I Why War

II 9-11 disaster,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,manipulated??

II Pre-War arguments (this page)

1. Senator's say Military short in Iraq <who planned this thing???>

2. Escalate Afghanistan

3. Carter on Korea

4. Bush proven liar, evidence here.

5. Security Counsel asks for more inspections

6. Bush Sabotage Inspections

7. Terror Fabricated

8. We stand passively MUTE Sen. Byrd

9. Byrd warns disaster

9.France Germany have a plan, NO WAR

10. War by Feud

11. Sen. Graham: Bush Covered Up Saudi Involvement in 9/11

12. Secret Papers Show Blair was Warned of Iraq Chaos

1. Senators Say Iraq Needs More U.S. Troops and Money

By BRIAN KNOWLTON International Herald Tribune

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 — Senior senators from both parties urged the Bush administration today to send thousands more American troops to Iraq and said many billions more dollars were needed to stabilize and rebuild that country and Afghanistan.

Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican who was in Baghdad the day the United Nations headquarters was bombed, said that "at least another division," about 18,000 American troops, was needed. "Time is not on our side," he added on the NBC News program "Meet the Press."

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, appearing on the same program, put the need at 40,000 to 60,000 more troops, a substantial increase over the current 139,000.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who accompanied Mr. McCain on his trip, said that while he considered the troop level in Iraq to be sufficient, billions of dollars of additional spending is required there and in Afghanistan.

"I am a fiscal conservative, and we're in debt," Mr. Graham said on "Fox News Sunday." "But the infrastructure needs in Afghanistan and Iraq are billions. We are underestimating the cost of this conflict, and we in the House and the Senate need to appropriate a lot more money."

Their comments came after a particularly violent week in Iraq, with the bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad on Tuesday, killing 23 people, and mounting fears of more such terrorist attacks.

L. Paul Bremer III, the chief American civilian administrator in Iraq, said on the Fox News program that scores of foreign terrorists were pouring into Iraq, adding that it was plausible to think that they were viewing it as a place to make "a last stand" against the United States.

Asked about one recent estimate that up to 500,000 troops might be needed in Iraq, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on the CBS News program "Face the Nation," "No, I don't agree." American forces there, he said, are "supremely confident in their ability to deal with the threat."

But while the military is "stretched thin" around the globe, the general added, it could send more troops if commanders on the ground in Iraq made the request.

The Bush administration has said it hopes that other nations will provide more troops for Iraq but sees no need to send more Americans now.

"It's not a question of more troops," Mr. Bremer said. "It's a question of being effective with our intelligence, of getting more Iraqis to help us."

The quality of intelligence being offered by Iraqis has risen sharply, he added. In addition, he said, nearly 60,000 Iraqis have been recruited to help in police, border-guard and other security units.

The senators cautioned that failure to do more now could cause the costs of engagement in Iraq to rise significantly later. "We either spend the money now, we make the sacrifices now, or we pay much greater later," Mr. Graham said.

Mr. McCain said the occupying forces needed "to spend a whole lot more money" to restore basic services in Iraq.

Mr. Biden was sharply critical of the administration's reluctance to support a multinational United Nations force for Iraq, and he scoffed at its assurances that scores of other nations were sending troops. Now, he said, those countries were contributing an average 400 troops each.

He predicted that American forces would be in Iraq for three to five years, at a cost well over $100 billion.

But Mr. Bremer, while praising the United Nations contribution in aiding Iraqis, said it was "hard for me to see how the U.N. itself can play a further military role" in Iraq.

He and General Myers said the growing numbers of Iraqis in security positions had eased the demands on the occupying forces. Mr. Bremer acknowledged, however, that the trustworthiness of some of those Iraqis could be problematic. The possibility that Iraqi guards employed by the United Nations played a part in the bombing there, he said, was "certainly a working hypothesis — one of many."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/25/international/worldspecial/25DIPL.html?th

U.S. Said to Plan Bigger Afghan Role, Stepping Up Aid By DAVID ROHDE

ABUL, Afghanistan, Aug. 24 — In the next several weeks, the Bush administration is expected to announce a major increase in aid to Afghanistan that would greatly expand the American role in this country, senior American officials here and in Washington say.

The administration appears set to embark on a vast American-led effort at top-to-bottom rebuilding and recasting of Afghanistan, those officials said in recent days.

A senior American diplomat said President Bush, viewing the situation "like a businessman," had decided that investing more reconstruction money here now could lead to an earlier exit for American forces and save money in the long run. The United States currently spends $11 billion a year on its military forces in Afghanistan and $900 million on reconstruction aid.

But officials of aid groups here contend that the presidential election in the United States next year will be the motivating factor. They say the White House is eager to have Afghanistan appear to be a success story to American voters.

Under the new initiative, American reconstruction aid is expected to double, to $1.8 billion a year, officials said. A dozen senior American government officials would work as advisers to Afghan government ministers. Up to 70 staff positions would be added to the embassy in Kabul, where virtually the entire senior staff is being replaced.

The proposals are likely to be well received in Congress, given the widespread criticism there that the aid effort so far has been inadequate, officials said. [On Sunday, a White House spokesman declined to comment on the reports.]

United Nations officials say Afghanistan is entering what is arguably the most critical period since the fall of the Taliban in December 2001. National elections are to be held next June, and American officials are eager for the moderate government of President Hamid Karzai to fare well.

Visible progress must be shown in reconstruction, disarmament and security, particularly in the south, if a Taliban insurgency is to be curbed and any semblance of a fair election held, United Nations officials said.

However, questions are already being asked here about whether a belated billion-dollar infusion of American cash and advisers would produce the desired results. Aid workers say that reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan have been stymied by a lack of political will in Washington, by what they see as draconian security restrictions imposed on American government workers here by their own security officials, by fierce bureaucratic infighting and by an attempt to rebuild Afghanistan "on the cheap."

