Let's revisit this article, post DSM

[wiggs]

Another article from earlier this year looks more important now that Downing Street Memo is out:

Scientist says US censored Iraq WMD report

February 15, 2005

CANBERRA: An Australian scientist involved in the US search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq said the CIA censored his reporting so that it suggested the weapons existed, according to an interview on Monday.

Rod Barton, a microbiologist who worked for Australian intelligence for more than 20 years, told Australian Broadcasting Corp television’s “Four Corners” public affairs programme he quit the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) in disgust at the censorship of its interim report presented to the US Congress in March last year.

...

“We left the impression that, yes, maybe there were ... WMD out there,” Barton said. “So I thought it was dishonest.” Barton, an experienced weapons hunter who joined the UN search for Saddam Hussein’s illicit arsenal in 1991, said the censorship in the US investigation began after Charles Duelfer became the new head of ISG in February 2004.

Barton said Duelfer wanted “a different style of report altogether” which he had discussed with US President George W Bush and the CIA.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-...


Let's get it all out!

[Roland99]

1. Broken link

[babylonsister]

2. Drip, drip... good catch!

I don't know where I was but I missed this story entirely in February. Thanks for stoking the fire!:toast: The deceit appears to know no bounds!

[wiggs]

3. More

Some clippings from stuff I have. This one shows that not everyone thought Hussein had WMD...quotes from Powell and Rice show that WE didn't even think that before 9/11. Sorry, don't appear to have saved the link.

What I Heard about Iraq
Eliot Weinberger
The London Review of Books

Thursday 03 February 2005 Issue


In February 2001, I heard Colin Powell say that Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.

That same month, I heard that a CIA report stated: We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programmes.

In July 2001, I heard Condoleezza Rice say: We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

On 11 September 2001, six hours after the attacks, I heard that Donald Rumsfeld said that it might be an opportunity to hit Iraq. I heard that he said: Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.

I heard that Condoleezza Rice asked: How do you capitalise on these opportunities?

I heard that on 17 September the president signed a document marked top secret that directed the Pentagon to begin planning for the invasion and that, some months later, he secretly and illegally diverted $700 million approved by Congress for operations in Afghanistan into preparing for the new battle front.

[bvar22]

9. These may be what you are looking for:

Why did all these National Security Experts suddenly change their positions 180 degrees after 9-11???
Someone should ask them!!!



..."seven months before 9/11, George Tenet testified before Congress that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States."

"in a Feb. 12, 2001 interview with the Fox News Channel Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said: “Iraq is probably not a nuclear threat at the present time.”

"...intelligence reports released by the CIA and more than 100 interviews top officials in the Bush administration, such as Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, gave to various Senate and Congressional committees and media outlets prior to 9-11 show that the U.S. never believed Saddam Hussein to be an imminent threat other than to his own people."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0306/S00211.htm


and this:

" And frankly they (the UN Sanctions) have worked. He (Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."--- Colin Powell Feb 24, 2001

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." ---Condoleezza Rice on CNN July 29, 2001

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

[wiggs]

10. Thanks. Copied and saved. nt

[SpiralHawk]

4. Bush & Cronies planned the Iraq invasion and oil grab

long before they stole the White House from the people of the United States. PNAC

[wiggs]

5. Some Bill Frist quotes pre DSM

"I am absolutely convinced, based on the information that's been given to me, that the weapon of mass destruction which can kill more people than an atomic bomb -- that is, biological weapons -- is in the hands of the leadership of Iraq."

Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
MSNBC Interview
1/10/2003

"What is unique about Iraq compared to, I would argue, any other country in the world, in this juncture, is the exhaustion of diplomacy thus far, and, No. 2, this intersection of weapons of mass destruction."

Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
NewsHour Interview
1/22/2003

[Blue Belle]

6. The link isn't working...

:-(

[wiggs]

8. try this one

www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-2-2005_pg4_2

If it doesn't go for you, then go to the archives under Feb 15, 2005, all the way to the bottom, left.

[wiggs]

7. Here's a good one from Fleischer

"The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it."

Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
12/4/2002

[Blue Belle]

11. So if I'm to read this correctly...

and Dulfer was cherry picking facts to put in his report... then can we assume the current Dulfer report which claims Saddam was "Gaming The food for oil system" is complete bullshit? Has everyone else come to that conclusion and I'm just 5 minutes behind?? :dunce:

[wiggs]

12. Who wasn't gaming the oil for food program?

We were. US oil companies certainly were.

[Al-CIAda]

13. .

[wiggs]

14. More damning articles

More reasons not to rely solely on DSM....

This one unearthed at Pitt's PDA blog. Note date...shortly after UK memo was written.

Some administration officials expressing misgivings on Iraq
By WARREN P. STROBEL and JONATHAN S. LANDAY
Knight-Ridder Tribune News

Oct. 8, 2002

WASHINGTON — While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration’s double-time march toward war.

These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses — including distorting his links to the al-Qaida terrorist network — have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.

They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House’s argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary.

“Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books,” said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews.

snip....lots more at:

www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1607676


There is a strong case here. The question is whether or not our leaders are willing to pursue, and whether or not our broken democracy is still able to process an important issue given the degree of polarization in America and the degree of media control. We may be past the point where an incident like this, worse than Watergate, can be effectively processed.