Bush Administration Defends Iraq War Following Kay Criticisms

[Guest guest]

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2004_1_27.html#838DCD3B

Snip: " Whatever the Iraq Survey Group's conclusions, McClellan said, the

U.S. invasion of Iraq was justified because of the intent of former Iraqi

President Saddam Hussein to develop weapons of mass destruction. "

" Aides to President W. Bush have indicated that the White House is

preparing to acknowledge it was mistaken about Iraqi weapons of mass

destruction if none are found within the next few months, the Washington

Post reported. "

I don't see the above happening. We " knew " exactly, okay roughly, where

they were, or where they may have been... moved to? How can you be mistaken

if you " knew " ? So far, I'm seeing the AVIP as a completely USELESS program

with the only intent on minimizing the force, either through punishments or

disabling ailments.

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

Bush Administration Defends Iraq War Following Kay Criticisms

The Bush administration yesterday continued to defend the U.S. invasion of

Iraq, despite recent criticism by former chief U.S. weapons inspector in

Iraq Kay of prewar assessments of Iraq's WMD programs, according to

reports (see GSN, Jan. 26).

White House press secretary McClellan said yesterday that the Bush

administration would reserve judgment on U.S. prewar intelligence on Iraq

until the Iraq Survey Group completed its search for evidence of Iraqi

weapons of mass destruction.

" It is important to compare the intelligence before the war with what we

learn on the ground through the Iraq Survey Group, " McClellan. " The first

step is to let the Iraqi Survey Group finish their work so the intelligence

community can have as complete a picture as possible, " he added (U.S. State

Department release, Jan. 26).

When asked if the Bush administration still believed that WMD stockpiles

would be discovered, McClellan said, " I think it was the judgment of

intelligence agencies around the world, as well as the United Nations

Special Commission on Iraq, that there were large, unaccounted-for

stockpiles. "

Whatever the Iraq Survey Group's conclusions, McClellan said, the U.S.

invasion of Iraq was justified because of the intent of former Iraqi

President Saddam Hussein to develop weapons of mass destruction.

We know he had the intention, we know he had the capability, " McClellan

said. " And, given his history and given the events of Sept. 11, we could not

afford to rely on the good intentions of Saddam Hussein, " he said (

Risen, New York Times, Jan. 27).

Vice President Dick Cheney refused for a second day in a row yesterday to

answer questions by reporters about U.S. prewar intelligence, according to

the Washington Post (Mike , Washington Post, Jan. 27).

Attorney General Ashcroft, though, also defended the invasion of Iraq

yesterday based on the " continued " threat posed by Hussein.

" Weapons of mass destruction, including evil chemistry and evil biology, are

all matters of great concern, not only to the United States but also to the

world community. They were the subject of U.N. resolutions, " Ashcroft said.

" I believe there is a very clear understanding that Saddam Hussein continued

to pose a threat, " he said ( Kole, Associated Press/Philadelphia

Inquirer, Jan. 27).

Aides to President W. Bush have indicated that the White House is

preparing to acknowledge it was mistaken about Iraqi weapons of mass

destruction if none are found within the next few months, the Washington

Post reported. Other Bush administration officials said, though, that they

would not make such a decision until Duelfer, Kay's replacement,

submits his final report (, Washington Post).

Intelligence Review

In the U.S. Congress, Democratic lawmakers have begun using Kay's criticisms

of the U.S. intelligence community to call for a more aggressive inquiry

into the handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq, according to the New York

Times. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said that Senate Select

Committee on Intelligence Chairman Pat (R-Kan.) was trying to limit

the scope of his panel's inquiry.

" Unfortunately, it appears neither the administration nor the chairman of

the Senate intelligence committee shares this view " of the need for a

vigorous investigation, Daschle said.

According to the Times, the Senate intelligence committee has prepared a

report critical of the CIA's handling of prewar intelligence, and is waiting

for testimony from CIA Director Tenet before completing its inquiry.

Tenet is scheduled to testify before the committee March 4, a congressional

official said (Risen, New York Times).

A senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday that Kay's criticisms

were for the most part correct.

" With the caveat that the search for weapons is still going on and that it's

not over yet, it would be kind of hard to argue with the substance of what

Kay is saying, " the intelligence official said.

Even so, there is anger within the U.S. intelligence community about Kay's

decision to make his criticisms public, the intelligence official said. The

official said that there is suspicion that Kay's criticisms were intended to

deflect blame from the White House.

" There is the view that Kay did seem to be leaning over backwards not to

make trouble for the administration. I am not sure what his unstated agenda

is. He is basically apolitical, and I respect him, but I don't know what's

going through his mind, " the intelligence official said (Financial Times,

Jan. 26).

British Intelligence

Meanwhile, an Iraqi exile group that has claimed to be the source for a

claim made in a British dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that

Iraq could deploy biological and chemical weapons within 45 minutes has said

the claim might have been wrong, according to Agence France Presse (see GSN,

Dec. 8).

