Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

DSM hearings, Marcy Kaptur's request, and war games

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
kittenpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 08:41 AM
Original message
DSM hearings, Marcy Kaptur's request, and war games
Edited on Sat Jun-18-05 08:45 AM by kittenpants
During the hearings, Marcy Kaptur asked us to look for any military exercises, deployments, projects in 2000-2002 that may indicate that the administration had already decided to go to war with Iraq.

She requested specifically for us to look at national guard and reserves at the state level. Ms. Kaptur is a representative from OH, so maybe she knows something and is trying to give us a clue.

Here's an article brought up by Salin yesterday about the US vs. Iraq wargames that were held right around the time the DSM were created.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,787018,00.h...

Let's go to work DU!!!
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Justice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. no article attached
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. see the link on the thread on post 7
that should work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #9
19. oops I didn't link the original thread or article... here it is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
2. UNITED STATES ARMS SALES TO IRAQ:
Edited on Sat Jun-18-05 08:57 AM by seemslikeadream
Not exactly what you've asked for but this is extremely interesting and needs more exposure

from this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

UNITED STATES ARMS SALES TO IRAQ:
EXCERPTS OF RECENT CBS `60 MINUTES' BROADCAST

(House of Representatives - January 31, 1991)


The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Owens of Utah). Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. MOODY. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, January 20, the CBS television network program `60 Minutes' broadcast an extraordinary interview with an international arms dealer, Sarkis Soghanalian, who lives in Miami. I am placing in the Record a transcript of key excerpts from that interview.

The revelations and allegations made by Mr. Soghanalian are, and must be, extremely disturbing to every American. They are disturbing to Mr. Soghanalian. He gives a first-hand description of official and unofficial American involvement in the enormous buildup of arms to Saddam Hussein. Much of this buildup occurred after the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988. He gives chilling accounts of the cozy relationship among high past and present U.S. Government officials who permitted, and in some cases, actually assisted his sales of many of the lethal weapons Saddam Hussein is now using to bring death to American military personnel and civilians throughout the Middle East region.

I congratulate the staff of `60 Minutes' for bringing this explosive matter to the attention of the American public. Executive producer Don Hewitt, producer Lowell Bergman, and on-air reporter Steve Kroft have raised profound questions in this piece that demand further investigation.

Mr. Speaker, last week, after his interview on `60 Minutes' I traveled to Miami to spend a day with Mr. Soghanalian exploring in greater detail many of the issues he touched on in the TV broadcast. At a later time I will share some of these items with the Congress. At this time, I can only say to my colleagues that the outline contained in the following excerpts from the `60 Minutes' broadcast only scratches the surface of where and how the dictator Saddam Hussein acquired the deadly weapons he is now using against American and allied soldiers in the gulf war.

If our fears of a protracted ground war in Iraq are borne out--and I hope they won't be--hundreds and perhaps thousands of American soldiers will be wounded or killed by weapons our own Government helped Saddam Hussein acquire. Toward the end of this excerpted interview Mr. Soghanalian discusses the weaponry he has sold Iraq with the direct involvement and cooperation of various U.S. Government agencies.

Mr. Speaker, this matter calls out for further investigation.

Mr. Soghanalian is to be commended for his openness and his willingness to bring out into the open this most disturbing issue of the U.S. Government's role in arming Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the transcript of the `60 Minutes' interview.





The Man Who Armed Iraq

Kroft. Sarkis Soghanalian is the arms dealer who armed Iraq. During the war between Iraq and Iran, despite a worldwide embargo, Sarkis sold billions in arms to Saddam Hussein.

This Lebanese Armenian has made a career out of breaking international embargoes--supplying arms to countries and groups with whom the United States in particular--did not want to be seen with in public.

Filling that niche made him rich. And supplying Iraq made him during the 1980s the largest private arms dealer in the world.

As you would imagine, Sarkis's intimate relationship with Iraq's military gives him unique insight into their strategy. For a couple of days earlier this week, he talked with us about the arms he sold to Saddam Hussein and gave us what his assessment of what might be in store for our own troops.

Sarkis. Iraqi troops will never surrender to foreign troops. If they use Egyptians on a front line, you know, for psychological reason, maybe Iraqi soldier will say, I am surrendering to another brother, but to surrender to a foreign troop like Germans or French or American, they don't . . . they will fight to their last bullet.

Kroft. Sarkis Soghanalian not only provided weapons to Iraq, he inspected the front lines regularly during the war with Iran, checked out captured equipment, even helped develop Iraq's military strategy. The day before the war began, Sarkis told us in his Miami office that Iraq would, in fact, put up little or no resistance to U.S. air power. But his predictions about a ground war that is almost sure to follow are not so rosy.

Sarkis. The United States is facing hard core, tough battlefield trained ground forces.

Kroft. It's not going to be like Grenada?

Sarkis. No. Grenada was a vacation. Panama was the same way. This is not Panama, this is not Grenada. And you're fighting a different kind of people.

Kroft. What do you mean . . . ?

Sarkis. Well, Iraqi soldiers can go into the desert, into sand, and sit for two, three days. They don't need no heavy arms. They don't need no distilled water, no bottled water, you know. They can get milk out of a camel and survive, but they will dig in and wait for us to come in.

Kroft. Sarkis thinks the real battle will come when allied troops try to push the Iraqis out of populated areas like Kuwait City.

Sarkis. How we gonna kick those guys out of the houses? It's
gonna be like Berlin, wall to wall, and room to room . . . they will try to cause as much personal casualties as they can in order to embarrass our leaders here. That's their tactic. This is what's gonna be concentrated on. And Air Force superiority electronics-wise, maybe they jam all their equipment, that's . . . they don't care about that. But the major aim is how much casualty they can cause. . . . The equipment is advanced equipment, but it is not for this war. You are not fighting in a climate like European climate, your fighting heat, rain, dust. It won't work.

Kroft. Sarkis says the equipment he sold to Iraq has been customized to withstand the heat and sand and dust of the Middle East. He says Iraq's military hardware may be more reliable.