After initially opposing the expansion of peacekeeping operations outside of Kabul, the United States is considering supporting the use of peacekeepers in other major cities, the senior American diplomat said. American officials also said that sending additional American troops to Afghanistan could not be ruled out.

In addition, four new 120-soldier American provincial reconstruction teams will be sent around the country; three American teams and one British team are already deployed. The United States would also lead an effort to build police training centers in eight cities with the aim of producing 19,000 newly trained officers by next spring.

American officials hope that a big infusion of cash and American oversight will produce change quickly. As much as half the new money is expected to be used to train police officers and to double the size of the national army, from 5,000 to 10,000 soldiers. Other funds would be spent on high-visibility reconstruction projects like roads and power plants.

But one American adviser working with Afghan officials warned that a belated influx of aid and attention might not produce immediate change. He said that after 23 years of war, Afghanistan is so shattered — from its infrastructure to its deep rivalries and archaic work force — that quick results are unlikely. He described the situation as "Alice in Wonderland meets Franz Kafka."

"There is enormous pressure to demonstrate this turnabout," said the American, who has worked in the former Soviet Union, the Balkans and Africa. "It just can't happen."

Others contend that even doubling the aid would not be enough.

U.S. Said to Plan Bigger Afghan Role, Stepping Up Aid

(Page 2 of 2)

A new Rand Corporation study examining American "nation building" efforts beginning with postwar Germany found that while there were 18.6 peacekeepers per thousand people in Bosnia and 20 in Kosovo, the 4,800 international peacekeeping force in Kabul amounts to 0.18 peacekeepers per thousand Afghans. Even including the 11,500 mostly American combat troops here, the statistic is well under one peacekeeper per thousand Afghans.

Per capita external assistance for the first two years of conflict in Bosnia was $1,390 and in Kosovo $814, the study found. In Afghanistan, it is $52.

There are unresolved, politically delicate questions about how much new aid would be delivered through the Afghan government, and over what role American-paid experts and technocrats would play.

Afghan and Western officials are acutely aware of the need to avoid the appearance of being a colonial power, particularly in a country with a long history of humbling foreign occupiers. A central tenet of Taliban propaganda against Mr. Karzai's government is that he is an American puppet.

Afghan officials say they would welcome more aid, but must retain control of their ministries.

American officials pledged that they would and that the new advisers would not resemble the "shadow ministers" that the Soviet Union installed when it occupied the country in the 1980's.

But aid officials say an increase in American-paid foreign advisers working in government ministries could stoke Afghan nationalism.

In stabilizing Afghanistan, the United States also faces a task whose enormous complexity, some critics say, the administration has failed to recognize. After 20 months of Western aid, Afghanistan still lacks nearly all the basic elements of a functioning national government.

Efforts to disarm militias have been delayed, opium production is booming, ethnic Tajiks still dominate the Ministry of Defense and intelligence service, and officials in rural areas struggle to pay police salaries. The country's creaking, Soviet-trained government bureaucracies lack the administrative capacity to absorb a huge influx of aid. "There is a huge problem of capacity, that's for sure" said Said Tayeb Jawad, Mr. Karzai's chief of staff. "We lack skilled people to do the job."

Asked if the United States was embarking on full-blown "nation building" here, a term the administration initially shied away from, a senior State Department official said: "We are into supporting this state and we are into supporting this particular government. If that's nation building, that's fine."

Carter on Korea

September 6, 2003

North Korean Standoff Poses 'Greatest Threat,' Carter Says

By JAMES BROOKE

TOKYO, Sept. 5 — Former President Jimmy Carter, the man credited with defusing the 1994 North Korean nuclear crisis, warned here today that the current standoff was the world's "greatest threat."

"This paranoid nation and the United States now are facing what I believe to be the greatest threat in the world to regional and global peace," Mr. Carter said of North Korea. The Bush administration, which has avoided using the word "crisis" in referring to North Korea's revival of its nuclear program, had no immediate comment on Mr. Carter's Asian visit or his message.

Mr. Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, met here today with Japan's prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi. On Sunday he flies to Beijing where he is to meet with top Chinese leaders. Traveling on an agenda to promote aid to Africa, he said he had no plan to repeat his 1994 trip to North Korea's capital, Pyongyang, which opened the way to the first nuclear agreement with North Korea.

"Unfortunately both sides have violated some of those agreements," he said, criticizing North Korea for enriching uranium in order to make bombs. "At the same time, the United States has refused direct talks, has branded North Korea as an axis of evil, has declared an end of no first use of atomic weapons, has invaded Iraq and has been intercepting North Korean ships at sea."

Warning against pushing North Korea, he added, "That country is isolated, very fearful of outside threats, economically punished by longstanding sanctions with a superb military technology and the ability to destroy hundreds and thousand of lives and most of Seoul if a war should come."

He urged a continuation of the six-party talks in Beijing that took place last week with the participation of China, Japan, Russia, the United States and North and South Korea.

Mr. Carter said North Korea should renounce nuclear weapons and the use of violence in dealing with South Korea. Next Tuesday North Korea's leadership celebrates the 55th anniversary of the founding of the country. Many outside analysts fear that North Korea could use the anniversary to declare itself a nuclear power or hold a nuclear test.

In return for North Korea's giving up its bombs and its bomb-making capabilities, Mr. Carter said, the United States should agree to a nonaggression pact with North Korea, negotiated and guaranteed by North Korea's neighbors.

"A unilateral decision by the United States the North Koreans would not trust," he said. Other incentives, he said, could include "the lifting of all economic and political sanctions against North Korea and the opportunity for that little country to become completely absorbed in world affairs on a normal basis."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/06/international/asia/06KORE.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Trust?

We must be able trust the President of these United States to administrate this government according to the US Constitution, in the best interest of the people of these United States.

