Wash Post: UN Inspectors were disproving Bush's reasons for war.

[Lex]

I think we now know why Bush wanted Blix's UN inspectors out quickly!!
--------------------

Bush Faced Dwindling Data on Iraq Nuclear Bid

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 16, 2003; Page A01

In recent days, as the Bush administration has defended its assertion in the president's State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium, officials have said it was only one bit of intelligence that indicated former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program.

But a review of speeches and reports, plus interviews with present and former administration officials and intelligence analysts, suggests that between Oct. 7, when President Bush made a speech laying out the case for military action against Hussein, and Jan. 28, when he gave his State of the Union address, almost all the other evidence had either been undercut or disproved by U.N. inspectors in Iraq.

By Jan. 28, in fact, the intelligence report concerning Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa -- although now almost entirely disproved -- was the only publicly unchallenged element of the administration's case that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program. That may explain why the administration strived to keep the information in the speech and attribute it to the British, even though the CIA had challenged it earlier.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61622-2003Jul15.html?nav=hptop_tb

[caledesi]

1. I want Hans Blix "on the stand"....I would LOVE it!

Fry these bastards Blix.

[Cocoa]

2. there's some good footage of Blix and ElBaradei

in the audience at one of the UN WMD presentations, either Powell's or Bush's.

They're seen sitting together and looking at each other, shaking their heads, as if to say "can you believe this shit?" as Powell or Bush is heard spewing stuff about aluminum tubes or whatever.

[Lex]

3. Remember all that whining

from Bush and Cheney about how the inspectors weren't accomplishing ANYthing, and we just needed to go over and kick Iraq's ass right away?!

The real reason Bush wanted the inspectors out, the Wash. Post seems to say, is that the inspectors were undercutting all the bullshit reasons the Bush Admin. was using for launching the invasion.

What a tangled web they have woven here. Treasonous.

[grasswire]

4. bastards

This infuriates me.

The haste was not caused by the imminent threat of attack by Iraq.

They whipped us to war because they had NOTHING!

They had to start the war before it became known that there was NOTHING!!

[IndianaGreen]

5. Where was the US press when the British press debunked all of it?

The British press had debunked all of the allegations about WMD almost as soon as Bush & Co were making them.

Where was the US press then?

Answer: They were cheerleaders for the war!

[aneerkoinos]

6. Same as 98

This has been obvious all the time. From the beginning US and UK have absolutely hated UN inspections because they do the job and Iraq has been clean of illegal weapons since 91. Faced with near impossible task, proving the negative, Butler and Ritter came close to giving CLEARED sign in 98, with only few things left unaccounted, as Ritter has repeatedly told. Clinton and Blair had no choise but to cock up the presidential palace scam for an excuse to stop inspections and keep the sanctions in place. And then having some fun bombing Iraq more.

In 2002 Bushistas were absolutely pissed when Iraq called the inspectors back and didn't allow them before they got their 1441 to be used as pretext for invasion. But Blix was more efficient than they thought, when he just before the start of war he told SC that it would take only couple months more to finish their job and declare Iraq cleared. So Blair had no choise but to eat his word and start a war he knew was illegal, and that's why he's tost and taking Bush and Cheney down with him. Cheney must be mighty pissed, remember he opposed UN way from the beginning and for a good reason.

This is the real story and the reason why I think Clinton is (allmost) as big warcriminal as Bush and Blair. They were never going to give Saddam a chance to come clean and stay in power with sanctions lifted according to the peace treaty with UN.

[DUreader]

7. Dureader: Citizen Patriots disproved WP's reason for existing

WP complicit in illegal invasion and deaths of thousands

[jackstraw45]

8. Cheney should be TOAST

"On March 7, ElBaradei gave his final report to the Security Council before his inspectors were removed from Iraq on March 18. His conclusion was that "the IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq." He also said the documents that gave rise to the allegation that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium were forged.

March 16eney appeared again on "Meet the Press" and reiterated his views of the previous August about Hussein's nuclear program. "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." The war began three days later."

This should be the end of Condi's public "service" as well....

The IAEA isn't a mom-and-pop operation. They were ignored in a blood-lust drive for war.

[ewagner]

9. Blix

Isn't Blix writing a book?

Anybody know anthing about that?

I hope he does because we will probably be treated to a whole different reality of what happened last fall leading up to the invasion (NOT LIBERATION). If this thread is as accurate as it seems, a book by Blix would be like viewing a parallel universe!

[robbedvoter]

10. The timing of the SOTU was to preempt Blix's presentation at the UN

The aluminum tubes (and most nuclear BS) had been debunked on Jan 27 - so they weaseled out with "suitable tubes" And WaPo was silent - no, it was gushing on the speech, as we were all fuming over these very obvious lies at the time.

[Texican]

11. UN1441

One point that I do not see being made is that we and the UK agreed to share our Intelligence with the UN in 1441. We have not done that. Gee, I wonder why?

[rhino91063]

12. I guess that explains why he was in such a rush to go to war

He had to attack before the UN proved EVERYTHING he said was a LIE!

[GumboYaYa]

13. The most interesting part of this article is the author.

Walter Pincus is historically a mouthpiece for the CIA. If he is writing this article it means someone in the CIA has the goods on the whole case against war and that is the next shoe to drop. Bush has royally pissed off some career spooks.

[Rose Siding]

16. In the 2nd pp, he writes that virtually all the research for this article

is based on public info that would have been available to him long ago.

Why didn't he write it a month ago? or 4 months ago?

[gratuitous]

14. The dates in the article are quite interesting

If all this stuff was known at the time, why was the Washington Post behind the rush to war? Because it would sell more papers? Boost their ad revenue? Covering things blowin' up real good is more interesting and exciting than covering budget deficits and dwindling government services?

The corrupt Bush administration has much to answer for. The media that enabled it has a similar task, but nobody will hold them accountable.

[jackstraw45]

15. kick

:kick:

In case you haven't read this article...