intelligence Committee, she is telling Congress, the press and the people to consider the possibility that spies or moles had some part in the attack on America."
    http://opinionjournal.com/columnists.../?id=110001778


    __Holding Bush Accountable

    Gene Lyons writes, "An administration that came to power on uncounted ballots now argues that a public inquiry might tempt politicians to seek partisan advantage. Very well then, let them try... [Only the] craven power-worship among Washington pundits and the rabbit-like timidity of congressional Democrats makes something so elementary worth saying. Another truism: people who lie usually have something to hide... Whatever its shortcomings, the Clinton administration took Osama bin Laden seriously. If it failed to capture or kill him, it wasn't for lack of trying... As the un-Clinton, Bush didn't want to hear about al-Qaeda... John Ashcroft [confronted Louis Freeh, telling him that counter-terrorism was not a priority]. Agents in Minneapolis... met so many bureaucratic roadblocks they joked that bin Laden must have infiltrated FBI headquarters. [Bush's determination to avoid a probe] appears to have less to do with protecting national security than hiding its own blunders."
    http://members.shaw.ca/rbham/GeneLyons/may29.htm

    The only answers I see are the continued lies coming from this administration!
    __
  10. by   Mkue
    I have several other old threads from months ago too
  11. by   Mkue
    The only answers I see are the continued lies coming from this administration!
    Truths the media are not reporting are:

    1. Liberation of Iraqi's
    2. Terrorist camps found in Iraq
    3. The Regime has changed/no longer in power
    4. Mobile weapons trailers found.

  12. by   Brownms46
    None of that was any near enough to go to war, and this country has no business deciding who should be in power, in another country! This wasn't what the American people were told as to why we were going to war with Iraq! This whole administration has lied, and continues to lie to the American people!

    Cheney's conflict with the truth
    By Derrick Z. Jackson, 9/19/2003

    ON "MEET THE PRESS" last Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now, for over three years."

    ADVERTISEMENT

    That is the latest White House lie.

    Within 48 hours, Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey pointed reporters toward Cheney's public financial disclosure sheets filed with the US Office of Government Ethics. The sheets show that in 2002, Cheney received $162,392 in deferred salary from Halliburton, the oil and military contracting company he ran before running for vice president. In 2001, Cheney received $205,298 in deferred salary from Halliburton.

    The 2001 salary was more than Cheney's vice presidential salary of $198,600. Cheney also is still holding 433,333 stock options.

    Flushed into the open, Cheney spokeswoman Catherine Martin said the vice president will continue to receive about $150,000 a year from Halliburton in 2003, 2004, and 2005. If President bush wins a second term, that means Cheney will make at least $800,000 from the company while sitting in office.
  13. by   gojack
    It's silly to even discuss one specific excuse for US militarism.

    It's not like Saddam Hussein has anything to do with why the US has recently been at war with Iraq (or is persuing new ways to start one) in some form or another, with at least a dozen other countries throughout the world.... Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Colombia, North Korea, China, Palestine, Libya, Zimbabwe, and maybe France if Friedman and ilk get their way. I'm sure that this is not the complete hit list, neither.
  14. by   pickledpepperRN
    Bush Administration Spends Week Retracting Assertions about Saddam's Threat to the U.S.

    The Bush administration this week backed away from three major rationales for going to war in Iraq last March, undermining its assertions that Hussein's Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States and its allies.

    September 11th
    As recently as Sunday, Vice President Cheney, claimed that on the question of Saddam Hussein's involvement in September 11th, "We just don't know."1 But within days, both President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld each admitted there was no evidence that Hussein had any connection. On Wednesday, Bush maintained there was "no evidence" that Hussein was involved.2 Two days later, Rumsfeld, said, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."3

    Yet in March, Hussein's possible involvement in the terrorist attacks garnered support for the war from many Americans. At the time, the widely reported meeting between 9/11 planner Mohammed Atta and Iraq's security chief in Prague a few months before the attack was found by the CIA not to be credible.4

    'Reconstituted Nuclear Weapons Program'
    Recently, Cheney backed away from the assertion he made three days before the war began, that the strongest reason for going to war was that "we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."5 But the International Atomic Energy Agency reported two weeks before that , "There was no indication of resumed nuclear activities."6 And six months later on Meet the Press, Cheney said simply, "I misspoke."7

    Weapons of Mass Destruction
    This week, Rumsfeld reversed earlier statements claiming that the U.S. knew where Iraq's weapons of destruction were located. When asked why the weapons hadn't been found, this past Tuesday Rumsfeld said, "What do you mean? You're talking about a country the size of California."8 Yet months ago, just two weeks into the war, Rumsfeld said, "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."9

    Sources:
    1. Meet the Press, NBC, 9/14/03.
    2. Remarks by the President After Meeting with Members of the Congressional Conference Committee on Energy Legislation, 9/17/03, <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20030917-7.html <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030917-7.html>>
    3. Defense Department News Briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld and General Pace, 9/16/03, <http://www.defenselink.mil/transcri...secdef0682.html <http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...ecdef0682.html>>
    4. "Bush Team Stands Firm on Iraq," Washington Post, 9/15/03, p. A1.
    5. Meet the Press, NBC, 3/16/03.
    6. The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update, 3/7/03, <http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press...p2003n006.shtml <http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/...2003n006.shtml>>
    7. Meet the Press, NBC, 9/14/03.
    8. Defense Department News Briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld and General Pace, 9/16/03, <http://www.defenselink.mil/transcri...secdef0682.html <http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...ecdef0682.html>>
    9. This Week with George Stephanopolous, ABC, 3/30/03.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20030319-1.html <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030319-1.html>

    Presidential Letter :

    Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
    March 18, 2003

    Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President
    Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
    (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
    (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
    Sincerely,

close