Please read the following, and see the links. Can Mr. Bush be trusted?

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Source: http://www.thismodernworld.com/

AP-Wed, Sep 17, 2003

On Wednesday Bush followed with a statement, that "there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks", but "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties" (eggy note; There never were any facts showing any tie between Iraq and Al-Qaida)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030917/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_saddam_5

Confusion of Iraq 9-11 link and lies of Bush

http://new.globalfreepress.com/article.pl?sid=03/09/18/0257234&mode=thread

70% of people in the US believe Saddam and Iraq caused 9-11 from Bushky’s media manipulation.

US don’t like to be duped, especially by our president.

8. We Stand Passively Mute

US Senator Robert Byrd

t r u t h o u t | Statement

by US Senator Robert Byrd

Senate Floor Speech

We Stand Passively Mute

Wednesday 12 February 2003

“To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent—ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption—the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future—is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our—or some other nation’s—hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration’s domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant—these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq’s oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation’s oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world’s oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one’s frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq—a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare—this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly “sleepwalking through history.” In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is “in the highest moral traditions of our country”. This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

Byrd warns disaster

Byrd Warns War Will be a Disaster for the Nation

By Paul J. Nyden

Charleston Gazette Online

Thursday 13 February 2003

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., had harsh words Wednesday for the “haunting silence” of the U.S. Senate in the face of a possible war with Iraq.

“I truly must question the judgment of any president who can say that a massive, unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 percent children is ‘in the highest moral traditions of our country.’

“This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making.

Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time,” Byrd said.

Byrd, the Senate’s most senior member, has served longer than all but three senators in U.S. history.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., compared Byrd’s recent role to that of Winston Churchill in England during World War II.

“He has taken leadership in the Senate, time and time and time again, to warn us of the looming crisis. Thank you for your leadership,” Durbin said.

“To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences,” Byrd said. “On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

“Yet, this chamber is, for the most part, silent—ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing,” “Only on the editorial pages of some of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.”

Reflecting on the Senate’s own founders, Byrd asked, “What would Alexander Hamilton say about the silence in this chamber? What would Dr. Samuel Johnson of Connecticut say? What would Benjamin Franklin say about the silence that emanates from this chamber on the great issue of war and peace?”

Byrd specifically questioned the Bush administration doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.

“This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

“The doctrine of pre-emption—the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future—is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense.”

Byrd said Bush’s foreign policy may be in “contravention” of international law and the United Nations charter.

Noting the U.S. has spent $37 billion in Afghanistan and failed to capture Osama bin Laden, Byrd warned a war against Iraq war will weaken efforts to fight terrorism.

“The alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once-solid global alliance against terrorism that existed after Sept. 11,” Byrd said.

“High-level administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty?”

Byrd said the nation’s mood is grim, as people worry about loved ones fighting abroad, a stumbling economy and rising fuel prices.

Byrd said Bush’s policies call “into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned peacekeeper. This administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

“Calling heads of state ‘pygmies,’ labeling whole countries as ‘evil,’ denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant—these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good.”

Byrd warned about dire consequences for nations like Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, whose moderate governments could collapse in the wake of an attack on Iraq.

“Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? The genie is being released from its bottle. Will it ever get back?” Byrd asked.

“Many of the pronouncements made by this administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent....

“On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq ... this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare—this chamber is silent....

“We are truly sleepwalking through history. In my heart of hearts, I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings,” Byrd said.

To contact staff writer Paul J. Nyden, use pjnyden@wvgazette.com

http://truthout.org/docs_02/021603F.htm

Dear Friends around this World,

The following plan, developed by France and Germany bears your deepest consideration.

If France uses it’s right of veto to block any resolution that would allow the start of a war against Iraq, this would give time for their plan to be submitted. There is much disagreement in these United States of America. The Generals of the Joint Chief’s of Staff (commanders of all armed forces) are against this war. I believe Mr. Bush can be stopped!

There are many US Citizens against the intended war and I believe Congress can hold Bush back from entering war.

When I read the German French plan, I realized that with their initiative, Saddam Hussain could be brought before the UN World Court and held accountable for any charges which have been brought against him. This precident could strengthen the rule of law and justice for this World.

All countries could be held accountable for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) INCLUDEING THE UNITED STATES!

I realize the US has not “agreed” to be a member of the “court”. But, do any criminals “agree” to go to court? As world people, we have an obligation to uphold the virtue’s and principle’s of hunmanity.

Mr. Bush’s ideas of using Nuklear Bombs and putting nuclear weapons in space is of unimanigable consequence! War on some 36 countries could be total devestation for this entire earth.

Please pass this around to your friends, and email me with any officials to contact. An “in” to the UN and a way to support France and Germany’s plan would be a good start. If France and Germany see they have world support they will continue in their efforts.

Thankyou for any ideas you may have,

Bruce Wisconsin USA

France-Germany Hatching a Plan

By Emma Thomasson

Reuters

Saturday 08 February 2003

MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - Germany and France are working on a new plan to try to avert war in Iraq that would compel Baghdad to admit thousands of U.N. troops to enforce disarmament and tighter sanctions, a magazine said on Saturday.

A German government spokesman confirmed Berlin and Paris were working together to find a peaceful alternative to war with Iraq, but would not provide any details of the efforts.

Germany’s leading news magazine Der Spiegel said the idea had originated in the office of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Berlin and Paris had been working on the details of the initiative in secret talks since the beginning of the year.

Asked about the joint proposals at a major security summit in the southern German city of Munich, German Defense Minister Peter Struck declined to comment, noting only that Schroederplanned to address the German parliament on Iraq on Thursday.

A French Foreign Ministry spokesman declined to comment on the report in Der Spiegel, but French diplomatic sources said: “We are discussing with Security Council members what additional measures could be introduced to bolster U.N. inspections.”