The disputed " 45-minute " claim was taken from raw information provided by

only one source, and was part of a large amount of information provided to

British intelligence, said Nick Theros, a U.S.-based representative of the

Iraqi National Accord.

" We were passing it on in good faith. It was for intelligence services to

verify it, " he said (Agence France-Presse/Khaleej Times, Jan. 27).

[Guest guest]

Good article.......I would really really like someone or numbers of someone

to tell me why they continue on with this AVIP.

Is there a reason to weaken the troops?

What are all the ideas that each of you have had?

Or is it just money and profit that is driving this insanity?

WE need to find out who is the policy guy at the WH that lets this go on and

on....

is it the President, is it Cheney, is it DOD......

[Guest guest]

(Note: If anyone wants to flame me and respond to this article, please

take it off the list and respond to me directly. I am not a Bush parrot

- there are plenty of things I disagree with him about. I just need to

provide a little balance to the article that Randi posted and offer my

thoughts.)

I tried very hard to resist making a political response to the article,

but I find that it is filled with half-truths and leaves a lot of

information out - similar to DOD's defense of the AVIP program.

First of all, Bush NEVER said that Iraq was an imminent threat, and all

attributions of this phrase to him are taken out of context. His exact

words were,

" Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. "

Note: He says that SOME, NOT HIM say we must wait until the threat is

imminent.

Then he says:

" Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions,

politely putting us on notice before they strike? "

Having heard many of Kay's comments on TV and the radio, I thought he

was very balanced and defended Bush when the interviewers tried to take

his statements and findings out of context.

There are many quotes available from Clinton, Gore, Lieberman, Kerry,

, Kennedy, etc. that state what a threat Iraq is, and how the US

must act to prevent them from becoming a bigger threat. Some of these

quotes go back to the late 90's and as recently as 2003. Funny how

things change during an election year, and how the news fails to

challenge the candidates on this.

I certainly think the intelligence community failed, but since the end

of the Cold War, funding for covert agents has dropped. It takes a very

long time to establish good sources in the field and this lack of

sources led to the faulty information.

Here's what we DO know:

1. Saddam HAD WMD and used them on his own people on numerous

occasions. There was no reason to think that they all had been

destroyed.

2. Saddam had violated almost every UN Resolution put in place since

the end of the first Gulf War and continued to lie, cheat and obfuscate

at every opportunity.

3. Saddam had active programs in development to obtain nuclear,

biological and chemical weapons and the long-range missile systems to

deliver them. Kay said so in his report.

4. Many of the Iraqi military commanders were under the impression that

chemical or biological weapons were available and were being sent

forward. It is known that Saddam had spent large sums of money on

developing them, but the programs had not progressed very far - in part

because the scientists in charge feared what would happen when giving

bad news to Saddam (torture, imprisonment, rape, murder, etc.)

Having said all of that, I of course feel that the AVIP program (and

the Smallpox immunization) should be stopped immediately. Remember, it

started under GHWB when the vaccine was used in the first Gulf War,

continued (and ramped up) under Clinton, and resumed under GWB. I think

that Bush could put a stop to it, but hasn't at the urging of DOD, much

to my disappointment. It's a political decision now, and I don't mean

republican or democratic. I mean that once a government policy has been

enacted, it's very difficult to reverse. The lawsuits have the best

potential to end the AVIP, and Mark Zaid, Buzz, Redmond, Meryl, Randi,

Kathy, etc. are doing an outstanding job keeping the issue at the

forefront.

We'll win this fight, just like we'll win in Iraq and the Middle East.

Blackburn

On Wednesday, January 28, 2004, at 01:56 AM, DSNurse@... wrote:

> Good article.......I would really really like someone or numbers of

> someone

> to tell me why they continue on with this AVIP.

>

> Is there a reason to weaken the troops?

>

> What are all the ideas that each of you have had?

>

> Or is it just money and profit that is driving this insanity?

>

> WE need to find out who is the policy guy at the WH that lets this go

> on and

> on....

> is it the President, is it Cheney, is it DOD......

[Guest guest]

..> I don't see the above happening. We " knew " exactly, okay

..> roughly, where they were, or where they may have been...

..> moved to? How can you be mistaken if you " knew " ?

I believe the " intelligence community " is getting a bad rap on this.

Dr. Blix could certainly have corrected for our having had no reliable

first-hand intelligence about the alleged WMDs if we'd only let his

teams complete their surveys.

..> So far, I'm seeing the AVIP as a completely USELESS program with the

..> only intent on minimizing the force, either through

..> punishments or disabling ailments.

It worked on ME!

Predictably,

========================================================================

========

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing,

and as necessary in the political world as storms in the

physical.

... It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of

government.

-- Jefferson

========================================================================

========