Saturday, July 26, 2003

On the other hand (maybe rush to impeach is too quick)

On the other hand,

  • Hussein and his cronies were pretty nasty
  • It's clear they were researching a buncha stuff anyway
  • They did nasty things to their people

So maybe it's a good thing that we knocked them out of power. It's going to help the Iraqi people in the long run.

Maybe. Who knows for sure. In the meantime we have serious lies by the whole of the U.S. Administration to create the war.

Hunt for arms 'is being hampered by lack of experienced inspectors'

Weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq because the "wrong experts" are there, former United Nations weapons inspectors say.

The inspectors said yesterday that inadequate pay, and possibly a disinclination by the US to allow experts associated with the UN to take credit for any weapons finds, were at the root of the problem.

The former UN experts who worked for Unscom teams in the 1990s in Iraq are considered the leading experts in chemical, biological, nuclear weapons and missile technology.

But only now have such experienced hands begun to be sent to Iraq as part of the US-led Iraq Survey Group.
Richard Spertzel, a top American expert on germ warfare who led the Unscom biological weapons team, suggests politics are to blame. He said he was "all set to go in April. But at the 13th hour, someone decided I wasn't going".

Hmm, this is troubling. The most critical of the claims to create this war, and there's scant support for proving these claims?

White House urged to reveal Saudi links with al-Qa'ida

he White House came under fresh pressure last night to launch an aggressive investigation into claims that Saudi Arabia thwarted American efforts to investigate al-Qa'ida before the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001. Democrats also called for a inquiry into allegations that the kingdom might have, wittingly or unwittingly, channelled money to the hijackers.

The Democrats want President George Bush to declassify 28 pages of a congressional report on the failures of US intelligence in the run-up to the attacks. The censored pages reportedly detail possible Saudi culpability.

Officials who have knowledge of the full report say the missing pages, withheld at the insistence of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for "national security reasons", specifically examine whether one of America's allies was implicated in the attacks. One declassified section reveals that the investigation found "information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the 11 September hijackers while they were in the United States". The officials were quoted as confirming that one source was Saudi Arabia.

This has been one of the troubling issues. The U.S. and Britain both have a special relationship with Saudi Arabia dating back to its formation as a country (in which U.S. and British interests had a large hand). Special relationships, though, extend up to the present day such as George W. Bush having been in business partnership with one of Osama bin Laden's brothers, and George H.W. Bush being a partner with the bin Laden family in the Carlysle Group. Special relationships indeed.

It's been particularly interesting that most of the hijackers of the September 11 attack were Saudi nationals, and none were Iraqi. Why did the U.S. attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? Hmm..

In any case ..

Furious Saudis reject US 9/11 claims,11599,1006076,00.html

The Saudi Arabian government has furiously denied involvement in the September 11 2001 terror attacks on New York and Washington, after a US report speculated on Saudi connections to two of the 19 hijackers.

"The idea that the Saudi government funded, organised or even knew about September 11 is malicious and blatantly false," the Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, said in a sharply-worded statement released yesterday.


Mr Bayoumi knew hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi when they lived in San Diego a year before the September 11 attacks. He helped pay their rent, US authorities say.


"According to a US government official, it was clear from about 1996 that the Saudi government would not cooperate with the United States on matters related to Osama bin Laden," the report says.


Prince Bandar angrily defended his country's record on fighting terrorism, and called for the publication of the classified information.

"First we were criticised by 'unnamed sources'. Now we are being criticised with blank pieces of paper. In a 900-page report, 28 blanked-out pages are being used by some to malign our country and our people," he said. "Saudi Arabia has nothing to hide. We can deal with questions in public, but we cannot respond to blank pages."

Fair enough, the 28 pages in question is the same information the White House is being urged to release above.

No comments:

Post a Comment