NO, the world DID NOT believe Saddam had "WMD".

[LynnTheDem]

gee, maybe the entire world said HELL NO to bush's war because they're all "Saddam-lovers". Or could it possibly be that unlike rightwingnuts, most the world is capable of researching, reading, comprehending, and remembering all the "no WMD" warnings from the experts?

Heh.

Rice;

On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer. Guest host John King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

Powell;

Press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt;

"We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

Powell;

15 May 2001, Powell testified before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee;

"The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful."
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

OCTOBER 8, 1997 – IAEA SAYS IRAQ FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
http://www.nci.org/i/iaea10-8-98.htm

Cheney;
SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 – CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED:
Vice President Dick Cheney said that "Saddam Hussein is bottled up"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html

SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS (about lack of "WMD") TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm

SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Pentagon/us-dod-iraqchemreport-060703.htm

SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS (aluminum tubes for conventional rockets, NOT nukes)

While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_01/003147.php

OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE

"The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa."
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/6362092.htm

OCTOBER 2002 — STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES

The State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. "The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons."

INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium.
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/pdf/Iraq/declassifiedintellreport.pdf

OCTOBER 2002 – AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE

"The government organization most knowledgeable about the United States' UAV program -- the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center -- had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons" – a WMD claim President Bush used in his October 7 speech on Iraqi WMD, just three days before the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force.
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=2755&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported

JANUARY, 2003 – STATE DEPT. INTEL BUREAU REITERATE WARNING TO POWELL

"The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the State Department's in-house analysis unit, and nuclear experts at the Department of Energy are understood to have explicitly warned Secretary of State Colin Powell during the preparation of his speech that the evidence was questionable. The Bureau reiterated to Mr. Powell during the preparation of his February speech that its analysts were not persuaded that the aluminum tubes the Administration was citing could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0729powell.htm

FEBRUARY 14, 2003 – UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un/

FEBRUARY 15, 2003 – IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE

FEBURARY 24, 2003 – CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ‘NO DIRECT EVIDENCE’ OF WMD
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3340723/

MARCH 7, 2003 – IAEA REITERATES TO WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/international/middleeast/07CND-IRAQ.html?ex=1119499200&en=6a5f4bf5d9cae3b5&ei=5070&ex=1075352400&en=35756793e3b71e73&ei=5070

Doubts, Dissent Stripped from Public Version of Iraq Assessment

The public version of the U.S. intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information and doubts about deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's intentions, a review of the document and its once-classified version shows.

As a result, the public was given a far more definitive assessment of Iraq's plans and capabilities than President Bush and other U.S. decision-makers received from their intelligence agencies.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0210-02.htm

CIA to Bush: 'No clear Evidence of WMD'
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/120103A.shtml

Why the CIA thinks Bush is wrong

The president says the US has to act now against Iraq. The trouble is, his own security services don't agree.
http://www.sundayherald.com/28384

CIA in blow to Bush attack plans

The letter also comes at a time when the CIA is competing with the more hawkish Pentagon, which is also supplying the White House with intelligence on the Iraqi threat.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,808970,00.html

White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat'
Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,807286,00.html

And that's just some of the dissent within the US...

[Oversea Visitor]

1. Time to link DSM to her CONFIRMATION HEARING

All that hard grilling by Senator Boxers and others. Many juicy answer there.

Oh my, How she lie
That little lice
We know as rice
If someone would put them
all together
Wont it be NICE??

[BikeWriter]

2. A classic post, Lynn. Bookmarked for posterity.

[EFerrari]

3. (Maybe she meant the world inside her pod?)

What a piece of work that woman is. :eyes:

Great post, Lynn.

[DistressedAmerican]

4. She Means "The World", You Know Everyone In The Cabinet!

Great post. Well researched as always. Nominating!

[sandnsea]

5. "warns White House"

Excellent set of links, thanks.

Not to dump everything on you, but we need a set of links that proves that many countries that did think Saddam had WMD based those thoughts on US intelligence.

[EFerrari]

6. Exactly. n/t

[LynnTheDem]

10. Easier way to do it; how come not a nation on this planet had

a population that supported bush's desire to attack Iraq?

Not the UK (average 65% opposed). Not Italy (average 90% opposed). Not Spain (average 85+% opposed).

Not Poland, although the Polish government agreed to join bush for, as Poland readily admitted, access to Iraq's oil.