French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie told the Munich conference Paris believed inspections had proved more effective than the Gulf War of 1991 in disarming Iraq, but did not rule out military action as a last resort to make Baghdad cooperate.

“That’s why France has proposed reinforcing the means given to inspectors, to reinforce the number of inspectors,” she said.

In an advance copy ahead of publication on Sunday, Der Spiegel said Berlin and Paris wanted to publish their proposal in the next few days before weapons inspectors in Iraq report back to the U.N. Security Council on Friday.

Schroeder, who has angered Washington with his opposition to any war with Iraq, would discuss the idea at the weekend with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Der Spiegel said. France would probably take over driving the initiative forward and use it as a basis for a new Security Council resolution proposal.

Initial reactions from Russia, China and European Union president Greece were positive, the magazine said, while Pope John Paul offered German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer support for the initiative at talks in the Vatican on Friday.

Germany and France had not consulted Washington or its European allies in London, Madrid and Rome, the magazine said.

In what the magazine said was a foretaste of the plan, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin proposed intensifying weapons inspections and offered French reconnaissance planes to support them this week after Secretary of State Colin Powell presented new evidence of Baghdad’s alleged weapons programs.

U.N. PROTECTORATE

Der Spiegel said the initiative, which it said had been dubbed “Project Mirage,” included the following proposals:

· the some 150,000 U.S. troops already deployed to the Gulf should stay in place to force Baghdad to cooperate and be ready to invade if it breaches the new proposed U.N. resolution

· Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would be forced to admit thousands of armed U.N. troops to oversee intensified weapons inspections in the whole country as well as full disarmament,creating a de facto “U.N. protectorate”

· the number of weapons inspectors should be tripled from the current 100 operating in Iraq

· the no-fly zone over northern and southern Iraq should be extended to cover the whole country and French, German and U.S. reconnaissance planes should be allowed to patrol the skies

· a permanent U.N. coordinator of arms inspections in Iraq could be appointed

· sanctions should be made more focused to clamp down on oil smuggling by Iraq’s neighbors and tighten export controls

· a special U.N. court should be established to oversee infringements of the new resolution and human rights abuses

The magazine said the initiative could help Schroeder out of the corner he seemed to have backed himself into over Iraq, risking international isolation if he sticks to his anti-war stance but political suicide at home if he changes course.

He could sell the proposal as a last-ditch bid to avert war, allowing him to swing behind any military action if Baghdad failed to go along with the plan, it said.

Germany and France pledged last month to cooperate closely over Iraq in the U.N. Security Council, which is due to hear a new report from arms inspectors on February 14. France is one of the Council’s five veto-holding permanent members.

President Bush has said the United Nations must soon decide whether to back his demand that Iraq abandon its alleged chemical, biological and nuclear programs or be disarmed by force. Iraq denies having any such weapons.

-------

(With additional reporting by Paul Carrel in Paris)

http://truthout.org/docs_02/021003A.htm

Here is a first step to reinforce the German French Plan;

France has been against the US aggression because there is no proof that Iraq is an immenent danger. I believe this petition supporting France to use it’s Veto could stop Bush plans for immediate war.

Bush could well keep waveing his big stick in the air, but would not have the power to use it. I believe that inspections, and the rule of law can prevail and bring an end to the present danger concerning Iraq.

I am not so sure about harnessing the danger of the USA, but it will give us time to get control of this United States of America government also.

If you agree, hit the link below and sign the petition.

Than please send this around to your friends.

Sincerely, Bruce,

http://www.veto.ht.st/

To the President of the French Republic,

Mr. President,

According to the rules of the United Nations, each permanent member, i.e. China, the United States, France, Great Britain and Russia, has the sovereign power to block any Security Council resolution.

Enormous pressure is being exerted on leaders, on States and on public opinion, to start a war against Iraq with unfathomable consequences.

Public opinion in your country, as in many other countries, is opposed to this war.

Because France has means of action that other countries in Europe and in the rest of the world do not have and that it is thus in charge of a responsibility of historical import,

we ask of you:

In virtue of the power given you by the constitution of your country and of the power bequeathed you by the rules of the United Nations;

To demand that any war declaration made against Iraq be put to the vote at the Security Council;

To use France’s right of veto to block any resolution that would allow the start of a war against Iraq.

LLAMAMIENTO INTERNACIONAL PARA UN VETO DE FRA http://www.veto.ht.st/

To sign the petition go here: http://www.veto.ht.st/

WAR by Feud

Perhaps the most frightening thing about Mr. Bush’s war is that Congress is doing nothing. We the people you represent discuss the war, the dangerous consequences, and Congress sits on their hands. Never did I believe one person could start a war in the USA but this is surely the case now.

On February 12, 2003 Senator Robert Byrd said; “To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

http://truthout.org/docs_02/021403A.htm

Following Mr. Powell’s statement to the UN Security counsel, it became clear there was NO evidence which would constitute WAR. A students thesis ten years old, remarks made by some unidentified deserters, Satellite pictures which had not been checked out. Indeed one reporter went to the site of alleged Al Quanta activity and found a kitchen with

This link of the Security Counsel shows that much speculation on the part of UK and US has been made, however no substantial evidence accompanies these ascertains and when the weapons inspectors have inspected they find quite different conclusions than the UK US who seem intent on proving “something”! Of course Saddam has not helped the situation because he is trying to keep weapons to protect his country. Indeed he is allowed to have such necessary weapons. However Saddam has not provided the necessary information of location or destruction of the WMD sought by the US.

Apparently Mr. Bush finds a satellite picture which could be a munitions factory, or it could be a cow shed. Not checking this out, he makes media statements that a munitions factory has been sited by satellite. The CIA refuses to give the weapons inspectors the location so they cannot verify it or deny it

Original http://lightscion.com/voxnyc/archives/00000045.htm

CIA ‘sabotaged inspections and hid weapons details’ By Andrew Buncombe in Washington 14 February 2003 Senior democrats have accused the CIA of sabotaging weapons inspections in Iraq by refusing to co-operate fully with the UN and withholding crucial information about Saddam Hussein’s arsenal. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=378163

Here is the security counsel site with allegations, investigations, and some facts. As you follow through, I expect that you also will get the feeling of a Hatfield and McCoy feud going on, and it makes just as much sense. As I read this, I had the feeling that had Mr. Hussein provided the requested information, it would not have been believed. That is why the UN must make these decisions, as an un-biased judge of these affairs.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/weapindex.htm#blix

One discussion in the files, regards the infamous “Mobile Facilities”.

Much of the speculation about Iraq’s mobile production facilities began from the statement from Lt. Gen. Amer Al-Saadi that the creation of such facilities was once considered. However, he - and the Iraqi government - has denied that any mobile biological weapon agent’s facilities have ever been built. Iraq did have 47 mobile storage tanks participating in its biological weapons programme; UNSCOM has accounted for the destruction of 24 of these tanks, but its January 1999 report (Appendix III) notes that the unaccounted for tanks “can be used for long-term storage of agent under controlled conditions or modified to function as fermentors suitable for the production of BW agent”. However, there has been no independent confirmation that any tanks have been modified in this way.

Much of the further alleged information about Iraq’s facilities has come from defectors from Iraq, who claim to have witnessed such facilities: four such defectors are described in Secretary Powell’s statement of 5 February 2003. This is a notoriously unreliable source.

The claims of the first defector described by Powell are perhaps the least credible. Raymond Zilinskas, a microbiologist and former U.N. weapons inspector (now director of Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies), was reported in the Washington Post as saying that a 24-hour production cycle was insufficient for creating significant amounts of pathogens such as anthrax.

“You normally would require 36 to 48 hours just to do the fermentation. The short processing time seems suspicious to me. [..] The only reason you would have mobile labs is to avoid inspectors, because everything about them is difficult. We know it is possible to build them—the United States developed mobile production plants, including one designed for an airplane—but it’s a big hassle. That’s why this strikes me as a bit far-fetched.”

The Washington Post further reported that:

“Zilinskas and other experts said the schematic presented by Powell as an example of Iraq’s mobile labs was theoretically workable but that turning the diagram into a functioning laboratory posed enormous challenges—such as how to dispose of large quantities of highly toxic waste.”

“Despite Defectors’ Accounts, Evidence Remains Anecdotal”, by Joby Warrick, Washington Post (6 February 2003).

The second source seems to be Adnan Saeed al-Haideri, whose standing is discussed above. It seems that he did not make any claims about mobile facilities in his first press conferences - none of the reports on those press conferences mention mobile facilities. Instead, he only began to refer to them in mid-2002, some six months after his first accounts. This would automatically cast some suspicion on the reliability of the new information that he is now providing.

Hans Blix has warned against attributing significance to UNMOVIC’s inability to find any mobile facilities:

“We do go around and we check into industries, chemical industries, for instance, or pharmaceutical industries, into military installations. And so we can check a good deal. But you cannot check in every nook and corner of a large country. Above all, there’s difficulty of course in finding things underground or anything that is mobile.”

Bruce’s recommendations:

I would recommend that the Security Counsel take a more active and aggressive leadership role, and caution both sides to cooperate with its directives. If Mr. Bush has satellite or other information revealing the possibility of proscribed weapons or manufacturing sites, he should be required to submit this information so the inspectors can verify or disclaim the allegation. Mr. Bush should be warned that providing unsubstantiated allegations to the media or the Security Counsel will result in condemnation of his input by the UN. False allegations should not be tolerated nor should acts of aggression in violation of the agreements. Saddam must be held accountable and provide whatever information he has about weapons. Some consideration must be given to the weapons used in the US and Iraq war with Iran. It is unlikely an accurate count of the munitions used at that time can be determined.

Another major factor is the disintegration of weapons over time. Much of the alleged weapons are now useless because their “shelf life” has expired. Therefore it cannot be assumed that weapons remain which could well have been destroyed.

France, Russia, Germany and other members of the Security Council are likely to back a counter-proposal to increase the number of inspectors, providing them, if necessary, with the support of armed UN soldiers, as a means of avoiding a military strike. Huge numbers of troops could surround and take over Iraq, than confiscating any proscribed weapons or manufacturing sites. I strongly agree with this alternative.

This action could also provide a method to subpoena Saddam to the world court, if there have actually been charges filed and brought against him.

There is certainly no call to start a war, simply because Mr. Bush and Mr. Hussein are having a feud like the Hatefields and the McCoy’s.

Despite Dr.Blitx reports, despite multi millions of anti-war protestors, Mr. Bush has this to say. On Thursday, <Feb 13,2003> addressing American troops in Florida, Mr. Bush said that unless the UN enforced resolution 1441, it risked “fading into history as an ineffective, irrelevant, debating society”. As the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, made clear at the UN, Washington still feels that way.

If our Congress refuses to contemplate “the War”. I would hope the demonstrators, who are the people of these United States, surround Congress and hold them in session until they have contemplated this war and required the Commander and Chief to follow the directives of the United Nations.

Bruce Eggum

Wisconsin USA

11. Sen. Graham: Bush Covered Up Saudi Involvement in 9/11
By Mary Jacoby
Salon.com

Wednesday 08 September 2004
The former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee tells Salon that the White House has suppressed convincing evidence that the Saudi royal family supported at least two of the hijackers.

As the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman during the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and the run-up to the Iraq war, Sen. Bob Graham tried to expose what he came to believe were national security coverups and manipulations by the Bush administration. But he discovered that it was hard to reveal a coverup playing by the rules. Much of the evidence the Florida Democrat needed to buttress his arguments was being locked away, he found, under the veil of politically motivated classification.

