Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
Yup owned by the guardian, that one is scrapped of the list now.

Looks like overeager reporter who read things wrong ah well, next.

---

"Looks like overeager reporter who read things wrong ah well, next.". I read through Wolfowitz's statement ONCE and completely understood the points he was trying to make, any rational and intelligent person could. A journalist is held to a higher standard and is expected to make sure that the quotes and information he gives is unbiased and factual. As stone pointed out:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Journalist - someone engaged in "a style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation."

---

Apparently you are unwilling to admit to anything beyond that the reporter was "overeager", even though the evidence suggests that the reporter _intentionally_ distorted the statement of Wolfowitz. He has no excuse for what he did, and one can only assume that it was politically motivated as are most of the articles and positions of the guardian. And then one comes to the Guardians role in this. Where were the fact checkers for this story? And why was this incredible breach of journalistic integrity relegated to a webpage correction that was pulled after a short time and put in some obscure section?

Would the same ready willingness on your part to brush off a politically motivated breach of journalistic ethics occur if a conservative member of this board were to post an article from a major "conservative" newspaper that was later found to contain complete distortions of someones actual statements? I think not. But of course as I said before, in your case the ends justify the means. If Wolfowitz didn't say that the motive behind our "excuse for war" in Iraq was that it was "swimming" in oil, you certain ascribe these intentions to him and everyone in the Bush administration regardless of facts to the contrary. You actively look for news stories to support your assumptive opinions and ignore anything to the contrary, and if one of the stories containing egregious distortions is exposed and debunked, you merely go on to the next one as if nothing important or noteworthy occurred.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by teenwolf
"Looks like overeager reporter who read things wrong ah well, next.". I read through Wolfowitz's statement ONCE and completely understood the points he was trying to make, any rational and intelligent person could. A journalist is held to a higher standard and is expected to make sure that the quotes and information he gives is unbiased and factual. As stone pointed out:



Apparently you are unwilling to admit to anything beyond that the reporter was "overeager", even though the evidence suggests that the reporter _intentionally_ distorted the statement of Wolfowitz. He has no excuse for what he did, and one can only assume that it was politically motivated as are most of the articles and positions of the guardian. And then one comes to the Guardians role in this. Where were the fact checkers for this story? And why was this incredible breach of journalistic integrity relegated to a webpage correction that was pulled after a short time and put in some obscure section?

Would the same ready willingness on your part to brush off a politically motivated breach of journalistic ethics occur if a conservative member of this board were to post an article from a major "conservative" newspaper that was later found to contain complete distortions of someones actual statements? I think not. But of course as I said before, in your case the ends justify the means. If Wolfowitz didn't say that the motive behind our "excuse for war" in Iraq was that it was "swimming" in oil, you certain ascribe these intentions to him and everyone in the Bush administration regardless of facts to the contrary. You actively look for news stories to support your assumptive opinions and ignore anything to the contrary, and if one of the stories containing egregious distortions is exposed and debunked, you merely go on to the next one as if nothing important or noteworthy occurred.

---

You're missing the point. After all, the reason for the war WAS that Iraq was swimming in oil. You could say that the Guardian did nothing but present the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by red_war_machine
The greatest newspaper in the world redeems itself. :)

Looking at it more carefully, the original quote didn't really misconstrue stuff that much. I mean, it does say that Wolfowitz conceded that "WE have no choice..." which suggests that it wasn't in order to increase their own profits.

I'm still not too sure about the people that got the contract to build up Iraq's oil industry again though. :)

---

"the original quote didn't really misconstrue stuff that much."??? You must be blind or a true believer..



Guardian: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Transcript: "Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil."




" Q: I'm Satoru Suzuki with TV-Asahi of Japan. Mr. Secretary, eleven weeks have passed since the coalition forces moved into Iraq. Yet you've found no weapons of mass destruction in that country -- no convincing evidence yet. Given that, are you still convinced that you'll be able to find such weapons eventually and, in the absence of such weapons, how can you still justify the war, and what would you say to those critics in Japan and the rest of the world who've been saying that the war was mainly about oil?

Wolfowitz: Well, let me start with the last part. The notion that the war was ever about oil is a complete piece of nonsense. If the United States had been interested in Iraq's oil, it would have been very simple 12 years ago or any time in the last 12 years to simply do a deal with Saddam Hussein. We probably could have had any kind of preferred customer status we wanted if we'd been simply willing to drop our real concerns. Our real concerns focused on the threat posed by that country -- not only its weapons of mass destruction, but also its support for terrorism and, most importantly, the link between those two things.".

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...ecdef0242.html

Quote:

---

Original full news story posted by The Guardian
"Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war. The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North Korea and its neighbours - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.

His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."

Prior to that, his boss, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had already undermined the British government's position by saying Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his banned weapons before the war.

Mr Wolfowitz's frank assessment of the importance of oil could not come at a worse time for the US and UK governments, which are both facing fierce criticism at home and abroad over allegations that they exaggerated the threat post by Saddam Hussein in order to justify the war.

Amid growing calls from all parties for a public inquiry, the foreign affairs select committee announced last night it would investigate claims that the UK government misled the country over its evidence of Iraq's WMD.

The move is a major setback for Tony Blair, who had hoped to contain any inquiry within the intelligence and security committee, which meets in secret and reports to the prime minister.

In the US, the failure to find solid proof of chemical, biological and nuclear arms in Iraq has raised similar concerns over Mr Bush's justification for the war and prompted calls for congressional investigations.

Mr Wolfowitz is viewed as one of the most hawkish members of the Bush administration. The 57-year old expert in international relations was a strong advocate of military action against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Following the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, Mr Wolfowitz pledged that the US would pursue terrorists and "end" states' harbouring or sponsoring of militants.

Prior to his appointment to the Bush cabinet in February 2001, Mr Wolfowitz was dean and professor of international relations at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), of the Johns Hopkins University.".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by teenwolf
" Q: What I meant is that essentially North Korea is being taken more seriously because it has become a nuclear power by its own admission, whether or not that’s true, and that the lesson that people will have is that in the case of Iraq it became imperative to confront Iraq militarily because it had banned weapons systems and posed a danger to the region. In the case of North Korea, which has nuclear weapons as well as other banned weapons of mass destruction, apparently it is imperative not to confront, to persuade and to essentially maintain a regime that is just as appalling as the Iraqi regime in place, for the sake of the stability of the region. To other countries of the world this is a very mixed message to be sending out.

Wolfowitz: The concern about implosion is not primarily at all a matter of the weapons that North Korea has, but a fear particularly by South Korea and also to some extent China of what the larger implications are for them of having 20 million people on their borders in a state of potential collapse and anarchy. It’s is also a question of whether, if one wants to persuade the regime to change, whether you have to find -- and I think you do -- some kind of outcome that is acceptable to them. But that outcome has to be acceptable to us, and it has to include meeting our non-proliferation goals.

Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by red_war_machine
You're missing the point. After all, the reason for the war WAS that Iraq was swimming in oil. You could say that the Guardian did nothing but present the facts.

---

The reason for the war was NOT because Iraq was swimming in oil, yours is an assumptive opinion to say the least, and one that ignores any evidence to the contrary. And as for your last sentence.. No wonder you love the Guardian, you are really quite illogical. The Guardian COMPLETELY DISTORTED SOMEONES STATEMENTS TO FIT THEIR ASSUMPTIVE VIEWS OF "WHAT REALLY HAPPENED". How exactly is that presenting the facts? Distorting someones statements is factual how exactly? Oh right.. The assumptions behind the distortions are "factual", or so you claim. As I said before, the ends justify the means. I meant it in reference to Almaci, but it is readily apparent that you hold to the same views and modus operandi that he does so that reference pertains to you as well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by teenwolf
"the original quote didn't really misconstrue stuff that much."??? You must be blind or a true believer..

Guardian: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Transcript: "Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil."

---

If the Guardian had wanted to skew things completely, they could have said something like "Lets look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that Iraq swims on a sea of oil". THAT would be deliberately misleading people.

However, they didn't say that. They mentioned that the US "had no choice", which (I'll say it again) suggests that it was NOT for their own benefit. That is NOT someone saying that they are after Iraq's oil. It may have been interpreted by some as that but that's only - by your own admission - because the people who interpreted it thus were very left-wing themselves.

What the Guardian presented and what extreme anti-Bush people interpreted it as are two very different things.