Not Australia (average 75% opposed).

WHY?

Why did the vast majority of the world OPPOSE bush's invasion of Iraq; the invasion bush at the time said was necessary to prevent "MUSHROOM CLOUDS THERE IS NO DOUBT 45 MINUTES WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE THOUSANDS AND TONS NUKES YELLOWCAKE VX GAS CHEMICALS ANTHRAX TERRA TERRA TERRA DEATH"?

Chirac told Blix he didn't believe Iraq had any WMD.

Scott Ritter told the world he knew Iraq didn't have any WMD.

Ray McGovern told the world he didn't believe Iraq had WMD.

Every piece of bush & Co's "proof" of WMD was debunked by experts, before bush's war.

EVERY SINGLE PIECE.

The supposedly "slam-dunk" proof was Powell's UN speech; did ya see the stony faces on the members??? They didn't believe a word of it. Which is exactly what they said after Powell's UN speech. Other than the rightwingnuttery of course.

[sandnsea]

30. Because that's not true

But I think we've had this discussion, where I've provided you with the quotes of what those folks actually said, before.

[LynnTheDem]

31. What folks said what?

[Stockholm]

7. No the whole world did not believe that

and if they did, it was because powell stood up and lied to the world at his presentation at the UN.

Nominated!

[TWiley]

8. Wow, 50% have nominated your Post.

Thanks for your hard work. It always drives me nuts when the bushtapo claims that the "world believed Iraq had WMD" What a bunch of lying bastards !

[LynnTheDem]

12. Thanks, TWiley!

:hug:

[TWiley]

26. Kick

[Burried News]

9. Lady when they ticked you off they made a big mistake.

:hide:

[LynnTheDem]

11. My hubby is a US soldier. So is my currently Iraqmired nephew.

NOBODY but NOBODY lies MY FAMILY to war and gets away with their lies.

Not if I have any say in it.

[Burried News]

13. Two kids three Iraq Tours so far and counting.

Airforce F-15
Marines CH 46
Prefer not to divulge more.

[LynnTheDem]

15. Oy vey! PLEASE God/dess don't let them become known to me!

(I'm with the ICCC; NO ONE wants their loved ones to become known to me. I don't want anyone's loved ones to become known to me! 1728 too many already have. :( )

BEST of wishes for your kids' safety and well-being; I hope they're home soon! :HUG:

[cthrumatrix]

14. LYNN....the problem is our media's "search capability" expires after 24hrs

you must have the super advanced "google search" not available to the American media.

[LynnTheDem]

16. Well DUHHH me!

*smack*

Ouch.

:D

[LynnTheDem]

19. Some more bush lies debunked before his attack on Iraq

-"I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied - finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."

Bush speaking at a news conference Sept. 7 with Tony Blair

There never was, never has been, any such report. And even the Washington Times reported the fact there was no such report three weeks later.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-500715.htm

bush's fave strawman;

-"The risks of doing nothing, the risks of assuming the best from Saddam Hussein, it's just not a risk worth taking."

Cool...so who on the entire planet ever said we gotta either invade Iraq or DO NOTHING? Coz that would be the ONLY person on the planet dumber than bush.

I laughed my arse off over this little bushit;

-"Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahedeen' -- his nuclear holy warriors."

:rofl:

Hussein was and always has been secular. Nice try there tho bush at making Saddam = OBL = Fanatical Islam. And it worked for all freeping stupid rightwingnuts, they fell for that one hook, line and stinker.

Too bad none of them speak or read any language, coz if they did, one of them might have known that "mujahedeen" (like most English words) has more than one meaning. Hussein didn't say "nuclear mujahedeen" he said his "NUCLEAR ENERGY mujahedeen"...and "mujahedeen" also means anyone who struggles for a cause, in a non-combatant sense.

-"The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack."

Hmmm. Is this why AMERICA has them, bush?

"America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Cept it came in the form of a pile of stinking bushit. And a whole lot of dead bodies.

[cthrumatrix]

38. 'nuclear mujahedeen' -- darn .... I missed shrubby trying to pronounce

this multi-syllabic word....must of have been a hoot.

[LynnTheDem]

40. It was...and then when he called them "nuclear holy warriors" I really

fell about laughing.

He spun and twisted like mad to make an apple look like a pumkpin.

The level of pure intent to deceive is just breathtaking.

[mopaul]

17. she ain't foolin' nobody

but boy she sure tries, and oh so convincingly and earnestly,(oh and of course articulately). i've never seen anybody fake sincerity so well as her.

[H2O Man]

18. Very well done.

The administration's rush to war was an obvious effort to keep the UN inspectors from confirming that there was no evidence to support the Cheney administration's position.

[BlueEyedSon]

20. You rock! kick

:yourock:

[Coexist]

21. Now let's take a look at what the rest of the world was saying:

thank you for this - I want to scream every time I hear "but the whole world thought so too. Argh. And the liberal guests don't refute it - the just try a different tack. They need to get rid of that perception.

FRANCE AND RUSSIA CHECK IN:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0601-02.htm
<snip>
The British intelligence source said the best Humint on Saddam was held by the French who had agents in Iraq.

'French intelligence was telling us that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD program That's why France wanted a longer extension on the weapons inspections. The French, the Germans and the Russians all knew there were no weapons there -- and so did Blair and Bush as that's what the French told them directly. Blair ignored what the French told us and instead listened to the Americans.'

The debate on Iraqi WMD continues. For example, Russia was not convinced by either the September 24, 2002 British dossier or the October 4, 2002 CIA report. Lacking sufficient evidence, Russia dismissed the claims as a part of a "propaganda furor."2 Specifically targeting the CIA report, Putin said, "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another." He goes on to say, "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."3 However, Putin was apprehensive about the possibility that Iraq may have WMDs and he therefore supported inspections. The Russian ambassador to London thought that the dossier was a document of concern. "It is impressive, but not always…convincing."4

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html#back234
<SNIP>
"French intelligence services did not come up with the same alarming assessment of Iraq and WMD as did the Britain and the United States. "According to secret agents at the DGSE, Saddam's Iraq does not represent any kind of nuclear threat at this time…It contradicts the CIA's analysis…"5 French spies said that the Iraqi nuclear threat claimed by the United States was a "phony threat."6"

IN RE: CURVEBALL AND GERMAN INTELLIGENCE:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_03/003564.php
<snip>
....Only later, U.S. officials said, did the CIA learn that the defector was the brother of one of Chalabi's top aides, and begin to suspect that he might have been coached to provide false information. In part because of that, some U.S. intelligence officials and congressional investigators fear that the CIA may have inadvertently conjured up and then chased a phantom weapons system.

IN RE: SADDAM'S OWEN FAMILY ADMITTING TO WEAPONS http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9188.htm
<SNIP>
In the transcript of the interview, Kamel states categorically:

"I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed"
(p. 13).

Kamel specifically discussed the significance of anthrax, which he portrayed as the "main focus" of the biological programme (pp.7-8). Smidovich asked Kamel: "were weapons and agents destroyed?"

Kamel replied: "nothing remained".

He confirmed that destruction took place "after visits of inspection teams. You have important role in Iraq with this. You should not underestimate yourself. You are very effective in Iraq." (p.7)

Kamel added: "I made the decision to disclose everything so that Iraq could return to normal." (p.8)


WHAT'S THIS? DISSENT IN THE U.K.?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/pan3-f11.shtml
<SNIP>
"They also ignore the statements of Robin Cook, the former British foreign secretary who resigned on the eve of the war to protest Prime Minister Tony Blair’s war policy. Cook was quoted in the June 18, 2003 Guardian newspaper as saying: “I think it would be fair to say that there was a selection of evidence to support a conclusion. I fear we got into a position in which the intelligence was not being used to inform and shape policy, but to shape policy that was already settled.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/05/nwmd05.xml/
<SNIP>
Ibrahim al-Marashi, the US-based academic whose research was used without acknowledgment in a UK intelligence document in February, says Downing Street "plagiarised and manipulated" academic material by inflating figures and exaggerating Iraq's weapons capability.

Writing in The Telegraph today, Mr al-Marashi says Downing Street "borrowed" and significantly altered a phrase in which he said Iraqi intelligence was "aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes".

The dossier changed the wording to "supporting terrorist groups in hostile regimes".

Gee - the whole world agreed - there was no dissent.
Anyone else got any?

[Spazito]

22. You can add Canada's view to your list...

Chrétien restates opposition to Iraq war

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has revealed more reasons behind Canada's decision not to join the U.S. in a war against Iraq.

Chrétien told the House of Commons that the goal of disarming Saddam Hussein could have been achieved if Iraq was given a few more weeks to comply with UN weapons inspections. And the prime minister repeated that he's against the idea of forcing a regime change.

snip

"The diplomatic process was bringing positive results. That was the view of the Canadian government. It was not, obviously, the view of the American government. We can have a disagreement there. I still feel given a few more weeks disarmament would have been achieved," he said.

Chrétien also said that forcing a regime change is not desirable. Many leaders in the world are not his friends, but, he adds, only the local people have the right to change government. "If we change every government we don't like in the world where do we start? Who is next?"

more

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/18/chretieniraq030318

Edited to correct typo in subject line

[tuvor]

24. I am reminded of the timeless words of Prime Minister Jean Chretien

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."

Even bush should have been able to understand that.

[Spazito]

25. LOL, I, too, think of that part of his response when I think of

our refusal to participate in bush's illegal invasion. It was vintage Chretien. I still picture him shrugging his shoulders and his hand movements while he was saying this and it makes me laugh all over again.

[Igel]

29. There were three main viewpoints possible.

1. Everybody agrees there existed WMD in Iraq. (The Iraqi's reported them to UNMOVIC, and I don't think they, by and large, lied.)
There still exist (Januay 2003) WMD in Iraq.

2. Everybody agrees there existed WMD in Iraq. There do not exist WMD in Iraq.

3. Everybody agrees there existed WMD in Iraq. We do not now know if there exist WMD in Iraq.
a. We think, in the absence of evidence they were destroyed, that they might still exist, but hesitate to act on this conclusion.
b. We think, even though we have no evidence they were destroyed, that they don't exist, but we're not comfortable with this conclusion.
c. We don't know what to think.

It's possible to produce minor variants (WMDs existed, but were being smuggled out ... whatever). And it's not quite right to say "everybody", because there are people who assert that in spite of the Iraqi's own claims and UNMOVIC's evidence, they never had anything more dangerous than a blunt toothpick.

The French intelligence after the fact made clear that their intelligence folks had evidence for (2); while they made claims, they did not release their report, nor do I remember them saying they had clear evidence (which, IIRC, still has not been made public). So we had to take the French government's word for it, and assume they were actually in 3b. With their Arab outreach program, and oil and trade contracts supplying their "evidence".

The US, allegedly Britain, and, reluctantly, UNMOVIC went with (1). The UN said Iraq had to present or show proof that what was found or claimed had been destroyed. They didn't, to Blix's distress.

Most of the world assumed 3a or 3b, with maybe some 3c supporters. Otherwise UNMOVIC would have been disbanded long before. This defanged almost everybody: the US claimed evidence, the French made an assertion with no support, UNMOVIC was compelled by its mission statement to assume (1), and nobody else had enough information to do squat.

[LynnTheDem]

33. But bushCartel & rightwingnuts can only do "for" or "against".

They don't have the brainpower to do more options than those 2.

:eyes:

[Igel]

41. At the risk of sounding offensive,

most posters here can't do more than binary oppositions. "Yes, all said they existed" or "No, nobody said they existed." Except for *, of course.

Very muddled. Even the questions at the time were phrased weirdly.

I'd still like to know what the French knew and when they knew it ... and what intelligence operations they'd have blown by divulging it. It's unlikely they've managed to keep the operatives in place.

[Pacifist Patriot]

23. Lynn, are you blogging these posts?

Or archiving them in any way. I sure hope so!

[Beam Me Up]

27. SECOND THAT!! Your posts are incredible Lynn, thank you!!

n/t

[LynnTheDem]

42. No I'm not, Pacific, as I don't have the time available.

Sometimes I remember to bookmark them. Usually I just start from scratch; keeps my google-fingers in shape. :D

[malmapus]

28. THANK YOU!!!

I have been looking for a few of those quotes to back up a little letter I'm writing.

Thank you so much!!!

[cthrumatrix]

39. A+ for collection of thier OWN damn words

[dogday]

32. The U. S. has been attacking everyone who did not join with them

in this endeavor to invade. The UN said no, now we are in the midst of an oil for food scandal, with France and Germany, who by the way said no to war as well.

[mzmolly]

34. We need a DSM discussion group. This is great stuff Lynn.

:toast:

Recommended and bookmarked.

[underpants]

35. Outstanding work

well done. bookmarking

[cthrumatrix]

36. better work than NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, FAUX --- COMBINED

they have no desire to tell people we have been HAD!

[warrens]

37. Who you going to believe, Rice or your lying eyes? NT