Islamic State militants gave the world yet another shocking atrocity this week by executing a 7-year-old Syrian boy in front of his parents because he cursed. ISIS insists that Islamic justice, or Sharia, demanded that the boy be shot.
The boy was accused of “cursing divinity” while playing in the street with his friends. He was taken before an Islamic court which held that “the act was considered an insult to the Caliphate, regardless of the age of the boy.” He was killed in front of a crowd and his sobbing parents made to watch.
Another victory for Sharia “law” and the great Caliphate.
Steve,
I retrieved your comment by dereferencing one of the YouTube links. It is above.
po:
“justify, retroactively, the Iraq war”
Ipso facto, hewing to the primary sources of the mission – the controlling law, policy, and precedent that defined the operative enforcement procedure for the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) and the determinative fact findings that confirmed Iraq’s breach of the Gulf War ceasefire to trigger enforcement with OIF – cannot, by definition, be retroactive. Like a master template, it can only be corrective of later flaws.
po:
“So when they said Iraq had WMD’s, and we must investigate, it was based on those powers.”
You’re correct that “it was based on those powers”. The legal basis for OIF, the UNSCR 660-series resolutions enforced under US (and other coalition members’) laws, was to establish the “full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions” (UNSCR 1441) responding to Saddam’s failure to comply as mandated in his “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441).
However, you’ve been misled on the basic presumption of guilt on Iraq – “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)” (UNSCR 1441) – and the burden of proof on Iraq to cure its guilt in accordance with the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441).
Due to being misled, you’ve misunderstood the role of the UN inspectors.
The role of the UN inspectors was not to “investigate” in the sense you mean it of searching Iraq for WMD “they said Iraq had”. Rather, the Saddam regime was required to provide to the UN inspectors a “full and verified” (UNSCR 1441) “declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified” (UNSCR 687) that accounted for Iraq’s entire WMD-related program and “yield” (UNSCR 687) all of it to the UN inspectors for elimination “under international supervision” (UNSCR 687). UNSCR 1441 mandated that Iraq “cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA” in order to “comply fully” with UNSCR 687 and related resolutions.
In other words, the role of the UN inspectors was to test whether Iraq met its burden of proof to “immediately, unconditionally, and actively” prove full compliance with its ceasefire disarmament obligations. Saddam failed his “final” UNSCR 687 compliance test under the UNSCR 1441 “enhanced inspection regime”.
Excerpt from the answer to “Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq?”:
po:
“Those inspectors not only stated clearly they found no evidence of WMD’s”
Actually, to quote Charles Duelfer of the Iraq Survey Group again:
Statements to the effect of “they found no evidence of WMD’s” fall outside the operative enforcement procedure for UNSCR 687. Whereas the fact findings that show Iraq had not disarmed as mandated – “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” (UNMOVIC) – confirmed that Iraq remained in material breach of UNSCR 687 for casus belli.
To understand the UNSCR 1441 inspections, go to the further reading section of the explanation I provided and click open the link(s) at “the March 2003 UNMOVIC Cluster Document (“Unresolved Disarmament Issues Iraq’s Proscribed Weapons Programmes”, fact sheet) pursuant to UNSCR 1441 that triggered the decision for OIF”.
Reading the UNMOVIC report, it’s easy to appreciate President Bush’s perspective at the decision point for OIF – the UN inspectors’ findings are alarming.
po:
“but also requested more time to ascertain those facts, but they were both ignored and smeared.”
They weren’t ignored. As stipulated by UNSCR 1441, the UN Security Council convened to consider the UNMOVIC findings, which they did for 10 days following the UNMOVIC presentation to the UNSC on March 7, 2003.
If I recall correctly, there were some “smears” rooted in the mistaken belief that the UN inspectors were “investigating” Iraq for WMD rather than verifying whether Saddam disarmed as mandated. However, from what I gather, the UN inspectors adequately fulfilled their mandate under UNSCR 1441 to test Saddam’s compliance with UNSCR 687.
As far as the request for more time, after Saddam’s “final” failure to comply with UNSCR 687 under UNSCR 1441, Blix, at the behest of Saddam’s accomplices, asked for more time, in effect, to start over and try again.
The Blix alternative was unrealistic for several reasons, among which, the alternative proposals revolved around changing the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” and “enhanced inspection regime” mandated by UNSCRs 687 and 1441, dropping the essential “obligation of Iraq to declare all programmes of weapons of mass destruction” (Blix), and replacing them with a relaxed ad hoc standard based on a tacit tolerance for anything Saddam would not account for but could also hide.
With Saddam in charge, we had to be sure.
Excerpt from the answer to “Did Bush allow enough time for the inspections?”:
po:
“2- We were sold the idea that Sadaam was affiliated with Al Qaeda”
Actually, the Saddam regime’s “overlap” and “de facto link” (Iraqi Perspectives Project) with the al Qaeda network is confirmed.
Nevertheless, had the Saddam regime’s terrorism excluded the AQ network altogether, Saddam would still have been in breach of the UNSCR 687 mandate, “Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism“.
po:
“3- WE were sold the idea that Sadaam was behind 9/11”
Again, not by the Bush administration in the 2002 AUMF, UNSCR 1441 case for OIF. From what I recall, your assertion was “sold” as a strawman by OIF opponents.
po
“tell me where the narrow real of international law you seem to focus on appears as impetus/justification”
The Mother Jones article is quite a mash that elides the relevant features and decade-plus course of the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement.
Instead, the explanation I provided is built with the bedrock law, policy, precedent, and facts of the decision for OIF. Then, if you would like to review the primary sources of the mission directly, the basic essentials are linked in the further reading section of the explanation. Since the explanation is synthesized from the primary sources of the mission, it can be used as a study aid for the primary source authorities while you set the record straight on the why of the Iraq intervention.
8/14/92 Defense Secretary Dick Cheney declares President Bush Sr. wise not to invade Baghdad and “get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”
4/15/93 Saddam Hussein reportedly tries to assassinate Bush Sr.
1/26/98 Project for a New American Century (PNAC)—founded by Cheney, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, and other top neocons—demands President Clinton undertake the “removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime.”
6/23/98 “The good Lord didn’t see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States.”—Halliburton CEO Cheney
8/7/98 Al Qaeda bombs US embassies in Africa, killing 220 and injuring some 4,000.
10/31/98 Clinton signs the Iraq Liberation Act. Regime change becomes official US policy.
Late 1998 Gen. Anthony Zinni, head of US Central Command, examines Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi’s military plan to overthrow Saddam with 1,000 men. He warns Congress it is “pie in the sky, a fairy tale.”
Nov 1999 Chalabi-connected Iraqi defector “Curveball”—a convicted sex offender and low-level engineer who became the sole source for much of the case that Saddam had WMD, particularly mobile weapons labs—enters Munich seeking a German visa. German intel officers describe his information as highly suspect. US agents never debrief Curveball or perform background check. Nonetheless, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and CIA will pass raw intel on to senior policymakers. [Date the public knew: 11/20/05]
8/27/00 America must not act as “an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world, taking down governments.”—VP candidate Cheney
10/3/00 Debating Al Gore, George W. Bush says he’d commit troops only with an “exit strategy,” and he’d be “very careful about using our troops as nation builders.”
