Friday, May 23, 2008

Douglas Feith Lies about Saddam's Nonexistent WMDS & Next Stop Iran

UPDATE: 6:32 pm.
Disturbing Revelations and Facts about The Bush Regime

see for instance Thomas Oliphant's book Utter Incompetents: Ego and Ideology In The Age Of Bush published 2007.

Even now there are those like Douglas Feith who continue to defend the Bush Regimes disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. Feith claims that Saddam had moth-balled the WMDS but could have them available within a few weeks for deployment which is actually utter nonsense.

HANS BLIX interviewed by Amy Goodman at Democracy Now!
Douglas Feith Continues Bush Regime Propaganda lies and disinformation on Saddam & WMDs
May 21, 2008

Former Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix on the US Rush to War in Iraq, the Threat of an Attack on Iran, and the Need for a Global Nuclear Ban to Avoid Further Catastrophe

The Bush administration's claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq formed the key justification for the war to Congress, the American people and the international community. As the former chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix was at the center of the storm. From March 2000 to June 2003, Blix oversaw the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission's 700 inspections at 500 sites in the run-up to the invasion. Blix is currently the chair of the Swedish government's Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission. His latest book, just published, is Why Nuclear Disarmament Matters.

DOUGLAS FEITH:" And so, while it was a terrible mistake for the administration to rely on the erroneous intelligence about WMD, and, I mean, it was catastrophic to our credibility, first of all, it was an honest error and not a lie. But even if you corrected for that error, what we found in Iraq was a serious WMD threat, even though Saddam had chosen to not maintain the stockpiles. He had put himself in a position where he could have regenerated those stockpiles, as I said, in three to five weeks. "

HANS BLIX: Well, I think there was no way that Saddam Hussein in Iraq could have reconstituted his nuclear program within years after 2003. David Kay went in, and he came out and said, “Well, there are no weapons, but there are [inaudible] programs.” And then he went out, and in went his successor, and he came out after a year and says there are no programs, but there were intentions. In fact, Iraq was prostrate after so many years of sanctions, and it would have taken them many years to recover and to contemplate any nuclear weapons.

AMY GOODMAN: What did you understand at the time? What were you saying at the time?

HANS BLIX: Well, at the time, we were saying that we had carried out a great many inspections and that we did not find any weapons of mass destruction, and we also voiced some criticism of the some cases that the US Secretary of State Colin Powell had demonstrated in the Security Council. My colleague, Mr. ElBaradei, who was the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had revealed that the alleged contract between Iraq and the state of Niger in Africa for the import of uranium oxide was a forgery and that the—also the tubes of aluminum, which had been alleged to be for making of centrifuges to enrich uranium, they most likely were not for that purpose.

So while the evidence that had been advanced from the US side and the UK side had been very weakened, we had carried out some 700 inspections without finding any evidence at all, and we had actually been to something like three dozen sites, which were given to us by intelligence, and had been able to tell them that, no, there was nothing in them, so that all allegations had been weakened very much, but not to the point of saying that there is nothing, because to prove that there is nothing is really impossible.

In an open letter by Ray McGovern the writer makes the point that all commissioned officers of the U.S. military take an oath to protect, defend and uphold the constitution of the United States . The oath is not taken in order to protect the president of the United States. What the author suggests is that when a president tries to over-ride or act contrary to the constitution and the interests of the American people then it is the sworn duty of military officers to stand up to that president and to speak out against that president.

Attack Iran:Trash the Constitution

By Ray McGovern

Dear Admiral Fallon,

20/05/08 "ICH" -- - I have not been able to find out how to reach you directly, so I drafted this letter in the hope it will be brought to your attention.

First, thank you for honoring the oath we commissioned officers take to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. At the same time, you have let it be known that you do not intend to speak, on or off the record, about Iran.

But our oath has no expiration date. While you are acutely aware of the dangers of attacking Iran, you seem to be allowing an inbred reluctance to challenge the commander in chief to trump that oath, and to prevent you from letting the American people know of the catastrophe about to befall us if, as seems likely, our country attacks Iran.

Two years ago I lectured at the Naval Academy in Annapolis. I found it highly disturbing that, when asked about the oath they took upon entering the academy, several of the "Mids" thought it was to the commander in chief.

This brought to my mind the photos of German generals and admirals (as well as top church leaders and jurists) swearing personal oaths to Hitler. Not our tradition, and yet…

I was aghast that only the third Mid I called on got it right – that the oath is to protect and defend the Constitution, not the president.

Attack Iran and Trash the Constitution

No doubt you are very clear that an attack on Iran would be a flagrant violation of our Constitution, which stipulates that treaties ratified by the Senate become the supreme law of the land; that the United Nations Charter – which the Senate ratified on July 28, 1945, by a vote of 89 to 2 – expressly forbids attacks on other countries unless they pose an imminent danger; that there is no provision allowing some other kind of "preemptive" or "preventive" attack against a nation that poses no imminent danger; and that Iran poses no such danger to the United States or its allies.

And he concludes the letter pleading for sanity and that Admiral Fallon take a more unambiguous stand against the Bush Regimes desire for war against Iran for ideological reasons and as a form of distraction and to end the Bush Regime with a literal bang :

President Bush is way out in front on this issue, and this comes through with particular clarity when he ad-libs answers to questions.

On Oct. 17, 2007, long after he had been briefed on the key intelligence finding that Iran had stopped the nuclear weapons-related part of its nuclear development program, the president spoke as though, well, "mesmerized." He said:

"But this – we got a leader in Iran who has announced he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems you ought to be interested in preventing them from have [sic] the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously."

Some contend that Bush does not really believe his rhetoric. I rather think he does, for the Israelis seem to have his good ear, with the tin one aimed at U.S. intelligence he has repeatedly disparaged.

But, frankly, which would be worse: that Bush believes Iran to be an existential threat to Israel and thus requires U.S. military action? Or that it's just rhetoric to "justify" U.S. action to "take care of" Iran for Israel?

What you can do, Admiral Fallon, is speak authoritatively about what is likely to happen – to U.S. forces in Iraq, for example – if Bush orders your successors to begin bombing and missile attacks on Iran.

And you could readily update Scowcroft's remarks, by drawing on what you observed of the Keystone Cops efforts of White House ideologues, like Iran-Contra convict Elliot Abrams, to overturn by force the ascendancy of Hamas in 2006-07 and Hezbollah more recently. (Abrams pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of misleading Congress, but was pardoned by President George H.W. Bush on Dec. 24, 1992.)

It is easy to understand why no professional military officer would wish to be in the position of taking orders originating from the likes of Abrams.

If you weigh in as your (non-expiring) oath to protect and defend the Constitution dictates, you might conceivably prompt other sober heads to speak out.

And, in the end, if profound ignorance and ideology – supported by the corporate press and by both political parties intimidated by the Israel lobby – lead to an attack on Iran, and the Iranians enter southern Iraq and take thousands of our troops hostage, you will be able to look in the mirror and say at least you tried.

You will not have to live with the remorse of not knowing what might have been, had you been able to shake your reluctance to speak out.

There is a large Tar Baby out there – Iran. You may remember that as Brer Rabbit got more and more stuck, Brer Fox, he lay low.

A "Fox" Fallon, still pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States, cannot lie low – not now.



Ray McGovern; Steering Group; Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

If Bush and Cheney are preparing for an unnecessary war against Iran are there other ways of preventing such an action. Surely there must be a legal means by which the other branches of the U.S. government with the peoples approval could be taken to stop such a war. Would it be possible for the military itself to refuse to go to war against Iran because it is not in America's interest and would be detrimental to America's future. If necessary would it have to take the form of a military coup to resist going to war and therefore oust the Bush Regime and put in place a temporary government.

Though military coups are usually done in favor of an elite or small minority and are therefore anti-democratic are there circumstances under which they could be justified as being in the people's best interest. In this case a military coup would prevent the United States from taking part in an illegal and unnecessary war which would leave United States less secure rather than more secure. Anyway I am just thinking out loud but the idea is intriguing though rather risky to implement. The people in such a scenario would have to be reassured that this would not lead to a suspension of democracy and basic civil-rights in America and that it would be temporary at most lasting til the November election. Desperate times as they say may require desperate measures or at least some creative thinking and possibly creative and unorthodox strategies.

There is little hope of such an action or even groups of military personnel or other groups taking a stand against the Bush Regime and its flunkies such as John McCain or Hilary Clinton or the American Media . Unfortunately most Americans are too caught up in their own selfish and self-serving ethic of Greed and power and success at any cost to ever really care about such notions as truth , integrity, compassion and justice . They are all too willing to invoke patriotism and God when it suits their purposes . For instance they defend Dick Cheney and Halliburton as being blessed by God and that it is God's will that their profits should by 300% or more . Meanwhile it is God's will that those American soldiers killed in Iraq have died and will continue to die to protect the Holy personages of the Godly such as George Bush and Dick Cheney. It is also they claim God's will that these corporations and private contractors such as Halliburton , Kellog Brown and Root and Blackwater should prosper in the War on Terrorism or in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters.

and so it goes,

No comments: