Bush clings to dubious accusations

Search
http://www.msnbc.com/news/886806.asp?0cv=CB10

Some U.S. claims about Saddam’s arsenal are hotly disputed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
THE WASHINGTON POST

WASHINGTON, March 18 — As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged — and in some cases disproved — by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports.
FOR MONTHS, President Bush and his top lieutenants have produced a long list of Iraqi offenses, culminating Sunday with Vice President Cheney’s assertion that Iraq has “reconstituted nuclear weapons.” Previously, administration officials have tied Hussein to al Qaeda, to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and to an aggressive production of biological and chemical weapons. Bush reiterated many of these charges in his address to the nation last night.
But these assertions are hotly disputed. Some of the administration’s evidence — such as Bush’s assertion that Iraq sought to purchase uranium — has been refuted by subsequent discoveries. Other claims have been questioned, though their validity can be known only after U.S. forces occupy Iraq.
In outlining his case for war on Sunday, Cheney focused on how much more damage al Qaeda could have done on Sept. 11 “if they’d had a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the middle of one of our cities, or if they had unleashed . . . biological weapons of some kind, smallpox or anthrax.” He then tied that to evidence found in Afghanistan of how al Qaeda leaders “have done everything they could to acquire those capabilities over the years.”
But in October CIA Director George J. Tenet told Congress that Hussein would not give such weapons to terrorists unless he decided helping “terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.”
In his appearance Sunday, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the vice president argued that “we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” But Cheney contradicted that assertion moments later, saying it was “only a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons.” Both assertions were contradicted earlier by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who reported that “there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities.”
ElBaradei also contradicted Bush and other officials who argued that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. The IAEA determined that Iraq did not plan to use imported aluminum tubes for enriching uranium and generating nuclear weapons. ElBaradei argued that the tubes were for conventional weapons and “it was highly unlikely” that the tubes could have been used to produce nuclear material.

CHENEY QUESTIONS IAEA’S CREDIBILITY
Cheney on Sunday said ElBaradei was “wrong” about Iraq’s nuclear program and questioned the IAEA’s credibility.
Earlier this month, ElBaradei said information about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium were based on fabricated documents. Further investigation has found that top CIA officials had significant doubts about the veracity of the evidence, linking Iraq to efforts to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger, but the information ended up as fact in Bush’s State of the Union address.
In another embarrassing episode for the administration, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cited evidence about Iraq’s weapons efforts that originally appeared in a British intelligence document. But it later emerged that the British report’s evidence was based in part on academic papers and trade publications.
Sometimes information offered by Bush and his top officials is questioned by administration aides. In his March 6 news conference, Bush dismissed Iraq’s destruction of its Al Samoud-2 missiles, saying they were being dismantled “even as [Hussein] has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles.” But the only intelligence was electronic intercepts that had individuals talking about being able to build missiles in the future, according to a senior intelligence analyst.

QUESTIONING THE FUTURE
Last month, Bush spoke about a liberated Iraq showing “the power of freedom to transform that vital region” and said “a new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.” But a classified State Department report put together by the department’s intelligence and research staff and delivered to Powell the same day as Bush’s speech questioned that theory, arguing that history runs counter to it.
In his first major speech solely on the Iraqi threat, last October, Bush said, “Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles — far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations — in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.”
Inspectors have found that the Al Samoud-2 missiles can travel less than 200 miles — not far enough to hit the targets Bush named. Iraq has not accounted for 14 medium-range Scud missiles from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but the administration has not presented any evidence that they still exist.
 
Frank,
I was hoping for some feedback?

I'd ask the others, but you seem to be the only one to have distinguished between a debate and simply saying "un huh, you're lying".
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
552
Tokens
Last night when he said "Dimlomacy has failed and WE HAVE DONE EVRYTIHNG WE COULD" ....something like that... that was a lie, everybody knows that!

----------------------------------------
MY BIGGEST LIES:
1- I love you!
2- The check is in the mail!
3- I wont cum in your mouth!
 
I've heard a wise man say yesterday.

"If there's 1% of reaching a peacefull solution it must be pursued 100%"

I guess dropping bombs is peacefull these days
icon_rolleyes.gif


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

J-Man is just another phucking rat that they'll find face down ass up one of these days
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
173
Tokens
Is it imperative to "show the "POWER OF FREEDOM" @ such a high price? and..
Is it worth it???
icon_eek.gif
 
Hungover,
Don't you watch CNBC?

Dropping bombs is peaceful. "Strike and Awe" (aka Blitzkrieg) is peaceful.

UN resolution leading towards peace are evil.
Defending your country against pre-emptive unprovoked attacks is evil.

Every red blooded redneck knows this. Duh.
 
my bad Lander ! I was too busy watching this hot chick surfing today !

Hey as long as they don't nuke my favorite surf spots I'm cool otherwize they'll force me to retaliate with bombs of my own !

My GF tells me my farts could be used as chemical weapons and should be sanctioned by the UN
icon_eek.gif


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

J-Man is just another phucking rat that they'll find face down ass up one of these days
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
126
Tokens
5000 children under 5 die each month under Saddam Hussein. I guess this is just a small price to pay in order to have peace at any cost.

Fine world these peaceniks live in.
 
And most of them die from the sanction & the embargos.

I wonder who has the GNP to allieve such a tragic situation
icon_rolleyes.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
Sanctions and embargos that saddam brought on to himself...he has billions while babys under his rule starve.

There is an inspector by the name of Bill Tierney, that says irag is developing nukes, and that the head inspector Elbaridi was told where to go to look but ignored the advise.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,810
Messages
13,573,513
Members
100,874
Latest member
enviroclass9
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com