George Galloway Statement to the US Senate 17th May 2005

Discussion in 'Your Bloody Soap Box' started by limerickman, May 20, 2005.

  1. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    Some reports suggest that George Galloways emphatic and revealing statement has been "ommitted" from US Senate record on several websites.
    The US Senate subcommittee is conducting hearings in the Oil for Food program under the chairmanship of Norm Coleman.

    It was evident that the Senate committee hearing George Galloways testimony and the wider neo-con McCarthyite Republicans were told some very uncomfortable truths by the British MP.
    It wouldn't suprise me if they did enforce censorship of what George Galloway
    said - given the widespread censorship that pertains to the War on Terror, Iraq and Afghanistan.

    I am glad to say, I contacted George Galloways office and received a full transcript of his opening statement to the US Senate Committee chaired by Norm Coleman and fellow McCarthyites on 17th May 2005.

    Here is the statement to the Norm Coleman and his cronies.



    Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf.

    Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty.
    You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.

    Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and I want to point out areas where there are - let's be charitable and say errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought to be.
    On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false.

    I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein.

    As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defence made of his.


    I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas.
    I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.

    You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do.

    Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil'.

    Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in London.
    I do not own a company that's been trading in Iraqi oil.
    And you have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and false, implying otherwise.

    Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Baghdad.
    If you had any of the letters against me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today.

    You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman Ahmed Chalabi who many people to their credit in your country now realise played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq.

    There were 270 names on that list originally.
    That's somehow been filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee. Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary to his Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African National Congress Presidential office and many others who had one defining characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy of sanctions and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has led us to this disaster.

    You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan.
    Well, you have something on me, I've never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently has. But I do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's in Abu Ghraib prison.
    I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say, British citizens being held in those places.

    I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you quote 13 words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met.
    If he said what he said, then he is wrong.

    And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any money, it would be before the public and before this committee today because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel on the committee].

    Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct.
    What counts is not the names on the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them today.

    Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents as Aredio Petroleum.
    I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of this company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company has never paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something else: I can assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the Mariam Appeal Campaign.
    Not a thin dime. I don't know who Aredio Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny.

    Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime official that you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right to know? Don't you think the Committee and the public have a right to know who this senior former regime official you were quoting against me interviewed yesterday actually is?

    Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year.

    You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 - never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.

    And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents when the opposite is true.
    Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.

    But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.

    Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such a hero, senator, were all absolutely cock-a-hoop at the publication of the Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And they were all lies.


    In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out to be forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all fanciful about it.

    The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact.
    It's a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime.

    Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted.
    I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time.
    I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq.
    And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.

    I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

    Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.


    If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens.
    You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.

    Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Haliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.

    Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.

    Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."
     
    Tags:


  2. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    The documents used by the US Senate committee to make it's case against George Galloway appear to be forged documents (see attachment).

    The central document used against George Galloway this week by the US senate committee investigating Iraq’s oil for food programme is a forgery.
    It can now be revealed that evidence crucial to the alleged case against the Respect MP is fake — created after the fall of Baghdad in 2003.

    The allegations are another desperate attempt to smear the opponents of the war on Iraq, and to make them appear as the corrupt hirelings of tyranny.

    In Britain the material is another dirty weapon to be employed in an effort to destroy George Galloway and halt the rise of Respect.

    Most of the accusations hurled against George Galloway by the senate committee on investigations this week were based on testimony that was supposedly freely given by former officials in Saddam Hussein’s regime who are now held by US forces.

    In many cases these sources are not even named.

    But there is one piece of evidence that at first glance seems persuasive. It is in the findings of the Duelfer Report — the conclusions of the Iraq Survey Group headed by Charles Duelfer which last year admitted Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

    The senate committee’s document says, “According to the evidence in the Duelfer Report, the Hussein regime granted Galloway six oil allocations totalling 20 million barrels of oil.”

    Annexe B of the section of the Duelfer Report on “Regime finance and procurement” lists what it claims are “Known oil voucher recipients”.

    According to Duelfer, “This annexe contains the 13 secret lists maintained by vice president Taha Yassin Ramadan al-Jizrawi and the minister for oil, Amir Rashid Muhammad al-Ubaydi. A high level Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organisation (SOMO) official provided the Iraq Survey Group with both English and Arabic versions of these lists on 16 June 2004. The lists reproduced here are the original SOMO translations in English.”

    The list contains hundreds of names of individuals and corporations, many of which, according to Duelfer, legally dealt in Iraqi oil under the UN’s oil for food programme.

    The first mention of George Galloway is contract M/09/23. This alleges that 1.014 million barrels of oil were allocated to “Mr Fawwaz Zurayqat — Mr George Galloway — Aredio Petroleum (French)”.

    Look closely at the entry, which is reproduced above.

    * The typeface (font) used for “Mr George Galloway” is different to the rest of the line. Indeed the only time this font is used in the entire document is where George Galloway’s name appears.
    * “Mr George Galloway” does not line up with the rest of the words in the entry. It is at an angle to the other words.

    * The spacings between “Mr George Galloway” and the rest of the words are inconsistent.
    * The dash after the words “Mr George Galloway” touches the following word.
    * The words “Mr George Galloway” are at a different type density (lighter) than the rest of the line.

    The most likely explanation is that the words “Mr George Galloway” have been added after the list was prepared, perhaps stuck on and then photocopied to produce the list in the Duelfer Report.

    Elsewhere the Duelfer Report revisits this same contract note and, citing an internal Iraqi document, says the allocation was to “Fawaz Zuraiqat — Mariam’s Appeal”.

    Was this the original name, which was then changed in order to smear George Galloway?
     
  3. darkboong

    darkboong New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,556
    Likes Received:
    0
    I looked at several US media websites to see how the Galloway proceedings were reported. Generally they were tucked away out of sight, you had to hunt for them. In the case of CNN they reported more of the important quotes accurately, but they did chop the speech up so it was weaker and they sprinkled it with a bit of background dirt, and they tried to talk Coleman up a bit too. They did make the point that the statement by Levin was not endorsed by the (majority) Republican contingent of that committee. They also pointed out that only 2 out of 17 members of the committee showed up, I suspect Coleman was there to represent Republican interests, because Levin's statement did reveal direct involvement in sanction busting by current Administration. I am guessing that the rest of the Committee knew full well they would get savaged and the guys facing Galloway drew the short straws.

    That particular image is extremely suspect, amateurish forgery in the same mold as the Yellow Cake forgeries. The Yellowcake forgeries hit the media before the authorities did anything with them too. Perhaps the folks who placed those forgeries were trying to convict the victims by public opinion rather than legal authority. Or perhaps the spooks were just being too cute. I would not be at all surprised if that was the case, there were a lot of leaks and resignations surrounding the Whitehouse and Downing St fabrications in the run up to the invasion of Iraq... Those resignations gave me some hope and despair at the same time. Hope because clearly there were people of principle and decency in the secret services, and despair because they were being forced out of the same services.

    Even *if* (and it's a huge IF) that document is genuine, their case against Galloway would remain weak. Even if it was proved that Galloway had some oil allocated, they still have to prove that Galloway actually did something with that allocation. There is more evidence that the OFAC actively participated in sanction busting than Galloway at present. Government corruption, who would have thought of it ? :)
     
  4. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    Dark, that document does look very very suspicious doesn't it ?
    Everything about that document and GG's name looks dubious.

    I see the Evening Standard on the 13th May (4 days before GG testified) states that Scotland Yard were to look in to the activities of the Mariam Appeal.
    Trying to convict by public opinion ? Definitely.

    The Standard forgot to report that the Lord Goldsmith (British Attorney General) accepts the findings of an audit of the Mariam Appeal which stated that all monies received to the Appeal and all money spent by the Appeal, were in order and above board.
     
  5. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    Galloway is to be admired for standing up to the Senate and sticking to his guns.
    However, it has to be repeated that GG did give people the impression he was close to the Saddam regime and this is very much reflected by the photo of Galloway and Saddam together that was published again. You have both Saddam and Galloway lounging on couches having a cosy chat and both all smiles. No real impression of George attempting to persuade Saddam not to fund suicide bombings or retaliate against the Kurds. Lots of scenarios where George salutes Saddam.
    Galloways image after meeting Saddam comes out very different from the respectful but more impartial bearing of Trevor Mcdonald. He seems to have less tact than Robin Cook and one of his mistakes recently was to blast a Senator over the Iraq war - not being aware that very Senator was opposed to the war anyway. George isn't the only politician to blast the war - look at John Kerry, for example.
    The only thing I can add to all of this is it's likewise a big mistake Hussein hasn't been treated with tactful respect, given he is still a former leader of Iraq and fought a war on the U.S. side some years ago. The latest photos are disrespectful to the Iraqi people and insult them so the Sun is clearly to be blamed far more than the Mirror for being irresponsible. Those photos will trigger more violence and may cost lives.
     
  6. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115

    What do you expect GG to do when faced with SH ? Scowl ? Refuse to shake his hand ?
    The fact of the matter is that Donald Rumsfeld was smiling in the photos of his meeting with SH too.
     
  7. darkboong

    darkboong New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,556
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is that lots as in two ? ;)

    There is plenty of evidence that Galloway did put those very issues to Saddam. He may even made a parlimentary statement about it.

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

    If I have understood that web-site correctly it shows that Coleman ain't listed, Kerry voted for the War and Levin tried to get an ammendment but failed and voted no. AFAICT the ammendment he proposed centred on making the authorisation of the war conditional on obtaining permission from the UN.


    My feeling is that the photos may have an unexpected side effect. They show Saddam as a human being rather than some kind of demon. The potential upside to that is that it may soften people's views of Iraqis as a whole.
     
  8. coolworx

    coolworx New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't give a hoot if Saddam still had WMD's.

    All the world's intelligence agencies, as well as Democrats and Republicans alike believed he did, and it was the prudent thing to assume he did.

    I'm glad the Asshole is now paraded around in his underwear - I wish that we do the same thing with that malignant dwarf in North Korea.

    As for Galloway, I'll wait and see. He seems like a blowhard that could very well be waist-deep in corruption.
     
  9. darkboong

    darkboong New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,556
    Likes Received:
    0
    MI6 didn't believe he had WMDs, the CIA didn't believe he had "WMDs", Powell didn't believe he had WMDs. Not even George Bush and Tony Blair believed he had WMDs. OTOH people like you, who think they know more than the intelligence analysts, believed he had WMDs.

    In the case of Iraq, highly unlikely. Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney are more likely to be involved in Iraq related corruption than Galloway.
     
  10. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    Slight problem here : your intelligence agencies got it right, he didn't have WMD and your intelligence agencies told your goverment this.

    The politicians said that he had WMD - not the intelligence agencies.
     
  11. coolworx

    coolworx New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nonsense.

    Here's the National Intelligence Estimate:

    Key Judgments [from October 2002 NIE]

    Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction

    We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)

    We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq’s WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad’s vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq’s WMD programs.

    Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

    • Iraq’s growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad’s capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from $580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year.

    • Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.

    • Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.

    • Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed—December 1998.

    How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.

    • If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year. {p.2}

    • Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.

    –Most agencies believe that Saddam’s personal interest in and Iraq’s aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors—as well as Iraq’s attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools—provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad’s nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)

    –Iraq’s efforts to re-establish and enhance its cadre of weapons personnel as well as activities at several suspect nuclear sites further indicate that reconstitution is underway.

    –All agencies agree that about 25,000 centrifuges based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire would be capable of producing approximately two weapons’ worth of highly enriched uranium per year.

    • In a much less lively scenario, Baghdad could make enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by 2005 to 2007 if it obtains suitable centrifuge tubes this year and has all the other materials and technological expertise necessary to build production-scale uranium enrichment facilities.

    We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX; its capability probably is more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.

    • An array of clandestine reporting reveals that Baghdad has procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and equipment sufficient to allow limited CW agent production hidden within Iraq’s legitimate chemical industry.

    • Although we have little specific information on Iraq’s CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents—much of it added in the last year.

    • The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles. We assess that that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended ranges.

    We judge that all key aspects—R&D, production, and weaponization—of Iraq’s offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war.

    • We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives. {p.3}

    –Chances are even that smallpox is part of Iraq’s offensive BW program.

    –Baghdad probably has developed genetically engineered BW agents.

    • Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability.

    –Baghdad has mobile facilities for producing bacterial and toxin BW agents; these facilities can evade detection and are highly survivable. Within three to six months * these units probably could produce an amount of agent equal to the total that Iraq produced in the years prior to the Gulf war.


    * (Corrected per Errata sheet issued in October 2002)

    Iraq maintains a small missile force and several development programs, including for a UAV probably intended to deliver biological warfare agent.

    • Gaps in Iraqi accounting to UNSCOM suggest that Saddam retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud-variant SRBMs with ranges of 650 to 900 km.

    • Iraq is deploying its new al-Samoud and Ababil-100 SRBMs, which are capable of flying beyond the UN-authorized 150-km range limit; Iraq has tested an al-Samoud variant beyond 150 km—perhaps as far as 300 km.

    • Baghdad’s UAVs could threaten Iraq’s neighbors, US forces in the Persian Gulf, and if brought close to, or into, the United States, the US Homeland.

    –An Iraqi UAV procurement network attempted to procure commercially available route planning software and an associated topographic database that would be able to support targeting of the United States, according to analysis of special intelligence.

    –The Director, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, US Air Force, does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents. The small size of Iraq’s new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability.

    • Iraq is developing medium-range ballistic missile capabilities, largely through foreign assistance in building specialized facilities, including a test stand for engines more powerful than those in its current missile force.

    We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD.

    • Saddam could decide to use chemical and biological warfare (CBW) preemptively against US forces, friends, and allies in the region in an attempt to disrupt US war preparations and undermine the political will of the Coalition. {p.4}

    • Saddam might use CBW after an initial advance into Iraqi territory, but early use of WMD could foreclose diplomatic options for stalling the US advance.

    • He probably would use CBW when he perceived he irretrievably had lost control of the military and security situation, but we are unlikely to know when Saddam reaches that point.

    • We judge that Saddam would be more likely to use chemical weapons than biological weapons on the battlefield.

    • Saddam historically has maintained tight control over the use of WMD; however, he probably has provided contingency instructions to his commanders to use CBW in specific circumstances.

    Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.

    Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks—more likely with biological than chemical agents—probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.

    • The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been, directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against US territory.

    Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida—with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States—could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.

    • In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.

    Source:
    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/nie-iraq-wmd.html
     
  12. davidmc

    davidmc New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,415
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's what has turned my stomach about the Bush Regime, errr...I mean Administration. Bush had an itchy trigger-finger & now 1631 American & 88 U.K. troops are dead. Bush is, in my opinion, completely responsible :mad: Why couldn't they wait another month or two & exhaust ALL diplomatic remedies instead of RUSHING to war w/ other peoples kids :mad: . Now look at it, it's a sh*tstorm :mad: I did get the impression that Galloway was rather callous but, it was more than justified.
    http://icasualties.org/oif/
     
  13. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115

    Your own Senate reported that intelligence reports were manipulated to create the impression that WMD were there.

    Your own Colon Powell stated that the information that he presented to the
    UN on 6th February 2003 (for the debate to authorise the invasion of Iraq)
    was based on "doctored intelligence".

    Funny how your lot to this day, still haven't managed to find the WMD that was supposed to be in Iraq.
     
  14. davidmc

    davidmc New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,415
    Likes Received:
    0
    Administration shun's the truth.
     
  15. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    I think George Galloway gave your country/people the unvarnished truth.
    I expect that a lot of your fellow people aren't used to hearing the unvarnished truth.

    What little sympathy I did have for your troops has now evaporated.
    It is now obvious to me that there is a lot more going on in Iraq and Afghanistan and human rights abuses.
    The desecration of the Koran, the murder of prisoners, the torture of prisoners, the deliberate shooting of people such as the Italian secret service
    agent two months.

    Your country really is backing itself in to a corner.
     
  16. darkboong

    darkboong New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,556
    Likes Received:
    0
    *snip*

    The US government was in fact complicit in that "illegal" oil trade. It didn't so much turn a blind eye as actively permit and encourage illegal oil trade. See Carl Levin's statement at the Galloway hearing.

    That directly contradicts the leaked intelligence reports and blatantly ignores the findings of Hans Blix. Hans Blix was working on the basis of the intelligence fed to him by the US and the UK (amongst others).

    The alleged UAVs were not capable of carrying out that mission. That was known before the invasion, this is a fabrication.

    The evidence for that turned out to be the Yellow Cake forgeries. A CIA agent's cover was blown by the Whitehouse in retaliation against the man who debunked the forgeries.

    Lie. Scientists at Los Alamos said the tubes were not suitable for the purpose. Their word carries some weight because Los Alamos has the longest history in bomb making, and it pioneered and refined the techniques involved.


    Evidence that came from a Chalibi source that was "red-flagged" by the intelligence analysts. The Whitehouse, not the intelligence analysts, made this call.

    That directly contradicts a statement made earlier by Colin Powell.

    That was discovered by Hans Blix, the offending missiles were verified to be destroyed before the Invasion. The range was estimated to be ~180km.

    No they could not, that directly contradicted the professional analysis.
    There was no evidence of this... From here on the document degenerates into paranoid fantasy and speculation ("may", "might" and "probably" feature heavily), not an ideal basis for an objective risk assessment.

    Clinging on to a document that was known to be rubbish at the time does not validate your warped paranoia.
     
  17. coolworx

    coolworx New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you HONESTLY fluckin' telling me that Saddam was not a threat to world peace?

    Do you REALLY have the AUDACITY to propose that Saddam was adhering to numerous UN resolutions?

    Will you admit that Saddam was actively and BLATANTLY funding Islamic terrorism against Israel? Ohh I forgot, Europeans (and most of the UN Cabal) ADMIRE antisemitic violence.

    You Europeans are a pitiful lot - what with your naysaying do-nothing attitude - not just now, but for over half a century. While Merkins had your pathetic backs.

    Tell me the truth... are you really French?
     
  18. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    Yep.

    Audacity ? What has audacity go to do with anything ?
    According to Hans Blix : Iraq was co-operating between September 2002 and 20th March 2003.
    I think we can accept Hans Blix word - can't we ?

    Really ?
    Last half century ?
     
  19. coolworx

    coolworx New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    0
    Saddam was cooperating????

    Man-o-man, there must be some serious Amsterdam weed available on the streets of Limerick.
     
  20. coolworx

    coolworx New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    0
    One more thing (you may have missed my edit)

    Was, or was not, Saddam funding islamic terrorists in Israel? Did, or did not, Saddam pay the families of Suicide/Homicide bombers 10's of thousands of $US?

    Hmmm? If you fund terrorism, you are a terrorist. And if you are a terrorist, you are fair game for the awesome retribution of the US Military!

    HUUUUUUUAAAAAHHHHH!
     
Loading...
Loading...