HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Lies
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 09:35 AM

The Lies

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
- Dick Cheney, Vice President
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002



"There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From the Press
9/6/2002



"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
- Condoleezza Rice, US National Security Adviser
CNN Late Edition
9/8/2002



"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
- George W. Bush, President
Speech to the UN General Assembly
9/12/2002



"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
- George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
10/5/2002



"The Iraqi regime ... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
- George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio, Speech
10/7/2002



"And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons."
- George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio, Speech
10/7/2002



"After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon."
- George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio, Speech
10/7/2002



"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
- George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio, Speech
10/7/2002



"Iraq, despite UN sanctions, maintains an aggressive program to rebuild the infrastructure for its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs. In each instance, Iraq's procurement agents are actively working to obtain both weapons-specific and dual-use materials and technologies critical to their rebuilding and expansion efforts, using front companies and whatever illicit means are at hand."
- John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002



"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists ... The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction."
- Dick Cheney, Vice President
Denver, Address to the Air National Guard
12/1/2002



"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
12/2/2002



"The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From the Press
12/4/2002



"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
1/9/2003



"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
- George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003



"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
- George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003



"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to the UN Security Council
2/5/2003



"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling."
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Address to the UN Security Council
2/5/2003



"In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world - and we will not allow it."
- George W. Bush, President
Speech to the American Enterprise Institute
2/26/2003



"So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not."
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to the UN Security Council
3/7/2003



"Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that, based on intelligence, that has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
- Dick Cheney, Vice President
"Meet the Press"
3/16/2003



"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
- George W. Bush, President
Address to the Nation
3/17/2003



"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly ... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
3/21/2003



"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites."
- Victoria Clark, Pentagon Spokeswoman
Press Briefing
3/22/2003



"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."
- Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board Member
Washington Post, p. A27
3/23/2003



"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview
3/30/2003



"We still need to find and secure Iraq's weapons of mass destruction facilities and secure Iraq's borders so we can prevent the flow of weapons of mass destruction materials and senior regime officials out of the country."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Conference
4/9/2003



"You bet we're concerned about it. And one of the reasons it's important is because the nexus between terrorist states with weapons of mass destruction ... and terrorist groups - networks - is a critical link. And the thought that ... some of those materials could leave the country and in the hands of terrorist networks would be a very unhappy prospect. So it is important to us to see that that doesn't happen."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Conference
4/9/2003



"But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003



"Were not going to find anything until we find people who tell us where the things are. And we have that very high on our priority list, to find the people who know. And when we do, then well learn precisely where things were and what was done."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
"Meet the Press"
4/13/2003



"We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them."
- George W. Bush, President
NBC Interview
4/24/2003



"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."
- George W. Bush, President
Remarks to Reporters
5/3/2003



"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to Reporters
5/4/2003



"We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Fox News Interview
5/4/2003



"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein - because he had a weapons program."
- George W. Bush, President
Remarks to Reporters
5/6/2003



"U.S. officials never expected that 'we were going to open garages and find' weapons of mass destruction."
- Condoleezza Rice, US National Security Adviser
Reuters Interview
5/12/2003



"We said all along that we will never get to the bottom of the Iraqi WMD program simply by going and searching specific sites, that you'd have to be able to get people who know about the programs to talk to you."
- Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Interview with Australian Broadcasting
5/13/2003



"It's going to take time to find them, but we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth. One thing is for certain: Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction."
- George W. Bush, President
Speech at a Weapons Factory in Ohio
5/25/2003



"They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
5/27/2003



"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
- Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Vanity Fair Interview
5/28/2003



"The President is indeed satisfied with the intelligence that he received. And I think that's borne out by the fact that, just as Secretary Powell described at the United Nations, we have found the bio trucks that can be used only for the purpose of producing biological weapons. That's proof-perfect that the intelligence in that regard was right on target."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
5/29/2003



"We have teams of people that are out looking. They've investigated a number of sites. And within the last week or two, they have in fact captured and have in custody two of the mobile trailers that Secretary Powell talked about at the United Nations as being biological weapons laboratories."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Infinity Radio Interview
5/30/2003



"But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
- George W. Bush, President
Interview With TVP Poland
5/30/2003



"You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ... They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two ... And we'll find more weapons as time goes on."
- George W. Bush, President
Press Briefing
5/30/2003



"This wasn't material I was making up, it came from the intelligence community."
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Press Briefing
6/2/2003



"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents. This is the man who spent decades hiding tools of mass murder. He knew the inspectors were looking for them. You know better than me he's got a big country in which to hide them. We're on the look. We'll reveal the truth."
- George W. Bush, President
Camp Sayliya, Qatar
6/5/2003



"I would put before you Exhibit A, the mobile biological labs that we have found. People are saying, 'Well, are they truly mobile biological labs?' Yes, they are. And the DCI, George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence, stands behind that assessment."
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Fox News Interview
6/8/2003



"No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored."
- Condoleezza Rice, US National Security Adviser
"Meet the Press"
6/8/2003



"What the president has said is because it's been the long-standing view of numerous people, not only in this country, not only in this administration, but around the world, including at the United Nations, who came to those conclusions ... And the president is not going to engage in the rewriting of history that others may be trying to engage in."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From the Press



"Iraq had a weapons program ... Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out they did have a weapons program."
- George W. Bush, President
Comment to Reporters
6/9/2003



"The biological weapons labs that we believe strongly are biological weapons labs, we didn't find any biological weapons with those labs. But should that give us any comfort? Not at all. Those were labs that could produce biological weapons whenever Saddam Hussein might have wanted to have a biological weapons inventory."
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Associated Press Interview
6/12/2003



"My personal view is that their intelligence has been, I'm sure, imperfect, but good. In other words, I think the intelligence was correct in general, and that you always will find out precisely what it was once you get on the ground and have a chance to talk to people and explore it, and I think that will happen."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Briefing
6/18/2003



"I have reason, every reason, to believe that the intelligence that we were operating off was correct and that we will, in fact, find weapons or evidence of weapons, programs, that are conclusive. But that's just a matter of time ... It's now less than eight weeks since the end of major combat in Iraq and I believe that patience will prove to be a virtue."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Pentagon Media Briefing
6/24/2003