*****

As for your last point, it WAS the reason. North Korea doesn't have oil, war wasn't waged. Iraq does have oil, war was waged. Ergo, oil was the reason for war if you're going to reduce it to its simplest form, which Wolfowitz does.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by red_war_machine
If the Guardian had wanted to skew things completely, they could have said something like "Lets look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that Iraq swims on a sea of oil". THAT would be deliberately misleading people.

However, they didn't say that. They mentioned that the US "had no choice", which (I'll say it again) suggests that it was NOT for their own benefit. That is NOT someone saying that they are after Iraq's oil. It may have been interpreted by some as that but that's only - by your own admission - because the people who interpreted it thus were very left-wing themselves.

What the Guardian presented and what extreme anti-Bush people interpreted it as are two very different things.

*****

As for your last point, it WAS the reason. North Korea doesn't have oil, war wasn't waged. Iraq does have oil, war was waged. Ergo, oil was the reason for war if you're going to reduce it to its simplest form, which Wolfowitz does.

---

"If the Guardian had wanted to skew things completely"? Apparently if news sources don't make a distortion obvious to your satisfaction you refuse to acknowledge that the distortion exists, even with the incredibly obvious evidence that has been made available here time and time again. The Guardian took a legitimate quote, that they had access to on their own website, and completely twisted the meaning of it both in the intro where they described what Wolfowitz said and where they displayed their distorted version of the real quote. I JUST posted the entire Guardian article and have posted the direct quote of Wolfowitz at least twice now. I had thought that before responding to my posts and commenting on the subject matter at hand, any rational individual would have READ THROUGH WHAT WOLFOWITZ ACTUALLY SAID. Stone also went through and explained exactly what Wolfowitz said. How in the world could you possibly have read through that and come up with these baseless and inane opinions? And if the Guardian was right, then why did they pull the story and issue a correction?

Quote:

---

Original Wolfowitz quote posted by teenwolf
" Q: What I meant is that essentially North Korea is being taken more seriously because it has become a nuclear power by its own admission, whether or not that’s true, and that the lesson that people will have is that in the case of Iraq it became imperative to confront Iraq militarily because it had banned weapons systems and posed a danger to the region. In the case of North Korea, which has nuclear weapons as well as other banned weapons of mass destruction, apparently it is imperative not to confront, to persuade and to essentially maintain a regime that is just as appalling as the Iraqi regime in place, for the sake of the stability of the region. To other countries of the world this is a very mixed message to be sending out.

Wolfowitz: The concern about implosion is not primarily at all a matter of the weapons that North Korea has, but a fear particularly by South Korea and also to some extent China of what the larger implications are for them of having 20 million people on their borders in a state of potential collapse and anarchy. It’s is also a question of whether, if one wants to persuade the regime to change, whether you have to find -- and I think you do -- some kind of outcome that is acceptable to them. But that outcome has to be acceptable to us, and it has to include meeting our non-proliferation goals.

Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
What Wolfowitz was trying to say is that our preferred option, when dealing with dictators, is to force change from within through the use of economic policy. We effect the lives of civilians by strangling their economy, and the civilians rise up and do something about the dictator - everyone wins. That option is best for us because we don't have to use our military, because we don't have to risk killing innocents, and so on.

That option can work for us in North Korea - North Korea is so poor economically that it's unable to take care of itself. The regime is almost dead already. Economic regulations, will, hopefully, eat away at the regime from within, and save us the trouble of having to end that government by force. Same thing, I think, with Iran - they've got a good shot at reinstituting democracy on their own.

However, Iraq was self-sustaining. Because of that sea of oil, the regime is able to keep itself propped up. Because of Iraq's economic strength, the option we would have preferred to continue using (sanctions) was not and would not have ever been viable. Given what Iraq was doing to its people, actual or potential WMD capability, given its power as a political threat, as a motivator of terrorism, our country was put in the position of having to remove the regime. Since the "sea of oil" took away our preferred economic action, and since international political action wasn't working, we were forced to use our 3rd, least preferred option, military intervention.

THAT is what Wolfowitz was saying with that quote. Do any of you really think that information was what the Guardian was trying to convey when it paraphrased Wolfie's statement?

