Pattern of deception

[Richpo64]

Stupid Intelligence

By Alan M. Dershowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | 12/7/2007

The recent national intelligence estimate that concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 is just about the stupidest intelligence assessment I have ever read. It falls hook, line and sinker for a transparent bait and switch tactic employed not only by Iran, but by several other nuclear powers in the past.

The tactic is obvious and well-known to all intelligence officials with an IQ above room temperature. It goes like this: There are two tracks to making nuclear weapons: One is to conduct research and develop technology directly related to military use. That is what the United States did when it developed the atomic bomb during the Manhattan Project. The second track is to develop nuclear technology for civilian use and then to use the civilian technology for military purposes.


What every intelligence agency knows is that the most difficult part of developing weapons corresponds precisely to the second track, namely civilian use. In other words, it is relatively simple to move from track 2 to track 1 in a short period of time. As Valerie Lincy and Gary Milhollin, both experts on nuclear arms control, put it in a New York Times Op Ed on December 6, 2007:


?During the past year, a period when Iran?s weapons program was supposedly halted, the government has been busy installing some 3,000 gas centrifuges at its plant at Natanz. These machines could, if operated continuously for about a year, create enough enriched uranium to provide fuel for a bomb. In addition, they have no plausible purpose in Iran?s civilian nuclear effort. All of Iran?s needs for enriched uranium for its energy programs are covered by a contract with Russia.


?Iran is also building a heavy water reactor at its research center at Arak. This reactor is ideal for producing plutonium for nuclear bombs, but is of little use in an energy program like Iran?s, which does not use plutonium for reactor fuel. India, Israel and Pakistan have all built similar reactors?all with the purpose of fueling nuclear weapons. And why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value? And why is Iran developing long-range Shahab missiles, which make no military sense without nuclear warheads to put on them?


??the halting of its secret enrichment and weapon design efforts in 2003 proves only that Iran made a tactical move. It suspended work that, if discovered, would unambiguously reveal intent to build a weapon. It has continued other work, crucial to the ability to make a bomb, that it can pass off as having civilian applications.?


Duh! What then can explain so obvious an intelligence gaffe. One explanation could lie in the old saw that ?military intelligence is to intelligence as military music is to music?. But I simply don?t believe that our intelligence agencies are populated by the kind of nincompoops who would fall for so obvious an Iranian ploy. The more likely explanation is that there is an agenda hiding in the report. What then might that agenda be? To find a hidden agenda one should always look for the beneficiaries. Who wins from this deeply flawed report? Well, certainly Iran does, but it is unlikely that Iranian interests could drive any American agenda. Lincy and Milhollin surmise that:


?We should be suspicious of any document that suddenly gives the Bush administration a pass on a big national security problem it won?t solve during its remaining year in office. Is the administration just washing its hands of the intractable Iranian nuclear issue by saying, ?f we can?t fix it, it ain?t broke???


My own view is that the authors of the report were fighting the last war. No, not the war in Iraq, but rather what they believe was Vice President Cheney?s efforts to go to war with Iran. This report surely takes the wind out of those sails. But that was last year?s unfought war. Nobody in Washington has seriously considered attacking Iran since Condolleezza Rice and Robert Gates replaced Cheney as the foreign policy power behind the throne.


Whatever the agenda and whatever the motive this report may well go down in history as one of the most dangerous, misguided and counterproductive intelligence assessments in history. It may well encourage the Iranians to move even more quickly in developing nuclear weapons. If the report is correct in arguing that the only way of discouraging Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to maintain international pressure, then the authors of the report must surely know that they have single-handedly reduced any incentive by the international community to keep the pressure up.


If Neville Chamberlain weren?t long dead I would wonder whether he had a hand in writing this ?peace in our time? intelligence fiasco.


I wish the intelligence assessment were correct. So does most of the media, which accepted its na?ve conclusion with uncritical enthusiasm. The world would be a far safer place if Iran had indeed ended its efforts to develop deliverable nuclear weapons. But wishing for a desirable outcome does not make it so. Pretending that a desirable outcome is happening, when the best information indicates that it?s not, only encourages the worst outcome.


The authors of this perverse report, which is influencing policy so immediately and negatively, will have much to answer for if their assessment results in a reduction of pressure on Iran?which is the only nation actually to threaten to use nuclear weapons to attack its enemies?to stop its obvious march toward becoming the world?s most dangerous nuclear military power.

[Plane]

Yes the question is in the air;

Why did Iran halt its development of Nuclear weapons?

[Richpo64]

There's another question;

Did they really halt development of nuclear weapons?

If they did, doesn't President Bush get the credit?

[Michael Tee]

If the intelligence report can be tailored to fit this year's administration agenda, any intelligence report could be tailored to fit any year's administration agenda.  Which is basically what I've been saying all along.  An administration which crafts today's intelligence as it pleases would have done so yesterday and the day before as well.  Intelligence is whatever the "President" says it is, at least in this current administration.

[BT]

Intelligence is whatever the "President" says it is, at least in this current administration.

Do you doubt the NIE?

[Michael Tee]

Of course I doubt it.  It could just be one more instrument of "Presidential" policy.

Personally, I think it would be perfectly logical for Iran to work towards possession of nuclear weapons. 

[BT]

Of course I doubt it.  It could just be one more instrument of "Presidential" policy.

Why would neo-con warmongers fabricate a report that diffuses saber rattling?

Are they setting up a dem administration?

Are they discrediting Plame?

[Michael Tee]

I think the neocons (Likudniks) are on the losing side of this one.  There is a pro-business, anti-ideological faction within the Republican right, the same one which, acting through Mel Laird, forced the stand-down of the Vietnam War when the impact on the currency proved too violent for Amerikka to withstand, and I think a similar process is working out here.  The winners in this struggle are people who don't give a shit about Israel and will force the politicians to shut down the war regardless of how that impacts on the Israelis. 

The war is a failure which the ideologues in the Party and the persons most closely associated with the war cannot admit.  The general policy of aggression has failed and needs to be wound down and then liquidated.  Stopping the inflammatory rhetoric against Iran is only the first step.  Getting out of Iraq is a much bigger one.  Since it can only start with a declaration of victory, the groundwork for which is unfolding as we speak,  we are hearing all kinds of the "surge is working," "violence is down" nonsense which is necessary before the announcements of troop pull-outs.

I don't believe they are setting up a Democratic administration, although that is certainly possible.  More likely, I think, is that they are setting the conditions for a Republican victory in 08 - - no more war in Iraq and no threats of war against Iran.  By Nov. 2008, the reasoning goes, people will have gotten beyond the Middle East and its problems.

[BT]

I don't believe they are setting up a Democratic administration, although that is certainly possible.  More likely, I think, is that they are setting the conditions for a Republican victory in 08 - - no more war in Iraq and no threats of war against Iran.  By Nov. 2008, the reasoning goes, people will have gotten beyond the Middle East and its problems.

So the dems blew the one opportunity they had to seize leadership on foreign policy?

or is the battleground shifting to domestic?

[Michael Tee]

<<So the dems blew the one opportunity they had to seize leadership on foreign policy?>>

IMHO, Bigtime.  They alienated their grass-roots when their leadership elected not to pull the plug on the war by cutting funding.  The "endangering the troops" logic of that move was pure sophistry.  They're endangered by being there.  Whoever sent them there endangered them.  With no money, they gotta pull out.  That argument was pure sophistry, which the grass-roots know and resent.

The Republicans completely outmanoeuvered them.  Because the surge is temporarily "working," the chickenshit Democratic leadership gets a pass from the grass-roots, giving them a new (temporary) lease on life.  But the Republicans get a bigger boost by making the 80-lb. albatross around their necks (the war) a good 40 lbs. lighter and at the same time the "new intelligence" (LOL) puts Iran on the back burner, effectively weakening anti-war mobilization against them.

Had Pelosi and Reid gone for the jugular before the surge was able to show its (deceptively temporary) results, they could have reaped the credit for ending the slaughter (of Americans) and shown moreover that they were leaders with balls, who could take decisive steps to end a festering problem.  That opportunity is not only gone, but in the interval that followed their rejection of the opportunity, the apparent benefits of the surge have made them all look stupid for even their half-assed ways of resisting the war.