"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
7/9/2003

77 replies, 11955 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 77 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Lies (Original post)
WilliamPitt Mar 2013 OP
RockaFowler Mar 2013 #1
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #33
Segami Mar 2013 #2
just1voice Mar 2013 #55
tularetom Mar 2013 #3
fadedrose Mar 2013 #4
WilliamPitt Mar 2013 #5
fadedrose Mar 2013 #9
WilliamPitt Mar 2013 #10
fadedrose Mar 2013 #13
WilliamPitt Mar 2013 #14
Ian_rd Mar 2013 #32
fadedrose Mar 2013 #41
Ian_rd Mar 2013 #72
BumRushDaShow Mar 2013 #19
fadedrose Mar 2013 #42
fadedrose Mar 2013 #30
rhett o rick Mar 2013 #50
mahina Mar 2013 #51
samplegirl Mar 2013 #6
msanthrope Mar 2013 #7
mahina Mar 2013 #49
4_TN_TITANS Mar 2013 #8
Dyedinthewoolliberal Mar 2013 #11
spanone Mar 2013 #12
Botany Mar 2013 #15
chervilant Mar 2013 #16
baldguy Mar 2013 #17
brer cat Mar 2013 #21
valerief Mar 2013 #45
ananda Mar 2013 #18
FourScore Mar 2013 #20
Arkansas Granny Mar 2013 #22
kairos12 Mar 2013 #23
stupidicus Mar 2013 #24
DirtyDawg Mar 2013 #25
Lobo27 Mar 2013 #26
tavalon Mar 2013 #27
hibbing Mar 2013 #28
JEB Mar 2013 #29
Ian_rd Mar 2013 #31
lpbk2713 Mar 2013 #34
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #35
MsLeopard Mar 2013 #36
JEB Mar 2013 #37
librechik Mar 2013 #38
wiggs Mar 2013 #39
WillyT Mar 2013 #40
Douglas Carpenter Mar 2013 #43
valerief Mar 2013 #44
OnyxCollie Mar 2013 #46
winter is coming Mar 2013 #63
mahina Mar 2013 #47
OnyxCollie Mar 2013 #48
Zorra Mar 2013 #52
Uncle Joe Mar 2013 #53
libdude Mar 2013 #54
onethatcares Mar 2013 #56
hue Mar 2013 #57
DollarBillHines Mar 2013 #58
Whisp Mar 2013 #59
zeemike Mar 2013 #60
montanto Mar 2013 #61
LineLineNew Reply !
BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2013 #70
Brother Buzz Mar 2013 #62
KoKo Mar 2013 #64
blkmusclmachine Mar 2013 #65
ReRe Mar 2013 #66
awoke_in_2003 Mar 2013 #67
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #68
Vestigial_Sister Mar 2013 #69
HiPointDem Mar 2013 #71
jsr Mar 2013 #73
JHB Mar 2013 #74
sellitman Mar 2013 #75
idwiyo Mar 2013 #76
michigandem58 Mar 2013 #77

Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 09:36 AM

1. And still repeated to this day by Darth Cheney

I just watched The World According to Cheney and he still acts like Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Alternate Reality for these guys. Seriously!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockaFowler (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 12:24 PM

33. FOX "News" does the same thing....

They refuse to tell their viewers there were no WMDs and that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

They act like that's all "opinion".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 09:38 AM

2. K&R!- These should be posted as black & white billboards throughout the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 04:58 PM

55. They've been posted on the internet for years, doesn't change a thing

 

America has placed many of it's citizens above the law and worships those whom won't hold them accountable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_on_the_Record_Report

This report contains 237 claims for specific misleading statements made by:

* Colin Powell
* Donald Rumsfeld
* Condoleezza Rice
* George W. Bush
* Dick Cheney

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 09:46 AM

3. The liberal media do not want you itemizing those

Now that the process of Pravda like historical revision has begun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 09:47 AM

4. I wouldn't mind seeing . . . .

A list of what the Senators said at the vote for or against the war ... I watched the Senate those days and it was mesmerizing.

The whole world had capital cities inundated with millions of protesters begging that we don't go through with the invasion. That too was mesmerizing.

Thanks for the laying out the plotting the Reps did to bring about the vote....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:11 AM

9. Not what I was looking for..

I think Rachel had one on the other day, remarks by then Sen. H. Clinton, where she said, to paraphrase, "we must give this president (Bush) everything he wants/needs to keep this country safe."

I wanted to see the Senators' remarks again, and have them on DU, to give these Senators some humility for their gullibility. I mentioned the millions of protesters to show that everyone was not fooled. Even my beloved Joe Biden voted for it, but he's a very trusting soul.

A list of statements made by pro and against would be something I'd like to see again.

Just looked at C-Span and couldn't find it, and Mother Jones just had remarks by the Cabinet, etc., who dreamt up the scheme and the generals who specialize in war. I don't know the date of the vote. Most statements were made that day or week in 2001.

If such a list does exist and somebody has it, please post it. I would keep it in my journal as I seldom have anything to put in it that is so thought-provoking.

Thanks again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:13 AM

10. Here you go re: Dem war support

Apologies for the source, but it's what you're looking for: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1003520/posts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:18 AM

13. You won't believe this

But I have never been to the, whatcha all call it, "freepers" place.

I feel creepy but will go there, trusting you that my brains won't get fried (any more than they already are).

Thanks again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:19 AM

14. Oh, it'll fry

but their list should help you with your own research.

Bathe after entry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 12:24 PM

32. How can you NOT go to Freerepublic? The entertainment value is too good.

Arrested Development is a snore by comparison

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian_rd (Reply #32)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 01:54 PM

41. Ok, what's Arrested Development?

Isn't that a movie or tv program?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #41)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 07:37 AM

72. It's a hilarious, alas canceled TV program.

But now that I think of it, also a good name for FreeRepublic.com. Heyooooh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:38 AM

19. I just found this site

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/congress-iraq-war.html

It has links to the text of all the resolutions and to the Congressional record taken from both chambers during the debate. Alot of material but should help!

Edit to add that I found her remarks during the debate from the links to the Congressional record starting here - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r107:S10OC2-0007: (this may end up being a dynamic link that ages out so... )

  Mr. BYRD. I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, and I yield 20 minutes, leaving myself 1 minute, to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden.

   I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for reminding me the Senator from Delaware had been waiting very patiently.

   I thank all Senators.

   Mr. BIDEN. No problem.

   Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy. By far beyond that, I thank him for his leadership and his eloquence and his passion and commitment to this body and to our Constitution. I join with the remarks by both the Senators from Michigan and Maryland, expressing our appreciation for the way in which he has waged this battle on behalf of his convictions. It is a lesson to us all.

   Today, Mr. President, we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

   I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day, especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it. I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

   I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

   I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20,000 people.

   Unfortunately, during the 1980s, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American Government because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

   In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab States, and threw Saddam out after 43 days of bombing and hundreds of hours of ground operations. The United States led the coalition, then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

   As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. Though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspectors' work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the gulf war, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bioweapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

   In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the U.N., unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated sovereign sites, including the so-called Presidential palaces--which in reality were huge compounds, well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by U.N. resolution to turn over.

   When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive 4-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

   In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

   It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security.

   This much is undisputed. The open questions are: What should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

   Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular, democratic state in the Middle East, one which could, perhaps, move the entire region toward democratic reform.

   This view has appeal to some because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991 and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it could give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

   However, this course is fraught with danger.

   We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock and being tried for war crimes as we speak.
   If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a preemptive strike on Pakistan. What if China should perceive a threat from Taiwan?

   So, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, is not a good option.

   Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The United Nations deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The United Nations can lead the world into a new era of global cooperation. And the United States should support that goal.

   But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto on occasion for reasons of narrow national interest, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve the NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs.

   The United States, therefore, could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million more driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

   In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve forces against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

   So, the question is how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.

   While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections, with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.

   I know the administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. If we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 United Nations resolutions, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

   If we get the resolution the President seeks, and Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

   If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

   If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving other nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose Security Council action. They will say, we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the U.N. when it does exactly want we want.

   I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. According to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

   President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth from the administration since they first began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier.

   Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible.

   Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our Nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

   This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. Perhaps my decision is influenced by my 8 years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our Nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to ensure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. Thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq our country will stand resolutely behind them.

   My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world.

   Over 11 years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community.

   Time and time again, he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot.

   I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

   Finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our Nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers, who have gone through the fires of hell, may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know I am.
   So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our Nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein: This is your last chance; disarm or be disarmed.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #19)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 02:07 PM

42. I just now read Clinton's speech

After I went to the link you posted, did not come back to your post till now..it has a lot.

So much happened back then. I know that when Bill was president, the same bunch who started the war in 2002 sent him letters asking him to go to war with Iraq back in 1998, and he refused.

There was something about the tubes Iraq had - that they were't suited to carrying bombs...then at some point, the inspectors were thrown out, but they hadn't found anything. I forget the story of the inspectors. There was so much to keep track of and some so contradictory...

What a mess..

Thanks a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 12:17 PM

30. CSpan

I tried http://www.democrats.com/node/6890
It had only the "no" votes. So I tried CSpan again....

Copy of email reply to my email:

Thank you for contacting C-SPAN Archives Customer Support.
"Your request for assistance has been received. Case #CASE12558 - "Senate Iraqi Vote Speeches" has been created for you. A member of our customer care team will respond to your case as soon as possible.

Message History

Where could I find a list of what the Senators said when the Senate was preparing to vote for/against the Iraqi War. It must have been in 2002. I don't know the date of the vote. Thank you.


If the prepared list is good, will post it. Thank you's to Pitt & BumRushDaShow for suggestions..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #30)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 03:53 PM

50. I have been looking for a copy of Sen Dashell's impassioned speech before he voted.

I watched it live on TV and he said tons about why we shouldnt go to war in Iraq. Then to my shock and huge disappointment he voted for the resolution. IMO he bowed before King George, the DimSon, and kissed his feet. If prayer worked he would have been struck by a lightening bolt right there.

And yes I was shocked. I admit to being naive to think that our Congressional Democratic representatives would do the right thing. They didnt want to look unpatriotic. For that, they allowed the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and close to a million innocent Iraqis. In their next lives, I hope they come back as roaches. And I dont mean the good kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 03:54 PM

51. Our two Senators, Inouye and Akaka, both voted against the reso

because they knew what we all knew.

We marched, the world marched, and fear and avarice and lies ruled the day. Our responsibility is to make sure it never happens again. At least that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 09:58 AM

6. We must continue our

outrage!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 09:59 AM

7. You are a treasure, Mr, Pitt. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 03:51 PM

49. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:04 AM

8. Thank-you for the reminder, Will....

I've seen you post this before and it's going to be a fight to keep the BFEE from writing their own history. This always deserves a revisit.


On edit: at the time, I was o.k. with going into Iraq, based on all the crap that we were being fed. Never again will I be hoodwinked like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:13 AM

11. Thanks Will.

It is staggering to see these statements listed like this. I still know folks who believe this stuff,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:15 AM

12. kkkkkkk & rrrrrrrrr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:19 AM

15. Thanx for the list

"...the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Donald Rumsfeld - March 30 2003


http://www.alternet.org/story/74715/study%3A_bushies_lied_935_times_to_sell_iraq_invasion

935 lies told by w and company to get us into that unneeded war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:20 AM

16. Typical Socratic discussion with a Bush supporter:

(only my side of various convos -- actual questions I've posed to the unfortunates I know who think Bush the greatest prez in our lifetimes...)

"What REALLY happened on 9/11?"

"Have you researched the origins of these alleged weapons?"

"Oh, so you're not interested in the truth?"

"Are you so convinced Bush and company were telling the truth?"

"Do you believe in unicorns?"

Too many members of the Hoi Polloi are under-educated, trained to a seven-second attention span, and crippled with stunted critical thinking skills. Bush and miscreants like him have learned to use this to their fullest advantage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:21 AM

17. And 100s of thousands of people are now dead because of their actions & lies

Please, tell me why none of them are in prison?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #17)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:59 AM

21. +1000

Thanks for running this again, Will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #17)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 02:53 PM

45. Because they're doing the bidding of the people who own the planet

and the military and mercenaries protect them all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:24 AM

18. And yet there were many discussions of these very lies..

.. before the war started.

Many of us knew from the getgo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:48 AM

20. War crimes! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:06 AM

22. I read these remarks and I remember that sick feeling I had when I realized that it wouldn't

matter what Saddam Hussein did at that point, the US was going to attack Iraq. He could surrender, go into exile, give them the keys to the Bahgdad city gates and they would still attack. He let the weapons inspectors come in and gave them unfettered access, but they were ordered to leave before they finished their inspections so the invasion could start. Bushco was determined to extend the WOT to Iraq and nothing was going to stop them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:14 AM

23. The Big Lie write large put forward by a gang of thugs and criminals...

swallowed whole by a bunch of yellowing ribboned, suv driving, faux news watching, flag pin waving cretins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:20 AM

24. In the interest of fairness and telling the whole story

First of all, I've thought and argued from the beginning that the lies of Bush would never have been sold but for the comments coming from Bill Clinton and crew, who could have had no more certainty as to their existence than Bush did, as the Kay report subsequently showed. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Of course you can make the case that some of them were taken outta context or fell short of expressing the pov of the person who uttered them, like not in an effort to promote or support the military action Bush was obviously contemplating when he sought and secured the Iraq AUMF, but that doesn't diminish their value and role in the war campaign.

The posting of that list of dem quotes and noting that BC signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 (ignoring Section 8 which rejected military use of course), ALbright finding all the guesstimated deaths from the sanctions "worth it", etc, was the standard defense of Bushbots for years. I see used still today. WHat I always found amusingly stupid, is the way the rightwingnuts took the guesstimated number of deaths due to the sanctions as gospel, but found the surveys calculating the deaths due to the war bunk.

Secondly, for all the hoopla about the CIA and M16 ignoring intel circulating here and in Great Britain right now, I fail to see the big deal, since it really did nothing more than support for the "intel" we had during the Clinton admin

In a 25 January 1999 report to the U.N. Security Council, UNSCOM declared that the history of the Iraqi weapons inspections "must be divided into two parts, separated by the events following the departure from Iraq, in August 1995, of Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel."

Kamel maintained that Iraq had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction and related programs after the end of the first Gulf War.

I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear—were destroyed.

A 3 March 2003 Newsweek report said that Kamel's revelations were "hushed up" because inspectors "hoped to bluff Saddam into revealing still more." Kamel's version of events appear to have been borne out in the wake of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_Kamel_al-Majid

So while Bush has complete ownership as the "decider" for misusing the Iraq AUMF and launching that illegal/immoral war of aggression, the dems were extremely helpful in creating -- unwittingly or not -- the situation underwhich it was conducive to sell the threat as a real one to the public. Their "certainty" imo was due to a desire to maintain the brutal sanctions that like with Iran now, which only escalated the human misery in the population, leaving those in power untouched. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/07/iran-santions-suffering

If this anniversary should be used for anything, it should be to ask the question as to whether history is on course for repeating itself. The biggest diff at this point seems to be that between the "Q" and "N" at the end of the name of our victims, separated by an "O/P".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:37 AM

25. So, Dick Cheney...

 

...sez that if he had it to do all over again, he would. Whataya bet how the family of the person whose heart he got would decide now - or indeed the donor, if he/she knew beforehand - if they had it to do over? Shit, if it was me I'd not only want it back, I'd pull a Brad Pitt (from that movie) and I'd cut the thing out and 'reclaim' it. This bastard hasn't deserved to draw an extra breath...almost from the day he was born.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:39 AM

26. These people are insane!

They will keep saying the same thing over and over again. To the point that the believe it, and what is worse that the people that vote for them do as well.

Like I'm certain there is still people out that there that believe we haven't the WMDs. Others believe we covered up the WMDs to hurt Bush and Cheney. That is truly sad....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:45 AM

27. Gathered all together like that, I remember why I hated Ari Fleischer

He was just so happy to lie. It was his lives goal to be a liar among liars and he did it. This was quite the romp through hell. Thanks, Will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:49 AM

28. Thanks Will

Hi,
Brutal list of lies from these criminals. I have yet to come across any of them that have not said they would do it again or do it the same way.

Peace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 12:17 PM

29. Lies,

blood lust and GREED. Very depressing that this acceptable in our country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 12:22 PM

31. Great collection of quotes. If up to me, I'd carve them into marble and drop it on the National Mall

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 12:26 PM

34. Lies --- the essence of RW Hatemonger Media




If they were compelled to speak only the truth they would prefer not to speak at all.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 12:30 PM

35. But if we didn't invade Iraq then the anti-war, anti-American hippies would win....

And everyone would turn gay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 12:30 PM

36. Never forget!!

Even though war criminals wald free, never forget what they did to this nation and the planet. Unforgivable. Never forget.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 12:32 PM

37. Hans Blix

was one of the few sensible voices I remember from that time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 12:33 PM

38. and that's the short list

today is going to be a tough day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 12:35 PM

39. It takes quite a bit of arrogance for a country to come up with a policy of

'preventative' war. The policy depends on near-perfect intelligence and near-perfect people. We had neither, of course.

If the goal was not preventative war but revenge, or oil grab, or hierarchical global politics....Then the effectiveness or appropriateness of the policy is moot...it's just an excuse. In this case, they thought making the preventative war case and selling the idea was a 'slam dunk'...hence the lies, over and over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 12:54 PM

40. HUGE K & R !!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 02:28 PM

43. knr - thanks for the resource - I posted it on facebook

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 02:51 PM

44. The non-lie from PNAC:

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

Well, they made damn sure they got their wish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 03:17 PM

46. Under the Obama administration, the Pentagon found no fault

Last edited Tue Mar 19, 2013, 05:45 PM - Edit history (2)

in its propaganda campaign leading up to the Iraq war.

Pentagon Finds No Fault in Ties to TV Analysts
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/us/pentagon-finds-no-fault-in-its-ties-to-tv-analysts.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all-12-26/news/30559559_1_bachmann-romney-santorum&

In January 2009, the inspector general’s office issued a report that said it had found no wrongdoing in the program. But soon after, the inspector general’s office retracted the entire report, saying it was so riddled with inaccuracies and flaws that none of its conclusions could be relied upon. In late 2009, the inspector general’s office began a new inquiry.

The results of the new inquiry, first reported by The Washington Times, confirm that the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld made a concerted effort starting in 2002 to reach out to network military analysts to build and sustain public support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

~snip~

But several former top aides to Mr. Rumsfeld insisted that the purpose of the program was merely to inform and educate, and many of the 63 military analysts interviewed during the inquiry agreed.

Given the conflicting accounts, the inspector general’s office scrutinized some 25,000 pages of documents related to the program. But except for one “unsigned, undated, draft memorandum,” investigators could not find any documents that described the strategy or objective of the program. Investigators said that to understand the program’s intent, they had to rely on interviews with Mr. Rumsfeld’s former public affairs aides, including his spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke. Based on these interviews, the report said, investigators concluded that the “outreach activities were intended to serve as an open information exchange with credible third-party subject-matter experts” who could “explain military issues, actions and strategies to the American public.”


Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.


Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.



Describing the Program
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/04/19/us/20080419_GENERALS_DOCS.html

In memorandums and e-mail messages obtained by The Times, Defense Department officials describe the goals and mission of a program to shape public opinion about the Iraq war through retired military officers who are media analysts.


Obama called on the former general chairman of the RNC to stop Spain's investigation of US torture crimes.

WikiLeaks: How U.S. tried to stop Spain's torture probe
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/25/105786/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html

MIAMI — It was three months into Barack Obama's presidency, and the administration -- under pressure to do something about alleged abuses in Bush-era interrogation policies -- turned to a Florida senator to deliver a sensitive message to Spain:

Don't indict former President George W. Bush's legal brain trust for alleged torture in the treatment of war on terror detainees, warned Mel Martinez on one of his frequent trips to Madrid. Doing so would chill U.S.-Spanish relations.


US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

6. (C) As reported in SEPTEL, Senator Mel Martinez, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, met Acting FM Angel Lossada during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 15. Martinez and the Charge underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship. The Senator also asked if the GOS had thoroughly considered the source of the material on which the allegations were based to ensure the charges were not based on misinformation or factually wrong statements. Lossada responded that the GOS recognized all of the complications presented by universal jurisdiction, but that the independence of the judiciary and the process must be respected. The GOS would use all appropriate legal tools in the matter. While it did not have much margin to operate, the GOS would advise Conde Pumpido that the official administration position was that the GOS was "not in accord with the National Court." Lossada reiterated to Martinez that the executive branch of government could not close any judicial investigation and urged that this case not affect the overall relationship, adding that our interests were much broader, and that the universal jurisdiction case should not be viewed as a reflection of the GOS position.


Judd Gregg, Obama's Republican nominee for Commerce secretary, didn't like the investigations either.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

4. (C) As reported in REF A, Senator Judd Gregg, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, raised the issue with Luis Felipe Fernandez de la Pena, Director General Policy Director for North America and Europe during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 13. Senator Gregg expressed his concern about the case. Fernandez de la Pena lamented this development, adding that judicial independence notwithstanding, the MFA disagreed with efforts to apply universal jurisdiction in such cases.


Why the aversion? To protect Bushco, of course!

US embassy cables: Spanish prosecutor weighs Guantánamo criminal case against US officials
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177

The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.


Eric Holder got the message.

Holder Says He Will Not Permit the Criminalization of Policy Differences
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1

As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.

"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted,"
he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."


Holder: Won't criminalize terror policy disputes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8470942

Associated Press Writer= WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Eric Holder left open the possibility Thursday to prosecuting former Bush administration officials but ruled out filing charges merely over disagreements about policy.

"I will not permit the criminalization of policy differences," Holder testified before a House Appropriations subcommittee.

"However, it is my responsibility as attorney general to enforce the law. It is my duty to enforce the law. If I see evidence of wrongdoing I will pursue it to the full extent of the law," he said.


~snip~

"It is certainly the intention of this administration not to play hide and seek, or not to release certain things," said Holder. "It is not our intention to try to advance a political agenda or to try to hide things from the American people."


CIA Exhales: 99 Out of 101 Torture Cases Dropped
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/cia-exhales-99-out-of-101-torture-cases-dropped/

This is how one of the darkest chapters in U.S. counterterrorism ends: with practically every instance of suspected CIA torture dodging criminal scrutiny. It’s one of the greatest gifts the Justice Department could have given the CIA as David Petraeus takes over the agency.

Over two years after Attorney General Eric Holder instructed a special prosecutor, John Durham, to “preliminar(ily) review” whether CIA interrogators unlawfully tortured detainees in their custody, Holder announced on Thursday afternoon that he’ll pursue criminal investigations in precisely two out of 101 cases of suspected detainee abuse. Some of them turned out not to have involved CIA officials after all. Both of the cases that move on to a criminal phase involved the “death in custody” of detainees, Holder said.

But just because there’s a further criminal inquiry doesn’t necessarily mean there will be any charges brought against CIA officials involved in those deaths. If Holder’s decision on Thursday doesn’t actually end the Justice Department’s review of torture in CIA facilities, it brings it awfully close, as outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta noted.

“On this, my last day as Director, I welcome the news that the broader inquiries are behind us,” Panetta wrote to the CIA staff on Thursday. “We are now finally about to close this chapter of our Agency’s history.”


How MI5 colluded in my torture: Binyam Mohamed claims British agents fed Moroccan torturers their questions - WORLD EXCLUSIVE
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1160238/How-MI5-colluded-torture-Binyam-Mohamed-claims-British-agents-fed-Moroccan-torturers-questions--WORLD-EXCLUSIVE.html#ixzz256BI1FmS

Documents obtained by this newspaper - which were disclosed to Mohamed through a court case he filed in America - show that months after he was taken to Morocco aboard an illegal 'extraordinary rendition' flight by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, MI5 twice gave the CIA details of questions they wanted his interrogators to put to him, together with dossiers of photographs.

At the time, in November 2002, Mohamed was being subject to intense, regular beatings and sessions in which his chief Moroccan torturer, a man he knew as Marwan, slashed his chest and genitals with a scalpel.

~snip~

The revelations will put Foreign Secretary David Miliband under even greater pressure to come clean about British involvement in the rendition and alleged torture of Muslim terror suspects.

Last month his lawyers persuaded the High Court not to allow parts of a judgement that summarised Mohamed's treatment to be published, on the grounds that to do so would jeopardise Britian’s intelligence-sharing relationship with America.


Libya/US: Investigate Death of Former CIA Prisoner
http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/05/11/libyaus-investigate-death-former-cia-prisoner

(New York) – The Libyan authorities should carry out a full and transparent investigation of the reported suicide of the Libyan prisoner Ali Mohamed al-Fakheri, also known as Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, Human Rights Watch said today. Al-Libi, who was held in secret US and Egyptian detention from late 2001 to at least 2005, was found dead in his cell in Abu Salim prison in Tripoli. Human Rights Watch spoke with him briefly in the Tripoli prison on April 27, though he refused to be interviewed.

After his arrest in Pakistan in late 2001, al-Libi was sent by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to Egypt in 2002, under the procedure known as “rendition.” According to a CIA declassified cable and a US Senate report, he was tortured in Egypt and gave false information about a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda that Colin Powell, then the secretary of state, used in his speech to the UN Security Council on the planned war with Iraq. Al-Libi was later held by the CIA in a series of secret prisons in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

~snip~

Al-Libi was returned from US custody to Libya in late 2005 or early 2006 and was detained at Abu Salim prison. The Abu Salim prison authorities told Human Rights Watch in April 2009 that he had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the State Security Court, a court whose trial proceedings fail to conform to international fair trial standards.

Human Rights Watch briefly met with al-Libi on April 27 during a research mission to Libya. He refused to be interviewed, and would say nothing more than: “Where were you when I was being tortured in American jails.” Human Rights Watch has strongly condemned the CIA’s detention program and documented how detainees in CIA custody were abused, but, like other human rights groups, was never granted access to prisoners in CIA custody.


At Guantanamo, a Prison Within a Prison
CIA Has Run a Secret Facility for Some Al Qaeda Detainees, Officials Say
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5918-2004Dec16.html

Within the heavily guarded perimeters of the Defense Department's much-discussed Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, the CIA has maintained a detention facility for valuable al Qaeda captives that has never been mentioned in public, according to military officials and several current and former intelligence officers.

~snip~

Most international terrorism suspects in U.S. custody are held not by the CIA but by the Defense Department at the Guantanamo Bay prison. They are guaranteed access to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and, as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this year, have the right to challenge their imprisonment in federal courts.

CIA detainees, by contrast, are held under separate rules and far greater secrecy. Under a presidential directive and authorities approved by administration lawyers, the CIA is allowed to capture and hold certain classes of suspects without accounting for them in any public way and without revealing the rules for their treatment. The roster of CIA prisoners is not public, but current and former U.S. intelligence officials say the agency holds the most valuable al Qaeda leaders and many mid-level members with knowledge of the group's logistics, financing and regional operations.




One of youngest Guantánamo prisoner released
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=4282

Nineteen-year-old Mohamed Jawad has set foot in Afghanistan after seven years in detention making him one of the youngest prisoners to be released from Guantánamo. He is set to sue the US Government in the next couple of months for inhumane treatment and torture in addition to being a minor in detention.

~snip~

Jawad claims his captors tortured him and other prisoners, deprived them of food and sleep. He has described having his hands tied behind his back and being forced to eat by bending over and putting his mouth into a plate of food. He received substantial abuse, including the ‘frequent flier’ treatment which is a form of torture where the victim is shifted from cell to cell. Mohamed was shifted through 152 locations in a week’s time, staying a maximum of 2 hours and 55 seconds in each location.


Government Seeks To Continue Detaining Mohammed Jawad At Guantánamo Despite Lack Of Evidence
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/government-seeks-continue-detaining-mohammed-jawad-guantanamo-despite-lack-evidenc

NEW YORK – After admitting to a federal judge that Guantánamo detainee and American Civil Liberties Union client Mohammed Jawad had been tortured and illegally detained for nearly seven years, the Obama administration today asked the court for permission to continue to detain Jawad while it decides whether to bring a criminal case against him. The request, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, comes after U.S. District Court Judge Ellen S. Huvelle berated government lawyers last week for their inadequate case against Jawad.

Last fall, a military judge in Jawad's Guantánamo military commission proceeding threw out the bulk of the evidence against him finding that it was obtained through torture. Despite that ruling, the Obama administration continued to rely on those same statements in Jawad's habeas corpus challenge before Judge Huvelle until last week when it said it would no longer rely on that evidence. The Afghan Attorney General recently sent a letter to the U.S. government demanding Jawad's return and suggesting he was as young as 12 when he was captured in Afghanistan and illegally rendered from that country nearly seven years ago.

Following his 2002 arrest in Afghanistan for allegedly throwing a grenade at two U.S. soldiers and their interpreter, Jawad was subjected to repeated torture and other mistreatment and to a systematic program of harsh and highly coercive interrogations designed to break him physically and mentally. Jawad tried to commit suicide in his cell by slamming his head repeatedly against the wall.





"He Was The Agency": Ex-CIA Analyst Questions Brennan Claim He Couldn’t Stop Waterboarding, Torture
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/8/he_was_the_agency_ex_cia#transcript

AMY GOODMAN: That was CIA Director-designate John Brennan being questioned yesterday during his Senate confirmation hearing by Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.

For more, we’re joined by Melvin Goodman, former CIA and State Department analyst, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, director of the Center’s National Security Project, his latest book, National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism.

Your response to that line of questioning, Mel Goodman?

MELVIN GOODMAN: Well, I think it was very disturbing on a lot of levels. It’s a step backward, for one thing. Former Director Leon Panetta did define waterboarding as torture. The attorney general has defined waterboarding as torture. But John Brennan won’t do so. And also, when John Brennan was a deputy executive assistant to Buzzy Krongard and to George Tenet, remember, he was the cheerleader for some of these onerous policies, particularly renditions and extraordinary renditions. So, for John Brennan today to say he read the Senate committee intelligence report on torture and he learned things he never knew before and that he was shocked with what he learned, this is a case of incredible willful ignorance. He’s been at the top of the CIA and now at the top in the White House—in fact, he’s probably stepping down in becoming the director of the CIA. He has written the manual for targeted killings. He’s written the disposition matrix, which is something out of George Orwell, that allows the president of the United States to pick targets based on evidence that Brennan collects from the CIA, presumably the same kind of evidence that was taken to the country in 2002 and 2003 that allowed the United States to go to war. So, all of this is extremely disturbing about who Brennan is.

JOHN BRENNAN: I did not take steps to stop the CIA’s use of those techniques. I was not in the chain of command of that program. I served as deputy executive director at the time. I had responsibility for overseeing the management of the agency in all of its various functions. And I was aware of the program. I was cc’d on some of those documents. But I had no oversight of it. I wasn’t involved in its creation. I had expressed my personal objections and views to my—some agency colleagues about certain of those EITs, such as waterboarding, nudity and others, where I professed my personal objections to it. But I did not try to stop it, because it was, you know, something that was being done in a different part of the agency under the authority of others, and it was something that was directed by the administration at the time.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Mel Goodman, your response to his answer?

MELVIN GOODMAN: Well, very disturbing for him to say he was in a different part of the agency. He was the agency. He was on the seventh floor of the agency. He was an executive assistant to the director and to the executive secretary of the CIA. He was the one they allowed to go on Sunday morning talk shows to defend renditions, and particularly extraordinary renditions, which involve not only kidnapping people off the streets of Europe and the Middle East and Africa, but sending them to countries where we knew these people would be tortured.


Globalizing Torture: Ahead of Brennan Hearing, International Complicity in CIA Rendition Exposed
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/7/globalizing_torture_ahead_of_brennan_hearing#transcript

MARGARET WARNER: So, was Secretary Rice correct today when she called it a vital tool in combating terrorism?

JOHN BRENNAN: I think it’s an absolutely vital tool. I have been intimately familiar now over the past decade with the cases of rendition that the U.S. government has been involved in, and I can say without a doubt that it has been very successful as far as producing intelligence that has saved lives.

MARGARET WARNER: So is it—are you saying, both—in two ways, both in getting terrorists off the streets and also in the interrogation?

JOHN BRENNAN: Yes. The rendition is the practice or the process of rendering somebody from one place to another place. It is moving them. And U.S. government will frequently facilitate that movement from a country to another.

MARGARET WARNER: Why would you not, if this—if you have a suspect who’s a danger to the United States, keep it—keep him in the United States’ custody? Is it because we want another country to do the dirty work?

JOHN BRENNAN: No, I don’t think that’s it at all. Also, I think it’s rather arrogant to think that we’re the only country that respects human rights. I think that we have a lot of assurances from these countries that we hand over terrorists to that they will in fact respect human rights. And there are different ways to gain those assurances. But also, let’s say an individual goes to Egypt, because they’re an Egyptian citizen. And Egyptians then have a longer history in terms of dealing with them, and they have family members and others that they can bring in, in fact, to be part of the whole interrogation process.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was John Brennan speaking to PBS’s Margaret Warner in 2005.

AMY GOODMAN: The report is called "Globalizing Torture." It also identifies 54 foreign governments that aided the United States in these operations. The countries include Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Yemen and Zimbabwe.

One country that’s not listed is India, but the report is making headlines there, too, because, for more, we’re joined now by the report’s author, Amrit Singh. She’s senior legal officer at the National Security and Counterterrorism program at the Open Society Justice Initiative. The full name of her new report is "Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition." She’s co-author with Jameel Jaffer of the book Administration of Torture: A Documentary Record from Washington to Abu Ghraib and Beyond_. And interestingly, the new torture report has become news in India. The human-rights-secret-detention-amrit-singh">headline in The Times of India reads, quote: "Prime Minister’s Daughter Blows Whistle on 54 Nations that Helped U.S. Detention Programme." Another website headline, their story: "PM’s Daughter Takes on CIA over Torture." That’s right, our guest, Amrit Singh, is the daughter of India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh.

Amrit Singh, welcome to Democracy Now!

AMRIT SINGH: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s talk about John Brennan first. He goes to Capitol Hill today for his confirmation hearing. You wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times. What do you think he should be asked? What do you think of the nomination of John Brennan to be head of the CIA?

AMRIT SINGH: Well, I think John Brennan should be asked what he meant when he said that he was intimately familiar with cases of rendition and that rendition is an absolutely vital tool in combating terrorism, because by the time Brennan made that statement in December of 2005, a number of people had been rendered to foreign governments where they were tortured. By December of 2005, Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery had been rendered to Egypt and subjected to electric shock. By December of 2005, Maher Arar, a Canadian national, had been rendered to Syria and subjected to being locked up in a tiny grave-like cell and beaten with cables. By December 2005, a number of other individuals, including Khalid El-Masri, had been rendered. Khalid El-Masri was captured and kidnapped in Macedonia and transferred to Afghanistan and abused. A recent court decision by the European Court of Human Rights found that Khalid El-Masri’s treatment by the CIA amounted to torture. So I think that John Brennan has a lot of explaining to do as to what exactly he meant.

Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition
http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/globalizing-torture-cia-secret-detention-and-extraordinary-rendition


CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE 
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Part I

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.


An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3

No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.



Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.


Article 5

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
1. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
2. When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Article 6

1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.
3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, to the representative of the State where he usually resides.
4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said State and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.

Article 7

1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.

Article 8

1. The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offenses. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested state.
4. Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1.

Article 9

1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with civil proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.
2. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph 1 of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them.


PUBLIC LAW 107–40—SEPT. 18, 2001
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


HEADLINES JULY 24, 2012
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/24/headlines#7241

U.S. Drone Strike Kills 9 in Pakistan

At least nine people have been killed in a U.S. drone strike in northwest Pakistan. Pakistani officials say the victims were suspected militants, but the Obama administration’s policy is to deem all adult-male drone targets as militants unless exculpatory evidence emerges after their deaths.


Anwar al-Awlaki’s family speaks out against his son’s death in airstrike
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/anwar-al-awlakis-family-speaks-out-against-his-sons-deaths/2011/10/17/gIQA8kFssL_singlePage.html

In the days before a CIA drone strike killed al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki last month, his 16-year-old son ran away from the family home in Yemen’s capital of Sanaa to try to find him, relatives say. When he, too, was killed in a U.S. airstrike Friday, the Awlaki family decided to speak out for the first time since the attacks.

“To kill a teenager is just unbelievable, really, and they claim that he is an al-Qaeda militant. It’s nonsense,” said Nasser al-Awlaki, a former Yemeni agriculture minister who was Anwar al-Awlaki’s father and the boy’s grandfather, speaking in a phone interview from Sanaa on Monday. “They want to justify his killing, that’s all.”

The teenager, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver in 1995, and his 17-year-old Yemeni cousin were killed in a U.S. military strike that left nine people dead in southeastern Yemen.

The young Awlaki was the third American killed in Yemen in as many weeks. Samir Khan, an al-Qaeda propagandist from North Carolina, died alongside Anwar al-Awlaki.


Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan
http://livingunderdrones.org/report/

First, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians. In public statements, the US states that there have been “no” or “single digit” civilian casualties.”(2) It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan. The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.(3) TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals. Where media accounts do report civilian casualties, rarely is any information provided about the victims or the communities they leave behind. This report includes the harrowing narratives of many survivors, witnesses, and family members who provided evidence of civilian injuries and deaths in drone strikes to our research team. It also presents detailed accounts of three separate strikes, for which there is evidence of civilian deaths and injuries, including a March 2011 strike on a meeting of tribal elders that killed some 40 individuals.

Second, US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury. Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups, including important tribal dispute-resolution bodies, out of fear that they may attract the attention of drone operators. Some parents choose to keep their children home, and children injured or traumatized by strikes have dropped out of school. Waziris told our researchers that the strikes have undermined cultural and religious practices related to burial, and made family members afraid to attend funerals. In addition, families who lost loved ones or their homes in drone strikes now struggle to support themselves.

Third, publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best. The strikes have certainly killed alleged combatants and disrupted armed actor networks. However, serious concerns about the efficacy and counter-productive nature of drone strikes have been raised. The number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2%.(4) Furthermore, evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks. As the New York Times has reported, “drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants.”(5) Drone strikes have also soured many Pakistanis on cooperation with the US and undermined US-Pakistani rel­ations. One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the US an enemy.(6)

Fourth, current US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents. This report casts doubt on the legality of strikes on individuals or groups not linked to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011, and who do not pose imminent threats to the US. The US government’s failure to ensure basic transparency and accountability in its targeted killing policies, to provide necessary details about its targeted killing program, or adequately to set out the legal factors involved in decisions to strike hinders necessary democratic debate about a key aspect of US foreign and national security policy. US practices may also facilitate recourse to lethal force around the globe by establishing dangerous precedents for other governments. As drone manufacturers and officials successfully reduce export control barriers, and as more countries develop lethal drone technologies, these risks increase.


Sadaullah Wazir, teenager, former student from the village of Machi Khel in Mir Ali, North Waziristan, was severely injured in a September 2009 drone strike on his grandfather’s home.(1) Sadaullah has filed a complaint before the UN Human Rights Council.(2)

“Before the drone strikes started, my life was very good. I used to go to school and I used to be quite busy with that, but after the drone strikes, I stopped going to school now. I was happy because I thought I would become a doctor.” Sadaullah recalled, “Two missiles (were) fired at our hujra and three people died. My cousin and I were injured. We didn’t hear the missile at all and then it was there.” He further explained, “(The last thing I remembered was that) we had just broken our fast where we had eaten and just prayed. . . .We were having tea and just eating a bit and then there were missiles. . . . When I gained consciousness, there was a bandage on my eye. I didn’t know what had happened to my eye and I could only see from one.” Sadaullah lost both of his legs and one of his eyes in the attack. He informed us, “Before (the strike), my life was normal and very good because I could go anywhere and do anything. But now I am not able to do that because I have to stay inside. . . . Sometimes I have really bad headaches. . . . (and) if I walk too much (on my prosthetic legs), my legs hurt a lot. (Drones have) drastically affected life (in our area).”


Medea Benjamin: Drone Warfare: Killing By Remote Control (August 6, 2012) Pirate TV Seattle
http://archive.org/details/scm-90762-medeabenjamindronewarfarekilli


If you want to know how the administration will respond to to someone "engaged in combat" on American soil, you might want to read what John Yoo wrote.

Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States
http://media.npr.org/documents/2009/mar/dojmemo_force.pdf

We believe that Article II of the Constitution, which vests the President with the power to
respond to emergency threats to the national security, directly authorizes use of the Armed
Forces in domestic operations against terrorists.
Although the exercise of such authority usually
has concerned the use of force abroad, there have been cases, from the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion
on,5 in which the President has deployed military force within the United States against armed
forces operating domestically. During the Civil War and the War of 1812, federal troops fought
enemy armies operating within the continental United Stales. On other occasions, the President
has used military force within the United States against Indian tribes and bands. In yet other
circumstances, the Armed Forces have been used to counter resistance to federal court orders, to
protect the officials, agents, property or instrumentalities of the federal Government, or to ensure
that federal governmental functions can be safely performed.6 We believe that the text, structure,
and history of the Constitution, in light of its executive, legislative, and judicial interpretation,
clearly supports deployment of the military domestically, as well as abroad, to respond to attacks
on the United States.


~snip~

Because the scale of the violence involved in this conflict removes it from the
sphere of operations designed to enforce the criminal laws, legal and constitutional rules
regulating law enforcement activity are not applicable, or at least not mechanically so. As a
result, the uses of force contemplated in this conflict are unlike those that have occurred in
America's other recent wars. Such uses might include, for example, targeting and destroying a
hijacked civilian aircraft in circumstances indicating that hijackers intended to crash the aircraft into
a populated area; deploying troops and military equipment to monitor and control the flow of
traffic into a city; attacking civilian targets, such as apartment buildings, offices, or ships where
suspected terrorists were thought to be; and employing electronic surveillance methods more
powerful and sophisticated than those available to law enforcement agencies.
These military
operations, taken as they may be on United States soil, and involving as they might American
citizens, raise novel and difficult questions of constitutional law.


Tom Daschle-Power We Didn't Grant
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201101.html

On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill defined, Congress chose instead, on Sept. 14, to authorize "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons determines planned, authorized, committed or aided" the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.


Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/obama-admin-says-it-can-use-lethal-force-against-americans-us-soil

Yes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soil—but only in "an extraordinary circumstance," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) Tuesday.

"The U.S. Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening," Paul said Tuesday. "It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans."

Last month, Paul threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan, Obama's pick to head the CIA, "until he answers the question of whether or not the President can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on U.S. soil." Tuesday, Brennan told Paul that "the agency I have been nominated to lead does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States—nor does it have any authority to do so." Brennan said that the Justice Department would answer Paul's question about whether Americans could be targeted for lethal strikes on US soil.

Holder's answer was more detailed, however, stating that under certain circumstances, the president would have the authority to order lethal attacks on American citizens. The two possible examples of such "extraordinary" circumstances were the attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. An American president order the use of lethal military force inside the US is "entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront," Holder wrote.


Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at Northwestern University School of Law
Chicago ~ Monday, March 5, 2012
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2012/ag-speech-1203051.html

Some have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #46)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 06:17 PM

63. Accessories after the fact. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 03:48 PM

47. Add to this,

"You think you know more than the President of the United States?"
- a relative

"What do you think you can do about it anyway"
- a coworker

"Don't know about you, but I support the troops!"
- my neighbor



Thanks for finding and posting those Will. They should be stenciled on the sidewalks of this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahina (Reply #47)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 03:50 PM

48. “There Must Be a Reason”: Osama, Saddam, and Inferred Justification

“There Must Be a Reason”: Osama, Saddam, and Inferred Justification
http://sociology.buffalo.edu/documents/hoffmansocinquiryarticle_000.pdf

One of the most curious aspects of the 2004 presidential election was the strength
and resilience of the belief among many Americans that Saddam Hussein was linked to
the terrorist attacks of September 11. Scholars have suggested that this belief was the
result of a campaign of false information and innuendo from the Bush administration.
We call this the information environment explanation. Using a technique of “challenge
interviews” on a sample of voters who reported believing in a link between Saddam and
9/11, we propose instead a social psychological explanation for the belief in this link.
We identify a number of social psychological mechanisms voters use to maintain false
beliefs in the face of disconfirming information, and we show that for a subset of voters
the main reason to believe in the link was that it made sense of the administration’s decision
to go to war against Iraq. We call this inferred justification: for these voters, the fact of the
war led to a search for a justification for it, which led them to infer the existence of ties
between Iraq and 9/11.

~snip~

In this article we present data that contest this explanation, and we develop
a social psychological explanation for the belief in the link between Saddam
and Al Qaeda. We argue that the primary causal agent for misperception is not
the presence or absence of correct information but a respondent’s willingness to
believe particular kinds of information. Our explanation draws on a psychological
model of information processing that scholars have labeled motivated reasoning.
This model envisions respondents as processing and responding to information
defensively, accepting and seeking out confirming information, while ignoring,
discrediting the source of, or arguing against the substance of contrary information
(DiMaggio 1997; Kunda 1990; Lodge and Tabor 2000). Motivated reasoning is
a descendant of the social psychological theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger
and Carlsmith 1959; Kunda 1990), which posits an unconscious impulse to
relieve cognitive tension when a respondent is presented with information that
contradicts preexisting beliefs or preferences. Recent literature on motivated
reasoning builds on cognitive dissonance theory to explain how citizens relieve
cognitive dissonance: they avoid inconsistency, ignore challenging information
altogether, discredit the information source, or argue substantively against the
challenge (Jobe, Tourangeau, and Smith 1993; Lodge and Taber 2000; Westen
et al. 2006). The process of substantive counterarguing is especially consequential,
as the cognitive exercise of generating counterarguments often has the ironic
effect of solidifying and strengthening the original opinion leading to entrenched,
polarized attitudes (Kunda 1990; Lodge and Taber 2000; Sunstein 2000; Lodge and
Taber 2000). This confirmation bias means that people value evidence that confirms
their previously held beliefs more highly than evidence that contradicts them,
regardless of the source (DiMaggio 1997; Nickerson 1998, Wason 1968).

~snip~

We chose to focus on Republican partisans because of the well-documented
partisan difference in the perception of the validity of this link. We assumed
that Democratic partisans would not have a strong desire to defend the Bush
administration on this issue, thus severely reducing the variation we would
capture in responses. Our choice of subjects means that we are investigating how
partisanship produces and reinforces political (mis)information. Our choice of
subjects should not be taken to imply that the processes we are examining here
are particular to conservatives: we expect that, had we conducted this study in
the late 1990s, we would have found a high degree of motivated reasoning
regarding the behavior of President Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal.
Previous research on motivated reasoning has found it among respondents of all
classes, ages, races, genders, and affiliations (see Lodge and Tabor 2000).

~snip~

Another respondent takes this argument a step further by speculating that
the president must know things the rest of us do not:

I think the best thing you can do with this is to hope that the president has enough information
to do the right thing. And then you need to trust him to do that and as part of the country you
need to support that. . . . I mean, you may make the comment of saying, “Well, boy I wish
they wouldn’t have done that because it just doesn’t seem like from our point of view that that
was the right thing to do.” But on the other hand you gotta realize that maybe they know more
than what we do about what’s really going on. Now granted, they clearly said that they don’t
think there was any link between those two, but that’s not to say that maybe it wasn’t the same
problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 04:05 PM

52. Sometimes, when I get disillusioned with the Dem party, I think back to these things.

Thanks for the reminder.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 04:13 PM

53. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, WilliamPitt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 04:56 PM

54. Quite a list of liars

These liars are still around, promoting their expertise for the next bullshit war that can be sold to the American people. Think Iran. They will continue to stir the fear of nuclear war and potential dirty bombs in order to create the paranoia amongst the America people of immenent danger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 05:18 PM

56. re reading that makes me as sick as

it made me in 2003.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 05:47 PM

57. It's nauseating to read these--as it was to hear them originally. K&R for justice needed!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 05:56 PM

58. That last quote from Fleischer makes me dizzy - every time I see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 05:59 PM

59. Some democrats deserve to be on that list as well.

 

What do you think of Clinton's 8 year devastation on Iraq before his good friend George Junior closed the deal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 06:08 PM

60. Yes, but moving forward...

That should have been our clue that they got away with it, when all the democrats including the president started using that phrase...and they still use it today.
They are telling us that they have no intentions of doing anything about it at all, and will ignore anyone that brings it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 06:14 PM

61. Lies to the east, west, south and north somewhat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to montanto (Reply #61)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 02:16 AM

70. !

Yep..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 06:14 PM

62. You were way ahead of the curve, but here's a collection of 237 misleading statements about Iraq

Rep. Henry Waxman (CA-33) released a report of the U.S. House of Representatives (16 March 2004) that identifies 237 misleading statements about Iraq made by President George Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in 125 public appearances.


http://www.cs.cornell.edu/gries/howbushoperates/pdf_admin_iraq.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 09:06 PM

64. Thank the Great Spirits.....! For YOUR POST!

K&R...

I'm finally outta here for the night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:17 PM

65. Uh oh. Looking back. Tsk Tsk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:24 AM

66. The lies that they told!

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 12:43 AM

67. Syria may have used chemical weapons...

new decade, time for a new war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 01:32 AM

69. Just like in the movies...

"Wag the Dog" in particular...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 05:16 AM

71. kr

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 07:46 AM

73. And Not A Fucking Thing Happened To Them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 07:55 AM

74. Let's not forget the rewrite from "he's hiding WMDs from inspectors" to...

..."he wouldn't allow inspections".

Don't have the date handy, but it was right around the time they had to backhandedly acknowledge that he didn't have anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 08:14 AM

75. Yet many on the left have a love affair with Powell

I cannot understand it.

All those involved are War Criminals.

Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 08:42 AM

76. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 20, 2013, 09:09 AM

77. Will, why did you only quote the repugs?

 

Sadly, many Democrats could share in this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread