Printable View
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=410730
30 May 2003
The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged.
The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair.
And this is news to you...?
Bullshit.
I'm sure that's the reason, but there's no way Wolfowitz would admit it.
---
After reading the article, it seems pretty clear the adminstration focused on WMD because they could agree on it - not because they fabricated it.
"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine.
"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine.
"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine.
"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine.
Burgundy check the next isseu of Vanity fair.
Stone, yeah read it out loud they decided to go to war with Iraq and for bureaucratic reasons they decided to settle on WMD, becouse hey they could all agree on that.
So FIRST they decided on the war and THEN they decided the focus would be on using WMD as a selling point.
No. Out of the myriad justifications for an invasion of Iraq, the administration settled on WMD because it was the one they all agreed with.
Dude they couldnt even justify the WMD thing before they invaded, to this day they still cant.
They needed something to sell it to the public and WMD and the UN were the dreamed opportunity, all probably agreed that that would be the easiest way to get international support, it blew up in their face tough.
For the record both Wolfowitz as well as Rumsfeld shortly after 9/11 wanted to misuse that tragedy to attack Iraq even tough they had nothing to do with it.
From the same link: The magazine article reveals that Mr Wolfowitz was even pushing Mr Bush to attack Iraq immediately after the 11 September attacks in the US, instead of invading Afghanistan.
I agree with you. But you made it sound as if Wolfowitz came out and said "Our WMD justification was complete bullshit," and that's not what he said at all.
And it hasn't blown up in their faces. The invasion was successful in every meaning of the word, the administration is still riding a wave of popular support, and although the UN is still chattering, no one cared then or cares now.
Heh, what do you guys think about this:
http://www.lebanonwire.com/0305/03053013DS.asp
The United States is reportedly making a fresh attempt to strike a behind-the-scenes deal to neutralize Hizbullah, offering the government half a billion dollars if the resistance is dismantled and Syria pulls its troops out of Lebanon.
...
As-Safir said the $500 million would be delivered in phases as Lebanon fulfilled a number of demands. An initial $100 million would be disbursed if Lebanon agreed to settle its water disputes with Israel, namely the allocation of water from the Hasbani River.
A further $250 million would be handed over for development projects in the border district if Hizbullah’s military wing is dismantled and the army deployed along the UN-delineated Blue Line. The remaining $150 million would be allocated to water and agricultural projects in the South.
There was no immediate official comment on the offer, but few believe that Lebanon and Syria will accept the alleged deal.
Silly either way.
The ends justify the means.
*ducks tomato barrage*
Cool lets end world hunger by nuking the entire planet.
No humans=no hungry humans.
Its a great plan as it also guarantees a long standing world peace.
Some more stuff to read: U.S. Insiders Say Iraq Intel Deliberately Skewed
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle....toryID=2854511
Anger among security professionals appears widespread. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group that says it is made up mostly of CIA intelligence analysts, wrote to U.S. President George Bush May 1 to hit what they called "a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions."
"In intelligence there is one unpardonable sin -- cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy," it wrote. "There is ample indication this has been done with respect to Iraq."
cool
one group says this, one says the other
Huh?
Did you even read the article you linked to?
This guy says this, Intelligence denies it
Of course theyd do that, they wouldnt just go out and impeach themselves now would they?
Yeah, but it comes down to "who do you believe"...I'm not taking any sides' word for it. Hint, hint.
All signs point towards the doubters.
None of the things claimed have yet turned out to be true and a lot of things even before the war were exposed as fabrications, if low resource freelance journalists can expose US inteligence as fraud even before the war how can it be taken seriously?
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...ecdef0223.html
TANENHAUS: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into--
WOLFOWITZ: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but . . . there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. . . . The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his U.N. presentation.
Read the entire transcript - throws a different light on Wolfowitz's remarks.
And, about this WMD thing - it is strange that we haven't found WMDs, given that our intelligence forces were reporting large stocks of the stuff. However, hardly anyone was actually debating whether Iraq was still developing WMDs - that point was assumed on all sides of the debate. The question was whether it had enough to justify pre-emptive warfare.
Exactly. Nice try to bend the words, Ali.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
No. Out of the myriad justifications for an invasion of Iraq, the administration settled on WMD because it was the one they all agreed with.
http://www.dittohead.org/images/crybaby.jpg
Dang, another good one.Quote:
Where'd you get that picture of me?Quote:
Stone that was one of the most boring reads ever and the horn he is blowing for himself while talking crap must be even bigger then his ego.
Pot. Kettle. Black.Quote:
Originally posted by Almaci
the horn he is blowing for himself while talking crap must be even bigger then his ego.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Hehehehe
I still don't agree that Iraq had WMD or even that the administration genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD. What I'm saying is that article doesn't lead me to change my beliefs.
For some reason, this sounds like a euphanism (sp) for 'conspiracy theory website.' I'm sure there's even more directions to go with it, but you get the idea.Quote:
Originally posted by Almaci if low resource freelance journalists
Again there is no conspiracy, everything is happening out in the open.
Gee we state facts and even link to the website of the people who called this war, provide examples and articles and still we get accuised of being conspiracy theorists.
There is NO conspiracy its in plain sight for everyone to see and read.
Everyone has their own agenda. You can't not believe something for the sake of not believing it, then turn arround with a website that says what you believe.