10/11/00 In a subsequent debate, Bush says: “If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us.”
10/12/00 Al Qaeda attacks USS Cole in Aden, Yemen, killing 17 and injuring 39.
11/6/00 Congress doubles funding for Iraqi opposition groups to more than $25 million; $18 million is earmarked for Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress, which then pays defectors for anti-Iraq tales.
11/7/00 Election night: Indecision 2000 begins.
Nov 2000 Future Chief Justice John Roberts flies to Florida to advise Jeb Bush during recount.
12/12/00 Supreme Court hands presidency to George W. Bush.
Early 2001 Enron CEO Ken Lay named to Bush Energy Department transition team. Jack Abramoff appointed to Interior Department transition team.
1/30/01 Saddam’s removal is top item of Bush’s inaugural national security meeting. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill later recalls, “It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying, ‘Go find me a way to do this.'” [Date the public knew: 1/10/04]
2/11/01 “Iraq is probably not a nuclear threat at the present time.”—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells Fox News’ Tony Snow
2/14/01 Dick Cheney’s energy task force begins secret meetings with oil company executives. [Date the public knew: 4/16/01]
2/16/01 Bush: “To send a clear signal to Saddam,” US and UK bomb targets near Baghdad.
2/24/01 Saddam “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.”—Secretary of State Colin Powell
2/26/01 Future Iraq Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III says: “The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism.” [Date the public knew: 4/29/04]
3/5/01 Pentagon produces document titled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts” for Cheney’s task force. Includes a map of areas for potential exploration. [Date the public knew: 7/17/03]
4/10/01 Lone CIA analyst known only as “Joe” tells top Bush brass that aluminum tubes bought by Iraq can only be for nuclear centrifuges. [Date the public knew: 8/10/03]
8/6/01
On vacation in Crawford, Bush receives a Presidential Daily Briefing warning, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.” FBI highlights Al Qaeda activities consistent with hijacking preparations, as well as surveillance of federal buildings. [Date the public knew: 5/18/02]
CIA officer flies to Crawford to call Bush’s attention to document. Bush replies, “All right, you’ve covered your ass now.” [Date the public knew: 6/20/06]
8/10/01 Major air raid on Iraq.
8/17/01 Memo to CIA from Energy Department experts eviscerates “Joe’s” theory that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq are for nuclear centrifuges. Memo given to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who later claims tubes are clear evidence of Iraqi nuke program. [Date the public knew: 5/1/04]
Sep 2001 Curveball granted German asylum, ceases cooperating. British spy agency MI6 has told CIA that “elements of [his] behavior strike us as typical of…fabricators.” [Date the public knew: 11/20/05]
9/10/01 NSA intercepts messages that say, “The match is about to begin” and “Tomorrow is zero hour.” Not translated until Sept. 12. [Date the public knew: 6/10/02]
9/11/01 Al Qaeda attacks. Minutes taken by a Rumsfeld aide five hours later: “Best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit SH [Saddam Hussein] @ same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden].” [Date the public knew: 9/4/02]
9/12/01 According to counterterror czar Richard Clarke, “[Bush] told us, ‘I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this.'” Told evidence against Al Qaeda overwhelming, Bush asks for “any shred” Saddam was involved. [Date the public knew: 3/22/04]
9/17/01 Bush wants Osama “Dead or Alive.”
9/18/01 Anthrax attacks begin.
9/18/01 In a move a federal judge will later call “conscience-shocking,” EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman says area around Ground Zero is safe and encourages residents to return.
9/18/01 Chalabi meets with top DOD officials. [Date the public knew: 5/04]
9/19/01 Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle and featuring Henry Kissinger and Newt Gingrich, declares that Iraq should be invaded after Afghanistan. [Date the public knew: 10/12/01]
9/20/01 British PM Tony Blair advises Bush not to lose focus on Al Qaeda. Bush replies: “I agree with you, Tony. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.” [Date the public knew: 5/1/04]
9/20/01 PNAC letter to Bush: “Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power.” [Date the public knew: 9/21/01]
9/21/01 Bush briefed by intel community that there is no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. [Date the public knew: 11/22/05]
9/21/01 Justice Department lawyer John Yoo declares Fourth Amendment flexible, writing: “[T]he government may be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties.” [Date the public knew: 10/24/04]
9/25/01 Yoo forges doctrine of preemption, writing that Bush may use his war powers to act against groups or individuals, even if it would be “difficult to establish [that they] have been or may be implicated in attacks.” [Date the public knew: 3/22/02]
Oct 2001 Rumsfeld sets up own intelligence unit to look for Iraqi links to terrorism. [Date the public knew: 10/24/04]
Oct-Nov 2001 Prisoners rendered to Egypt and Jordan. After prolonged torture and subsequent years of imprisonment at Guantánamo, some of these same prisoners are found to have no terror connection and released. [Date the public knew: 6/27/06]
10/7/01 Afghanistan invaded.
10/8/01 Office of Homeland Security established.
10/11/01 Terror alert: Terrorists could attack unspecified targets in “next several days.”
10/25/01 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act passes 98-1 in the Senate.
10/30/01 Head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge announces, “We believe the United States could very well be targeted this week.”
11/8/01 The New York Times and Frontline report that an Iraqi general witnessed the Iraqi military training Arab fighters to hijack airplanes. Mother Jones later reports general to be bogus Chalabi plant. [Date the public knew: 3/1/06]
11/11/01 Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, top Al Qaeda paramilitary trainer, captured in Pakistan.
11/21/01 Bush collars Rumsfeld physically and asks: “What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.”—Bob Woodward. [Date the public knew: 4/18/04]
11/24/01 “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh captured.
11/26/01 Bush declares, “Saddam is evil.”
Late Nov 2001 Osama bin Laden, pinned down at Tora Bora, slips away.
12/2/01 Enron declares bankruptcy.
12/3/01 Terror alert.
12/9/01 Cheney on Meet the Press: “Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists.” Also claims 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi spy in Prague, a claim he’ll repeat long after CIA and Czechs disavow.
12/12/01 Rumsfeld demands plan for war against Iraq. Gen. Tommy Franks proposes softening up Iraq: “I’m thinking in terms of spikes, Mr. Secretary. Spurts of activity followed by periods of inactivity.” [Date the public knew: 8/3/04]
12/22/01 Shoe bomber Richard Reid tries to blow up an AA flight from Paris to Miami.
12/28/01 Gen. Franks briefs Bush on Iraq war plans. [Date the public knew: 3/5/03]
Early 2002 Bush approves “The Program,” which permits NSA to surveil US citizens without a warrant, court approval, or signoff from the Justice Dept. [Date the public knew: 12/16/05]
Jan 2002 The FBI, which favors standard law enforcement interrogation practices, loses debate with CIA Director George Tenet, and Libi is transferred to CIA custody. Libi is then rendered to Egypt. “They duct-taped his mouth, cinched him up and sent him to Cairo,” an FBI agent told reporters. “At the airport the CIA case officer goes up to him and says, ‘You’re going to Cairo, you know. Before you get there, I am going to find your mother and I’m going to fuck her.'” [Date the public knew: 6/13/04] Under torture, Libi invents tale of Al Qaeda operatives receiving chemical weapons training from Iraq. “This is the problem with using the waterboard. They get so desperate that they begin telling you what they think you want to hear,” a CIA source later tells ABC. [Date the public knew: 11/18/05]
1/9/02 Yoo memo to Pentagon brass declares that the laws of war, including the Geneva Conventions, do not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan. [Date the public knew: 5/24/04]
1/11/02 William Howard Taft IV, the State Department’s chief legal adviser, responds to Yoo: “Your position is, at this point, erroneous in its substance and untenable in practice. Let’s talk.”