<<or is the battleground shifting to domestic?>>

Necessarily so, I think, as the urgency of Iran and Iraq is fading.  Not that the Republicans aren't vulnerable on the domestic front, but it's not as galvanizing an issue and it's a better battleground for them.

[sirs]

<<What Tee is looking for is some official flyer from each country applying its position on Saddam's WMD.  There is none, just as there was none from the U.S. >>

LOL.  More typical sir-realism, lack of evidence is conclusive proof of what the missing evidence would prove if it DID exist.

No, the WORDS of those who have had substantial knowledge of the intelligence agencies, and how they come to their conclusions is the proof.  As I said, even the U.S. doesn't have any official paper from the CIA, merely the words of it's head at the time Tenet, stating "Slam dunk".  Ar eyou going on record stating that the CIA now never believed Saddam had any WMD, and that he was in full compliance of UN 1441?  Come on, let's hear it   

<<EVERY article I have read that included members of the intel community, outside of Plame, have been consistent in how all their respective countries were convinced of Saddam's WMD. >>

Read a lot of those articles, didja?  Very prestigious articles they must have been, by top journalists, I'm sure.  Care to share any of them with us?  Did any of them mention that Curveball, the chief source of the WMD rumours, was an INC plant or that the Germans had said he was not reliable?

Been there, done that route Tee.  Everyone, even those who don't support the war or Bush, has been deemed by you as some RW rag, a puppet of the administration, a stealth war supporter, etc., etc., etc.  In other words, you've made up your mind, and no one is going to confuse you with the facts, including those with intimate knowledge of how the intelligence agencies work

<<LOL.....or you can just keep playing your version of Fantasyland, as typified by the above (last paragraph in the previous post)>>

Well the last bit was admittedly pure speculation on my part.

MOST of your dren is pure speculation.  That last blast was farscape fantasy.  You wouldn't have been able to sell that to Hollywood

<< What you had from each country was the leaders indicating their stances, BASED on the intel provided them.>>

Oh, right.  Their INTEL said, "This dangerous lunatic is sitting on a stack of WMD that could blow us all into the next world on a moment's notice," so their STANCE, based on that intel, was, "Yaaaawn, we're not gonna lift a finger to prevent the anihilation of the entire planet at the whim of Saddam Hussein, fuck do we care?"   Gotcha.

Once again, Tee goes for the standard hyperbolic approach in trying to paint his opposition's POV.  Sad, but when one is left with nothing but straws, one has to do what one does best.  In this case, it's applied to this CONSTANT attempt to paint Saddam as about to go apesnot and unleash every one of his WMD, on the entire middle east, Israel, and of course the U.S, thus provoking us to have to go to war.  NO ONE has said that, claimed that, or even implied that, yet Tee, keeps perseverating on it as it that were the case.  I guess when someone lyes as easily as Tee, when trying to paint Bush or the U.S. miltary in the asanine ways he does, it's really not surprising.

For those with a rational head, following 911 and the connections that Iraq had with Islamic terrorists both direct & indirect, which included those from AlQeada who had just pulled off 911, Bush, BASED on the intel that nearly everyone else agreed with, gave Saddam a timeline of compliance, supported by UN 1441.  Saddam chose not to fully comply, and called the U.S. bluff.  But of course, this time, it wasn't empty rhetoric, the U.S. actually meant what it said, and serious consequences were unleashed upon Saddam and his regime.  Saddam was taken out, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. 