Sarkis. Because it's not electronic . . . it's conventional weapons. Just like their tanks. They don't have air conditioning, no stabilizer, no nothing. They just, you know, the old-fashioned conventional thing. They dig a hole, they circle a couple of times, they make a hole. They sit there like a sniper and wait for the enemy to come in. And they have artillery superiority.

Kroft. You sold the Iraqis quite a bit of artillery, French artillery . . . the 155 Howitzer . . self propelled?

Sarkis. Yes.

Kroft. Why is it superior to anything the United States has?

Sarkis. We do not have the same range as this vehicle . . . this gun has. It's modified to 42 kilometers <25 miles>. What do we have in the field to match this gun?

Kroft. The Iraqis have a 20 kilometer <12 mile> advantage in terms of artillery range.

Sarkis. Yeah. They can fight from a distance.

Kroft. And Sarkis says that the French artillery pieces he sold to Iraq, over one hundred of them, are backed by thousands of specially modified Soviet long-range cannons, as well as advanced artillery purchased from South Africa by way of Austria. Sarkis used Austria as a middle man to get around U.N. sanctions against South Africa. A lot of different people had their hands in this, one way or another.

Sarkis. Oh, yeah the . . . the . . . war game.

Kroft. What do you mean the war game?

Sarkis. Well, some people lose blood, some people make money. That's why I don't want to get involved in this war. I don't want to make money on . . .

Kroft. You're already involved in this war, aren't you?

Sarkis. Well, I don't look at it that way.

Kroft. A lot of that equipment that's facing the United States right now was sold to the Iraqis by you, Sarkis.

Sarkis. Yeah, but I didn't sell it eight years ago to fight ourselves today. That was sold to fight Khomeini. And we were against Khomeini. U.S. had hostages there, and I said, I'll go ahead and take my share in it.

Kroft. So you sold the weapons to the Iraqis to fight the. . .

Sarkis. Khomeinis . . . not to fight the, you know, Americans.

Kroft. Right. Because that would be best for America . . . and best maybe for Sarkis.

Sarkis. Well, you get compensated sometimes. There's nothing wrong with that. And if Sarkis wouldn't do it, somebody else would do it.

Kroft. And other arms dealers and countries did. Brazil provided thousands of armored vehicles. China and the Soviet Union sent tanks, missiles and munitions. German companies sold Saddam poison gas technology, and France, not only approved the sale of artillery to Iraq, but armed helicopters and antiaircraft missile systems.

This Chilean arms manufacturer sold Saddam deadly cluster bombs--reportedly with technical assistance from U.S. companies, and the United States allowed American computer technology to go to Iraq as well. It allowed Sarkis to sell Hughes and Bell helicopters. The U.S. government approved the sale after Iraq promised that they would only be used for civilian purposes. Sarkis told us that the helicopters were used as transportation during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Sarkis. I did it with the knowledge of U.S. authorities, policy makers--and also they have delivered weapons that are equally weapons as I did. I do not have anything on my conscience. I did not sell the weapons to kill the American boys.

Kroft. Which agencies of the U.S. government knew about Sarkis and his deals with Iraq? Well, according to Sarkis, almost all of them. And federal court documents show that Sarkis Soghanalian had a relationship with U.S. intelligence agencies for decades, and has performed work on their behalf.

Not all of Sarkis's deals with Iraq involve weapons. He arranged the sale of $280 million in uniforms to the Iraqi army. And Sarkis's partners in the deal included former Vice President Spiro Agnew, a former Attorney General, Colonel Jack Brennan.

The partners used their influence to get ex-President Nixon to provide them with these letters of introduction to heads of state around the world.

Do you think there was anything unusual about a former Vice President and a former Attorney General and a former Chief of Staff for the President of the United Stateas to want to be selling military uniforms to the Iraqis?

Sarkis. They were not only in the uniform business. They would sell their mothers if they could, just to make the money.

Kroft. Some of his partners in that deal aren't talking to him
at all today. They're in court suing Sarkis over the multimillion dollar commissions they say he hasn't paid them

... Are you a Merchant of Death? You are an arms salesman.

Sarkis. No. I am a coordinator of industries that produce arms. But I am not a salesman. I don't carry no bag. I don't carry no catalogue in my pocket to sell arms to anybody.

Kroft. Why did this international arms dealer --who is currently under federal indictment in Miami--decide to talk with us? Well, Sarkis says this is one war he doesn't want any part of.

Sarkis. No, this war stinks. It's not to anybody's advantage. I don't know who's advising who. This is a dirty war for us. What are we gonna do with Kuwait? We lose so many men, and next spring the Emir of Kuwait is sitting in Monaco, in Monte Carlo, happy with European girls. I'd fight for anybody that I have faith in. ... The man has 80 wives. Which one can he love, you know, if he's raising a family or a country? What do you owe the Emir of Kuwait? Why? For all this much sacrifice, or for prestige?

Kroft. Which do you think?

Sarkis. I think it's for ego, somebody's ego. ...

Kroft. You don't think it's worth committing a half a million American troops to ...

Sarkis. Hell no. ... go to die for this garbage war, no way, not me. I obey my country. I obey my President. He's a lovely man. He's a good man. He's, ah, intelligent person, but how he's making this decision, I don't know.

Kroft. And Sarkis Soghanalian made a decision too. He says Iraq has approached him about breaking the current embargo and selling them more arms. He says he's not running their phone calls.

Sarkis. It against my principle ... to go against U.S. policy. I'm staying away 100 percent now because I don't want to supply them with nothing. No spare parts or nothing. No vehicles, no shoes, no clothes, no nothing because they will support the enemy of today. A friend of yesterday is an enemy of today.




... Kroft. And tomorrow?

Sarkis. Who knows? Maybe a friend again.

Kroft . For the last three years Sarkis Soghanalian has been under a federal indictment for--among other things--conspiring to sell 300 American-built Hughes combat helicopters to Iraq.

The case has been stalled largely because U.S. intelligence agencies have been reluctant to turn over classified files that Sarkis says he needs to conduct his defense.

END

SOURCE:

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/C231.html




Here's a more contemporary interview, for those who think history is way in the past.




Trento: 1. How do we determine if the US intelligence community is successful? They have not located bin Laden.

Soghanalian: Laughter. It depends. In the 1980s the old Bush loved Saddam. I brought his friends to Iraq on my planes. He defeated Iran on behalf of the United States and Saudi Arabia. The cost was extremely high in the number of dead for Iraq and Iran. So I guess that was a success for the CIA. Then he asked the US to help him with a dispute with Kuwait. The Americans refused and he decided we had betrayed him. Because the CIA not read him correctly that was a failure.

Trento: Has this undermined the public and Presidents confidence?

Soghanalian: What confidence? Bush believes anything the CIA tells him. The public the Americans dont really know. When Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center a second time and the CIA missed it, that should have undermined the public and Presidents confidence. Americans forgive big mistakes.

Trento: 2. President Bush stated flatly that Saddam has connections to Al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence community has failed to back him up on either assertion. Did the President overreach or are the intelligence organs being too cautious?

Soghanalian: Al Qaeda hates someone like Saddam. Saddam has no serious religious interests. Saudi Arabia, Quatar, all Americas so-called friends have more ties to Al Qaeda then Saddam. AlQaeda scares people, so if you say Saddam is Al Qaeda it will scare people. Thats why Bush is doing it.

Trento: 3. Numerous articles have said that Saudi Arabia is responsible for funding Al Qaeda through various Islamic charities and front groups. Should the intelligence community have known this before 9/11 and should the administration have acted upon it?

Soghanalian: The Saudis and the CIA turned the Islamic fundamentalists into a major force. So the CIA knew. They moved the money through Saudi banks and through BCCI and Pakistan. The US went along because it helped get weapons to the anti Soviet forces. They were never going to stop there friends because it would expose those in the CIA who played a role, including Bushs father.

CONTINUED...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightningFlash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
3. Can we get to the congressional record testimony?
It was said in front of congress how the administration was going to war with Iraq. Bush testified directly on going to war as a last resort. Heard Springer screaming his head off about having the recording taped of that.

Anyone know where to get the record? Copy all those words and statements into a text file, and hold it on multiple mirror websites.

We can do this easily, lets get to it. But can anyone phone Springer or mail him and find out what he means by a "TAPE"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moochy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yes, you can get to the congressional record!
Edited on Sat Jun-18-05 09:18 AM by Moochy
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html

Congressional Record: Main Page
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
4. The No Child Left Behind Act - military recruiters can go to high schools.
That to me indicats there was war on the horizon. PNAC for sure. Maybe if she could get a copy of the minutes for the energy meeting with Cheney. Getting rid of Bastini (not sure of the spelling) - the head of the international chemical orginazation. * was making sure Iraq wouldn't join.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moochy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
6. Would you like to play a game?
Edited on Sat Jun-18-05 09:22 AM by Moochy
Wargames? how about wargames on 911? If you want to start knocking over their house of cards. The lies on iraq, wmd etc etc etc etc. then you might also look into the wargames that were being conducted on 911. A Perfect storm indeed. A new pearl harbor.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
7. I added news items to the original
thread - references that could be chased down.

I have a very good memory for news and an odd ability to generally be able to tag a pretty close time line to when the item came out (some sort of relational memory capacity... ala this happened before or after that... and that happened in spring/fall/of year x...)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
8. Sometime between Jan 2002 and the "firing" of Shishenski (sp)
there was a news item about a very odd announcement per the future retirement of one of the heads of one of the services. This was the first visible Pentagon purge. At the time it was not referred to as such - but it was noted (in the NYT or the WaPo, can't recall) as highly unusual - as it then referred to a time line (18 months or so) of the retirement or changing over of at least two other heads of two other services (I think the top position - maybe one position below)... the impression that these are usually announced closer to the retirement and the speculation was that such an early announcement would either speed up the actual retirement (and ability to replace by hand picking) or render to person fairly impotent in their position ... ala they will be leaving soon.

I have tried several times to find the article via google - but don't know the names so I can't find it - and using words like purge don't work - becuase at the time it wasn't viewed as a series of purging in the pentagon was in the making so the words weren't used... and there have been several purges since then and all of those more recent rounds are what get called up. However someone with access to Lexis Nexis could find who was in the top positions back in about Jan of 2002 - and then look for articles about the announcement of their retirements... and could probably find the story - which the relevance of the story is much more clear today rather than it just being commented upon as "highly unusual" at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #8
21. Gen Myers suggests its time to shift focus of operations in Afghanistan
from military operations to reconstruction: http://www.dalefranks.com/2002_11_03_thereview_archive....

scroll down to 'Trouble in Afghanistan'.

Nov 2002.

Put that in the timeline that compares Afghanistan efforts and the buildup timeline in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
10. Remeber when the CIA couldn't find anything so * started an intelligenct
agency in the Pentagon to go out and find stuff out. Even they couldn't find anything at first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. The Stove Piping
Seymour Hirsh had a great article on this in the New Yorker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kittenpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. anyone know, was that the OSP (Office of Special Plans)?
I'm sure there plans were veeerrry special indeed! thanks everyone!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Karen Kiatowski has written some great items
per her time in the OSP. Her writing since the DSM surfaced was great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
14. And the taking of Afghanistan funds to plan for the Iraq invasion
without permission from congress. Impeachable right there.

So many lies. So many illegalities. So many decades they should be in prision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Look to the timing of the Fall of the Taliban
and news items refering to the troop build up in the Gulf (starts around the same time)...

add to that the Brit (and French) request via the UN for more troops in Kandahar for more peace keeping efforts and the refusal of the US to do anything beyond Kabul and a few raids here and there on suspected taliban and al qeada hold outs.

put that together with the timeline of when resources were being devoted to Iraq. Then search to when Fieth et al got into place to start cooking intelligence per OSP per Iraq - and place that in the timeline.

