The New York Times had an interesting piece on October 14 telling the story of José Bustani, the former director general of the intergovernmental Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, who was ousted by the United States as part of the run up to the Iraq War.
As the story goes (and was reported at the time), Bustani had been working on getting Iraq to agree to join the Chemical Weapons Convention. This was an unwelcome development for the Bush administration, since it could complicate efforts to invade Iraq based in part on its chemical weapons stockpile.
The administration’s point man was John Bolton, who was the undersecretary of State at the time.
The Times‘ Marlise Simons wrote:
Washington was claiming that Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader, possessed chemical weapons, but Mr. Bustani said his own experts had told him that those weapons were destroyed in the 1990s, after the Persian Gulf war.
“Everybody knew there weren’t any,” he said. “An inspection would make it obvious there were no weapons to destroy. This would completely nullify the decision to invade.”
Mr. Bolton disputed that account. “He made that argument after we invaded,” he said. Twice during the interview, Mr. Bolton said, “The kind of person who believes that argument is the kind who puts tin foil on his ears to ward off cosmic waves.”
Bolton’s twice-repeated allusion to conspiracy theories is really interesting. The way I read it, he would seem to be saying that only a nut would have claimed that Iraq had destroyed its chemical weapons stockpiles before the US-led war. It’s a key talking point for the Iraq War’s architects and supporters: We only said what every other sensible person was saying. The Times lets it pass, which is unfortunate, because if that’s indeed what Bolton was referring to, it’s false.
If you look at FAIR’s Iraq and the Media timeline, for instance, and you’ll see that former weapons inspector Scott Ritter had written a column for the Baltimore Sun (9/1/02) where he argued:
From 1991 to 1998, UN weapons inspectors, among whom I played an integral part, were able to verifiably ascertain a 90 percent to 95 percent level of disarmament inside Iraq. This included all of the production facilities involved with WMD, together with their associated production equipment and the great majority of what was produced by these facilities.
A few days later, Jonathan Landay of Knight-Ridder (9/6/02) reported that
there is no new intelligence that indicates the Iraqis have made significant advances in their nuclear, biological or chemical weapons programs, said a US intelligence official who argues that Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s focus on Iraq is hurting the hunt for Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda terrorist network.
The Times can whitewash its record as much as it wants, but the paint dries as red.
Another one down the memory hole! Cheers!
The New York Times lost it, along with the Republican Party, on this issue. Seems as if there is a movement to try to rehabilitate the reputation of Dick Cheney as well lately. The Devil never sleeps.
It’s becoming obvious that the war profiteers are writing the textbooks on history and future generations Will learn a very distorted versión. Except, maybe for the zillion of us Who know better.
In researching the hawks promoting the invasion of Iraq, we found a policy paper written by Richard Perle et al for the state of Israel in 1996: (A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm): http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
“This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right —
as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.”
And in 1998 Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and notably Donald Rumsfeld (and others) wrote a letter to then President Bill Clinton calling on him to remove “…. Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.”
http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
What is especially significant is the fact that the people who signed this letter back in 1998 entered the Bush administration after the presidential “election” of 2000.
and…
Oil from Iraq : An Israeli pipedream?
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/africa_middle_east/news/fr/fr030416_1_n.shtml
“All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush’s war is part of a
masterplan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel’s interests.
Haaretz quoted Paritzky as saying that the pipeline project is
economically justifiable because it would dramatically reduce Israel’s
energy bill. ”
After the terror and confusion of 9/11 in 2001 (which had nothing to do with Iraq), they were able to implement their planned invasion of Iraq using the deception of WMD’s and non-existent links between Iraq and al-Qa’ida.
This whole article can be condensed into….We should of believed Hussain when he said he had destroyed everything.Though on his own deathbed he freely admitted to keeping the world guessing to protect himself(from Iran)He also admitted he would of never given up the right to fully disarm.In fact he stated he would of re armed in any way he saw fit.He admitted to breaking all 17 caveats of his surrender accord which he considered nul and void.(Any one of which should of led to a resumption of a UN led war)He also admitted he would never of let the arms inspectors get all they needed to declare him WMD free.It would of hurt his national security against Iran.He was playing a shell game.He admitted that after 911 with so much on Bushes plate that he felt Bush would never attack fully.And would in fact back down and give him the room to once again be the “lion of Judea.To lead the battle against the great Satan and Israel.So this revisionist history only has one fact correct.The worlds intel was wrong.Saddam did not in fact posses WMDs.He had fooled everyone with his dangerous game.Every other reason for hostilities remains.Be clear.Syria has said for years it had no WMDs.Many people using the Iraq mistake as evidance believed that wholeheartedly.Right up until the moment that Syria said yeah we actually do have them.And lots of them.Syria(because of Bush?)was never sure if America still has the teeth to TAKE their weapons.So they fully complied.Something Saddam never did.
Mistake****….Given in .. not” fully given up the right” Sorry bout that
Freespirit You are saying Bush risked a military move against an Arab country with a still large and active military(with all that entails)using the joint forces of this country to make an example?I think that undermines the massive undertaking this really was.And the chance for massive loss of American life that was always possible, and on his(Bushes) mind.Especially if he(Saddam) used the WMDs against our troops that we were sure he had.Of course hindsight is always 20/20, but never accessible to those doing the military planning.So you and i are smarter at this moment than all the intel agencies of the world were at that point.That said…I also notice that you have obviously discounted en mass the testimony of Saddam,Bush,Rumsfeld,Rice,Tony Blair …and all the key planners and participants.It would be like discounting Churchill,Eisenhower,FDR,marshall,Patton and all the rest when trying to understand the conduct of the allies in WW2.It would be like getting all your understanding of that war from some 23 yr old journalist at the onion who never interviewed anyone.Just did research taking it for granted everyone was lying.When Obama came in there was a lot of thought that he would get the real info,and clean house.What happened?Nothing.More than that Obama bought into Bushes war plan 99% of the time.Your side grumbled that even Obama was compromised.Well maybe…just maybe once he got the top secret intel he realized that he was talking smack out there on the campaign trail.That he didn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground.So no …no one went to jail.In fact bush went fishing and Saddam got hung.I think Saddam took a chance.He thought that America ,weakened after 9/11 and moving against Afghanistan was the perfect time for him to break free completely from all his surrender parameters signed at the end of gulf war one.Just as Hitler did the treaties signed by Germany at the end of WW2He flaunted it and threatened.Defied and postured.Bush took him seriously and demanded full compliance or else.Saddam thought he was bluffing.He was not.How stubborn and tough was Saddam?How far would he of taken his belligerence?Well as he was being led to the gallows…to HIS DEATH….he mocked those preparing to hang him.Spit at them.This was one tough ombre.He would never of backed down when push came to shove.Days before he died he said he was the lion of judea.That he would of re armed fully- as was his right.He was not cowed.Never would of been.He was born he felt to defeat the Jews and the great satan(us)No I actually think Bushes reading of him was spot on if not his intel.He is better gone.What is the result….As the arab spring exploded and violence imploded all over the middle east and beyond iraq was quiet.In fact the only quite place it seemed.If Saddam were alive and in power….God help us all
Peter Hart,
I don’t know. In light of the fact that every thinking person now knows that there were no WMDs and that we were lied to hundreds of times about them, Marlise Simons’ passage does not seem that incomplete to me.
Without any further commentary we know José Bustani was correct, Shrub quashed a real chance to avoid a still terrible and costly war, John Bolton was lying, and “The kind of person…who puts tin foil on his ears to ward off cosmic waves” believed John Bolton.
Would it really have added anything for Marlise Simons to write, “what Bolton was referring to, it’s false”? Duh.
Well Peter i have to say that you heard it strait from the horses mouth that in fact our intel agencies were not lying to the president .Or he to Mr Bolton or the American people.The horse being Saddam Hussain..He himself from his own mouth ,days before he was put to death admitted he was playing a game to keep the US,the inspectors,and everyone else guessing.He knew two things.One… he would never be cleared of having WMDs unless he complied 100% to inspections.Something he clearly said he would never of done.Without that threat he feared Iran.Two…that he was sure the US- so immersed with the hostilities in Afghanistan would never do what we if fact did do.Invade!He was determined to rebuild his forces in any way he saw fit.With any and every armament,He had in effect ripped the accords to shreds.This from his lips to his debriefers days before he died.Peter Bush was wrong about the WMDs.His intel was faulty.Long jump to him somehow knowing more than what our top intel and our allies intel knew and reported to him.And so to call him a liar to the American people.He was wrong in what he reported.Not lying.Of course there were those if you want to cherry pick who called it right.They were in the vast minority.I would ask a simple question.Germany prior to WW2 tore up their surrender terms and began to rearm,in direct violation to the waring parties.No one acted though the world agrees if they had the world would of been spared so much.Saddam did like wise yet when this country acted, many here seemed to forget the lessons learned in WW2.The correlation is more close than one would think.That treaty of surrender in gulf war one had to be followed or hostilities must as written- resume.Do you negate that document?Are all treaties with this country subject to such derision by dictators?WMDS were the public PR face of this conflict.They were not the end all and the be all.After 911 when Bush said you are with us- or against us ,he meant it.Saddam picked that time to ratchet up tensions and break free from his promises so that he would be free to rearm.This from his lips.He chose poorly
That’s a desperate apologia for Shrub, Bolton and the dupes that believed them, michael e. They were fools AND they lied, not “all the intel agencies of the world” bought it, most that did based their opinions on the same very shaky intel and US lies, many nations urged a wiser and less self-destructively bloodthirsty course, and most congressional Dems were smart enough to vote against the Iraq War.
You and your team screwed up, got thousands of GIs and US mercenaries killed, murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, made Iran stronger, and busted our budget. Grow up and accept responsibility for it.
Your repeated Godwin’s Law comparisons are too silly to address.
@michael e, you’re rewriting history. Everyone knew there were no WMD – it was just an excuse to invade. Iraq wasn’t associated with 911 either, but go back and see how many times the government spread that manure. It was all a pack of lies that resulted in over a million Iraqis dying and a few industrialists getting rich. Remember the $5 billion contract that KBR was awarded without tender 3 days after the invasion? What company was Cheney a VP of again?
Gentleman if the leaders of this country lied( not as they contend – were mistaken in their security analysis) then Obama knows all about it.And since he knows……his entire Dem cadre also knows.And sinse they know then everybody knows.You musr accept that if you understand the flow of Washington leaks.And he has done and said nothing?All those who he has shared this with- have done and said nothing?Sounds like if you believe this ridiculous notion that they ALL have to go to jail.Bush and Obama first and second.I would say that ALL OF YOU know.Not with any actionable intel.You just know because you know.Damn the facts.Damn the current president.My lord do you not think Reed and pelosi with their seething hatred of Bush would of spoken up if the facts bear out what you say?
You on the left have taken one aspect(WMDs)of the resuming of hostile actions against Iraq -as the ONLY reason for those actions.That is absurd.Rumsfeld(I know I know- he is a liar too) enumerated 20-23 things that were on the table as reason for hostilities(read his book).But look ,As the Bush administration used it as a selling point I will give you a pass -to a degree..But to keep flogging this dead horse for the uneducated is getting old.It is simple minded.As for WMDs we were wrong about him having them.Not wrong about him planning to rebuild those weapons.He admitted he would of done that-And any other weapon system as he saw fit.But the weapons we felt were still viable were not.His(Saddams) little game of deception fooled us into believing he still had those teeth in his arsenal.Did you by any chance notice that as hostilities began that all Us service men within range were supplied and using chemical weapon suits and breathing apparatus?And that Israeli civilian population were moving about prepared for chem attacks?Do you know anyone in the service?Let them tell you about the specific training and equipment they used in preperation.It was painstaking..Look I deal with the same simple minded dogmatic stuff on the right.Im writing an article today blasting people who believe the sole reason for Obama care is that this president is a closet socialist.As if there was never any other reason.Some believe it was just the 30 million uninsured.As if that was the only reason for Obamas commitment.You all need to realize these matters are not one dimensional.And no one has answered one question.We and our allies signed in gulf war one an ending to hostilities based on seventeen caveats.Saddam had torn them up.ALL OF THEM.What would you have us do?What should France England,and US have done when Hitler tore up the versailles treaty.I want you to concentrate your brain power on that one thing.Are treaties with us worth more than spit?
That’s silly, michael e. Obama, the Dems, the nation and world know that we were lied to, and Obama was elected twice partly because of it. That’s not “nothing”. I would have liked to have seen war crimes charges but the fact that Obama chose not to pursue them proves nothing about their foundation.
The nonexistent WMDs and the then nonexistent al Qeada in Iraq were THE big selling points. You’re just grasping at straws now claiming there were other ones.
If you don’t like the discussion that you’ve chosen to participate in, just shut up or write Marlise Simons a stern note. Don’t whine at us about it. Unlike you, we get that lies and errors made in 2003 still have repercussions.
Your ongoing repetition of Godwin’s Law comparisons remain too silly to address.
I care about treaties, but shooting yourself in the foot in response to violations is just dumb. Our debt, the region, the Afghan campaign, and the families of the dead GIs and mercenaries are all worse off for the unnecessary war we launched.
Speaking of WMD treaties, we are and have long been a violator of the NPT. Let’s fix that before hypocritically griping about others.
michael e, it’s clever the way you write so much and stray so far from the topic that it dilutes the conversation. It’s disingenuous, futile and idiotic, but you do it well.
ブランド 偽物 通販 財布 mcm http://chuanqisls.gagajpdonindependence.org/