Now, Tee actually knows all this, he's not ignorant.  The problem is he can't get any of these FACTS passed his already predisposed template of how evil Amerikka and Bush are supposed to be.  So, all this goes into his template, and out comes the garbage of manipulated intel, Bush and Bush alone lying us into war while everyone else apparently simply were mistaken, imminent nuke atttack by Saddam upon the U.S. despite any quotes of such, critics of the war and Bush who write about the near unanimous global concensus on the intel, are really stealth supporters of Bush and the war, official commissions and investigations covering themselves despite any evidence of course, when they unanimously concluded no manipulation of intel or cooercion of intel agents by Bush or his Administration, American butchers slaughtering innocent Iraqis in cold blood when not torturing them, all at the behest and support of this Administration, again despite the condemnations of any actions that are truely barbaric and PROSECUTED upon those who've committed them

[Michael Tee]

<<Been there, done that route Tee.  Everyone, even those who don't support the war or Bush, has been deemed by you as some RW rag, a puppet of the administration, a stealth war supporter, etc., etc., etc.  In other words, you've made up your mind, and no one is going to confuse you with the facts, including those with intimate knowledge of how the intelligence agencies work>>

So you admit that you DON'T have a single reputable article that supports your ludicrous contention that France, Russia, China and Germany all saw the "menace" of Saddam and his WMD as Bush did immediately prior to the invasion.  Thank you.

<<No, the WORDS of those who have had substantial knowledge of the intelligence agencies, and how they come to their conclusions is the proof. >>

Oh, I get it.  We rely on the word of the insiders themselves.  Extrinsic evidence not allowed.  "Did you as head of the CIA, doctor your intelligence reports to suit the policy needs of the Bush administration?"  "No, sir, I did not."  "OK, that 's good enough for me.  Case closed."  Brilliant.

<<Saddam chose not to fully comply . . . >>

Lie no. 1 - - Saddam complied substantially, in massive detail and to the best of his ability, and within the deadline by two or three full days.

<< . . . and [Saddam] called the U.S. bluff. >>

Lie no. 2 - - calling the U.S. bluff would have been presenting a half-assed obviously non-compliant response or better yet, none at all, or still better, telling the UN and/or the U.S. to go fuck themselves.

<< But of course, this time, it wasn't empty rhetoric, the U.S. actually meant what it said, and serious consequences were unleashed upon Saddam and his regime.  >>

Uh, the ultimatum was a UN ultimatum, not a U.S. ultimatum.  The U.S. , speaking for the U.N. without being asked to do so, took it upon itself to invade Iraq, a sanction which the UN itself did not see as required in the circumstances.  Basically, this was a predetermined war of aggression seeking a fig-leaf of justification, and the UN demand, which the UN itself deemed satisfied, was used as that fig-leaf.

<<Saddam was taken out, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. >>

When the mission is accomplished, the troops come home.  The mission was not accomplished because the troops were never called back.  The mission was not to depose Saddam and leave the country in chaos, it was (officially, anyway) to leave the country with a functioning democratic government.  The mission was NEVER accomplished and Bush knew it.

<<The problem is he can't get any of these FACTS passed his already predisposed template of how evil Amerikka and Bush are supposed to be. >>

Huh?  Supposed to be?  They ARE!

<< So, all this goes into his template, and out comes the garbage of manipulated intel [OBVIOUSLY TRUE] Bush and Bush alone lying us into war [BUSH HAD PLENTY OF LIARS HELPING HIM, I NEVER SAID HE LIED ALONE], while everyone else apparently simply were mistaken, [SOME WERE DUPED OTHERS LIED WITH BUSH] imminent nuke atttack by Saddam upon the U.S. despite any quotes of such, ["WE CAN'T WAIT TILL THE SMOKING GUN BECOMES THE MUSHROOM CLOUD," HOW'S THAT FOR A QUOTE?] critics of the war and Bush who write about the near unanimous global concensus on the intel, [NO SUCH CONSENSUS EXISTS] are really stealth supporters of Bush and the war, official commissions and investigations covering themselves despite any evidence of course, when they unanimously concluded no manipulation of intel or cooercion of intel agents by Bush or his Administration, [CAREFULLY SELECTED WHITEWASH ARTISTS] American butchers slaughtering innocent Iraqis in cold blood

when not torturing them, [THEY DO] all at the behest and support of this Administration, [HAVE AUTHORIZED WATERBOARDING, FAILED TO PUNISH ANY PERP SEVERELY] again despite the condemnations [LIES] of any actions that are truely barbaric and PROSECUTED [RESULTING IN ACQUITTALS, SWEETHEART DEALS OR WRIST SLAPS] upon those who've committed them

[sirs]

<<Been there, done that route Tee.  Everyone, even those who don't support the war or Bush, has been deemed by you as some RW rag, a puppet of the administration, a stealth war supporter, etc., etc., etc.  In other words, you've made up your mind, and no one is going to confuse you with the facts, including those with intimate knowledge of how the intelligence agencies work>>

So you admit that you DON'T have a single reputable article that supports your ludicrous contention that France, Russia, China and Germany all saw the "menace" of Saddam and his WMD as Bush did immediately prior to the invasion.  

Nor do you, claiming otherwise.  Thank you.  So, what we have are the folks intimate with the intellgence gathering appartus saying he did, and referencing all the other country's intel agencies saying the same, and you claiming that since there's no "official report" then it can't be true.  Which of course, for everyone to see, even with "official reports", such as the Robb Silberman & 911 commission reports, you have no problem tossing them aside as well.  So, in other words, even if there were such, you'd rationalize them away as just CYA stuff, can't be trusted, Bush is evil, Amerikka is evil, and incoherently rant some more, still devoid of any evidence to your rants, while not so surprising I still have the words of a plethoral of Intelleigence agents, their superiors, and Official Reports on my side of the aisle.  Which ALSO includes the countries of France, Russia, Germany signing on IN ADVANCE to Secretary of State Powell's presentation to the UN.  Go figure

<<No, the WORDS of those who have had substantial knowledge of the intelligence agencies, and how they come to their conclusions is the proof. >>

Oh, I get it.  We rely on the word of the insiders themselves.  Extrinsic evidence not allowed.  "Did you as head of the CIA, doctor your intelligence reports to suit the policy needs of the Bush administration?"  "No, sir, I did not."  "OK, that 's good enough for me.  Case closed."  Brilliant.

Yea, the insiders who WOULD theoretically be putting out some official report.  And what "extrinsic evidence"?  To which of course, I never claimed all the global intel was hoisted upon the shoulder of 1 man, Tenet, either.  Tenet was merely 1 of many involved in the intelligence gathering busness, many ironically that do NOT support our current efforts in Iraq or Bush, but acknowledge that yea, the intel lead them to believe Saddam had his WMD stockpiles.  This is a FACT, and your perseverating over no official report by each country's intelligence agency, which includes the U.S. holds zip water.  One of Bush's toughest critics, SoS Powell's Chief of Staff Wilkerson had to acknowledge " I can't tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can't. I've wrestled with it.  But when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP--Ammunition Supply Point--with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they're there, you have to conclude that it's a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet's deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell's UN speech] was accurate."   Wilkerson informs us that even the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, was convinced  "People say, well, INR dissented. That's a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That's all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios."

<<Saddam chose not to fully comply . . . >>

Saddam complied substantially, in massive detail and to the best of his ability, and within the deadline by two or three full days.

FULLY was REQUIRED/MANDATED.  Not Tee's version of "substantial"

<< . . . and [Saddam] called the U.S. bluff. >>

calling the U.S. bluff would have been presenting a half-assed obviously non-compliant response or better yet, none at all, or still better, telling the UN and/or the U.S. to go fuck themselves.

Calling one's bluff doesn't require a slap in the face.  It can be as subtle as dropping a hankerchief.  And in this case, Hans Blix even implied how shoddy Saddam was in many respects of their "compliance" efforts  "The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km [105 miles] southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for."  Point being, they weren't, end of story

<< But of course, this time, it wasn't empty rhetoric, the U.S. actually meant what it said, and serious consequences were unleashed upon Saddam and his regime.  >>

the ultimatum was a UN ultimatum, not a U.S. ultimatum.  The U.S. , speaking for the U.N. without being asked to do so, took it upon itself to invade Iraq, a sanction which the UN itself did not see as required in the circumstances. 

We didn't require or need the UN's permission, just as Clinton didn't in Kosovo.  It wasn't he UN's crediblity that was an issue any longer, as they had none.  It was now the U.S.'s credibility, and that did matter.  Thus we acted, with a coalition of many other countries that agreed, and provided support in many forms & logistics beyond simply troops.

Basically, this was a predetermined war of aggression seeking a fig-leaf of justification, and the UN demand, which the UN itself deemed satisfied, was used as that fig-leaf.

Well, thanks again for the completely unsubstantiated OPINION

<<Saddam was taken out, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. >>

When the mission is accomplished, the troops come home. 

Depends on the mission.  Then again, you already know that.  Which is why the ABB application that the "mission" was supposedly that we'd be completed with Iraq....which of course has never been the case, but doesn't stop that LIE from being pertuated on a daily basis

The mission was not to depose Saddam and leave the country in chaos, it was (officially, anyway) to leave the country with a functioning democratic government.  The mission was NEVER accomplished and Bush knew it.

You just gave 2 missions.  The 1st one WAS accomplished, minus of course the chaos mandate.  the 2nd one is still ongoing.  Only morons and those infliced with BDS would come to some asanine conclusion that as soon as Saddam was deposed --> whala, Iraq would now be a functioning democratic government   

<<The problem is he can't get any of these FACTS passed his already predisposed template of how evil Amerikka and Bush are supposed to be. >>

Huh?  Supposed to be?  They ARE!

It's amazing how I laugh every time you pull that   

[Michael Tee]

<<Only morons and those infliced with BDS would come to some asanine conclusion that as soon as Saddam was deposed --> whala, Iraq would now be a functioning democratic government >>

You'd have to be a REAL moron to think, if there were really two separate and consecutive missions, that after the completion of only one of them, Bush would prance around under a MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner, rather than claiming "One down, one to go" or otherwise indicating more hard slogging ahead.  There were lots of ways to say what you claim Bush was really saying, but MISSION ACCOMPLISHED wasn't one of them.  MISSION ACCOMPLISHED meant the purpose of the war was accomplished, the job was done.

As for your literalistic and totally unrealistic interpretation of the UN requirement, FULLY was not only humanly impossible - - there is no country on earth, there is no corporation on earth, that could "FULLY" account for every single piece of inventory produced or acquired over a ten-year period - - common sense alone should tell you that, and if it doesn't (since you are totally devoid of it,) then real-life experience should and (since you seem to be totally devoid of that as well) the attitude of the UN itself with regard to its own demand, that it did not deem it appropriate to employ force against Saddam Hussein, given his substantial compliance with their demand, should indicate to you that Saddam had in fact satisfied the UN requirements.  The argument that the U.S. unilaterally decided to use force against Iraq because of an alleged defect in its compliance with UN demands when the UN itself was satisfied with the degree of compliance shown, is transparently phony.

<<I still have the words of a plethoral of Intelleigence agents, their superiors, and Official Reports on my side of the aisle.>>

No you don't.  You just have self-serving reports and words from the agents of the two countries which violated the UN Charter and attacked Iraq without UN approval.

<<Which ALSO includes the countries of France, Russia, Germany signing on IN ADVANCE to Secretary of State Powell's presentation to the UN.  Go figure>>

I did go figure.  I figured that is a crock of shit.  I figured when you were challenged to produce one single piece of evidence that the intelligence services of any of those countries supported Bush's reasons for invasion, that you would be unable to do so.  That you wouldn't be able to come up with a single scrap of paper in support of it.  Apparently, I figured right.

<<One of Bush's toughest critics, SoS Powell's Chief of Staff Wilkerson had to acknowledge " I can't tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can't. I've wrestled with it.  But when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP--Ammunition Supply Point--with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they're there, you have to conclude that it's a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet's deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell's UN speech] was accurate."   Wilkerson informs us that even the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, was convinced  "People say, well, INR dissented. That's a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That's all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios.">>

Comical.  Wilkerson is NOT one of Bush's toughest critics.  There are people who allege Bush lied the country into war.  That he dodged combat in Viet Nam, using family connections to do so.  That he's a habitual liar.    That he fakes concern over U.S. casualties but doesn't really give a shit.  THOSE are "Bush's toughest critics."  Wilkerson doesn't even come close.  He's chief of staff for a handmaiden to the Bush war of aggression.  He's no outsider.  And he's got a lot of ass to cover, his boss's, the boss of his boss, and his own.  What he has to say on the matter is worthless.  What he does say is meaningless verbiage.  They agreed on "most if not all."  What does THAT mean?  Was there or wasn't there anything they didn't agree on?  What was it they didn't agree on?  Condi was raising fears of nuclear attack ("the mushroom cloud") and this guy at the most is referring to chemical and biological weapons, none with any proven mass lethality even remotely comparable to that of nukes.

I therefore return to my original point - - you have NO evidence - - zero, zip, nada - - that the intelligence services of Germany, France, Russia and China believed Bush's fairy tale of Iraqi WMD.  There was no threat, there was no immediacy, there was therefore no justification even remotely possible for the criminal act of aggression committed by the U.S. and Britain on Iraq.

<<The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km [105 miles] southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for." >>

Pathetic BS.  "a number of," "relatively new," "past few years," "could be the tip of an . . . iceberg," and words equally vague.  "A storage depot 105 miles southwest of Baghdad" is particularly ludicrous.  Draw a circle with a 105-mile radius around Baghdad and try to figure out how many storage depots you could fit inside it.  "A number" of warheads becomes in the same paragraph "a few" warheads and of course the speculation about tips of icebergs is classic; we found a few grams of marijuana on him, your Honour, but of course the few grams could be only the tip of the iceberg, we think the guy must have 100 tonnes of the stuff stashed away somewhere.    Hilarious.

Face it, sirs, you have NOTHING.  Zero.  If THAT is your evidence that British, French, German, Russian etc. intelligence services all back Bush, it is the most pathetic bunch of bullshit I've seen in a long time.  If their intelligence services really believed that, why did their governments hold back from endorsing use of force?  Obviously they did not believe Bush's cooked intelligence and did not act on it.

<<We didn't require or need the UN's permission, just as Clinton didn't in Kosovo.  It wasn't he UN's crediblity that was an issue any longer, as they had none.>>

Then why did the U.S. draft a Security Council resolution approving use of force, lobby hard for it up to the night before it was to be argued, and then withdraw it at the last minute if they did not need it?  How could the UN have no credibility if the U.S. spent so much effort trying to get a Security Council resolution?  If the UN has no credibility, why doesn't the U.S. renounce the U.N. Charter and announce that it is no longer bound by it?  Even Hitler and Mussolini had the balls to do that to the League of Nations.  Are you suggesting that the U.S. is less honest than they?  Why does it continue to pretend to be bound by a Charter which creates an organization of no credibility?

The Bush administration is like a juvenile delinquent caught breaking the law and blaming the authorities for his predicament.  The laws which he has broken are the laws of a discredited, bogus society, he does not need to seek to comply with such laws, etc.  You probably have no idea how slimy you and the Bush administration appear, breaking the laws of an organization which your own country founded and claiming that you can do so because the organization has "no credibility."  Pathetic.  No wonder that Jimmy Carter claimed on CBC that the reputation of the U.S.A. in the world today is at its lowest point in 200 years.

<<It's amazing how I laugh every time you pull that [say that Bush is evil and Amerikkka is evil.]>>

Well, maybe it would be amazing if it were anyone but you.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would like to know how President Bush and Vice -President Cheny could perform Cherry picking on Downing street.

=========================================
Lookit, Cheney and Juniorbush are nominally the "deciders", but they are agents of an international oligarchy that wants its greedy hands on Iraq's oil. Just as this oligarchy put pressure on the US executive to monger a war, it also pressured Blair to do the same. Evidence that was contradictory was rejected, evidence that Iraq needed to be invaded, such as that one guy who was lying like hell, was taken as the whole truth.

And that, Plane, is how it worked, and how it will continue working until the US government is someone who has the balls to ignore the oligarchy. Right now they are trying to remove tax breaks on Big Oil, and it looks like thei won;'t happen, becauase guess what? --The oligarchy is sgainst it and HATES paying taxes, even at times of record profits.