It would be easy to create a timeline that demonstrates that the moves towards Iraq had a direct impact on our pursuit for stability and the total disruption of the al qeada network. Thus making a clear graphic demonstration - based on verifiable news stories that demonstrate that while Bushjr was pushing the rhetoric that a war in Iraq would be an extension of the war on terror - that instead the invasion in Iraq slowed down and harmed the "war on terror" efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kittenpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
15. Great stuff so far... here's a link to kaptur's contact info
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Send her a link to this thread
several leads to follow up that might be of interest/help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kittenpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. thanks, salin, will do!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tommymac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #17
40. I sent it to her too. The more the merrier :) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightningFlash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
20. This takes too long, can someone look this up?
Here in the official congressional index--

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html

Can someone look up the March 2003 (or I think 2002) statement by the President and secretaries, stating that they would ONLY go to war as a last resort and that it was time to disarm Saddom Hussein?

This has got to be posted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kittykitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
22. She represents Toledo, OH, and the Toledo Blade has run some
prize winning exposes on the war. Maybe together they can get some info out--for what it's worth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kittenpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. and coingate is going on up there too.
The Blade is doing a great job covering that and Kaptur has always been one of the few Ohio Dems with a spine (along with Kucinich)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
24. Here's some of my bookmarks from OLD DU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/du...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/15/french.list/i...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/du...

US rebuffs second Iraq offer on arms inspection

US rebuffs second Iraq offer on arms inspection
By Anthony Shadid, Globe Staff, 8/6/2002

WASHINGTON - The Iraqi government invited members of Congress and experts of their choice yesterday to search sites in Iraq where the US suspects weapons of mass destruction are hidden, an overture that was quickly dismissed by US officials as a stalling tactic.

The offer is the second time in a week that Iraq has invited outsiders to visit the country to discuss weapons inspections, a sign that Baghdad may be growing more worried about the prospect of a US strike to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Last week, his government invited Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, for technical talks in Baghdad that could lead to resumption of inspections, which ended in December 1998.

At the UN, Secretary General Kofi Annan said he would write to Iraq today asking for clarification of the initial invitation before deciding on it.

Annan, following a lunch with members of the UN Security Council, said he was not rejecting the invitation, the first of its kind since the inspectors' departure. But he said ''clarifications'' are needed, among them making sure the Iraqis ''understand the requirements of the Council,'' including the return of inspectors. ''If Iraq is open to that sort of thing,'' Annan said, ''there are practical bases for moving forward.''

--------snip

Senator Joseph R. Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called Baghdad's latest invitation to Congressional members part of Iraq's ''stalling tactics.''

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/du...

AND AS FOR MOTIVE...

Bush Hails Outsourcing...Rep Kaptor should look at just how many positions were outsourced to Bush donors prior to the run up to war:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/du...


LOTS OF BUSH LIES LINKS HERE:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/du...

WAR GAMES RIGGED TO MAKE RUMMY LOOK BETTER:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/du...

Good timeline here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/du...

Old New Yorker article here..How it Came to War

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. going down the list - starting with the rebuff of arms inspectors
tie that to the revelations in the Bolton hearings about his flying to Europe to push the issue of getting Bustani fired. TheWashingtonNote had coverage of this within the last couple of weeks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Hailing military outsourcing in 2002
head's up to a great story/find by our greatly missed Keph...

Look to timing with that - look to timing of Halliburton's contracts. When did they get their first no bid contract(s)? How much of what is described in that article might have ended up in Haliburton's hands?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. great compilation of bushlies (compiled on the eve of the invasion)
using mainstream media links. This is what the media means when some say - DSM No News... because info was out there - just buried deep in little items - and spread across different media outlets so that not put together as a single story... meanwhile the same media kept airing bushco.s lines as the headlines (think: Judith Miller)

I highly recommend that all read that link (scroll down in NSMA's list to Bush Lies).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tommymac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
25. Some links to start with...may need to separate the chaff.
Edited on Sat Jun-18-05 12:13 PM by Tommymac
Here are a few links I have researched about deployments in the Kuwait region in 2001/2002. Some are incidental evidence, i.e. sites about alumni, personal stories, etc. Im sure there is chaff here, but its a start. Ill try and do more as I have time.

Note: Each link is followed by an excerpt from the page relating to Military deployments in 2001, 2002 and early 2003.


http://www.uscg.mil/hq/reserve/magazine/mag2001/Feb2001...

Deployment Update: More reservists head to Middle East
PORT CLINTON, Ohio Approximately 20 more Coast Guard Reservists deployed to the Middle East in late January. They are part of a second wave of Coast Guardsmen from PSUs 309 and 307 deployed to the region.
<snip>
The first group of 37 reservists attached to PSU 309 deployed Dec. 13 (see January 2001 Reservist). Detachment Blue was called up in mid-December to bolster the U.S. military presence in the region after the October bombing of the USS Cole in a Yemen port. They are providing waterborne and shore security for U.S. and allied ships as part of a joint U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard port security operation called Operation Southern Watch.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/desert_sprin...

Desert Spring
Operation Desert Spring is part of an on-going operation in Kuwait that was established following Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield. Its mission is to maintain a forward presence and provide control and force protection over Army forces in Kuwait
<snip>
About 2,000 soldiers from the 1st Cavalry Division from Fort Hood, Texas, headed to Kuwait to help reinforce US troops already on the ground and keep Saddam Hussein from trying to take advantage of the US engagement in Afghanistan.
<snip>
This was not a routine scheduled deployment for the 1st Cavalry. Instead, the 1st Cavalry's mission is to augment the troops already in Kuwait. It's a little robust deterrence to prevent the Iraqi dictator from moving his troops to threatening Kuwait. The stated mission of Desert Spring is to increase military cooperation and understanding between two friendly allies. <snip>Located 20 miles west of Kuwait City, Camp Doha is the Army's main logistics base in Kuwait, as well as serving as the Army's forward presence in the Middle East. Camp Doha has a working population of more than 2,000 civilian and military personnel.
<snip>
About 35 members of a Wisconsin Army National Guard unit deployed in January 2002 for a four-month mission in the Middle East. The guardsmen from the 1st Battalion, 147th Aviation, were ordered to active duty for Operation Desert Spring in Kuwait.