---

Quote:

---

Original full news story posted by The Guardian that was pulled
"Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war. The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North Korea and its neighbours - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.

His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."

Prior to that, his boss, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had already undermined the British government's position by saying Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his banned weapons before the war.

Mr Wolfowitz's frank assessment of the importance of oil could not come at a worse time for the US and UK governments, which are both facing fierce criticism at home and abroad over allegations that they exaggerated the threat post by Saddam Hussein in order to justify the war.

Amid growing calls from all parties for a public inquiry, the foreign affairs select committee announced last night it would investigate claims that the UK government misled the country over its evidence of Iraq's WMD.

The move is a major setback for Tony Blair, who had hoped to contain any inquiry within the intelligence and security committee, which meets in secret and reports to the prime minister.

In the US, the failure to find solid proof of chemical, biological and nuclear arms in Iraq has raised similar concerns over Mr Bush's justification for the war and prompted calls for congressional investigations.

Mr Wolfowitz is viewed as one of the most hawkish members of the Bush administration. The 57-year old expert in international relations was a strong advocate of military action against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Following the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, Mr Wolfowitz pledged that the US would pursue terrorists and "end" states' harbouring or sponsoring of militants.

Prior to his appointment to the Bush cabinet in February 2001, Mr Wolfowitz was dean and professor of international relations at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), of the Johns Hopkins University.".

---

""Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war. The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."".



The Guardian specifically stated that Paul Wolfowitz "has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.", and then they gave their own distorted version of the quote.

Guardian Version: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.".

Actual Wolfowitz quote: "Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil.".

The Guardian quote was intentionally distorted to fit the view of the opening statement. Now try comparing the Guardians story and distorted quote with the actual wolfowitz quote and the Guardian story below from over a week ago.



Guardian story from over a week ago that directly shows what Wolfowitz's intent was, this one is without the distortion (A little harder to manipulate associated press stories I guess).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...736108,00.html

""The United States hopes to end the nuclear standoff with North Korea by putting economic pressure on the impoverished nation, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Saturday.

North Korea would respond to economic pressure, unlike Iraq, where military action was necessary because the country's oil money was propping up the regime, Wolfowitz told delegates at the second annual Asia Security Conference in Singapore.

``The country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse,'' Wolfowitz said. ``That I believe is a major point of leverage.''

``The primary difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options in Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil,'' he said.

Wolfowitz did not elaborate on how Washington intends to put economic pressure on North Korea, but said other countries in the region helping it should send a message that ``they're not going to continue doing that if North Korea continues down the road it's on.''".

lol

I only read so far into this thread, and, lemme get this straight; I called this one? His words were being misrepresented?

Maybe I'll go buy a lotto ticket.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

______________________________________________________

These are direct quotes BTW, so urm shouldnt someone impeach this guy?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

______________________________________________________

These are direct quotes BTW, so urm shouldnt someone impeach this guy?

---

Notice how previous comments made by people specifically to him are ignored here while he has gone off again on some tangent. To quote myself..

Quote:

---

Originally posted by teenwolf
You actively look for news stories to support your assumptive opinions and ignore anything to the contrary, and if one of the stories containing egregious distortions is exposed and debunked, you merely go on to the next one as if nothing important or noteworthy occurred.

---

um, impeachable crimes are "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.". Sorry, but the politically motivated impeachment that you would love to see directly conflicts with the original intent of our forefathers, which was impeachment that is limited to offenses indictable at common law.

I already acknoledged the mistake and vowed not to use The Guardian as a source anymore.

Gee so lying about a sexual affair is deemed impeachable yet lying to start a war and put hunderds of thousands of lifes on both sides on the line is perfectly fine?

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...top_world_news

Pentagon in 2002 Found `No Reliable' Iraq Arms Data (Update5)
June 6 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. Defense Department report in September 2002 found ``no reliable information'' proving that Iraq had chemical weapons, even as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was saying the country had amassed stockpiles of the banned arms.

``There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities,'' a report by the Defense Intelligence Agency said in a summary page obtained by Bloomberg News.

The unreleased report said Iraq ``probably'' had stockpiles of banned chemicals, a more tentative conclusion than Rumsfeld was presenting in public. Iraq has ``amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas,'' he told Congress on Sept. 19.

