PDA

Vollständige Version anzeigen : Blair und Bush wussten das es keine Waffen der Massenvernichtung im Irak gab! Ein Kriegsverbrechen!



aloute
08.02.2004, 16:45
Bush, Blair,Aznar,Belrusconi und Co. 'Kriegsverbrecher'?

George Tenet, director of the CIA, defended his agency last week, saying: "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these [WMD] programmes and those debates were spelled out … in [a classified report to the White House]. They never said there was an imminent threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policy-makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programmes that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests."

As the Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, has admitted, talk of ousting Saddam started just days after the attacks of 11 September, even though officials accepted there was no evidence that Saddam was involved.

Just when Tony Blair signed up for "regime change" in Iraq – whether it was in the first weeks of 2003, when the "UN route" failed, or much earlier, in 2002 – remains obscure. But a clear picture has emerged in which the Bush administration, in tandem with its friends in London, aggressively pursued pieces of intelligence to support its claim that Saddam possessed WMD – and was therefore in breach of UN resolutions.

Those analyses that did not support that view – notably the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate in October 2002, which included 40 caveats about claims regarding Iraq's WMD – were simply ignored. The White House preferred the British dossier, produced the month before: in his State of the Union address in January last year, George Bush approvingly quoted Britain's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa to develop nuclear weapons, ignoring warnings from his own intelligence agencies that it was false.

American appreciation for British efforts in the information war went back to Afghanistan, when Downing Street produced an eloquent dossier detailing the crimes of the Taleban regime and its support for al-Qaeda. In his Security Council speech Mr Powell commended another British document, produced a few days earlier, on Iraq's tactics of intimidation and deception, before it became known as the "dodgy dossier". Large chunks had been plagiarised from an old student thesis.

"I call it faith-based intelligence gathering," said Greg Thielmann, a former analyst with the State Department's Intelligence Bureau. Some analysts have claimed they were pressured into skewing the information to provide the sought-after "product", but Mr Thielmann, now retired, believes no arm-twisting was required: analysts and their managers were well aware what was needed, and a form of self-censorship took place.

"Analysts want to maintain relationships," he said. "Tenet spoke to the President six days a week [for his daily intelligence briefing]. If he went and said, 'Mr President, you have misrepresented what my analysts said,' how long would he keep going to the White House?"

But the senior officials in the Bush administration, their attention caught by the neo-conservative voices calling for the ousting of Saddam, to stabilise the Middle East and secure one of the biggest untapped oil supplies in the world, did not simply rely on the established analysts to provide them with information.

They established their own units to analyse and gather information and report directly to them without the usual process of filters – "stovepiping" information straight to the White House.

Vice President Dick Cheney, who is still unrepentedly making lurid claims about Iraq, had his own team of cherry-pickers. The Pentagon had the Office for Special Plans (OSP), which sponsored the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a group of Iraqi exiles headed by Ahmed Chalabi, currently the chair of the Iraqi Governing Council.

The exiles provided defectors and witnesses who told the OSP exactly what it wanted to hear: that Saddam was producing WMD, that he was ready to use it and that the people of Iraq would greet American troops with flowers should Washington decided to oust Saddam.

With few exceptions, all of the information provided by the INC defectors was incorrect. A report issued last year by the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) said defectors invented or exaggerated their claims to have personal knowledge of the regime and its alleged weapons of mass destruction. The US paid more than $1m for such information.

And while Britain fed dubious items of intelligence to the US, experts on this side of the Atlantic believe at least some of the equally unreliable INC material made its way here. With its intelligence headquarters in London, the INC had direct contacts with British officials as well.

Each side steered clear of certain allegations made by its partner, however. After one mention by Mr Bush on the day the British dossier was published, the Americans never picked up on the notorious 45-minute claim.

Britain, meanwhile, was silent on attempts in the US to link Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda, though that did not prevent vaguer warnings about the danger of Iraqi WMD falling into the hands of terrorists.

Robert David Steele, a former CIA operative, said: "Yes, I think there was a intelligence failure, but I don't think there can be an intelligence failure without a preceding policy failure. In the absence of adequate intelligence we allowed political mendacity to fill a vacuum."

Such suspicions, which have dogged the Prime Minister for months, are now eroding support for George Bush in an election year, and he is not likely to have much room for concern about his ally as he looks for an escape route.

The Independent on Sunday reported exclusively last week that Mr Blair's allies feared he was about to be hung out to dry by the White House. The newspaper had barely reached the shops before this prediction came true. President Bush announced an inquiry into whether the intelligence services got it wrong, something Mr Blair had resisted for months.

The Prime Minister hoped that Lord Hutton's hearings into the narrower question of why Dr David Kelly killed himself would satisfy the British public's appetite for inquiries.

Lord Falconer, Mr Blair's oldest ally in the Cabinet, said on Sunday that "little would be achieved" by any other inquiry.

Hours later, Mr Blair found his reverse gear. When Washington announced it would hold an inquiry, Downing Street conceded that Britain must have one too.

On Monday evening, the Conservative leader, Michael Howard, had a telephone call from the Prime Minister asking if he would agree to let the Conservatives be represented on the inquiry team.

Mr Howard insisted that the inquiry must look not just at the intelligence gathered, but the use that the Government made of it. Mr Blair agreed to that in principle, but was not willing to yield to the Liberal Democrat demand for an inquiry which would judge whether the Government was right to declare war.

While the Tories signed up to Lord Butler's inquiry, the Lib Dems have decided to stay out. It may prove a wise choice: confidence in the inquiry, which will meet behind closed doors, was hardly reinforced by the rush last week to elevate all its members to the Privy Council, on the grounds that a PC after your name means you can be trusted with a secret in a way that other people cannot.

Ann Taylor, the former Chief Whip, was the only existing PC, so the other four members – Lord Butler of Brockwell, Michael Mates MP, Sir John Chilcot and Field Marshal Lord Inge – all had to be raised to the same level.

As one fellow Privy Counsellor remarked: "The dear old Queen has been kissing hands all week."

The Butler inquiry is due to report this summer, but Mr Blair may well have more to fear from the parallel exercise being conducted in Washington, which has been given a deadline to report next March – after the November presidential poll, but uncomfortably close to the putative date of a British general election.

No one in the US will have anything to lose if as much blame as possible can be shifted over here.

Whether the Prime Minister can escape being judged a fool or a liar depends crucially on the "45-minute" claim.

It was the strongest evidence the British government offered before the war that Saddam Hussein was not merely defying the authority of the United Nations, but presented a "serious and current" threat to the West, as Mr Blair put it when presenting the dossier to the Commons on 24 September 2002.

The document alleged that Iraq had "military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons. Some of these weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them."

It resulted in headlines the following day such as "Saddam can strike in 45 minutes" in the Daily Express and "Brits 45 minutes from doom" in The Sun, which said British troops and tourists on Cyprus were within range.

Mr Blair's statement in Parliament last week means that he would have believed The Sun's report was correct. Mr Hoon, who would have known otherwise, said he didn't see the news coverage until several months later.

The first official clarification of what the "45 minutes" referred to did not come until the Hutton inquiry last August – four months after the war had ended and nearly a year after the claim was first published.

John Scarlett, head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, and author of the dossier, said it referred, not to missiles for warheads, but to "battlefield mortar shells or small-calibre weaponry, quite different from missiles".

Mr Hoon confirmed when he appeared before Lord Hutton that he knew this at the time.

We now know that the Joint Intelligence Committee sent three assessments of Iraqi weaponry to Downing Street between September continued from page 9 2002 and 18 March, when MPs voted to send British troops to war.

The last of those assessments arrived just before the war, according to Mr Cook. According to the Government, it highlighted "intelligence indicating that chemical weapons remained disassembled and that Saddam had not yet ordered their assembly".

The JIC also said other intelligence showed that "the 750km range Al Hussein ballistic missiles remained disassembled and that it would take several days to assemble them". But Mr Blair still apparently did not know what could be deployed in 45 minutes.