http://www.mafhoum.com/press4/118P10.htm

This document presents CDI's estimate of U.S. forces now deployed to the Central Command area of operations and focused upon Iraq.
A number of deployments have been announced in recent days, including early deployment of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Constellation, which indicate increasing efforts to ready U.S. forces for war. It is quite probable that a war may be launched within the next three to six months. Currently, more than over 35,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are in the Persian Gulf area, and more are arriving.
There are continuing reports of clandestine U.S. and allied actions inside Iraq already. Most recently, on Oct. 25, it was reported by the Washington Times that the Central Intelligence Agency had established two field offices in the Kurdish controlled areas of Northern Iraq; while on Oct. 28 the London Sunday Times reported that Israeli Special Forces, Unit 262 or Sayeret Matkal, were hunting Scud missiles in western Iraq. This is the second report of such activity, with the London-based Foreign Report having alleged much the same story in a report widely cited by various news sources in early October.

http://www.west-central.k12.in.us/aforces.htm

Rodney was deployed to Kuwait on March 9, 2002 and fought on the Iraqi front-line the entire war.

http://wyoguard.state.wy.us/Air/2002OEFstats.htm

Wyoming Air National Guard
Fiscal Year 2002 Accomplishments

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Dec-27-Fri-...
Friday, December 27, 2002
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
Guard units to head overseas
Group of medics receives orders to go to Southwest Asia
By KEITH ROGERS
REVIEW-JOURNAL

Nevada soldiers from two Army National Guard units in the Reno area received mobilization orders Thursday for overseas deployment, joining a growing list of states that have activated National Guard and Reserve troops for the nation's war on terrorism.
<snip>
Without distraction from North Korea, Pike said the United States could be ready "to pull the trigger on Iraq in late January or early February."
"The only thing that will stop that is a military coup in Baghdad or war in North Korea," said Pike, who predicted a rapid buildup of U.S. troop deployments in the Persian Gulf region at the end of January followed by "a rapid war."


http://www.refusingtokill.net/USGulfWar2/reservistspays...
You're sort of like Batman in the Reserves," says Jesse Miller, 33, a San Francisco attorney and a company commander for the California Army National Guard. "You never know when the bat light is going to go off."
Miller was on his honeymoon in a remote part of Mexico when he learned of the Sept. 11 attacks. Anxious to learn if he was being called up, he scrambled to find a section of the beach with cell phone reception. His deployment came in January 2002, when he went to Kuwait for six months.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:wnl75zM1UcUJ:www.n...
Disher's unit, equivalent to the Army's military police, was called to active duty on Sept. 12, 2001, and he spent three months deployed in Bahrain in 2002.
Throughout the early part of his Kuwait deployment, it became apparent that the military was planning for war, judging by the number of people and amount of equipment moving through the base, Disher says. The base, which Disher is prohibited from naming, grew to the size of a small city as air strikes officially began in March.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/082102_deploy...

Deployments May Be Too Far Advanced to Stop Iraqi Invasion -- 250,000 U.S. Troops Either Already There or Ready to Go
Possible Battle Strategy: Easy Military Victory
That May Lead to a Global Uprising
by Michael C. Ruppert

Aug. 21, 2002, 13:00 PDT (FTW) -- It may be too late for President George W. Bush to change his mind on the invasion of Iraq

http://www.benedictine.edu/alumni.asp?pgID=902

Major Michael Huston '90 is currently assigned to V Corps for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Major Shawn Boos '89 is also deployed there. Boos serves with the 30th Medical Brigade in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Michael and Shawn met at Ramstein when both of their units were deploying to Kuwait in February 2002.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:-KAxOmtw7asJ:www.m...

In addition to fire support, Guard soldiers continued to perform federal missions relating to Homeland Security while conducting deployments to the Sinai Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Afghanistan

http://sdguard.ngb.army.mil/Features/Feature.asp?Story=...
Fifty-five members of Rapid Citys 155th Engineer Detachment deployed to Kuwait in July 2002 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Soldiers in the unit spent seven months providing construction support services at Camp Doha, Kuwait, which later became the main camp for all the troops entering Kuwait.
To their credit, members of the 155th completed a total of 1,100 work orders while in country. A sampling of the work included rebuilding latrine and laundry trailers, pouring over 140 yards of concrete for drainage upgrades, installing wiring and conduit, fabricating and installing 252 metal security grates for ammunition bunkers, and installing electrical and air conditioning to over 80 tents.

http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Military_Affairs/guard...

Guard MPs deployed to Saudi Arabia
Twenty National Guard soldiers from the Johnstown-based 28th MP Company
departed Mon., Aug. 12, for Saudi Arabia. After departing Johnstown, they traveled to
Fort Dix, N.J, for mobilization processing. The Guard members arrived in Saudi
Arabia late August. They were ordered to active duty for 270 days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. A great number of these refer to the time when we were, in theory
only battling in Afghanistan - gets back to the point that a) the build up was going on in a time fashion that supports the DSM contentions.... and b) was going in a way that depleted resources (man power, money, intelligence) AWAY from the war on terror.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tommymac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Seems that way to me too...
I found a lot more links, but had to stop for now....but the overall picture seems that the effort WAS divided almost from the getgo (late 2001).

I also have unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence from an acquaintance at the time ...they worked in the medical field - transported plasma were it was needed nationally. They told me in the summer of 2002 that we were going to war...Field hospitals and other medical infrastructures were being built all over the place in the Saudi/Iraq area...and their company was gathering info so it could ship large amounts of plasma where it was most needed. They told me if you want to know where we are going to be fighting next, just look where the hospitals are being built (usually 6 months to a year or more in advance)...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Now that you say this
pre Gulf War (the first) in the prior six months or so before the invasion - the main US Army hospital (Frankfort Germany) was being "cleared out" - that is all regular medical procedures were being moved to other army hospitals in europe in order to have beds and staff clear to handle potential troops that might be needing services after an invasion.

I would think there would be records to see if/when this started happening at that facility in the preceding period before the current gulf war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tommymac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Great insight
Edited on Sat Jun-18-05 02:06 PM by Tommymac
Perhaps Rep. Kaptur or someone here on DU has the resources to find this out from the Surgeon General or whoever is in charge of the Army's medical records division...

(As an aside, isn't doing this sort of thing what an investigative reporter is trained to do...well, where the hell are they?????? :sarcasm: )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
30. will this help???
in my files!!

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?sto...

No 10 admits Hutton cover-up
Posted Jul 16, 2004 06:57 PM PST
Downing Street admitted yesterday that MI6 embarked on an unprecedented cover-up after it withdrew intelligence supporting the Government's dossier on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction because it was unreliable.


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?sto...

The Damning Evidence
Posted Jul 16, 2004 10:15 AM PST
Revealed: Government witnesses knew September dossier was unsafe - but did not tell Hutton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. BLAIR KNEW DOSSIER SOURCE UNPROVEN
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=144313...

16 July 2004
BLAIR KNEW DOSSIER SOURCE UNPROVEN

16 July 2004
BLAIR KNEW DOSSIER SOURCE UNPROVEN
By Bob Roberts Deputy Political Editor
TONY Blair was warned two weeks before publication of the Iraq dossier that the intelligence was dodgy, it emerged last night.


In a personal meeting with the PM, the head of MI6 Sir Richard Dearlove admitted one of the key sources on Saddam's chemical weapons was "on trial".


He told the PM "the source remains unproven". But just 14 days later Mr Blair declared in the forward of the dossier that the chemical weapons intelligence was "beyond doubt".


The revelation comes as pressure grows for heads to roll over the Butler Report.


Former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said it had exposed "one of the greatest failures in British intelligence ever". And ex-Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith said the new head of MI6 John Scarlett must go as he produced the dossier.


No 10 accepted there were lessons to be learned from the report. Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "Obviously there are implications within the Butler Report which we will have to reflect on. We will do so, but do so in a considered way."


But Commons Leader Peter Hain told MPs that in the course of four inquiries "1,056 pages and 500,000 words have been spent analysing the matter and none of the charges that have been made by any of the critics of the Prime Minister or the Government have been sustained".


Meanwhile, Mr Blair was last night facing a stiff test at the polls. Labour-held Birmingham Hodge Hill and Leicester South were contested.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. going through my files..
and alot of this is very out of publication/..so mods..i need to post whole article as there is no way to pull up these articles now!

"Woodward says Bush pulled Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld aside Nov. 21, 2001 when U.S. forces and allies were in control of about half of Afghanistan and asked him what kind of war plan he had on Iraq. When Rumsfeld said it was outdated, Bush told him to get started on a fresh one. "

AP: Book Alleges Secret Iraq War Plan
9 minutes ago

By CALVIN WOODWARD and SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) secretly ordered a war plan drawn up against Iraq (news - web sites) less than two months after U.S. forces attacked Afghanistan (news - web sites) and was so worried the decision would cause a furor he did not tell everyone on his national security team, says a new book on his Iraq policy.




Bush feared that if news got out about the Iraq plan as U.S. forces were fighting another conflict, people would think he was too eager for war, journalist Bob Woodward writes in "Plan of Attack," a behind-the-scenes account of the 16 months leading to the Iraq invasion.


The Associated Press obtained a copy of the book, which will be available in book stores next week.


"I knew what would happen if people thought we were developing a potential war plan for Iraq," Bush is quoted as telling Woodward. "It was such a high-stakes moment and ... it would look like that I was anxious to go to war. And I'm not anxious to go to war."


Bush and his aides have denied accusations they were preoccupied with Iraq at the cost of paying attention to the al-Qaida terrorist threat before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. A commission investigating the attacks just concluded several weeks of extraordinary public testimony from high-ranking government officials. One of them, former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, charged the Bush administration's determination to invade Iraq undermined the war on terror.


Woodward's account fleshes out the degree to which some members of the administration, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites), were focused on Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) from the onset of Bush's presidency and even after the terrorist attacks made the destruction of al-Qaida the top priority.


Woodward says Bush pulled Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld aside Nov. 21, 2001 when U.S. forces and allies were in control of about half of Afghanistan and asked him what kind of war plan he had on Iraq. When Rumsfeld said it was outdated, Bush told him to get started on a fresh one.


The book says Bush told Rumsfeld to keep quiet about it and when the defense secretary asked to bring CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet into the planning at some point, the president said not to do so yet.


Even Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), was apparently not fully briefed. Woodward said Bush told her that morning he was having Rumsfeld work on Iraq but did not give details.


In an interview two years later, Bush told Woodward that if the news had leaked, it would have caused "enormous international angst and domestic speculation."


The Bush administration's drive toward war with Iraq raised an international furor anyway, alienating long-time allies who did not believe the White House had made a sufficient case against Saddam. Saddam was toppled a year ago and taken into custody last December. But the central figure of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), remains at large and a threat to the west.


The book says Gen. Tommy Franks, who was in charge of the Afghan war as head of Central Command, uttered a string of obscenities when the Pentagon (news - web sites) told him to come up with an Iraq war plan in the midst of fighting another conflict.


Woodward, a Washington Post journalist who wrote an earlier book on Bush's anti-terrorism campaign and broke the Watergate scandal with Carl Bernstein, says Cheney's well-known hawkish attitudes on Iraq were frequently decisive in Bush's decision-making.


Cheney pressed the outgoing Clinton administration to brief Bush on the Iraq threat before he took office, Woodward writes.


In August 2002, when Bush talked publicly of being a patient man who would weigh Iraqi options carefully, the vice president took the administration's Iraq policy on a harder track in a speech declaring the weapons inspections ineffective. Cheney's speech was viewed as the beginning of a campaign to undermine or overthrow Saddam. Woodward said Bush let Cheney make the speech without asking what he would say.