Now, as he prepares to retire after 18 years in the Senate, the normally cautious former governor of Florida is unleashing himself in a new book, "Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia and the Failure of America's War on Terror."

In his book, Graham asserts that the White House blocked investigations into Saudi Arabian government support for the 9/11 plot, in part because of the Bush family's close ties to the Saudi royal family and wealthy Saudis like the bin Ladens. Behind the White House's insistence on classifying 27 pages detailing the Saudi links in a report issued by a joint House-Senate intelligence panel co-chaired by Graham in 2002 lay the desire to hide the administration's deficiencies and protect its Saudi allies, according to Graham.

Graham's allegations - supported by the Republican vice chairman of the House-Senate 9/11 investigation, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, but not his co-chairman, Rep. Porter Goss, Bush's nominee to become director of the CIA - are not new. But his book states them more forcefully than before, even as Graham adds new insight into Bush's decision to invade Iraq, made apparently well before the president asserted he had exhausted all options.

In February 2002, Graham writes, Gen. Tommy Franks, then conducting the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan (and later to speak in prime time on behalf of Bush's candidacy at the Republican National Convention in New York), pulled the senator aside to explain that important resources in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, such as Predator drones, were being quietly redeployed to Iraq. "He told me that the decision to go to war in Iraq had been made at least 14 months before we actually went into Iraq, long before there was authorization from Congress and long before the United Nations was sought out for a resolution of support," Graham tells Salon.

Graham voted against the congressional war resolution authorizing force to topple Saddam Hussein. In 2003 he briefly ran for the Democratic presidential nomination, arguing that Bush had diverted resources from the hunt for America's real enemies with his joy ride in Iraq. (Graham dropped out before the primaries.)

Graham's book is being embraced by the John Kerry campaign, which arranged for him to discuss his conclusions with reporters in a conference call Tuesday. Dozens of journalists called in. This past Sunday, Graham appeared on "Meet the Press," and afterward Kerry issued a statement: "These are serious allegations being made by a well-respected and informed leader. If the White House and the FBI did in fact block an investigation into the ties between the Saudi government and the 9/11 hijackers, then this would be a massive abuse of power."

Salon spoke with the senator by telephone on Tuesday, his voice already growing hoarse on the first day of a heavy book promotion tour.

You write about the Bush administration's suppression of the joint House-Senate intelligence panel's findings on Saudi Arabian links to 9/11. What exactly was suppressed, and why? Or at least tell us what you can, given that the information is still classified.

In general terms it included the details of why we [on the committee] had raised suspicion that the Saudi government and various representatives of Saudi interests had supported some of the hijackers - and might have supported all of them. My own personal conclusion was that the evidence of official Saudi support for at least two of the terrorists in San Diego was, as one CIA agent said, incontrovertible. That led us to another question: Why would the Saudis have provided that level of assistance to two of the 19 [hijackers] and not the other 17? There wasn't an adequate attempt to answer that question. My feeling was there wasn't anything to justify that discrepancy, and so there was a strong possibility that such assistance had been provided to others of the terrorists, but we didn't know about it. Then there's another question: If there was this infrastructure in place that was accessed by the terrorists, did it disappear as soon as 9/11 was completed? There's no reason to believe that it did.

Your investigation in Congress focused on a Saudi national named Omar al-Bayoumi, who had provided extensive assistance to two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, when they lived in San Diego. You say al-Bayoumi was apparently a covert agent of the Saudi government, and from that you conclude there was official Saudi support for the plot. Yet the independent 9/11 commission came to a different conclusion. Its executive director, Philip Zelikow, has said his investigation had more access to information than yours - including the opportunity to interview al-Bayoumi. And the commission concluded he had nothing to do with the attacks, that his contacts with the hijackers were coincidental.

Let me say that what we know about this comes primarily from FBI and CIA reports that were in the file in San Diego. And in those files, FBI agents referred to Bayoumi as being a Saudi Arabian agent or Saudi Arabian spy. In the summer of 2002, a CIA agent filed a report that said it was "incontrovertible" that terrorists were receiving assistance, financial and otherwise, from Saudis in San Diego. No. 2: Bayoumi was supposed to be working for a firm that was a subcontractor for the Saudi civil aviation authority. Yet he never showed up for work. His boss tried to fire him, and he received a letter from the Saudi civil aviation authority demanding that he be retained on their payroll despite the fact he wasn't performing any services. And the subcontracting company that employed Bayoumi was owned by a Saudi national who, according to documents seized in Bosnia, was an early financial backer of al-Qaida. Now, that's rather suspicious.

Also suspicious is the number of telephone conversations between Bayoumi and Saudi government representatives. It was a very substantial number that remains classified. Then, the event that really raised our suspicions was that shortly after Alhazmi and Almihdhar flew from Bangkok [Thailand] to Los Angeles [after attending an al-Qaida conference in Malaysia that resulted in their being added to a CIA watch list], Bayoumi tells various persons that he was going to Los Angeles to "pick up some visitors." He drives from San Diego to Los Angeles with a friend. His first stop in Los Angeles was at the consulate of the Saudi government, where he stays for an hour and meets with a diplomat named Fahad al-Thumairy, who subsequently was deported for terrorist-related activities.

After that one-hour meeting, he and that companion go to a Middle Eastern restaurant in Los Angeles to have lunch. They overhear Arabic being spoken at a nearby table. They invite the two young men who are at that table to come and join them. It turns out those two young men are Alhazmi and Almihdhar, two of the 9/11 terrorists. When I asked the staff director of the 9/11 commission about this, he thought it was just a coincidence that they met at this restaurant. I did some independent research. There are at least 134 Middle Eastern restaurants in Los Angeles. So the statistical odds of these two groups meeting at the same Middle Eastern restaurant at the same time are staggering.

You don't believe the meeting was a coincidence?

I'm almost certain this was a prearranged meeting. Later, Bayoumi takes the two terrorists to San Diego, where he introduces them to people who arrange for them to obtain [phony] Social Security cards and flying lessons.

Did the White House specifically request classification of the section on the Saudis?

Technically, it was done by the CIA, but it was at the direction of the White House. I cannot tell you with 100 percent certainty, but I am 90 percent sure that was the case. The White House played a heavy role throughout not only our investigation but the investigation of the 9/11 commission.

You obviously don't believe the Bush administration was justified in classifying the 27 pages.

No. Sen. Shelby, who was the vice chairman of the [Senate intelligence] committee and who is a Republican, reread those pages shortly after they were classified. And I also reread them. Independently, we both came to the same assessment that 95 percent of the material that had been classified could have been released to the public. It did not represent concealment of national secrets or of sources and methods by which information is obtained.

Why do you think the White House is so intent on keeping that information from the public?

I think there are several possible reasons. One is that it did not want the public to be aware of the degree of Saudi involvement in supporting the 9/11 terrorists. Second, it was embarrassing that that support took place literally under the nose of the FBI, to the point where one of the terrorists in San Diego was living at the house of a paid FBI informant. Third, there has been a long-term special relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, and that relationship has probably reached a new high under the George W. Bush administration, in part because of the long and close family relationship that the Bushes have had with the Saudi royal family.

In the book, you describe being furious with the FBI for blocking your committee's attempts to interview that paid FBI informant. You write that the panel needed the bureau to deliver a congressional subpoena to the informant because he was in the FBI's protective custody and could not be located without the bureau's cooperation. But the FBI refused to help. What happened? And what do you think the bureau was trying to hide?

We had just finished a hearing and had asked various representatives of the FBI to come into a conference room and discuss our strong interest in being able to interview the San Diego informant. It was clear that the FBI representatives were not going to voluntarily allow that to happen, and we had already prepared a subpoena, which I had in my coat pocket. I walked over to the principal representative for the FBI, Ken Wainstein, and I was approaching him with this subpoena, he clasped his hands tightly behind his back. I tried to hand him the subpoena, but he acted as if it were radioactive. Finally he said he didn't want to take the subpoena, but he would get back to us on the following Monday. Well, nobody ever got back to us. It was the only time in my senatorial experience that the FBI has refused to deliver a legally issued congressional subpoena.

Later, the FBI congressional affairs officer sent a letter to [co-chairman] Porter Goss and me, saying, "The administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source, nor did the administration agree to allow the FBI to serve a subpoena on the source." What that tells me is the FBI wasn't acting on its own but had been directed by the White House not to cooperate.

Did the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, play any role in what you describe as the support network for these two hijackers? As you know, Bandar is a great friend of the Bush family.

Most of the things that he did are, frankly, still classified. But he has clearly demonstrated that he has a close relationship with President Bush. You have no doubt seen that famous picture of the two of them together at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas. And then there's the fact that within a few hours after 9/11, Prince Bandar was able to gain access to the president to make the case for why 140 or so Saudis should be given permission to leave the United States immediately.

Did the Saudi Embassy play a role?

I'm going to have to defer answering that question. Those things that still have not been made available to the public, such as this issue of what Prince Bandar's participation was, I did not include in the book.

It sounds then as if the role of Bandar and the Saudi Embassy is addressed in those 27 classified pages of the panel's report?

Most of it would be addressed there, yes.

Most of it? That implies you know other relevant information that's not in the classified report.

Yes. Some information came to our attention too late to be included in the report, or it was not directly related to the events of 9/11.

Let's move from 9/11 and the Saudis to the invasion of Iraq. Do you believe the president misled the American public about the justification for the invasion and the urgency of the security threat?

If he believed the evidence that was being presented to him - that there were 550 sites in Iraq where weapons of mass destruction were being either produced or stored - then he was very noncurious about finding out what the basis of that information was. He should have pursued the credibility of the intelligence before he committed us to taking one of the most serious actions any country can take. The user of intelligence has the responsibility to challenge the credibility of the intelligence. When [then CIA director] George Tenet said it was a slam-dunk that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the president supinely accepted that.

But a lot of people who were opposed to the war on the grounds that Saddam was already contained did believe there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What did you believe?

I was suspicious [about the intelligence], but I was prepared to accept the word of the president of the United States. But my reason for voting against the war was really a more strategic one: that al-Qaida was a greater threat to Americans than was Saddam Hussein, and that we should stay on the task of al-Qaida until we had finished it. I didn't think we should get into a situation where our prestige and reputation would suffer in the entire Middle East and into what now appears to be a quagmire which has no end in sight.

Along those lines, you said that in a meeting at the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla., in February 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks, who was then conducting the war in Afghanistan, told you that resources were already being shifted quietly to Iraq. Additionally, you write that Franks told you that Somalia and Yemen, not Iraq, were the next logical targets in any action to combat terrorism.

Yes. I had just received a briefing on Afghanistan when Gen. Franks invited me to come into his office, just the two of us. He told me that military and intelligence resources were being redeployed from Afghanistan to Iraq. What that suggested to me was [first] that the decision to go to war in Iraq had been made at least 14 months before we actually went to Iraq, and long before there was authorization from Congress and long before the United Nations was sought out for a resolution of support. Secondly, it suggested we couldn't fight the two wars concurrently to victory, but that it would take redeployment of personnel from Afghanistan to Iraq to make that a successful invasion. Third, it suggested that somebody - I assume the president - had decided that Iraq was a higher priority for the United States than was completing the war in Afghanistan.

Why do you think Franks told you this?

I don't know what his motivation was, but we had just heard a report on the status of the war in Afghanistan, which was very upbeat, [saying] we were making a lot of progress. So one motivation may have been to caution me that things in reality weren't necessarily what they appeared to be.

Do you believe the White House manipulated the intelligence to persuade the public to back the invasion? "Manipulate" may be too strong a word for you. But it took a request from you and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., to get the intelligence community to produce a National Intelligence Estimate on the danger posed by Iraq, a step that would seem an obvious one to take, considering the stakes to the nation.

I am comfortable with the word "manipulate." There was a chapter that did not become known until three or four months ago that occurred in May 2002. Various leaders of the CIA were called down to the White House and told that the White House wanted to have a public document that could be released under the CIA's label but which would make the case for going to war with Iraq. I think one of the reasons they didn't want to do a formal National Intelligence Estimate was because it would be done not by the CIA alone but by all of the members of the intelligence community, and it was likely to reach a different conclusion. At least it would contain dissenting opinions and caveats that wouldn't be in a CIA public document.

This description of the CIA is one that is under the complete control of the White House, an agency that is not independent but highly politicized.

That's right. It is the expression of the leadership of the intelligence agencies, trying to placate their masters in the administration.

A later inquiry conducted by the Senate intelligence committee under your successor as chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., looked at the quality of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and concluded that it was execrable. Yet the Republicans on the panel blocked any probe of whether the administration pressured the intelligence agencies to manufacture the conclusions it sought to justify a war that it had already decided to wage. If you had still been the top Democrat on the committee, would you have insisted that the White House and the agencies be included in that probe?

I think Sen. Jay Rockefeller [D-W.Va.], who is the vice chairman of the committee, did insist, and the effect of that was to make clear to him that there would be no investigation of anything if he persisted. I think he decided the better course was to agree to just do the first component if there was a commitment to do the rest at a reasonably close later date.

You retire at the end of this year. What's next for you?

First, I'll be working on letting the American people know about the opportunity they have to better understand the intelligence matters of the United States by buying this book. (Laughs.) Then, I'll teach at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard for a year and after that come back to Florida to establish a policy center at one or more universities in Florida.

12. Secret Papers Show Blair was Warned of Iraq Chaos

By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent

Telegraph U.K.

Saturday 18 September 2004

Tony Blair was warned a year before invading Iraq that a stable post-war government would be impossible without keeping large numbers of troops there for "many years", secret government papers reveal.

The documents, seen by The Telegraph, show more clearly than ever the grave reservations expressed by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, over the consequences of a second Gulf war and how prescient his Foreign Office officials were in predicting the ensuing chaos.

They told the Prime Minister that there was a risk of the Iraqi system "reverting to type" after a war, with a future government acquiring the very weapons of mass destruction that an attack would be designed to remove.

The documents further show that the Prime Minister was advised that he would have to "wrong foot" Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, and that British officials believed that President George W Bush merely wanted to complete his father's "unfinished business" in a "grudge match" against Saddam.

But it is the warning of the likely aftermath - more than a year in advance, as Mr Blair was deciding to commit Britain to joining a US-led invasion - that is likely to cause most controversy and embarrassment in both London and Washington.

More than 900 allied troops have been killed in Iraq since the end of the war, 33 of them British. More than 10,000 civilians are believed to have been killed.

At least 13 civilians died yesterday in a suicide bomb attack on a police checkpoint in Baghdad. The Iraqi health ministry said a further 45 civilians had died in US air attacks on Fallujah overnight.

Mr Straw predicted in March 2002 that post-war Iraq would cause major problems, telling Mr Blair in a letter marked "Secret and personal" that no one had a clear idea of what would happen afterwards. "There seems to be a larger hole in this than anything."

Most of the US assessments argued for regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Mr Straw said.

"But no one has satisfactorily answered how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better. Iraq has no history of democracy so no one has this habit or experience."

Senior ministerial advisers warned bluntly in a "Secret UK Eyes Only" options paper that "the greater investment of Western forces, the greater our control over Iraq's future, but the greater the cost and the longer we would need to stay".

The paper, compiled by the Cabinet Office Overseas and Defence Secretariat, added: "The only certain means to remove Saddam and his elite is to invade and impose a new government, but this would involve nation-building over many years."

Replacing Saddam with another "Sunni strongman" would allow the allies to withdraw their troops quickly. This leader could be persuaded not to seek WMD in exchange for large-scale assistance with reconstruction.

"However, there would then be a strong risk of the Iraqi system reverting to type. Military coup could succeed coup until an autocratic Sunni dictator emerged who protected Sunni interests. With time he could acquire WMD," the paper said.

Even a representative government would be likely to create its own WMD so long as Israel and Iran retained their own arsenals and Palestinian grievances remained unresolved.

But there would be other major problems with a democratic government.

If it were to survive, "it would require the US and others to commit to nation-building for many years. This would entail a substantial international security force."

The documents also show the degree of concern within Whitehall that America was ready to invade Iraq with or without backing from any of its allies.

Sir David Manning, Mr Blair's foreign policy adviser, returned from talks in Washington in mid-March 2002 warning that Mr Bush "still has to find answers to the big questions", which included "what happens on the morning after?".

In a letter to the Prime Minister marked "Secret - strictly personal", he said: "I think there is a real risk that the administration underestimates the difficulties.

"They may agree that failure isn't an option, but this does not mean they will necessarily avoid it."

The Cabinet Office said that the US believed that the legal basis for war already existed and had lost patience with the policy of containment.

It did not see the war on terrorism as being a major element in American decision-making.

"The swift success of the war in Afghanistan, distrust of UN sanctions and inspections regimes and unfinished business from 1991 are all factors," it added. That view appeared to be shared by Peter Ricketts, the Foreign Office policy director.

There were "real problems" over the alleged threat and what the US was looking to achieve by toppling Saddam, he said. Nothing had changed to make Iraqi WMD more of a threat.

"Even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years. Military operations need clear and compelling military objectives. For Iraq, 'regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge match between Bush and Saddam."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091904Y.shtml