The page from the report suggests ``substantially more uncertainty than was stated by senior administration officials,'' said Kenneth Katzman, a specialist on Iraq's military for the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, who was told of the contents by Bloomberg.

The summary ``mischaracterizes'' a report that backs the administration, said Michael Anton, a White House spokesman. ``The report as a whole is fully consistent with the public case on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs that has been made by the president, this administration, prior presidents, the United Nations and other governments,'' Anton said.

No banned weapons have been found in Iraq. U.S. and U.K. lawmakers are demanding to know more about the intelligence cited as a reason for invading the Middle East country in March.

Biological Weapons

The Defense Intelligence Agency's uncertainty about Iraqi weapons extended to germ warfare programs, the summary suggests. ``Iraq is assessed to possess biological agent stockpiles that may be weaponized and ready for use,'' its report said. ``The size of those stockpiles is uncertain and is subject to debate. The nature and condition of those stockpiles also are unknown.''

``The DIA report suggests that before the Iraq War, the U.S. intelligence community did not have hard evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed large stocks of chemical and biological warfare agents that posed an imminent threat to U.S. national security,'' said Jonathan Tucker, a senior research fellow at the U.S. Institute for Peace and a former United Nations arms inspector, when informed of the summary page contents by Bloomberg.

The Defense Intelligence Agency's findings in the report, ``Iraq: Key Weapons Facilities -- An Operational Support Study,'' are similar to those of other DIA reports on Iraq's suspect weapons programs, a U.S. military intelligence official said.

Existence of the study was disclosed by U.S. News & World Report in its June 9 edition.

Blix Criticizes U.S. Data

Hans Blix, the UN chief arms inspector, criticized the U.S. and U.K. intelligence about Iraq's banned weapons after his team found nothing in following up leads at suspected sites.

``Only in three of those cases did we find anything at all, and in none were there any weapons of mass destruction, and that shook me a bit, I must say,'' Blix said on British Broadcasting Corp. radio today. ``I thought: My God, if this is the best intelligence they have and we find nothing, what about the rest?'' Blix gave the UN his final report yesterday.

Scott Ritter, an American who headed UN arms inspection teams from 1991 to 1998, said in an interview today with Switzerland's daily Le Temps that the U.S. and the U.K. should admit they lied about Iraqi weapons. Ritter said the allies haven't found evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear arms ``because it's impossible to find something that doesn't exist.''

Judgments Defended

Rumsfeld and other U.S. officials say the weapons will be found after the allies locate people from Hussein's regime who know where they're hidden. Some officials, including Rumsfeld, have said Hussein may have shipped the weapons out of Iraq or destroyed them.

CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said yesterday that agency director George Tenet stands by his Feb. 12 statement to Congress that ``stockpiles of things he (Hussein) has not declared and weapons he has not declared'' will be found.

U.S. defense officials on Wednesday defended pre-war judgments, including those in the September 2002 report, as consistent with statements by officials in the administration of President George W. Bush's predecessor, President Bill Clinton.

``It's pretty clear that the intelligence judgments concerning Iraq weapons of mass destruction did not undergo a major change between the Clinton and Bush administrations,'' Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith told reporters at a Pentagon press conference in Arlington, Virginia.

CIA Review

The CIA is reviewing pre-war assessments to determine whether it overstated the Iraqi threat in response to Pentagon ``hawks'' who favored war, the New York Times reported Wednesday. The Washington Post said yesterday some CIA analysts felt pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney and his top aide, Lewis Libby. Cheney's office declined to comment, the Post said.

In the U.K., Prime Minister Tony Blair is under pressure to produce evidence underpinning his assertions that Iraq possessed weapons that justified going to war. Blair said yesterday that he would produce ``all'' that evidence and he repeated denials that he embellished it.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell on Feb. 5 gave the United Nations transcripts of intercepted telephone and radio communications, satellite photographs and statements from Iraqi defectors that he said proved Iraq had an active program of banned- weapons production. The war began six weeks later.

The Pentagon's 2002 report said ``although we lack any direct information, Iraq probably possesses chemical munitions, possibly including artillery shells, aerial bombs and ballistic missile warheads.'' Iraq retained all chemicals and equipment to make ``blister agent mustard,'' the report said.

Iraq's ability to make nerve agents such as VX ``is constrained by its stockpile of key chemical precursors and the destruction of all known CW production facilities during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and during subsequent UN inspections,'' the Pentagon report said.

Last Updated: June 6, 2003 12:37 EDT

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20030607_554.html

Ex-Official: Evidence Distorted for War
U.S. Intelligence Evidence on Iraq Distorted to Justify War, Says a Retired Intelligence Official

The Associated Press



WASHINGTON June 7 —
The Bush administration distorted intelligence and presented conjecture as evidence to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a retired intelligence official who served during the months before the war.

"What disturbs me deeply is what I think are the disingenuous statements made from the very top about what the intelligence did say," said Greg Thielmann, who retired last September. "The area of distortion was greatest in the nuclear field."








Thielmann was director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. His office was privy to classified intelligence gathered by the CIA and other agencies about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.

In Thielmann's view, Iraq could have presented an immediate threat to U.S. security in two areas: Either it was about to make a nuclear weapon, or it was forming close operational ties with al-Qaida terrorists.

Evidence was lacking for both, despite claims by President Bush and others, Thielmann said in an interview this week. Suspicions were presented as fact, contrary arguments ignored, he said.

The administration's prewar portrayal of Iraq's weapons capabilities has not been validated despite weeks of searching by military experts. Alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons have not turned up, nor has significant evidence of a nuclear weapons program or links to the al-Qaida network.

Bush has said administration assertions on Iraq will be verified in time. The CIA and other agencies have vigorously defended their prewar performances.

CIA Director George Tenet, responding to similar criticism last week, said in a statement: "The integrity of our process was maintained throughout, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong." On Friday, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency acknowledged he had no hard evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons last fall but believed Iraq had a program in place to produce them.

Also Friday, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he was not prepared to place blame for any intelligence shortcomings until all information is in.

"There are always times when a single sentence or a single report evokes a lot of concern and some doubt," Warner told reporters after a closed hearing of his committee. "But thus far, in my own personal assessment of this situation, the intelligence community has diligently and forthrightly and with integrity produced intelligence and submitted it to this administration and to the Congress of the United States."

Thielmann suggested mistakes may have been made at points all along the chain from when intelligence is gathered, analyzed, presented to the president and then provided to the public.

The evidence of a renewed nuclear program in Iraq was far more limited than the administration contended, he said.

"When the administration did talk about specific evidence it was basically declassified, sensitive information it did it in a way that was also not entirely honest," Thielmann said.

In his State of the Union address, Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The Africa claim rested on a purported letter or letters between officials in Iraq and Niger held by European intelligence agencies. The communications are now accepted as forged, and Thielmann said he believed the information on Africa was discounted months before Bush mentioned it.

"I was very surprised to hear that be announced to the United States and the entire world," he said.

Thielmann said he had presumed Iraq had supplies of chemical and probably biological weapons. He particularly expected U.S. forces to find caches of mustard agent or other chemical weapons left over from Saddam's old stockpiles.

"We appear to have been wrong," he said. "I've been genuinely surprised at that."

One example where officials took too far a leap from the facts, according to Thielmann: On Feb. 11, CIA Director Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq "retains in violation of U.N. resolutions a small number of Scud missiles that it produced before the Gulf War."

Intelligence analysts supposed Iraq may have had some missiles because they couldn't account for all the Scuds it had before the first Gulf War, Thielmann said. They could have been destroyed, dismantled, miscounted or still somewhere in Saddam's inventory.

Some critics have suggested that the White House and Pentagon policy-makers pressured the CIA and military intelligence to come up with conclusions favorable to an attack-Iraq policy. The CIA and military have denied such charges. Thielmann said that generally he felt no such pressure.

Although his office did not directly handle terrorism issues, Thielmann said he was similarly unconvinced of a strong link between al-Qaida and Saddam's government.

Yet, the implication from Bush on down was that Saddam supported Osama bin Laden's network. Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks frequently were mentioned in the same sentence, even though officials have no good evidence of any link between the two.


photo credit and caption: Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone speaks during a press briefing at the Pentagon in Washington in this May 7, 2003 file photo. The Pentagon's intelligence agency had no hard evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons last fall but believed Iraq had a program in place to produce them (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert, File)




Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.