The vice president also figured prominently in a protracted decision March 19, 2003, to strike Iraq before a 48-hour ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to leave the country had expired.


When the CIA and its Iraqi sources reported that Saddam's sons and other family members were at a small palace, and Saddam was on his way to join them, Bush's top advisers debated whether to strike ahead of plan.





Franks was against it, saying it was unfair to move before a deadline announced to the other side, the book says. Rumsfeld and Rice favored the early strike, and Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) leaned that way.

But Bush did not make his decision until he had cleared everyone out of the Oval Office except the vice president. "I think we ought to go for it," Cheney is quoted as saying. Bush did.

U.S. forces unleashed bombs and cruise missiles, blanketing the compound but missing the palace. Tenet called the White House before dawn to say the Iraqi leader had been killed. But his optimism was premature. Saddam was alive.

The 468-page book is published by Simon & Schuster. Woodward will be interviewed on CBS' "60 Minutes" Sunday night to promote the book.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Bush and Blair made secret pact for Iraq war
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,11854... .

snip:

Bush and Blair made secret pact for Iraq war

Decision came nine days after 9/11
Ex-ambassador reveals discussion

David Rose
Sunday April 4, 2004
The Observer

President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001.

According to Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, who was at the dinner, Blair told Bush he should not get distracted from the war on terror's initial goal - dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Bush, claims Meyer, replied by saying: 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.' Regime change was already US policy.

It was clear, Meyer says, 'that when we did come back to Iraq it wouldn't be to discuss smarter sanctions'. Elsewhere in his interview, Meyer says Blair always believed it was unlikely that Saddam would be removed from power or give up his weapons of mass destruction without a war.

Faced with this prospect of a further war, he adds, Blair 'said nothing to demur'.

Details of this extraordinary conversation will be published this week in a 25,000-word article on the path to war with Iraq in the May issue of the American magazine Vanity Fair. It provides new corroboration of the claims made last month in a book by Bush's former counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, that Bush was 'obsessed' with Iraq as his principal target after 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. The secret $700 million
again from my files...do not have link to story anylonger!


The secret $700 million
Did the Bush administration deceive Congress and use post-9/11 emergency funds to prepare for war on Iraq? Bob Woodward's new insider account raises some critical questions.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Cass R. Sunstein


April 22, 2004 | The most puzzling passage in Bob Woodward's new book, "Plan of Attack," deals with the allegedly covert expenditure of $700 million on preparatory tasks for the war in Iraq. Under the Constitution, the executive branch cannot spend taxpayer money without a congressional appropriation. The key question is whether Congress, explicitly or implicitly, authorized President Bush to spend $700 million for these purposes. The answer to that question is far from clear. But it is crucial to pose it, not only to evaluate what has happened in the last three years, but also to learn something about the relationship between Congress and the president in the modern era.

Here's what Woodward reports: In late July 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks informed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that to make the Iraq war feasible, at least two steps had to be taken in Kuwait. First, air bases there had to be made suitable for aircraft use, parking and munitions storage. Second, a new fuel distribution capability had to be created, enabling fuel to be moved from Kuwaiti refineries to the Iraqi border so as to support the coming invasion. Bush told Woodward that these activities were done covertly and at significant expense -- leading, in fact, to 30 projects that the president expressly approved by the end of July.

But how would they be funded? In Woodward's words, "Some of the funding would come from the supplemental appropriation bill being worked out in Congress for the Afghanistan war and the general war on terrorism. The rest would come from old appropriations."

What exactly does this mean? Begin with the "old appropriations." The most likely candidate is the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, passed on Sept. 14, 2001, a direct response to the 9/11 attacks that appropriated $40 billion for five enumerated purposes:

1) providing federal, state and local preparedness for mitigating and responding to the 9/11 attacks.
2) providing support to counter, investigate or prosecute domestic and international terrorism.
3) providing increased transportation security.
4) repairing public facilities and transportation systems damaged by the attacks.
5) supporting national security.

Of these, 1, 3 and 4 could not possibly include preparations for war in Iraq -- and 2 and 5 even seem a bit of a stretch. In fact, this emergency supplemental appropriation was universally understood as a complement to the very measure, enacted on the same day, that authorized the president to use force to respond to the 9/11 attack (and thus to wage war in Afghanistan).

The early draft of that authorization, proposed by the White House, would have given the president broad authority to "deter and prevent any related future acts of terrorism and aggression against the United States." It was soon narrowed to permit the president "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 Sept. 11 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."

In these circumstances, the emergency appropriation was mostly designed for domestic action that would amount to disaster recovery and strengthening internal preparedness -- an interpretation that finds support in a proviso saying that "not less than one half of the $40,000,000 shall be for disaster recovery activities and assistance related to the terrorist acts in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania."

Might anything in the Sept. 14 appropriation permit the president to devote many millions of dollars to war preparations for Iraq? It could be argued that the purpose of "promoting national security" or "providing support to counter, investigate or prosecute domestic or international terrorism" is broad enough to give the president this authority. But even this much is not entirely clear. With the words "promoting national security," Congress cannot plausibly have meant to give the president a blank check to prepare for hostilities wherever he chooses.

But let's suppose that these words are read very broadly. Even so, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act clearly states that the "President shall consult with the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on Appropriations prior to the transfer of these funds."

Did President Bush consult with those leaders before committing millions of dollars to preparations for the war in Iraq? If so, there might be no problem. But at this stage it is far from clear that such consultation occurred. And if not, then the Sept. 14 appropriation appears not, in fact, to give the president the authority to use funds in the way that Woodward suggests that he did. In any case, the act also requires the director of the Office of Management and Budget to "provide quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations on the use of these funds, beginning not later than January 2, 2002." Were such reports provided, and did they include the information that Woodward reports?