Mr Cook suggested yesterday that this discrepancy should be investigated by the Butler committee. If Mr Blair is right, then the committee would surely have to give the JIC a severe rebuke for withholding vital information from the Prime Minister.

But if it turns out that the correct information was among the three assessments, Mr Blair could have trouble explaining his answer to Mr Ottaway last week.

Another possibility is that he did not read the assessments, even though Britain was on the brink of war. That would save him from the charge of mendacity, at the cost making him appear irresponsible.

With no experience of defence or foreign affairs before arriving in Downing Street, one Whitehall veteran pointed out, he might not have grasped the intelligence : "I doubt whether we will ever find out what Tony Blair knew at any particular time," he said "unless he signed a piece of paper which turns up. He believes what he is saying."

Mr Thielmann, the former intelligence analyst, expressed little optimism that either British or American inquiry would get to the crux of the issue – the politicisation of intelligence: "We are like-minded in whitewashes, [twisting] intelligence, and going to war when it is not necessary."

Lea
08.02.2004, 16:53
Natürlich sind das Kriegsverbrecher und natürlich wussten sie , dass es dort keine Waffen gibt. Denkst du etwa die sind dort hin um Waffen zu finden oder das Volk von Saddam zu befreien?.............ich glaub nicht..

trib996
08.02.2004, 17:04
Es gibt leider viele die denken das sie wegen Saddam da sind .

Wo aber bleibt der Aufschrei ?

Die Menschen scheinen sich an alles zu gewöhnen .

aloute
08.02.2004, 18:17
Das sich an 'alles' zu gewoehnen ist die Krankheit einer Wohlstandsgesellschaft!

Siran
08.02.2004, 20:42
In dem Artikel steht absolut nichts davon drin, dass Blair oder Bush gewusst hätten, ob es da Waffen gab oder nicht. Die CIA widerspricht nur der Behauptung eines "imminent threat"s, den sie nicht für gegeben gehalten haben. Da steht nichts davon, dass dort überhaupt keine Waffen gewesen sein sollten.

DichterDenker
08.02.2004, 20:45
jetzt aber mal rein logisch:
Wenn Blair / Bush von Massenvernichtungswaffen gewusst hätten, von denen sie sich bedroht gefühlt hätten, hätten ise dann angegriffen? Sie hätten das Problem vielmehr diplomatisch zu lösen versucht.

Siran
08.02.2004, 20:48
Kann sein, muss aber nicht. Tatsache ist allerdings, dass die Überschrift des Stranges und der Inhalt des Artikels mal wieder nix miteinander zu tun haben.

DichterDenker
08.02.2004, 20:56
Die Überschrift ist halt wahrscheinlich ziemlich frei aus dem Artikel rausinterpretiert...

aloute
08.02.2004, 22:28
Sicher wenn da 'Waffen der Massenvernichtung' vor den Wahlen noch gefunden werden, dann waren alle Befreiungsengel. Wenn nicht, naja dann haben sie sichen eben 'Irre' fuheren lassen von 'untergeben' Dienststellen. was aber zeigt das sie dann nicht regierungs und Entscheidungfaehig gewesen sind, sondern eben mal so ein paar hundert Zivilisten verbombt oder verbrannt haben durch die Bomben.
Es ist verwunderlich Siran, dass egal wie man das sieht oder wie die persoenliche Einstellung ist, und mir ist es egal ob jemand 'Pro USA' oder Pro-Irak' 'Befreingskrieg ist, denn weder ich noch jemand anders haette das anedern koennen, nur was mich wundert ist das INTELLIGENTE Menschen, sich nicht die frage stellen wie und warum es moeglichsein kann, dass Internationale Vereinbarungen und Vertraege und dieser bestand und besteht mit der UNO , uebergangen werden. Wenn alle Vetraege aus welchen Gruenden auch immer gebrochen werden koennen, dann was soll alles noch. Los und eine totale Anarchie in diesen fall. Wieso dann noch waehlen? Wieso dann noch ueberhaubt Politik machen?
Der andere Grund , und Siran glaube mir das denn ich weiss da etwas davon, wenn Saddam diese Waffen der Massenvernichtung gehabt haette, dann a. waeren diese Supernationen nie darein und wenn dieses nicht bekannt war trotz aller 'US Inspektoren' dann haette Saddam diese benutzt in dem moment in welchen die USA das bombadieren aus England kommend angefangen haben und die Britten von Kuweit einmarschiert sind.
Also hatte er nichts! Ein paar rostige Naegel und ein grosses Maul, gedeckt von seiner familie und genau das wussten die USA und England.
Das sleb habe ich gesehen in Somalia. Alles eine SHOW. Der CNN und Journalisten standen am Strand als die US Army vom Kriegsschiffen mit Booten, schwarz angemalt am Strand wie in einen Manoever hoch gingen , keine Feind, kein schuss aber alles sah 'echt' aus. CNN filmte wir schossen Bilder!!! Die US Army schoss auch - in die Luft!

aloute
08.02.2004, 22:32
Original von Siran
In dem Artikel steht absolut nichts davon drin, dass Blair oder Bush gewusst hätten, ob es da Waffen gab oder nicht. Die CIA widerspricht nur der Behauptung eines "imminent threat"s, den sie nicht für gegeben gehalten haben. Da steht nichts davon, dass dort überhaupt keine Waffen gewesen sein sollten.

Es wird auch nie irgendwo stehen das die US Army die Usma Bin laden familie aus Afghanistan ausgeflogen hat. Vielleicht mit Bin Laden, so wie die Marcos Familie 1986 aus Manila!

Siran
08.02.2004, 22:33
Ich bin weder Pro-USA noch war ich Pro-Irakkrieg. Ich habe nur festgestellt, dass das, was du in der Überschrift behauptest, im Text nicht drinsteht und bis jetzt auch nicht bewiesen ist. Wenn du die Untersuchung um den britischen Wissenschaftler, der wohl Selbstmord begangen hat, verfolgt hast, wird dir z.B. auffallen, dass diese Person sehr wohl davon überzeugt war, dass der Irak MVWs hatte.

Siran
08.02.2004, 22:35
Der Titel ist ein 'Manifesto' des Gefuehls auden ganzen Artikel und LUEGEN!!!

Vielleicht solltest du das dann dazu schreiben, anstatt es nur als Überschrift drüber zu setzen, wo jeder, der zu wenig Englisch kann oder zu faul ist, den Text zu lesen, das als direkte Aussage des Textes ansieht.


Es wird auch nie irgendwo stehen das die US Army die Usma Bin laden familie aus Afghanistan ausgeflogen hat. Vielleicht mit Bin Laden, so wie die Marcos Familie 1986 aus Manila!

Und du hast dafür natürlich wieder absolut unwiderlegbare Belege, nicht wahr?

aloute
08.02.2004, 22:38
Original von Siran
In dem Artikel steht absolut nichts davon drin, dass Blair oder Bush gewusst hätten, ob es da Waffen gab oder nicht. Die CIA widerspricht nur der Behauptung eines "imminent threat"s, den sie nicht für gegeben gehalten haben. Da steht nichts davon, dass dort überhaupt keine Waffen gewesen sein sollten.

Es gibt z, Bsp. am Flughafen eine Auslegung von 'Waffen' darunter faellt auch ein Fingernagelclipper.
Nun wenn ich 500 Nadeln nehme, diese in 200 Schachteln Streichhoelzer packe, dass ganze in Aluminium einwickel, dann mit Kerosin (oder benzin) befeuchte, ein schur lege und mich 200 metre nefrent das ganze dann anzuende.... dann koennte das eine 'waffe der massenvernichtung' werden oder sein denn je nach dem wo es los geht.
Hat Bush oder Blair je geschrieben oder gesagt welche Waffen der Massenvernichtung es WIRKLICH sein sollten????

FlorianK
08.02.2004, 22:40
Ja, George Bush ist ein Kriegsverbrecher! Wenn man ein Land angreift mit solchen Beschuldigungen, die garnicht stimmten, dann ist das schon ein starkes Stück. Eigendlich wollten die doch auch wieder den Irak verlassen, wenn Saddam geschnappt sei. Aber natürlich geht das alles, was jetzt gemacht wird nur für das Wohl des Irakischen Volkes..
Glaubt ihr die Amerikaner lassen ihre Soldaten dafür abschlachten?

aloute
08.02.2004, 22:41
Original von Siran

Der Titel ist ein 'Manifesto' des Gefuehls auden ganzen Artikel und LUEGEN!!!

Vielleicht solltest du das dann dazu schreiben, anstatt es nur als Überschrift drüber zu setzen, wo jeder, der zu wenig Englisch kann oder zu faul ist, den Text zu lesen, das als direkte Aussage des Textes ansieht.


Es wird auch nie irgendwo stehen das die US Army die Usma Bin laden familie aus Afghanistan ausgeflogen hat. Vielleicht mit Bin Laden, so wie die Marcos Familie 1986 aus Manila!

Und du hast dafür natürlich wieder absolut unwiderlegbare Belege, nicht wahr?

Und du hast dafür natürlich wieder absolut unwiderlegbare Belege, nicht wahr?
das die USA den Marcos nachdem er erst die Central Banc na Filipino lehre lies nach hawai mit Ismelda gelogen worden ist?
JA! Kann ich jetzt ein BILD Original per email senden!

aloute
08.02.2004, 22:42
Original von Siran
Ich bin weder Pro-USA noch war ich Pro-Irakkrieg. Ich habe nur festgestellt, dass das, was du in der Überschrift behauptest, im Text nicht drinsteht und bis jetzt auch nicht bewiesen ist. Wenn du die Untersuchung um den britischen Wissenschaftler, der wohl Selbstmord begangen hat, verfolgt hast, wird dir z.B. auffallen, dass diese Person sehr wohl davon überzeugt war, dass der Irak MVWs hatte.

Siran
08.02.2004, 22:45
Ich bezog mich allein auf deine Behauptung über die bin Laden Familie.

Übrigens ist es vollkommen egal, ob die Person über Beweise verfügte oder nicht. Entscheidungen werden aufgrund von Überzeugungen getroffen, wenn die Person davon überzeugt ist und einen dahingehenden Bericht an die Vorgesetzten weiterleitet, dann gehen die davon aus, dass das ein Fakt ist.

Du behauptest aber, sie hätten gewusst, also nach deiner Version dann wohl mit Beweis, dass der Irak keine Massenvernichtungswaffen hatte. Und das stimmt so eben, soweit wir das wissen, nicht.

aloute
08.02.2004, 22:51
Original von Siran

Der Titel ist ein 'Manifesto' des Gefuehls auden ganzen Artikel und LUEGEN!!!

Vielleicht solltest du das dann dazu schreiben, anstatt es nur als Überschrift drüber zu setzen, wo jeder, der zu wenig Englisch kann oder zu faul ist, den Text zu lesen, das als direkte Aussage des Textes ansieht.


Es wird auch nie irgendwo stehen das die US Army die Usma Bin laden familie aus Afghanistan ausgeflogen hat. Vielleicht mit Bin Laden, so wie die Marcos Familie 1986 aus Manila!

Und du hast dafür natürlich wieder absolut unwiderlegbare Belege, nicht wahr?

A tense stand off (EDSA Revolution, People's Power) that ensued between the two sides ended only when Marcos fled the country on February 25, 1986 with United States help, and went into exile in Hawaii, USA.

Evidence subsequently emerged that during his year in power, Marcos, his family, and his close associates had looted the Philippines economy of billions of dollars through embezzlements and other corrupt practices. Marcos and his wife were subsequently indicted by the U.S. government on racketeering charges. After a trial a year later, Imelda won acquittal by the board of jury. Imelda return to the Philippines to face the charges against her and her family.

Siran
08.02.2004, 22:56
Nochmal: Ich habe von Belegen für deine Behauptung bzgl. der bin Laden Familie geredet. Marcos interessiert mich in dem Zusammenhang überhaupt nicht.

aloute
08.02.2004, 23:06
Original von Siran
Ich bezog mich allein auf deine Behauptung über die bin Laden Familie.

Übrigens ist es vollkommen egal, ob die Person über Beweise verfügte oder nicht. Entscheidungen werden aufgrund von Überzeugungen getroffen, wenn die Person davon überzeugt ist und einen dahingehenden Bericht an die Vorgesetzten weiterleitet, dann gehen die davon aus, dass das ein Fakt ist.

Du behauptest aber, sie hätten gewusst, also nach deiner Version dann wohl mit Beweis, dass der Irak keine Massenvernichtungswaffen hatte. Und das stimmt so eben, soweit wir das wissen, nicht.

Übrigens ist es vollkommen egal, ob die Person über Beweise verfügte oder nicht. Entscheidungen werden aufgrund von Überzeugungen getroffen, wenn die Person davon überzeugt ist und einen dahingehenden Bericht an die Vorgesetzten weiterleitet, dann gehen die davon aus, dass das ein Fakt ist.
Genau Siran! Mit der selben BEGRUENDUNG verteidgte man sich bei den Nuernberger Prozessen! Befhel ausgefuehrt! Anordnungen gefolgt' Der Fuehrer war ueberzeugt oder so... also wir auch!
'Uberzeugung' reicht als Begruendung fuer Bomben gegen eine Zivile Bevoelkerung nicht und ist Menschenrechtlich zu verwerfen.
Das ist die schwaeche der 'Verwaltunsgwissenschaftler' welche unter DRUCK das liefern was man erwartet!
Ihc kann zum Beispiel wenn es angefordet werden wuerde sagen, das ganze Politforum ist RECHTS und Radikal, oder , je nach dem wer es anfordert, belegen das sich hier Anarchisten treffen.
Man kann nicht , in einer Welt wo Kommunikation nicht mehr auf Briefe per Pferd besteht, 'Ueberzeugungen' liefern, welche dann dazu dienen Zivile Menschen die weder was mit Saddam noch mit Politik zu tun hatten zu bomben und vernichten. Es handelte sich hier doch nicht um einen Einmarsch in das von Bush Sen. als CIA Chief geleitete Panama, sondern um ein Land welches naeher an Europa liegt als bei den USA.
Ueberzeugungen sind die groessten fehler in der Politik und ich bin 'Ueberzeugt' das sich das ganze genau so aufdecken wird eines Tages wie Watergate!

aloute
08.02.2004, 23:14
Original von Siran
Nochmal: Ich habe von Belegen für deine Behauptung bzgl. der bin Laden Familie geredet. Marcos interessiert mich in dem Zusammenhang überhaupt nicht.

Ich werde die Artikel suchen. Familie von Bin Laden wurde auf hchsten Befehl ausgeflogen.
Steht auch bereist irgendwo im Politikforen, mit den Hinweis zu einen gov. link. Muss es suchen, aber es war kein Schmarrn Siran
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/binladen.html

Wenn ich es habe, sende ich es normal nicht hier im Posting

Siran
08.02.2004, 23:16
Blödsinn, die Verteidigung bei den Nürnberger Prozessen war auf die Kommandofolge ausgelegt.

Darauf können sich weder Blair noch Bush berufen, denn schließlich stehen sie an der Spitze der Kommandofolge. Worauf sie sich berufen können, sind Fehlinformationen, die ihnen zum Teil geliefert wurden, auch wenn man diese augenscheinlich für "Propagandazwecke" nochmals aufgearbeitet hat.

Außerdem hatte ich nur gesagt, dass du keinerlei Beweis hast, dass sie es tatsächlich nicht wussten und der von dir zitierte Artikel das auch an keiner Stelle beweist. Ich habe nirgendwo gesagt, dass der Angriff auf den Irak dadurch gerechtfertigt wäre oder nicht.

aloute
08.02.2004, 23:27
Related CRG articles and documents:

Missing Link to an understanding of 9-11: The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence Agency (ISI) in the September 11 attacks, by Michel Chossudovsky.

The main justification for this war has been totally fabricated. "Osamagate," by Michel Chossudovsky.

The CIA met Bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last July in Dubai. No attempt was made to arrest him. by Alexandra Richard. 2 November 2001

"War and Globalisation": The "hidden agenda" is "to break Russia's monopoly over oil and gas transport routes" and militarise the Central Asian region. 1998 Congressional Hearing on "US Interests in Central Asia".

The Clinton Administration supported the "Militant Islamic Network". A 1997 Congressional report provides evidence from official sources of the links between the Islamic Jihad and the US government .

What was the chief of Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) doing in the US in the days prior to the attacks? , by Amir Mateen.

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan preceded the Soviet Invasion. 1998 Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html
The CIA met Bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last July in Dubai
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html

Copyright, Le Figaro, 2001. For fair use only.
24 members of bin Laden's family whisked out of US after attacks
WASHINGTON, OCT 2-2001-AFP

NAME OF SHAME? BIN LADEN AND A COLLEAGUE 'SOMEWHERE IN AFGHANISTAN'



As many as 24 members of terrorist suspect Osama bin Laden's family were flown out of the United States after the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, Saudi Ambassador Price Bandar bin Sultan said on US television.

Osama bin Laden, an heir to the family's construction fortune, is believed to be behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon building that have left about 5,700 people dead or missing.

Prince Bandar said late Monday that most of bin Laden's relatives had come to the United States to study but were flown back to Saudi Arabia in the wake of the attacks after the personal intervention of Saudi King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz.

"His majesty said it's not fair for those innocent people to be subjected to any harm," the ambassador said, appearing on CNN's "Larry King Live" program.

"On the other hand, we understood the high emotions," prince Bandar added. "So with coordination with the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), we got them all out."

The ambassador said he knew the bin Laden family as "lovely human beings" who have suffered a lot because of Osama's activities.

"The rest of them are well-educated, successful businessmen, involved in a lot of charities," he said. "I feel pain for them, because he's caused them a lot of pain."

Prince Bandar admitted he had a chance to personally meet with Osama bin Laden in the mid-1980s, when Saudi Arabia and the United Stated backed armed resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

"He came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said of the communists," said the ambassador, adding that he was not impressed by the young man, who fought in Afghanistan at that time.


http://www.911forthetruth.com/open_letter_to_the_president_of.htm

OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Relationship between
Bin Laden, Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the CIA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




A summary, according to mainstream media/military reports.
For more in-depth analysis, see sources below.
1979: The CIA begins pumping billions of $'s in military and other aid into Afghanistan in opposition to the invasion by the Soviet Union. (Former National Security Advisor Brzezinski later boasts that the U.S. goaded the Soviets into an "Afghan trap" by de-stabilizing the pro-soviet regime, . The aid largely goes to support the build-up of an army of Mujahadeen, (Moslem religious fighters) in alliance with the most extreme of sects, (Wah'habism) emanating out of Saudi Arabia. The prime partner in the immediate region is Pakistan; and in particular, the ISI, Pakistani intelligence.

early 1980: Osama bin Laden begins providing financial, organizational, and engineering aid for the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, with the advice and support of the Saudi royal family.[] CIA money is funnelled through Pakistan's ISI, so that, as one CIA official claims, "Osama bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington." (Ahmed Rashid, link follows bellow).

1982-92: "some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight .... Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs,[religious schools]" from which the Taliban movement emerges.

1982-91: Afghan opium production balloons from 250 tons in 1982 to 2,000 tons in 1991, (startribune093001.html). The ISI grows so powerful on this money, that Time magazine later says, "Even by the shadowy standards of spy agencies, the ISI is notorious. It is commonly branded 'a state within the state,' or Pakistan's 'invisible government.'" [Time, 5/6/02]

Mid-1980's: French Intelligence says that Salem bin Laden, Osama's oldest brother, was involved in the Iran-Contra affair, (the diversion of arms to anti-Nicarguan terror groups, from Iran, via Saudi Arabian connections). [New Yorker, 11/5/01 Frontline, 2001]

1984-94: The U.S., through USAID and the University of Nebraska, spends millions of dollars developing... then printing textbooks for Afghan schoolchildren. The textbooks are filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings. The Taliban were still using them in 2001. [Washington Post, 3/23/02]

1988: George Bush Jr. is a failed oil man. The same year his father becomes President, some Saudis buy a portion of his small company, Harken, which has never worked outside of Texas. Later in the year, Harken wins a contract in the Persian Gulf and starts doing well financially. These transactions seem so suspicious that even the Wall Street Journal in 1991 states it "raises the question of ... an effort to cozy up to a presidential son." Two major investors into Bush's company during this time are Salem bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's father, and Khaled bin Mahfouz. [Salon, 11/19/01 Intelligence Newsletter, 3/2/00]. Khaled bin Mahfouz is a Saudi banker with a 20% stake in BCCI, a bank that will go bankrupt a few years later in the biggest corruption scandal in banking history. The Washington Post claims, "The CIA used BCCI to funnel millions of dollars to the fighters battling the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan." A French intelligence report in 2001 will state, "The financial network of bin Laden, as well as his network of investments, is similar to the network put in place in the 1980s by BCCI for its fraudulent operations, often with the same people (former directors and cadres of the bank and its affiliates, arms merchants oil merchants, Saudi investors)." [Washington Post, 2/17/02]

March, 1991: The Gulf War against Iraq ends, the US does not withdraw all of its soldiers from Saudi Arabia, but stations some 15,000-20,000 there permanently. Their presence isn't admitted until 1995. Many sources say this is why Bin Laden turned against the U.S. and began plotting attacks. [Nation, 2/15/99] The question is, did CIA funds for the Mujahadeen, The Taliban, and the ISI continue finding its way into Bin Laden and Al Qaeda's hands? Did the usefulness of Bin Laden to the CIA, as an asset, end?

1993: Canadian police arrest Ali Mohamed, a high ranking al-Qaeda figure. However, they release him when the FBI says he is a US agent [Globe and Mail, 11/22/01]. Mohamed, once a US Army sergeant, then will continue to work for al-Qaeda for a number of years. He trains bin Laden's personal bodyguards. Between 1993 and 1997 he tells secrets to the FBI about al-Qaeda's operations. He is arrested in late 1998 and subsequently convicted of his role in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya. [CNN, 10/30/98, Independent, 11/1/98]

February 26, 1993: An attempt to blow up the WTC fails. 6 people are killed in the misfired blast. The New York Times later reports a curious story about an undercover agent who ends up being the key government witness in the trial against the bomber. This agent, Emad Salem, says that the FBI knew about the attack beforehand and told him they would thwart it by substituting a harmless powder for the explosives. However, this plan was called off by an FBI supervisor, and the bombing was not stopped. [New York Times, 10/28/93] Ramzi Yousef, (close ties to bin Laden/ISI) is found guilty of masterminding the plot, [Congressional Hearings, 2/24/98] yet the actual "perpetrators" appear to be innocent "scapegoats". The FBI's own senior explosives expert, testifies that the FBI concocted misleading scientific reports and pressured two of their scientists to perjure their testimony. The FBI also intimidated defense attorneys, and breached court orders in an attempt to prejudice the jury.

April 92 to Oct. 94 Afghanistan... Najibullah ousted. Mujahideen factions seize power but fighting erupts along ethnic lines between the Pashtoon, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and Turkmen.

Oct 1994: Islamic Taliban movement emerges to challenge the Mujahideen (who eventually retreat, forming the Northern Alliance). "Pakistan provides the Taliban with the resources they need... through its ISI... to control the [greater] whole of Afghanistan.... finances, weapons and military equipment, besides Pak Special Forces cadres, airforce pilots and army cadres for direction of the war effort. In parallel..., Pakistan enlisted the support of its Islamic Fundamentalist organisations (the various Jamaats and Harkats) to swell the ranks of the Taliban with militant cadres from the thousands of ‘madrassas’ run in Pakistan. Any observer of the Afghan scene would conclude that a ragtag combination like the Taliban could only succeed with sustained and organised external military assistance."


1994: Mohammed al-Khilewi, the first secretary at the Saudi Mission to the United Nations, defects to the U.S. and offers the FBI fourteen thousand internal government documents depicting the Saudi royal family's corruption, human-rights abuses, and financial support for terrorists. "The agents refused to accept them." [New Yorker, 10/16/01

1996: FBI investigators are prevented from carrying out an investigation into two relatives of bin Laden. A high placed intelligence official tells the Guardian: "there were always constraints on investigating the Saudis. There were particular investigations that were effectively killed." An unnamed US source says to the BBC, "There is a hidden agenda at the very highest levels of our government." [BBC Newsnight, 11/6/01, Guardian, 11/7/01]

1996: The Saudi Arabian government starts paying huge amounts of money to al-Qaeda, becoming its largest financial backer. Electronic intercepts by the NSA "depict a regime so weakened and frightened that it has brokered its future by channeling hundreds of millions of dollars in what amounts to protection money to fundamentalist groups that wish to overthrow it." US officials later privately complain "that the Bush Administration, like the Clinton Administration, is refusing to confront this reality, even in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks." [New Yorker, 10/16/01]

March, '96: The US pressures Sudan to do something about bin Laden. Sudan offers to extradite bin Laden to anywhere he might stand trial. It is later explained that the US decides not to take him because they don't have enough evidence at the time to charge him with a crime. Saudi Arabia doesn't want him. He is sent to Afghanistan. One US intelligence source in the region later states: "We kidnap minor drug czars and bring them back in burlap bags. Somebody didn't want this to happen." [Village Voice, 10/31/01, Washington Post, 10/3/01]

August 7, 1998: Terrorists bomb the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The U.S. retaliates by firing some 60 missiles at 6 training camps in Afghanistan and about 20 missiles at a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, Sudan -actions which are eventually described as "inept" by most sources. [Observer, 8/23/98, New Yorker, 1/24/00] The destruction of the pharmaceutical factory is a brutal crime.

April, 99: A Saudi government audit shows that five of Saudi Arabia's billionaires have been giving tens of millions of dollars to al-Qaeda. [USA Today, 10/29/99, Boston Herald, 12/10/01]

December 24-31, 1999: An Indian Airlines flight is hijacked; as a result, an Islamic militant, Saeed Sheikh, is released from Indian prison. [BBC, 12/31/99 ] He travels to Pakistan, and lives openly and opulently there. "US sources say he did little to hide his connections to terrorist organizations, and even attended swanky parties attended by senior Pakistani government officials." This behavior has led US authorities to believe he is a "protected asset" of the ISI. [Newsweek, 3/13/02]

January, 2000: Former President George Bush Sr. meets with the bin Laden family on the behalf of the Carlyle Group. [Wall Street Journal, 9/27/01, Guardian, 10/31/01]

April 4, 2000: ISI Director and "leading Taliban supporter" General Ahmad visits Washington. [Washington Post, 12/19/01]

before June 29, 2000: Pakistani ISI Director General Ahmad orders an aide to wire transfer about $100,000 to 9/11 hijacker Atta. Ahmad later resigns after the transfer is disclosed in India and confirmed by the FBI. [Times of India, 10/9/01] The individual who makes the wire transfer is Sheikh Saeed, later convicted for the kidnapping and murder of reporter Daniel Pearl in Feb. 2002. [ABC News, 9/30/01] [CNN, 10/1/01, CNN, 10/6/01, New York Times, 7/10/02]

June, 2000-September 10, 2001: The Financial Times later reports, "US investigators believe about half the $500,000 that the hijackers spent on the September 11 plot was sent by Mustafa Ahmad, who is today regarded by investigators as bin Laden's finance chief, via Dubai money exchanges through Citibank in New York and on to Florida." [Financial Times, 11/29/01] Mustafa Ahmad is another name for Saeed Sheikh

2001: Human Rights Watch report charges that Pakistan has violated the U.N. arms embargo on the Taliban imposed in December 2000, by permitting arms to cross its border... providing military advisers, logistical support during key battles, and financing.

summer, 2001: Egyptian investigators track down a close associate of bin Laden named Ahmed al-Khadir, wanted for bombing the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad in 1995. Egyptians surround the safe house in Pakistan where al-Khadir is hiding. They notify the ISI to help arrest him, and the ISI promises swift action. Instead, a car sent by the ISI filled with Taliban and having diplomatic plates comes to the house, grabs al-Khadir and drives him to safety in Afghanistan. Time magazine later brings up the incident to show the strong ties between the ISI and both the Taliban and al-Qaeda. [Time, 5/6/02]

mid-July, 2001: John O'Neill, FBI counter-terrorism expert, says, "the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it." He also states, "All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia." [CNN, 1/8/02, CNN, 1/9/02 , Irish Times, 11/19/01, the book "Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth"]

[NOTE: John O'Neil became head of security at the WTC towers a few weeks before Sept. 11th, and died in the attacks].

August, 2001: Former CIA directorate of operations officer, Robert Baer, obtains a computer record of "hundreds" of secret al-Qaeda operatives in the Gulf region, many in Saudi Arabia, concerning a "spectacular terrorist operation" that will take place shortly. The Saudi defense minister, Prince Sultan, refuses to look at the list or to pass the names on. Large sections of Baer's book are blacked out, having been censored by the CIA. [Financial Times, 1/12/02, the book See No Evil by Robert Baer, 2/02]

September 11, 2001: The Carlyle Group, the twelth largest arms contractor in the world, (for whom George Bush Sr. is a consultant/executive, as are many of his former cabinet members) is hosting a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests of honor is investor Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama.

September 13-19, 2001: Members of bin Laden's family and important Saudis are flown out of the US, during the time that all U.S. commercial flights are grounded.[Boston Globe, 9/21/01, New Yorker, 11/5/01, [Tampa Tribune, 10/5/01]

September 14, 2001: flight instructors in Florida say that it was common for students with Saudi affiliations to enter the US with only cursory background checks and sometimes none. [Boston Globe, 9/14/01]

September 15-17, 2001: A series of articles suggest that at least 7 of the 9/11 hijackers had training in US military bases. [New York Times, 9/15/01, Newsweek, 9/15/01]

September 17, 2001: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R), who claims to have made many secret trips into Afghanistan and even fought with the mujaheddin there, describes to Congress how "our intelligence services knew about the location of bin Laden several times but were not permitted to attack him... because of decisions made by people higher up." [Speech to the House of Representatives, 9/17/01]

October 27, 2001: The bin Laden family divests from the Carlyle Group around this time, in light of public controversy surrounding the family after the 9/11 attacks. [Washington Post, 10/27/01]

early November, 2001: It is later reported that many locals in Afghanistan witness a remarkable escape of al-Qaeda forces from Kabul around this time. Says one local businessman, "We don't understand how they weren't all killed the night before because they came in a convoy of at least 1,000 cars and trucks. [London Times, 7/22/02]

November 5, 2001: A New Yorker article points to evidence that the bin Laden family has generally not ostracized itself from bin Laden, but retains close ties in some cases. The large bin Laden family owns and runs a $5 billion a year global corporation that includes the largest construction firm in the Islamic world. [New Yorker, 11/5/01]

November 10, 2001: Telegraph reporter Christina Lamb is arrested and expelled from Pakistan by the ISI. She had been investigating the connections between the ISI and the Taliban. Reporter Daniel Pearl's investigation into the ISI will later result in his death. [Telegraph, 11/11/01]

mid-November, 2001: At the request of the Pakistani government, the US secretly allows rescue flights into the besieged Taliban stronghold of Kunduz to save Pakistanis fighting for the Taliban and bring them back to Pakistan. [Independent,] The New Yorker magazine reports that, "What was supposed to be a limited evacuation apparently slipped out of control and, as an unintended consequence, an unknown number of Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters managed to join in the exodus." [New Yorker, 1/21/02]

mid-November, 2001: Ismail Khan, governor of Herat province and one of Afghanistan's most successful militia leaders, later claims that his troops and other Northern Alliance fighters held back from sweeping into Kandahar at this time at the request of the US. Khan maintains "we could have captured all the Taliban and the al-Qaeda groups. We could have arrested Osama bin Laden with all of his supporters." [USA Today, 1/2/02]

November 16, 2001: According to Newsweek, approximately 600 al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters escape Afghanistan. Many senior leaders are in the group. They had walked a long trek from bombing in the Tora Bora region. There are two main routes out of the Tora Bora cave complex to Pakistan. The US bombed only one route. [Newsweek, 8/11/02 ]

November 21, 2001: The Independent runs a story headlined, "Opium Farmers Rejoice at the Defeat of the Taliban." The story reports that massive opium planting is underway all over the country. [Independent, 11/21/01]

November 28, 2001: A US Special Forces soldier stationed in Fayetteville, North Carolina later (anonymously) claims that the US had bin Laden pinned in a certain Tora Bora cave on this day, but failed to act. On the same day this story is reported, the media also reports a recent spate of strange deaths at the same military base in Fayetteville. Five soldiers and their wives have all died since June, 2002 in apparent murder-suicides. All five soldiers had recently returned from Afghanistan, at least three were special forces. [Independent, 8/2/02 ]

late November, 2001: The Telegraph later reports on the battle for Tora Bora: " Eyewitnesses express shock that the US pinned in Taliban and al-Qaeda forces... on three sides only, but left the route to Pakistan open. "The border with Pakistan was the key, but no one paid any attention to it. When the battle was over, only 21 bedraggled al-Qaeda fighters were captured. [Telegraph, 2/23/02]

December 4, 2001: Convicted drug lord and opium kingpin Ayub Afridi is recruited by the US government to help establish control in Afghanistan by unifying various Pashtun warlords. The former opium smuggler, who was one of the CIA's leading assets in the war against the Russians, is released from prison in order to do this. [Asia Times, 12/4/01]

December 13, 2001: The US releases a video of bin Laden that seems to confirm the role of bin Laden in the 9/11 attack -save for a number of discrepancies, the most important of which appears to be that the person in the video just plain doesn't look like him, especially in the nose.[http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/people/twoosamas.jpg]

December 30, 2001: The new Afghan Interior Minister Younis Qanooni claims that the ISI helped bin Laden escape from Afghanistan: "Undoubtedly they (ISI) knew what was going on." He claims that the ISI is still supporting bin Laden even if Pakistani president Musharraf wasn't. [BBC, 12/30/01]


------------------------------------------------------

Primary Sources:

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/AAsaudi.html

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/

http://www.globalresearch.ca

http://www.copvcia.com
With over 40,000 employees, the Bin Laden Group is represented in the major cities of Saudi Arabia and the Arab capitals of Beirut, Cairo, Amman, and Dubai. The company builds highways, housing units, factories, hangars, and military bases, some of which are part of the U.S.-Saudi "Peace Shield" agreement.

The story of the Bush involvement with bin Laden and the BCCI scandal involves "trails that branched, crossed one another, or came to unexpected dead ends," according to The Outlaw Bank.

FREAK ACCIDENT

Salem bin Laden came to an "unexpected dead end" in a Texas pasture, 11 years after investing in Arbusto, when the ultralight aircraft he was flying crashed into power lines near San Antonio on Memorial Day, 1988.

On the morning of May 29, 1988, almost immediately after takeoff, Salem bin Laden's aircraft struck and became entangled in power lines 150 feet high before plunging to the ground.

"He was a very experienced pilot. He was a good pilot. We just can't understand why he decided to go right instead of left," recalled airstrip owner and former Marine Earl May field, who cradled bin Laden, bleeding from the ears.

That day, bin Laden took off in a southeasterly direction into the wind. He surprised onlookers by turning west to ward power lines less than a quarter-mile away.

"Nobody could figure out why he tried to fly over the power lines," said Gerry Auerbach, 77, of New Braunfels, a retired pilot.

Bin Laden had more than 15,000 hours of flight experience.

aloute
08.02.2004, 23:41
Der Titel sollte heisen: US Verwaltunsgwissenschaftler vermuteten, das die Vermutung, naja eben vermutet werden konnte....

(Sorry wegen des 'irrefuehrenden Titels')

Original von aloute

Bush, Blair,Aznar,Belrusconi und Co. 'Kriegsverbrecher'?

George Tenet, director of the CIA, defended his agency last week, saying: "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these [WMD] programmes and those debates were spelled out … in [a classified report to the White House]. They never said there was an imminent threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policy-makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programmes that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests."

As the Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, has admitted, talk of ousting Saddam started just days after the attacks of 11 September, even though officials accepted there was no evidence that Saddam was involved.

Just when Tony Blair signed up for "regime change" in Iraq – whether it was in the first weeks of 2003, when the "UN route" failed, or much earlier, in 2002 – remains obscure. But a clear picture has emerged in which the Bush administration, in tandem with its friends in London, aggressively pursued pieces of intelligence to support its claim that Saddam possessed WMD – and was therefore in breach of UN resolutions.

Those analyses that did not support that view – notably the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate in October 2002, which included 40 caveats about claims regarding Iraq's WMD – were simply ignored. The White House preferred the British dossier, produced the month before: in his State of the Union address in January last year, George Bush approvingly quoted Britain's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa to develop nuclear weapons, ignoring warnings from his own intelligence agencies that it was false.

American appreciation for British efforts in the information war went back to Afghanistan, when Downing Street produced an eloquent dossier detailing the crimes of the Taleban regime and its support for al-Qaeda. In his Security Council speech Mr Powell commended another British document, produced a few days earlier, on Iraq's tactics of intimidation and deception, before it became known as the "dodgy dossier". Large chunks had been plagiarised from an old student thesis.

"I call it faith-based intelligence gathering," said Greg Thielmann, a former analyst with the State Department's Intelligence Bureau. Some analysts have claimed they were pressured into skewing the information to provide the sought-after "product", but Mr Thielmann, now retired, believes no arm-twisting was required: analysts and their managers were well aware what was needed, and a form of self-censorship took place.

"Analysts want to maintain relationships," he said. "Tenet spoke to the President six days a week [for his daily intelligence briefing]. If he went and said, 'Mr President, you have misrepresented what my analysts said,' how long would he keep going to the White House?"

But the senior officials in the Bush administration, their attention caught by the neo-conservative voices calling for the ousting of Saddam, to stabilise the Middle East and secure one of the biggest untapped oil supplies in the world, did not simply rely on the established analysts to provide them with information.

They established their own units to analyse and gather information and report directly to them without the usual process of filters – "stovepiping" information straight to the White House.

Vice President Dick Cheney, who is still unrepentedly making lurid claims about Iraq, had his own team of cherry-pickers. The Pentagon had the Office for Special Plans (OSP), which sponsored the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a group of Iraqi exiles headed by Ahmed Chalabi, currently the chair of the Iraqi Governing Council.

The exiles provided defectors and witnesses who told the OSP exactly what it wanted to hear: that Saddam was producing WMD, that he was ready to use it and that the people of Iraq would greet American troops with flowers should Washington decided to oust Saddam.

With few exceptions, all of the information provided by the INC defectors was incorrect. A report issued last year by the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) said defectors invented or exaggerated their claims to have personal knowledge of the regime and its alleged weapons of mass destruction. The US paid more than $1m for such information.

And while Britain fed dubious items of intelligence to the US, experts on this side of the Atlantic believe at least some of the equally unreliable INC material made its way here. With its intelligence headquarters in London, the INC had direct contacts with British officials as well.

Each side steered clear of certain allegations made by its partner, however. After one mention by Mr Bush on the day the British dossier was published, the Americans never picked up on the notorious 45-minute claim.

Britain, meanwhile, was silent on attempts in the US to link Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda, though that did not prevent vaguer warnings about the danger of Iraqi WMD falling into the hands of terrorists.

Robert David Steele, a former CIA operative, said: "Yes, I think there was a intelligence failure, but I don't think there can be an intelligence failure without a preceding policy failure. In the absence of adequate intelligence we allowed political mendacity to fill a vacuum."

Such suspicions, which have dogged the Prime Minister for months, are now eroding support for George Bush in an election year, and he is not likely to have much room for concern about his ally as he looks for an escape route.

The Independent on Sunday reported exclusively last week that Mr Blair's allies feared he was about to be hung out to dry by the White House. The newspaper had barely reached the shops before this prediction came true. President Bush announced an inquiry into whether the intelligence services got it wrong, something Mr Blair had resisted for months.

The Prime Minister hoped that Lord Hutton's hearings into the narrower question of why Dr David Kelly killed himself would satisfy the British public's appetite for inquiries.

Lord Falconer, Mr Blair's oldest ally in the Cabinet, said on Sunday that "little would be achieved" by any other inquiry.

Hours later, Mr Blair found his reverse gear. When Washington announced it would hold an inquiry, Downing Street conceded that Britain must have one too.

On Monday evening, the Conservative leader, Michael Howard, had a telephone call from the Prime Minister asking if he would agree to let the Conservatives be represented on the inquiry team.

Mr Howard insisted that the inquiry must look not just at the intelligence gathered, but the use that the Government made of it. Mr Blair agreed to that in principle, but was not willing to yield to the Liberal Democrat demand for an inquiry which would judge whether the Government was right to declare war.

While the Tories signed up to Lord Butler's inquiry, the Lib Dems have decided to stay out. It may prove a wise choice: confidence in the inquiry, which will meet behind closed doors, was hardly reinforced by the rush last week to elevate all its members to the Privy Council, on the grounds that a PC after your name means you can be trusted with a secret in a way that other people cannot.

Ann Taylor, the former Chief Whip, was the only existing PC, so the other four members – Lord Butler of Brockwell, Michael Mates MP, Sir John Chilcot and Field Marshal Lord Inge – all had to be raised to the same level.

As one fellow Privy Counsellor remarked: "The dear old Queen has been kissing hands all week."

The Butler inquiry is due to report this summer, but Mr Blair may well have more to fear from the parallel exercise being conducted in Washington, which has been given a deadline to report next March – after the November presidential poll, but uncomfortably close to the putative date of a British general election.

No one in the US will have anything to lose if as much blame as possible can be shifted over here.

Whether the Prime Minister can escape being judged a fool or a liar depends crucially on the "45-minute" claim.

It was the strongest evidence the British government offered before the war that Saddam Hussein was not merely defying the authority of the United Nations, but presented a "serious and current" threat to the West, as Mr Blair put it when presenting the dossier to the Commons on 24 September 2002.

The document alleged that Iraq had "military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons. Some of these weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them."

It resulted in headlines the following day such as "Saddam can strike in 45 minutes" in the Daily Express and "Brits 45 minutes from doom" in The Sun, which said British troops and tourists on Cyprus were within range.

Mr Blair's statement in Parliament last week means that he would have believed The Sun's report was correct. Mr Hoon, who would have known otherwise, said he didn't see the news coverage until several months later.

The first official clarification of what the "45 minutes" referred to did not come until the Hutton inquiry last August – four months after the war had ended and nearly a year after the claim was first published.

John Scarlett, head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, and author of the dossier, said it referred, not to missiles for warheads, but to "battlefield mortar shells or small-calibre weaponry, quite different from missiles".

Mr Hoon confirmed when he appeared before Lord Hutton that he knew this at the time.

We now know that the Joint Intelligence Committee sent three assessments of Iraqi weaponry to Downing Street between September continued from page 9 2002 and 18 March, when MPs voted to send British troops to war.

The last of those assessments arrived just before the war, according to Mr Cook. According to the Government, it highlighted "intelligence indicating that chemical weapons remained disassembled and that Saddam had not yet ordered their assembly".

The JIC also said other intelligence showed that "the 750km range Al Hussein ballistic missiles remained disassembled and that it would take several days to assemble them". But Mr Blair still apparently did not know what could be deployed in 45 minutes.

Mr Cook suggested yesterday that this discrepancy should be investigated by the Butler committee. If Mr Blair is right, then the committee would surely have to give the JIC a severe rebuke for withholding vital information from the Prime Minister.

But if it turns out that the correct information was among the three assessments, Mr Blair could have trouble explaining his answer to Mr Ottaway last week.

Another possibility is that he did not read the assessments, even though Britain was on the brink of war. That would save him from the charge of mendacity, at the cost making him appear irresponsible.

With no experience of defence or foreign affairs before arriving in Downing Street, one Whitehall veteran pointed out, he might not have grasped the intelligence : "I doubt whether we will ever find out what Tony Blair knew at any particular time," he said "unless he signed a piece of paper which turns up. He believes what he is saying."

Mr Thielmann, the former intelligence analyst, expressed little optimism that either British or American inquiry would get to the crux of the issue – the politicisation of intelligence: "We are like-minded in whitewashes, [twisting] intelligence, and going to war when it is not necessary."

Arthuro
08.02.2004, 23:47
Wollen mir die Gutmenschen hier weis machen , daß eine Notlüge seitens der Amerikaner und Engländer schlimmer ist , als wenn ein Despot wie Saddam mehrere tausend Menschen umbringen lässt ???

Absolut JEDE Lüge ist gerechtfertigt , um Saddam den gar aus zu machen !!!

Mein Respekt gilt Mister Blair und Mister Bush .
Auf eine gelungene Wiederwahl !!

aloute
09.02.2004, 00:02
Blair sagte das die Geshichte im Recht geben wird....
Warten wir es ab. Die toten sind tot...
Jene die noch folgen werden sich auch durch die Geschichte nicht mehr wieder erwecken lassen koennen und...
Ich bi nur gegen den ganzen scheiss Krieg, da die ganze Sache stinkt von Anfang an als Bush und seine 'cowboys' kammen.
:baby:

Arthuro
09.02.2004, 00:18
Blair sagte das die Geshichte im Recht geben wird....


Ein weiser Mann.
In 10 Jahren wird man sich die Situaiton vergegenwärtigen und auf den Schluss kommen , daß es gut war, die Saddamclique zu vernichten !!


Stellt euch mal vor die Israelis hätten damals nicht das Irakische Atomkraftwerk ( Osirak) vernichtet ? . Saddam hätte heute Atomwaffen .
Die Paszifisten haben Israel fuer diese Aktion scharf angegriffen , klar. Das Saddam ein Atomfkraftwerk bauen ließ ( von den Franzosen), hat keinen interessiert !! .. Wir müssen alles daransetzen , das diese Leute , ihren willen niemals bekommen !!

Wenn Paszifisten ihren Willen bekommen , sind wir alle Tot !

A!




A!

patex
09.02.2004, 01:47
hallo zusammen,

ihr benötigt aufklärung?

Hintergründe (http://www.rupe-india.org/)

@aloute => ich sende dir gerne ein sonderheft zu (sag mir per pn wohin und du bekommst es als PDF)....ausschnitt:



Hinter der Irak-Invasion

Indien als Säule der US-Vorherrschaft

Leser der Aspekte werden zweifellos von diesem Sonderheft überrascht sein, weil es scheinbar keinen Aspekt der politischen Oekonomie Indiens behandelt, sondern den drohenden US-Angriff auf Irak. Wir glauben jedoch, dass beide Seiten - Indiens politische Oekonomie und die
gegenwärtig wichtigste Entwicklung auf der Welt - miteinander verbunden sind. Wenn die Offensive, die die USA weltweit entfesselt haben, weiter fortschreitet, werden die Auswirkungen für unsere Region klarer werden.

Während die USA ihren massiven Angriff auf den Irak vorbereiten, haben sie erklärt, dass Indien ihr wichtigster militärischer Alliierter in der asiatischen Region (d.h. ohne West-Asien) sei. Und das obwohl sie zur Zeit drei Basen in Pakistan haben. Die Bedeutung des Begriffs des 'alliierten Indiens' beschränkt sich nicht auf den möglichen Gebrauch indischer Häfen und Flugplätze, um amerikanische Kriegsschiffe und Flugzeuge wieder aufzutanken. Indien ist ein wichtiger Teil der
strategischen Ordnung der USA geworden. Diese Ordnung konzentriert sich jetzt darauf, sich Iraks und einiger anderer Staaten in West-Asien zu bemächtigen. Aber morgen wird sich der Schwerpunkt nach Asien verschieben, dem die USA wachsende strategische Bedeutung beimessen.

Nur ein naives Gemüt glaubt die Gründe, die in den Reden der indischen und amerikanischen Politiker genannt werden: Dass der Grund für das neue Interesse der USA Indiens wachsende Bedeutung als Weltmacht ist. Indiens Wirtschaft ist umfasst weniger als 5 Prozent der amerikanischen und sein Bruttoinlandprodukt hat etwa die Grösse des amerikanischen Handelsdefizits. Seine Rüstungsausgaben liegen bei 13 Milliarden Dollar, bei den USA sind es 379 Milliarden Dollar. Der Grund liegt nicht in einer indisch-amerikanischen 'Partnerschaft', sondern in
der Entwicklung der US-Interessen. Und dabei ist Indien ein strategischer Bauer im Schachspiel. In den Worten des US-Botschafters Robert Blackwill: "Präsident Bush verfolgt energisch ein strategisches Verhältnis mit Indien, weil ein mächtiges Indien die amerikanischen demokratischen Werte [sic] und die entscheidenden nationalen Interessen der USA im kommenden Jahrzehnt fördern wird".

sehr interessant. leider habe ich keinen eigenen webserver, sonst würde ich es als download anbieten. @aloute => könntest du dies zum download anbieten nachdem ich es dir dann geschickt habe....???


patex

aloute
09.02.2004, 08:41
Und wie passt das dazu?
Wenn jetzt noch immer ein Idiot auf diesen Forum behauptet oder der Meinung ist, das Bush ein Mann des Friedens und Sicherheit ist, dann sollte er sich wirklich mal untersuchen lassen.
Nicht eimal wahnsinnige Massenmoerder wie Po Pot oder andere, nicht einmalStalin, oder Hitler, nicht einer dieser Idi Amins, nahm sich als solch eine Person an. Jemand der solch einen Mann die hand drueckt, sollte morgen von der Oeffentlichkeit verschwinden. Mit einen Irren wie diesen, welcher schon in Texas als der Schlaecher verufen war, nun als 'Praesident' der USA, ja habe ich keinen Zweifel mehr wo die 'Axe of Evil' tatsaechlich ist!
Dieser Mann ist krank. Sollte sich mal untersuchen lassen...
Bush sieht sich als "Kriegspräsident"


Washington (WN) - US-Präsident George W. Bush hat sich als "Kriegspräsident" bezeichnet und davor gewarnt, dass der Welt weitere Gefahren drohen. In einem am Sonntag ausgestrahlten Interview mit dem US-Fernsehsender NBC sagte Bush mit Blick auf die Präsidentschaftswahl im November: "Ich treffe meine Entscheidungen in auswärtigen Angelegenheiten hier im Oval Office (des Weißen Hauses) und habe dabei den Krieg im Hinterkopf." Es wäre ihm zwar lieber, es wäre anders, aber es sei nun einmal so. "Und das amerikanische Volk muss wissen, dass es einen Präsidenten hat, der die Welt sieht, wie sie ist", fügte Bush hinzu. Er sehe bestehende Gefahren, und es sei wichtig, diesen entgegenzutreten. (Hoffentlich nimmt er das ernst und raeumt sich selber weg.

Mit Bush, haben wir bald eine Krise wie 1961 (?) Cuba - Russland -USA! Dieser Chaot ist zu allen faehig und nicht nur Nationen im Mittleren Osten sondern auch Europa sollte diesen 'Mann' sehe sehr mit vorsicht beobachten und vielleicht auch in Europa so etwas wie ein 'Warnstuffe' einfuehren und sofort mit 'Orange' beginnen.

l_osservatore_uno
09.02.2004, 09:14
... Gothaur, doch die USA haben nicht das sittliche Recht mit dem Zeigefinger auf andere Leute zu deuten, denn oft genug waren eben jene Tyrannen ihre wohlgelittenen Partner. Und gerade Saddam ist ja nun ein Paradebeispiel für die moralische Doppelbödigkeit US-amerikanischer Politik.

Und das ist es, was mich hauptsächlich stört an diesem Krieg: Lumpen versuchen anderen Lumpen Moral beizubiegen!

Freundlichen Gruß!

Enzo

aloute
09.02.2004, 09:55
Haben wir hunderte von faellen im Archiv, wo Dikatoren ins Exil gegangen wurden und ein Leben in Paradies fuehrten. Da liegt einwandfrei auch ein Internationales Versagen vor da man solche Leute dann im Land des Exil, wie Marcos in den USA (Hawai) oder Duvalier in Frankreich, haette vor Gericht bringen muessen. Das passierte auch mit Marcos in den USA aber beide wurden trotz Milliarden freigesprochen.
Trotzdem, danke fuer Selbstgerecht, jedoch als Mensch ist e smir lieber das solch ein Staatsverbrecher welcher Geld vom Volk stielt oder Schmiergelder annimmt oder in Korruptionen verwickelt ist, ins Asyl geht oder gegangen wird, als das man die Zivilbevoelkerung umbringt , zerbombt, vernichtet um solch einen 'ausser Vollzug' zu setzen.
Es ist auch nicht die Aufgabe der USA, einen Korrupten Politiker irgendwo auf der anderen seite der Welt (fuer die USA) abzuloesen welcher nichts als nachweisbare Geschaeftsverbindungen mit den USA hatte (Siehe Bericht Rumsfeld-Reagan)
Wenn die USA schon korruptierte Politiker auf der welt absetzen will dann sollten sie vor ihrer Tuer anfangen, suedlich!
Stell dir mal vor 'Oldie' die USA wuerden jeden Korrupten Politiker in der Welt absetzten wollen?
Die UNO? das die versagt hatten und eine Unfaehigkeit praesentierten, daran gab es mit sicherheit keinen Zweifel.
Nur, wir haben eben keine Weltarme, welche uberall da eingesetzt wird oder werden kann wo Korruption passiert. Was waere dann mit Deutschland geworden in den Uaufgeklaerten Fall Kohl?
oder soll ich hier eine Liste auflegen von bekannten Korruption wo sich kein mensch der Welt was darum scheisst?
Die Welt, die menschheit sollte sich einmal klar darauber werden das der 'Fall Irak' nichts mit Bin Laden zu tun hatte, das Irak bereits seit Jahren geplannt war, das Irak ein Kriegsaktion einen braven Sohnes ist, welcher die Schande seines Vaters gewaschen hat.
Irak, ist eine REINE USA - SADDAM Sache und hat, im direkten zusammenhang nichts mit Korruption, nichts mit Terror zu tun.
Das ist BUSH -SADDAM! Ende.
Das Saddam weg ist mag gut sein fuer das Volk im Irak. Noch besser waere es wenn nun die USA auch weg gingen und es eine Sache der Iraker werden zu lassen.
(Das ist es was die USA versprochen hatten, aber naja, Korruption, scheint es eben auc in den USA zu geben!) Also Oldie, wie waere es nun die USA zum Wort halten aufzuforden?

aloute
09.02.2004, 10:05
Schon geantwortet 'Oldie'!

patex
10.02.2004, 02:45
@aloute,


Und wie passt das dazu?

steht im pdf halt drin....die genaue history des vorderen asiens seit 1954 glaube ich...soll nicht zu deiner aufklärung sein;ich denke mal dein wissen ist sehr gross was dieses thema angeht. gut ab.....wollte meinen ebitrag zum thema leisten.

patex

AxelFoley
12.02.2004, 11:19
Jetzt versichen Bush und Blair ihr Handeln nachträglich zu legitimieren.


Erinnert etwas an die Indemnitätsvorlage Bismarcks.




Blair sagt, er hätte nicht über die vollen Informationen zum Krieg verfügt.


Wie kann man eine solche Entscheidung fällen, ohne die Sachlage zu kennen ?


Mir ist das unbegreiflich.