1/11/02 First 20 detainees arrive at Guantanamo.
1/22/02 Navy photo released showing detainees bound and hooded. Rumsfeld defends the detentions of “committed terrorists.”
1/23/02 Pakistani militants kidnap Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
1/25/02 White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales echoes Yoo: “In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.” [Date the public knew: 4/26/04]
1/27/02 Cheney calls Gitmo detainees “the worst of a very bad lot. They are very dangerous. They are devoted to killing millions of Americans.”
1/29/02 Bush delivers “Axis of Evil” State of the Union. Speechwriter David Frum later says phrase was the fruit of being asked: “Can you sum up in a sentence or two our best case for going after Iraq?” [Date the public knew: 1/8/03]
Early Feb 2002 Daniel Pearl beheaded. [Date the public knew: 2/21/02]
Feb 2002 “I was asked by one of the senior commanders of Central Command to go into his office. We did, the door was closed, and he turned to me, and he said, ‘Senator, we have stopped fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan. We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq.'”—Sen. Bob Graham. [Date the public knew: 3/26/04]
Feb 2002 DIA intelligence summary notes that Libi’s “confession” lacks details and suggests that he is most likely telling interrogators what he thinks will “retain their interest.” Also states: “Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.” [Date the public knew: 10/26/05]
2/7/02 Presidential directive defines Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees as “enemy combatants” exempt from prisoner-of-war protections.
2/12/02 With “profound sadness,” Ken Lay refuses to testify before Congress.
2/12/02 Attorney General John Ashcroft calls on “all Americans to be on the highest state of alert.”
2/13/02 Total Information Awareness program leaked.
2/26/02 Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson sent to Niger to check out claims Iraq buying uranium-rich yellowcake. [Date the public knew: 7/6/03]
March 2002 “Fuck Saddam. We’re taking him out.”—Bush to Rice and three senators. [Date the public knew: 12/8/03]
March 2002 As The New Yorker later reports: “Chalabi’s defector reports were now flowing from the Pentagon directly to the Vice President’s office, and then on to the President, with little prior evaluation by intelligence professionals.” [Date the public knew: 10/27/03]
3/5/02 Joe Wilson tells CIA there’s no indication that Iraq is buying yellowcake. [Date the public knew: 7/6/03]
3/8/02 First of Downing Street memos prepared by Tony Blair’s top national security aides. “There is no greater threat now than in recent years that Saddam will use WMD…Washington believes the legal basis for an attack on Iraq already exists…Regime change has no basis in international law.” [Date the public knew: 9/18/04]
3/12/02 Color-coded terror alert system introduced.
3/13/02 Bush on Osama: “I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.”
3/14/02 Downing Street memo: “Condi’s enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed…Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions…what happens the morning after?” [Date the public knew: 9/18/04]
3/15/02 British intel reports that there’s only “sporadic and patchy” evidence of Iraqi WMD. “There is no intelligence on any [biological weapons] production facilities.” [Date the public knew: 9/18/04]
3/22/02 Downing Street memo: “US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing…We are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq…Regime change does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.” [Date the public knew: 9/18/04]
3/24/02 Saddam “is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”—Cheney on CNN
3/25/02 Downing Street memo: “There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with Al Qaida…In the documents so far presented it has been hard to glean whether the threat from Iraq is so significantly different from that of Iran or North Korea as to justify action.” [Date the public knew: 9/18/04]
Late March 2002 Cheney tells Republican senators that the question is no longer if the US will invade Iraq but when. [Date the public knew: 5/5/02]
3/28/02 Pakistani forces capture Al Qaeda “operations chief ” Abu Zubaydah and CIA ferrets him away to underground interrogation facility in Thailand. Bush told he’s mentally unstable and really only Al Qaeda’s travel agent. [Date the public knew: 11/2/05]
4/4/02 Blair visits Bush in Crawford to discuss Iraq. Bush tells Britain’s ITV: “I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go.”
4/8/02 Bush promotes “Operation TIPS” program to turn postal workers, bus drivers, meter readers, and even lobstermen into freelance government spies.
4/9/02 Bush calls Zubaydah one of “top operating officials of Al Qaeda, plotting…murder.” Later asks Tenet, “I said he was important; you’re not going to let me lose face on this are you?…Do some of those harsh methods really work?” Zubaydah is then tortured and speaks of all variety of plots. [Date the public knew: 6/20/06]
4/11/02 Hugo Chávez briefly removed from power in Venezuela in a US-endorsed coup.
May 2002 Primary corroborator of Curveball’s claims that Iraq has mobile weapons labs is judged a liar and Chalabi plant by DIA. A fabricator warning is posted in US intelligence databases. [Date the public knew: 3/28/04]
5/8/02 Jose Padilla arrested at O’Hare airport. [Date the public knew: 6/10/02]
5/18/02 The 2001 “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” warning leaked to press.
5/20/02 FBI Director Robert Mueller says another terrorist attack “inevitable.”
5/21/02 Asked if he has a plan to attack Iraq, Gen. Franks replies: “That’s a great question…my boss has not yet asked me to put together a plan to do that.”
5/21/02 Based on statements made by Zubaydah, FBI warns of attacks against railroads, Brooklyn Bridge, Statue of Liberty, and rushes agents to sites. [Date the public knew: 6/20/06]
5/23/02 Bush states opposition to 9/11 hearings. Senate subcommittee votes to subpoena administration about Enron.
5/24/02 FBI warns of Memorial Day attacks by scuba divers.
Summer 2002 French debunk yellowcake theory: “We told the Americans, ‘Bullshit. It doesn’t make any sense,'” says French official. [Date the public knew: 12/11/05]
June 2002 To a deputy raising doubts about Iraq war, Rice says: “Save your breath. The president has already made up his mind.” [Date the public knew: 1/7/04]
June 2002 Iraq bombing begins. Military will fly 21,736 sorties and attack 349 targets between now and the start of the war.
6/4/02 Karl Rove and GOP chair Ken Mehlman’s PowerPoint presentation for midterm strategy highlights “Focus on War and Economy.”
6/6/02 Coleen Rowley, the FBI agent who tried to alert her superiors to flight training taken by Zacarias Moussaoui, testifies before Congress.
6/10/02 In midst of 9/11 hearings, Ashcroft interrupts trip to Russia to announce arrest of Padilla, who’s now accused of “dirty bomb” plot. Declared an enemy combatant, he’ll be held four years without access to court system.
Mid-2002 Cheney and Scooter Libby begin meeting directly with CIA analysts. [Date the public knew: 6/5/03]
July 2002 Gen. Franks secretly requests $700 million for war preparations. Bush approves, unbeknownst to Congress. Money taken from appropriation for the war in Afghanistan. [Date the public knew: 4/18/04]
7/11/02 “Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance, the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will.”—Richard Perle
7/15/02 Despite indications he was tortured into confession, Lindh cops to 20 years.
7/23/02 Downing Street memo written by foreign secretary after his visit with CIA’s Tenet and other US officials: “There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable…The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy…The most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.” [Date the public knew: 5/1/05]
Aug 2002 White House Iraq Group created to market war. Members include Rove, Libby, Rice, as well as spinmeisters Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin. [Date the public knew: 8/10/03]
8/1/02 Justice Department memo asserts that Bush’s wartime powers supersede international anti-torture laws and treaties, defines torture as only that which is “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” [Date the public knew: 6/8/04]
8/7/02 Bush given Iraq war plan by Gen. Franks.
8/20/02 “We may or may not attack. I have no idea yet.”—Bush. “There are Al Qaeda in Iraq…There are.”—Rumsfeld.
8/26/02 “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends…and against us.” —Cheney
8/26/02 Newsweek reports prisoners abused by US allies in Afghanistan.
Sep 2002 Bombing against Iraq intensifies.
Sep 2002 Tyler Drumheller, CIA’s European operations chief, calls German Embassy in Washington seeking access to Curveball. Germans warn he’s “crazy” and “probably a fabricator.” [Date the public knew: 11/20/05]
9/3/02 Bush asks skeptical congressional leadership to support action against Iraq.
9/5/02 Upon hearing from Tenet that no National Intelligence Estimate had been produced to assess justification for war, Sen. Graham demands one.
9/7/02 “From a marketing point of view you don’t introduce new products in August.”—White House Chief of Staff Andy Card on rollout of the war
9/7/02 Bush claims a new UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report states Iraq is six months from developing a nuclear weapon. There is no such report.
9/8/02 Page 1 Times story by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon cites anonymous administration officials saying Saddam has repeatedly tried to acquire aluminum tubes “specially designed” to enrich uranium. “The first sign of a ‘smoking gun,’ they argue, may be a mushroom cloud.”
9/8/02 Tubes “are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs…we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”—Rice on CNN
9/8/02 “We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.”—Cheney on Meet the Press
9/10/02 Orange terror alert.
9/11/02 Bush marks 9/11 with Statue of Liberty backdrop.
9/12/02 Bush repeats aluminum-tube claim before UN General Assembly.
9/13/02 Cheney tells Rush Limbaugh: “What’s happening, of course, is we’re getting additional information that, in fact, Hussein is reconstituting his biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs.” There is no such new intel.
9/16/02 “The president hasn’t made a decision to do anything with respect to Iraq.”—Rumsfeld
9/16/02 White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey estimates Iraq war could cost $200 billion.
Mid-Sep 2002 American relatives of Iraqis sent as CIA moles return from Iraq. All 30 report Saddam has abandoned WMD programs. Intel buried in the CIA bureaucracy. President Bush never briefed. [Date the public knew: 1/3/06]
9/18/02 Bush calls Saddam’s offer to let inspectors back into Iraq “his latest ploy.”
9/19/02 Rumsfeld tells Congress that Saddam “has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, and mustard gas.”
9/19/02 Classified UK memo notes there’s “no definitive intelligence that [the aluminum tubes are] destined for a nuclear programme.” [Date the public knew: 9/24/02]
9/23/02 Institute for Science and International Security releases report calling the aluminum- tube intelligence ambiguous and warning that “U.S. nuclear experts who dissent from the Administration’s position are expected to remain silent. ‘The President has said what he has said, end of story,’ one knowledgeable expert said.”
9/24/02 Britain releases dossier to public saying Iraq could launch biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes. Dossier later determined to be “sexed up.”
9/25/02 “You can’t distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.”—Bush
9/25/02 Citing Libi intel, Rice says: “High-ranking detainees have said that Iraq provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development.”
9/26/02 Classified DIA assessment of Iraq’s chemical weapons concludes there is “no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons.” [Date the public knew: 5/30/03]
9/26/02 In a Rose Garden speech, Bush says: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons.”
9/26/02 In a speech in Houston, Bush says of Saddam: “After all, this is a guy who tried to kill my dad.”
9/27/02 Rumsfeld calls link between Iraq and Al Qaeda “accurate and not debatable.”
9/28/02 Bush’s address to nation: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more, and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.”
Oct 2002 National Intelligence Estimate produced. It warns that Iraq “is reconstituting its nuclear program” and “has now established large-scale, redundant and concealed BW agent production capabilities”—an assessment based largely on Curveball’s statements. But NIE also notes that the State Department has assigned “low confidence” to the notion of “whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with Al Qaeda.” Cites State Department experts who concluded that “the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.” Also says “claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa” are “highly dubious.” Only six senators bother to read all 92 pages. [Date the public knew: 7/18/03]
Oct 2002 Administration decides not to take out Abu Musab al-Zarqawi because, though he is not yet working with Al Qaeda, any terrorist in Iraq helps case for war. “People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” a former NSC member later says. [Date the public knew: 3/2/04]
Oct 2-24, 2002 DC-area sniper attacks.
10/4/02 Asked by Sen. Graham to make gist of NIE public, Tenet produces 25-page document titled “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs.” It says Saddam has them and omits dissenting views contained in the classified NIE.
10/4/02 Knight Ridder reports: “Several senior administration officials and intelligence officers, all of whom spoke only on the condition of anonymity, charged that the decision to publicize one analysis of the aluminum tubes and ignore the contrary one is typical of the way the administration has been handling intelligence about Iraq.”
10/6/02 NSC memo to White House warning of the Niger uranium claim: “The evidence is weak…the Africa story is overblown.” [Date the public knew: 4/23/06]
10/7/02 Bush delivers a speech in which he says, “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” Also says Iraq is exploring ways of using drones to target the US, although Iraq’s drones have a reach of only 300 miles.
10/7/02 CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin, writing for Tenet, sends a letter to Congress declaring that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD unless attacked is “very low.” [Date the public knew: 10/8/02]
10/8/02 Knight Ridder reports: “[A] growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration’s double-time march toward war. These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses…’Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books,’ said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.”
10/11/02 Congress—including all serious Democratic contenders—votes to grant Bush power to go to war.
10/16/02 Bush tells public, “I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary.”
10/20/02 Saddam empties prisons.
10/21/02 In Lackawanna, New York, six American citizens of Yemeni descent are hyped as a “sleeper cell” and indicted on terror charges despite scant evidence.
Nov 2002 CIA station chiefs from Middle East gather for a secret meeting at the US Embassy in London. The message: War is inevitable, just a few months away. [Date the public knew: 1/3/06]
Nov 2002 At largest CIA prison in Afghanistan, code-named Salt Pit, a case officer orders guards to strip a young detainee naked, chain him to the concrete floor, and leave him overnight. He freezes to death. [Date the public knew: 3/3/05]
11/5/02 GOP gains control of Senate.
11/7/02 “War is not my first choice. It’s my last choice.”—Bush
11/8/02 UN Security Council passes Resolution 1441 offering Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.” Iraq agrees and UN weapons inspectors return.
11/14/02 Rumsfeld handicaps war length: “Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.”
11/25/02 Bush elevates Homeland Security Department to Cabinet.
11/27/02 Weapons inspections begin in Iraq.
12/2/02 Rumsfeld signs off on “Category III” interrogation techniques including “the use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences are imminent for him and/or his family.” It is later shown that these methods are torture as defined in US federal law, and that DOD knew that at the time. [Date the public knew: 6/22/04]
12/6/02 White House sacks Lindsey over war cost estimates.
12/7/02 Iraq submits a 12,200-page declaration to the UN documenting all its unconventional arms. US discredits the report because it does not mention the tubes or the Niger uranium.
12/21/02 Asked by Bush if there’s any reason to doubt existence of WMD, Tenet says: “It’s a slam-dunk case.” [Date the public knew: 4/17/04]
12/31/02 New war cost estimate generated: $50-$60 billion.
12/31/02 “You said we’re headed to war in Iraq. I don’t know why you say that…I’m the person who gets to decide, not you.”—Bush to press corps
Jan 2003 CIA balks at being made to bolster weak WMD intel. In a heated conversation with Scooter Libby, CIA’s McLaughlin says: “I’m not going back to the well on this. We’ve done our work.” [Date the public knew: 10/3/05]
Jan 2003 Faith-based czar John DiIulio dubs Bushies “Mayberry Machiavellis.”
Jan 2003 National Intelligence Council warns Bush that war in Iraq could lead to an anti-US insurgency and “increase popular sympathy for terrorist objectives.” [Date the public knew: 10/30/04]
1/3/03 “The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American.”—Bush
1/9/03 Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.’s IAEA, echoes DOE’s view that the aluminum tubes sought by Iraq are likely for artillery rockets, not centrifuges. A senior Bush official responds, “I think the Iraqis are spinning the IAEA.”
1/9/03 After nearly two months, UN’s Hans Blix says his inspectors have not found any “smoking guns” in Iraq.
1/11/03 Bush tells Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar that he plans to go to war two days before he tells Secretary Powell. [Date the public knew: 4/18/04]
1/20/03 Bush signs presidential directive giving Pentagon control over postwar Iraq.
1/24/03 IAEA tells Washington Post, “It may be technically possible that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium, but you’d have to believe that Iraq deliberately ordered the wrong stock and intended to spend a great deal of time and money reworking each piece.”
1/27/03 UN press release: “It would appear…Iraq had decided in principle to…bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection.” Weapons inspectors have examined 106 locations and found “no evidence that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons programme.”
1/28/03 In State of the Union, Bush says “the 16 words”: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Bush adds Saddam has “tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production” and has “mobile biological weapons labs.”
1/29/03 “Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country.”—Rumsfeld
1/31/03 Notes of meeting between Bush and Blair make clear Bush intends to invade Iraq even if UN inspectors found no evidence of WMD. Bush told Blair he’d considered “flying U2 reconnaissance planes…over Iraq, painted in UN colours” to tempt Iraqi forces to fire on them, which would constitute a breach of UN resolutions. [Date the public knew: 2/3/06]
2/1/03 During UN speech rehearsal, Powell throws draft written by Libby into the air and says: “I’m not reading this. This is bullshit.” [Date the public knew: 6/9/03]
2/4/03 After reading draft of Powell’s speech, CIA agent emails his superior with concerns about “the validity of the information based on ‘CURVE BALL.'” Noting he’s the only US agent to have ever met Curveball (who was hung over at the time), the agent asks: “We sure didn’t give much credence to this report when it came out. Why now?” Deputy head of CIA’s Iraqi Task Force responds: “Let’s keep in mind the fact that this war’s going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn’t say…the Powers That Be probably aren’t terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he’s talking about.” [Date the public knew: 7/9/04]
2/4/03 CIA’s Drumheller makes personal appeal to Tenet to delete Curveball’s intel from UN speech. Date the public knew: 6/25/06
2/4/03 Powell asks Tenet to personally assure intel for speech is good. Tenet does. [Date the public knew: 6/25/06]
2/5/03 In UN speech, Powell says, “Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.” Cites Libi’s claims and Curveball’s “eyewitness” accounts of mobile weapons labs. (German officer who supervised Curveball’s handler will later recall thinking, “Mein Gott!”) Powell also claims that Saddam’s son Qusay has ordered WMD removed from palace complexes; that key WMD files are being driven around Iraq by intelligence agents; that bioweapons warheads have been hidden in palm groves; that a water truck at an Iraqi military installation is a “decontamination vehicle” for chemical weapons; that Iraq has drones it can use for bioweapons attacks; and that WMD experts have been corralled into one of Saddam’s guest houses. All but the last of those claims had been flagged by the State Department’s own intelligence unit as “WEAK.” [Date the public knew: 7/18/03]
2/6/03 Reiterating Powell’s claim, Bush says an Iraqi drone loaded with bioweapons could strike US mainland. The US Air Force is on the record as saying that “the small size of Iraq’s new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance.” [Date the public knew: 9/26/03]
2/7/03 Rumsfeld ups war length estimate: “It could last…six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
2/7/03 Three State Department bureau chiefs prepare a secret memo warning that “serious planning gaps for postconflict public security and humanitarian assistance…could result in serious human rights abuses, which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally.” [Date the public knew: 8/18/05]
2/7/03 As anti-war demonstrations increase, DHS Secretary Ridge warns of Al Qaeda “credible threats” and raises the terror alert level to orange.
2/8/03 UN’s Team Bravo, led by American bioweapons experts, searches Curveball’s former work site in Iraq and disproves many of his claims. [Date the public knew: 11/20/05]
2/8/03 In radio address to the nation, Bush warns that “firsthand witnesses [read: Curveball] have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories” for germ warfare.
2/10/03 DHS advises Americans to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape to protect themselves against radiological or biological attack.
2/14/03 Blix again tells UN Security Council that Iraq appears to be cooperating with inspectors.
2/15/03 Largest demonstrations in history. In 600 cities worldwide, millions protest war.
2/20/03 Rumsfeld: “There is no question but that [the invasion] would be welcomed.” Later says: “Never said that. Never did…You may remember it well, but you’re thinking of somebody else.”
2/23/03 “UN weapons inspectors are being seriously deceived…It reminds me of the way the Nazis hoodwinked Red Cross officials.”—Perle
2/25/03 Gen. Eric Shinseki tells Congress “several hundred thousand troops” will be needed to occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld retaliates, naming Shinseki’s successor 14 months before the end of his term.
2/27/03 US diplomat John Brady Kiesling resigns, citing the “distortion of intelligence” and “systematic manipulation of American opinion.”
2/27/03 Wolfowitz tells congressional hearing: “I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators…the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark.”
3/1/03 Iraq destroys four missiles, meeting a UN deadline to begin disarming.
3/3/03 IAEA official tells US that the Niger uranium documents were forgeries so error-filled that “they could be spotted by someone using Google.”
3/7/03 US, Britain, and Spain present a revised draft resolution giving Saddam an ultimatum to disarm by March 17 or face the possibility of war. France refuses to sign on to ultimatum.
3/7/03 Blix tells UN Security Council that there’s “no evidence” of mobile bioweapons facilities in Iraq.
3/7/03 “After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq.”—IAEA’s ElBaradei
3/8/03 On CNN, Joe Wilson says, “I think it’s safe to say that the US government should have or did know that [the Niger documents were] fake before Dr. ElBaradei mentioned it in his report at the UN yesterday.” Decision to discredit Wilson made at a meeting within the Office of the Vice President. [Date the public knew: 5/3/04]
3/8/03 “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.”—Bush
3/15/03 Bush, Tony Blair, and Spain’s president have “emergency summit.” Bush gives UN one day to find a diplomatic solution.
3/16/03 Cheney on Meet the Press: “We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” (Cheney later claims he misspoke.) Adds, “I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.”
3/17/03 Threat level elevated to orange.
3/17/03 US and UK fail to secure UN resolution authorizing use of force. Bush gives Saddam 48 hours to surrender.
3/18/03 Washington Post article headlined “Bush Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq” notes, “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.” Story is buried on Page A13.
3/20/03 War begins.
Haha…if Paul says it, then surely it is true!
Eric, as I said to you before about this, you are trying to limit the Iraq war event to a very specific and narrow prism, one which yet goes back into time to gather some affiliated events in order to justify, retroactively, the Iraq war.
The bottom line is that, yes, the Bush administration used the powers residual from desert storm and that Un resolution to frame any claim they made with some veneer of authority. So when they said Iraq had WMD’s, and we must investigate, it was based on those powers.
However, those powers also relied on a legal structure that made the inspectors the tools by which a fair evaluation could be produced, and that evaluation were to be the basis upon which any action would be undertaken.
1- Those inspectors not only stated clearly they found no evidence of WMD’s, but also requested more time to ascertain those facts, but they were both ignored and smeared.
2- We were sold the idea that Sadaam was affiliated with Al Qaeda
3- WE were sold the idea that Sadaam was behind 9/11
Who better to speak on it? Colonel Wilkerson, chief of staff for Colin powell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKIPCnLaUYk
Also, go through this and tell me where the narrow real of international law you seem to focus on appears as impetus/justification for the aggression against Iraq.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline
My second to last post – which took me about 30 minutes to write after watching supporting videos, was in response to Eric but not published for some reason. I did post three videos in it (two of which were from non other than Larry Wilkerson and the reason it took so long to finish), and the word “frickin’,” but I guess the sensors that be didn’t like it.
I wanted Eric to know I hadn’t dismissed his posts without comment.
Perhaps I’ll attempt it again, later, but I haven’t the energy to do it again right now.
Steve, the max number of links you can attach is 2 otherwise it is caught into the filter.
Darren maybe able to free it however.
I too have a post awaiting moderation due to length.
Stella Barkoski:
“How did Saddam “corrupt” Iraqi society?”
See The Islamic State Was Coming Without the Invasion of Iraq (or How Saddam Hussein Gave Us ISIS) by Kyle Orton.
Excerpt from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights situation report on Iraq, 2002:
As malignant as the Saddam regime was understood to be before OIF, it was actually “far worse” than we knew.
Excerpt from Situation of human rights in Iraq, Report submitted by the [UN] Special Rapporteur, Andreas Mavrommatis, 2004:
Stella Barkoski:
“is it the business of the US to watch out for “corruption” of other societies”
Not for every other society. Was it the business of the US to watch out for Iraq, specifically? As the chief enforcer of Iraq’s compliance with the UNSCR 660-series resolutions, including and especially the UNSCR 688 humanitarian mandates of the Gulf War ceasefire – yes.
Go here to review primary sources for the humanitarian grounds of the Iraq intervention. Links to the above UN reports are included.
Eric,
“Plus, in the midst of ruining Iraq’s economy and corrupting Iraqi society, Saddam took on a lot of debt from his Arab neighbors.”
How did Saddam “corrupt” Iraqi society? And is it the business of the US to watch out for “corruption” of other societies at the expense of our own?
Po is correct in that you present a revisionist history of the bald-faced lies presented by the Shrub administration. Steve G is correct in his suspicions of why this is.
Stella – Eric is dead right.
Paul writes, “Stella – Eric is dead right.”
Whew. Finally. Conclusive evidence.
steve – thanks for the vote of support.
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2016/04/21/satanism-as-a-new-political-movement-in-america/
po:
“Sorry peeps, you are engaging in some serious history revisionism.”
Actually, what you’ve believed is the “history” is really propaganda from Saddam and his allies.
Iraq Survey Group:
Again, hewing to the primary source authorities in the decision for OIF is the reliable way to cut through the conjecture and misinformation that have skewed the history, and to set the record straight.
po:
“The Bush junior invasion of Iraq had nothing to do, legally or otherwise with desert storm.”
Your assertion clearly contradicts the primary sources of the mission, which plainly show the compliance enforcement grounds responding to Saddam’s failure to cure “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687” (UNSCR 1441) in his “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441).
I encourage you to review the primary source authorities, which have been provided in the OIF FAQ explanation and “Perspective” post, to learn the truth of the matter for yourself.
po:
“while the second time around Bush junior went in without the UN approval (and as such it was illegal, as no less than Koffi Annan himself stated)”
I take your meaning for “UN approval” in context to be UN authority rather than popularity.
Legally speaking, OIF was conducted with the standing authorization of UNSCR 678, which was “recall[ed]” in UNSCR 1441. Substantively, there’s no dispute – the Saddam regime’s breach of ceasefire was decided by the UN Security Council.
That being said, there was a longstanding procedural dispute in the UN Security Council over the no-fly zones, Operations Desert Fox and Iraqi Freedom, and the various other military actions responding to Saddam’s noncompliance. Depending on where you stand on the procedural dispute, OIF was the same legal or illegal as the no-fly zones that enforced the UNSCR 688 humanitarian mandates. For more contemporary context, the Iraq intervention was on better legal grounds than the Kosovo intervention, which is considered technically “illegal but legitimate”.
Regarding the international legal question, see A2 of the answer to “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom legal?”. Excerpt:
po:
“in spite of all the facts on the grounds”
Actually, the “facts on the grounds” were dispositive of Iraq’s breach of the Gulf War ceasefire. The principal trigger for OIF was the UN weapons inspectors finding of “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” in the UNSCR 1441 inspections – eg, “With respect to stockpiles of bulk agent stated to have been destroyed, there is evidence to suggest that these was [sic] not destroyed as declared by Iraq.”
po:
“and the CIA’s reluctance to support the claim that:
1- Iraq was responsible for 9/11 (which is why we went in to begin with)”
That “Iraq was responsible for 9/11” could not be “why we went in to begin with” since the Bush administration did not claim Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Rather, the significance of the 9/11 attacks in terms of Iraq is they, in light of Saddam’s WMD-and-terrorism combined threat, coupled with the uncovering of a WMD “international proliferation network”, intensified the focus on Saddam’s terrorism, which included alliance with the al Qaeda network (confirmed by the Iraqi Perspectives Project), and significantly boosted the urgency and political will to resolve the festering Saddam problem expeditiously with the mandated compliance.
po:
“[the CIA’s reluctance to support the claim that:] 2- Iraq had WMD’s”
Excerpt from the answer to “Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq?”:
Eric writes, “Stella Barkoski:
“‘is it the business of the US to watch out for “corruption” of other societies’
“Not for every other society. Was it the business of the US to watch out for Iraq, specifically? As the chief enforcer of Iraq’s compliance with the UNSCR 660-series resolutions, including and especially the UNSCR 688 humanitarian mandates of the Gulf War ceasefire – yes.
“Go here to review primary sources for the humanitarian grounds of the Iraq intervention. Links to the above UN reports are included.”
Eric, you can play the game, but the truth of the matter is the war was about oil and control of the oil fields, not humanitarian mandates, That’s why there are ethics rules for professionals, not just laws. Unfortunately, our chief executive isn’t restricted by ethical duties.
What’s more, apart from the Security Council being an oligopoly assuming power over the world when even we’ve refused its mandates, let alone general UN resolutions, it’s clear through Powell’s Chief of Staff Col. Lawrence Wilkerson’s statements that Powell went to the Security Council with a position he didn’t believe.
It was a “false story fed to the American People”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKIPCnLaUYk
As for politicizing the intelligence including WMD and seeking uranium from Niger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHSQM1vmzNE
As for the veracity of the Al Qaeda in Iraq allegation: youtube.com/watch?v=YHSQM1vmzNE
Cheney and Rumsfeld need to be waterboarded. Dubya needs Ritalin. He was no doubt the worst president since the industrial revolution, if not in the country’s history, in terms of leadership. What a fricking moron.
*Now we are back in Libya…
tnash80hotmailcom:
“Saddam still had some “outs” once it became clear that the U.S. would go to war with Iraq over the Kuwait invasion, but elected to let his military get clobbered by not withdrawing.”
Right. Like I clarified to stevegroen, the power to switch off enforcement with the mandated compliance was always in Saddam’s hands. See UNSCRs 660-678, adopted from August 2 to November 29, 1990, while the international community with the UN tried to convince Saddam to release Kuwait and stand down without resorting to the Gulf War, which began on January 16, 1991.
Every US-led military action in the context of enforcing Iraq’s compliance with the UNSCR 660-series resolutions, including Operation Iraqi Freedom, reacted to Saddam’s failure to comply as mandated.
Sorry peeps, you are engaging in some serious history revisionism. The Bush junior invasion of Iraq had nothing to do, legally or otherwise with desert storm. It is interesting in fact how history replayed itself in a very obvious but overlooked way, strangely though, this time in reverse.
Do we remember Reagan’s bombing of Libya in 86? That one was in retaliation for Qaddafi’s support of terrorist acts mostly in Europe. The US went at it alone when the Arabs and europeans were dragging their feet. Now we are back in Europe with a supposed Nato coalition to finish the job Reagan started.
In Iraq however, Bush senior went in with UN support, while the second time around Bush junior went in without the UN approval (and as such it was illegal, as no less than Koffi Annan himself stated) and in spite of all the facts on the grounds and the CIA’s reluctance to support the claim that:
1- Iraq was responsible for 9/11 (which is why we went in to begin with)
2- Iraq had WMD’s
tnash80hotmailcom:
“Iraq’s economy was in ruins after the costly 8 year war with Iran. … he probably hoped to “influence” Saudi production (limits) by being on their doorstep and pointing a gun to their head.”
Plus, in the midst of ruining Iraq’s economy and corrupting Iraqi society, Saddam took on a lot of debt from his Arab neighbors.
The debt problem was onerous but not extraordinary. As stevegroen indicates, under normal governance, Iraq should have been able to eventually recover from the Iran-Iraq War.
But the Saddam regime was not governed normally. Dealing cautiously with unsavory competitors that are rational actors is normal for the US and shaped the initial American approach to the Iran-Iraq War. However, Saddam proved to be an aggressive irrational actor with dangerously poor judgement.
The debt problem took on an exceptionally destructive character with Saddam’s sociopathic habit of fantastic revisionism in his foreign affairs – eg, regarding his obligation to comply with the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire. As a result, rather than a burden that was Iraq’s responsible to discharge, Saddam considered the debt as a wrong against Iraq. The “gun to their head” was about more than just oil production. Saddam’s way of solving the debt problem was exemplified by the invasion and ISIS-precursor pillaging of Kuwait.
The “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) for the Gulf War ceasefire was purposefully designed to rehabilitate Saddam so he could be trusted with the peace. The terms of the ceasefire were necessary to resolve the manifold threat of Iraq established with the Gulf War. There are contemporary historic reasons that, by mandate and judgement, the US as chief enforcer could not accept less from Saddam than full compliance with Iraq’s ceasefire obligations.
tnash writes, “Steve Groen- Iraq’s economy was in ruins after the costly 8 year war with Iran. OPEC’s “quota system” to artificially limit production to support prices was not effective, given widespread cheating/ “overproduction” by many OPEC members.”
“Saddam’s primary motivation in the 1990 invasion of Kuwait was economic.
“In addition to acquiring Kuwait’s sizable reserve, he probably hoped to “influence” Saudi production (limits) by being on their doorstep and pointing a gun to their head.
“The price of oil and other factors make it possible for a country to have large oil reserves and still ‘be low on funds.'”
Clever, but wouldn’t he have known Riyadh was so far up the US’s arse in terms of credit and oil supply that he couldn’t have made much of an impression?
Good point about being land rich and cash poor.
Steve Groen- Iraq’s economy was in ruins after the costly 8 year war with Iran.
OPEC’s “quota system” to artificially limit production to support prices was not effective, given widespread cheating/ “overproduction” by many OPEC members.
Saddam’s primary motivation in the 1990 invasion of Kuwait was economic.
In addition to acquiring Kuwait’s sizable reserve, he probably hoped to “influence” Saudi production (limits) by being on their doorstep and pointing a gun to their head.
The price of oil and other factors make it possible for a country to have large oil reserves and still “be low on funds”.
Paul Schulte:
“steve – you are more than welcome to see the documentary yourself.”
I’ll piggyback your recommendation with the suggestion to review the topical President HW Bush policy statements compiled and linked in the President HW Bush Perspective section of the afore-linked “Perspective on Operation Iraqi Freedom” post.
Excerpt (text sans links):
stevegroen,
It’s news to me that Saddam was the global master of “petrocurrency” or that there’s such a thing as “petrocurrency” that functions reminiscent of the former gold standard.
Here’s a more in-depth take on your conspiracy theory by an author who I cite for your sake because he otherwise opposed OIF (apparently) due to his ignorance about the grounds for the Iraq intervention:
http://www.monetary.org/was-the-iraqi-shift-to-euro-currency-to-real-reason-for-war/2010/12
Setting aside the finance-systemic flaw in your conspiracy theory, the obvious enforcement-procedural flaw in your conspiracy theory is that the power to switch off enforcement was always in Saddam’s hands. The Saddam regime would still be in “control over the oil fields” today if Saddam had simply met Iraq’s burden to prove the “full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions” (UNSCR 1441) that Saddam had agreed to in 1991 in order to suspend the Gulf War short of regime change.
Recall that the Saddam regime could and should have abided by the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” in 1991-1992, instead of triggering enforcement in Saddam’s “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441) because “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687” (UNSCR 1441) in 2002-2003.
In fact, the circumstances that compelled President Bush to switch back to the ceasefire enforcement to “bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations” (P.L. 105-235) from the post-Operation Desert Fox ‘containment’ (status quo) are open and straightforward.
The main circumstance that compelled Bush to act is the post-ODF ‘containment’ of Saddam was evidently broken by 2001, if it ever worked at all. Ambitious, belligerent, tyrannical, sectarian, terrorist, rearming, noncompliant, unreconstructed Saddam was out of the box.
See the answers to “Why did Bush leave the ‘containment’ (status quo)?” & “Why not free a noncompliant Saddam?”.
To add to that Steve, same scenario was re-enacted with Gaddaffi, who was intent on using his vast reserves of gold and silver to create a new african currency, one that would be free from the dollars or other western currencies that hold africa’s economies hostage…this challenged the French greatly, who took the lead in formulation the attack whose result is that we are now fighting Isis in another country.
As would say Eric, yes we destroyed Libya under the cover of some law, of Nato, of legitimity…and yet it is still illegal and immoral. Zimmerman’s murder of Treyvon is indeed deemed legal, but even that is more clear cut that the Iraqi invasion.
But as someone once said:” we spend $30 to $60 billions in the Middle east in order to protect $10 billions worth of oil.””
Po writes, “But as someone once said: ‘we spend $30 to $60 billions in the Middle east in order to protect $10 billions worth of oil.'”
This makes sense (at least in terms of those who own our congressional reps) if it allows us to keep the presses printing fiat currency unfettered.
Thanks for the info on Gaddafi. I didn’t know that’s why they went after him.
The gods must be crazy.
And sure they are, Steve, sure they are.
Here is the relevant extract and the link:
—————————”
“”The Threat of Libya’s Oil and Gold to French Interests
Though the French-proposed U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 claimed the no-fly zone implemented over Libya was to protect civilians, an April 2011 email sent to Hillary with the subject line “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold” tells of less noble ambitions.
The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”
Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this “confidential” explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:
This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)”‘
https://levantreport.com/?s=libya
Steve
….I’m not sure what Saddam anticipated as far as the U.S. response to his 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
He got ambiguous signals from our ambassador Galspie….her comments may have led him to believe the U.S. wouldn’t intercede if he invaded Kuwait and threatened the Saudis.
Iraq tried to annex Kuwait in 1973…. at that point, the Saudis themselves ejected Iraq.
In 1990, the Saudi military was no match for Saddam’s military.
Saddam still had some “outs” once it became clear that the U.S. would go to war with Iraq over the Kuwait invasion, but elected to let his military get clobbered by not withdrawing.
stevegroen:
“if you believe we went to Iraq in 2003 for some motive other than to control the oil fields and to keep the MIC in business, you’ve not paid close enough attention.”
Actually, the “motive(s)” for the Iraq intervention were thoroughly articulated throughout the US-led enforcement of Iraq’s compliance with the UNSCR 660-series resolutions, including and especially the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire.
The basic essential sources for understanding the why of OIF are available in the further reading section of the explanation that I provided upthread. If the basic essentials are not “close enough attention” for you, a comprehensive table of sources is available at the “Perspective” post linked below.
Excerpt from Perspective on Operation Iraqi Freedom:
Eric, do you believe Bill Clinton “never had sexual relations with that Lewinsky woman” or know just “what the meaning of ‘is’ is”?
I’ll defer to your knowledge of treaties and law, but when it comes to political motive, one has to think outside the box because politicians lie.
steve – in the TV documentary Inside the Kill Box, Bush I says that the Kuwaiti oil fields were a factor as were the Saudi oil fields. That is why they put troops into Saudi Arabia and moved planes in immediately. Saddam invade Kuwait to get its oil because he was running low of funds.
Paul: Imagine sitting on one of the world’s largest oil reserves and being low on funds. I can’t, and therefore I don’t believe your allegation. My understanding is that Saddam Hussein wanted not only the oil but to enlarge its coastline and presence along the Persian Gulf.
As for the Iraq War which began in 2003, a few months prior to being invaded, Saddam threatened to switch the petrocurrency from the US dollar to the Euro, thereby ending US control of the petrocurrency and its ability to print otherwise worthless paper money at will as if it had value.
No control over the oil fields => no control of the petrocurrency => inability to print paper with value => inability to pay US creditors => lack of creditor trust => creditors seek other markets => collapse of the US economy.
http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2016/05/america-has-been-invaded-and-occupation-troops-are-being-moved-in-critical-update-2461361.html
steve – you are more than welcome to see the documentary yourself.
Steve:
No, I do not put business interests before life, and never have. Why in the world would you say that? Like I said, we didn’t fight Iraq over oil.
As I’ve explained to the no-oil-now brigade, people have to be able to heat their homes. If all cars and energy stopped, we would be in a dystopia, and how much would eggs and milk cost if it cost a king’s ransom to truck them to the grocery store? Have they replaced all hospital tubing and products yet with non-petroleum? And as I’ve explained before, we don’t take oil. We buy it on the open market like anyone else. You can feel superior all you want, but if people have to chop down trees to heat their home and starve from skyrocketing food costs, you didn’t actually help anyone, did you?
It will be really wonderful when all energy is free, efficient, and clean. Looking forward to the day. Not quite there yet.
Karen writes, “Steve: No, I do not put business interests before life, and never have. Why in the world would you say that? Like I said, we didn’t fight Iraq over oil.
“As I’ve explained to the no-oil-now brigade, people have to be able to heat their homes. If all cars and energy stopped, we would be in a dystopia, and how much would eggs and milk cost if it cost a king’s ransom to truck them to the grocery store? Have they replaced all hospital tubing and products yet with non-petroleum? And as I’ve explained before, we don’t take oil. We buy it on the open market like anyone else. You can feel superior all you want, but if people have to chop down trees to heat their home and starve from skyrocketing food costs, you didn’t actually help anyone, did you?
“It will be really wonderful when all energy is free, efficient, and clean. Looking forward to the day. Not quite there yet.”
You argue in your first paragraph that we didn’t fight Iraq over oil, but your second and third paragraphs certainly belie the first.
To be frank but at the same time courteous, if you believe we went to Iraq in 2003 for some motive other than to control the oil fields and to keep the MIC in business, you’ve not paid close enough attention.
po and Paul Schulte (and Karen S),
po said: “there is a dearth of factual material coming my way”
That’s easily remedied.
Here you go: for your convenience, fact findings confirming the Saddam regime’s breach of the Gulf War ceasefire, the casus belli for OIF, are linked in the further reading section of the explanation that I referenced for Karen S.
Excerpt (text sans links):
You may be right, paul, however we might never know for there is a dearth of factual material coming my way.
po,
Actually, hewing to the primary source authorities in the decision for OIF is the reliable way to cut through the conjecture and misinformation that have skewed the history, and to set the record straight by re-laying the foundation of the issue on bedrock law, policy, and facts.
po – you do have trouble dealing with factual material.