To some people, these problems might seem to be too technical and picky, maybe even a lawyer's quibble. If the president of the United States is sincerely trying to protect national security, and if a congressional appropriation can be read to permit him to do so, is it really terrible if he fails to consult with some legislators? But no mere quibble is involved. Under the Constitution, funds are appropriated by Congress, not the president. Even when national security is threatened, the president is constitutionally obliged to follow congressional restrictions on the expenditure of federal funds.

But maybe the president had another source for the funding. According to Woodward, the war preparations were partly funded "from the supplemental appropriation bill being worked out in Congress for the Afghanistan war and the general war on terrorism." This is apparently a reference to the appropriations act of Aug. 2, 2002 (which runs to well over 100 pages of dense text). But nothing in the Aug. 2 act unambiguously authorizes the $700 million expenditure. To be sure, one provision allows the secretary of defense to use up to $275 million "to meet other essential operational or readiness requirements of the military services." But even if fully available, this provision accounted for well under half of the $700 million reported by Woodward; and to use the money for that purpose, the law requires the secretary to notify the congressional defense committees. Did he?

Another provision of the 2002 appropriation permits the secretary of defense to use taxpayer dollars for "military construction projects ... that the Secretary of Defense determines are necessary to respond to or protect against acts or threatened acts of terrorism." But could all of the activities in Kuwait be justified as "military construction projects"? Could all of them be defended as "necessary" responses to "threatened acts of terrorism"? Even if the answer to both questions is yes, the secretary of defense would be obliged to give notice to the appropriate committees of Congress. Was notification given? It is not clear that it was.

At this point, we know too little to conclude that the White House violated the law. Perhaps Woodward misreported the facts. Perhaps some source of law can be found to justify what might otherwise appear to be a misuse of $700 million. The Department of Defense has recently insisted that it spent only $178 million, not $700 million, before Congress authorized the Iraq war. Apparently brushing aside the August 2002 appropriation, it contends that the use of $178 million was consistent with the Sept. 14, 2001, emergency appropriation and that it involved "non-Iraq specific items."

In testimony before Congress on Tuesday, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz added that $63 million was taken from the 2002 appropriation for "operational requirements not directly tied to Iraq."

These contentions, vague and conclusory as they seem, might ultimately be proved valid. But the underlying issues are extremely serious ones, and they deserve careful investigation. Perhaps the White House has a detailed explanation, on the facts and the law, that shows why any use of taxpayer funds was consistent with congressional enactments. But in the face of legitimate questions, such an explanation really needs to be offered. Its absence raises genuine problems both for democratic government and for the rule of law.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightningFlash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. So crazy I can't stand it....U.K. knew long before USA..
U.K. knew long before about all the deception and PNAC before the USA even did, except for the internet. That's just sad and revolting. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Bush Isn't Leveling
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6060.ht...

Bush Isn't Leveling

snip:

We still have not been leveled with about the weapons of mass destruction. It seems that George Bush himself was not impressed with what little intelligence was available as he constantly prodded CIA Director George Tenet to come up with more precise information. With the passage of each month it seems that more source's are coming to the fore and claiming that George Bush had designs on Iraq from the earliest days of his administration. Bob Woodward's book promises to add more fuel to that fire as well as some corroborating of previous authors.

Even while the Bush administration was making a case before the world they set in motion preparations that show they never intended on a diplomatic solution. Bob Woodward states in his forthcoming book "In the summer of 2002, Bush approved $700 million worth of 'preparatory tasks' in the Persian Gulf region such as upgrading airfields, bases, fuel pipelines and munitions storage depots to accommodate a massive US troop deployment. The Bush administration funded the projects from a supplemental appropriations bill for the war in Afghanistan and old appropriations, keeping Congress unaware of the reprogramming of money and the eventual cost."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. from the press conference, 31 Jan 2003
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm

Bush Flatly Declares No Connection Between
Saddam and al Qaeda

from the press conference, 31 Jan 2003

snips:

>>> During one of his rare press conferences, President Bush admitted something which completely contradicts what we've been hearing from him, most other politicians, and the mainstream media. Not surprisingly, the media have completely ignored this; I couldn't find a single article that mentions it in any news source, domestic or foreign.

The occasion was a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. Here's the key portion:


One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.



Under any circumstances, these answers are remarkable for their brevity and directness. No politician answers clearly and in just one sentence. Yet on this crucial matter, Bush and Blair did just that. (True, Blair then launched into his standard speech about how we need to attack Iraq anyway, but his direct answer is brief and to the point.)

What they unambiguously admitted is that there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden/al Qaeda. You may recall that bin Laden and al Qaeda are officially blamed for hatching, plotting, and carrying out the 9/11 attacks. That's who the British reporter was referring to. Now the President and Prime Minister have said there is no link between them and the government of Iraq. Could it be any simpler?


the entire transcript on the White House Website

Blair again says there is no Iraq regime/al Qaeda link

propaganda from 26 Sept 2002: "Making the Case: White House Says it Has Evidence of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties"


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tommymac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. The anectodal evidence seems to back this up
Here's what Woodward reports: In late July 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks informed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that to make the Iraq war feasible, at least two steps had to be taken in Kuwait. First, air bases there had to be made suitable for aircraft use, parking and munitions storage. Second, a new fuel distribution capability had to be created, enabling fuel to be moved from Kuwaiti refineries to the Iraqi border so as to support the coming invasion. Bush told Woodward that these activities were done covertly and at significant expense -- leading, in fact, to 30 projects that the president expressly approved by the end of July.


See my post #25 above, especially the section on the South Dakota NG
http://sdguard.ngb.army.mil/Features/Feature.asp?Story=...

I found several more instances of NG reports about troops doing construction in the area...I'll try to post them later this weekend or early next week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kittenpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
43. thank you everyone for all the great links & info!
I need to put some coffee on and go through all of this again. :yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tommymac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Welcome...anytime. :) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
45. Support Our Troops!
Support Marcy Kaptur!
:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brettdale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
46. Kick
Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brettdale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
47. kick
kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. good morning read...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
49. Great thread....Fascinating article.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 21st 2014, 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC