Question:
I need straight answer about the JUSTIFATION FOR WAR IN IRAQ?
anonymous
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
I need straight answer about the JUSTIFATION FOR WAR IN IRAQ?
29 answers:
h h
2007-04-07 15:23:38 UTC
You want a simple answer to a very complex issue. You will not get it on Yahoo Answers sorry.



However you asked...

"What book can I read?"



You can read the following.



From Beruit to Jerusalem- Thomas Friedman

A Quick and Dity Guide to War-James Dunnigan and Austin Bay

The Satanic Verses-Salman Rushdie

Guerilla Warfare- Che Guevara

Black Hawk Down-Mark Bowden

Seapower As Strategy: Navies and National Interests

The Wrong Side of Brightness-Austin Bay

Dereliction of Duty- Robert Patterson

Tribes and Power: Nationalism and Ethnicity in the Middle East- Faleh Abdul-Jabar

Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East-Philip S. Khoury and Joseph Kostiner

Judgment Day-Dave Hunt

An American Feminist in Palestine: The Intifada Years- Sherna Gluck

The Veil and the Male Elite: A Feminist Interpretation of Women's Rights in Islam- Fatima Mernissi

Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East-Dave Fromkin

God Has Ninety-Nine Names: Reporting from a Militant Middle East-Judith Miller

Epicenter: Why the Current Rumblings in the Middle East Will Change Your Future- Joel Rosenburg

What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East- Bernard Lewis

Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy And the Next Great Crisis in the Middle East- Ali Ansari

At Your Own Risk: An American Chronicle of Crisis and Captivity in the Middle East- Tom Sutherland and Jean Sutherland



Start with those and then I think you will have some idea with what we are dealing with.
anonymous
2007-04-07 16:40:27 UTC
The first Gulf war ended in a cease-fire and NOT a peace treaty. The war would resume if Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the cease-fire.



1. Violations: Refused repeatedly over 10-years to allow UN weapons inspectors unrestricted access to potential weapons storage sites or research centers.

2. Numerous violations of the "No Fly zone"

3. Attempted assassination of ex-President Bush during a visit to Kuwait.



So why did we not finish of Iraq in the nineties? Because the President was a democrat (Clinton) and when he proposed an invasion of Iraq he was thwarted by a Republican controlled Congress. They believed he was doing to get folks mind of the Lewinsky affair.
Nat
2007-04-08 17:24:35 UTC
Sigh. More refusal to confront reality from a Questioner who should know better.



(1) America was at war with Japan LONG before Pearl Harbor. Something about siding with the Nationalist Chinese and sending fighter squadrons (the infamous "Flying Tigers" to fight alongside Chiang Kai-Shek as ostentious "mercenaries" that people keep on forgetting about.



(2) America imposed a 100% steel and petroleum EMBARGO on Japan in response to Japan's invasion of French Indochina half a year before Pearl Harbor - a move that was guaranteed to provoke the resource-starved Japanese to strike out at the rest of Asia and the United States.



"Black and White"? Bullshit. The Ameicans had been wargaming Pacific War scenarios facing Japan since the 1920s (Re: "War Plan Orange"). If you want to throw in complicity between FDR and "Winnie", it gets even more convoluted.



(3) If you think websites and books are going to educate you on the full truth of what is going on behind the scenes, you're out of your mind.



Unlike you, I have a security clearance, and I take my job seriously. Unlike you, I don't spread lies and disinformation, and I don't indulge in conspiracy theories and don't call military servicemembers "animal(s) with machine gun(s)".



If the full extent of your knowledge has to be derived from open source references, it sucks to be you. Try hitting up various agencies in 50 to a 100 years with Freedom of Information Act requests, because that's the only way you'll fill those wide, gaping holes in your musings about the Global War on Terror.



If you need answers, tough. Dyed in the wool pacfists like you locked in the protest politics of the 60s can't handle the truth.
anonymous
2007-04-07 15:26:04 UTC
Its simple Saddam was put into power by the US.The US expected him to be a puppet he was for a while.But then started to do what he saw fit for his country and the US administration didn't like it.The US was no longer in control of him.The Taliban was put into power in Afghanistan to fend of the Russians they did with aide and weapons from the US.The US government media Then linked Bin laden and Taliban together because all of the Investments The bush family had with his family.Then The bin laden family was flown out of the US 1 week after 911 The only flights allowed in US airspace No other planes flew for ages.When they were kicked out There assets were taken and the Bush Family got the lot.These wars will go on for ever or until an international court that The US will listen to Rule on it and the bush family will have to pay all that MONEY back
?
2016-05-20 01:12:46 UTC
No. Basic Training and then AIT. Afterwards, you will probably sent to your Unit unless you have an additional school in your contract (Airborne, AirAssult, etc.) If the unit is deployed, more than likely you will be sent to the Rear detachment company and be held back until the unit returns or sent over if needed. It is doubtful you will be thrust into a patrol immediately. It would behoove the PLT SGT and PLT LDR to get you up to speed before they felt you were ready.
anonymous
2007-04-07 15:17:44 UTC
Former defense secretary under President Clinton, William Cohen, sent a letter to the newspapers from Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden stating that the Iraqi government would do everything it can to assist al-qaida including militarily.



Recently released documents captured in Baghdad have categorically linked Iraqi military officers aiding al-qadi with Husseins approval.



There is a mountain of evidence that the Iraqi government was aiding and abbetting terrorist attacks against U.S. and with 9/11.
ersof59
2007-04-07 15:24:51 UTC
If you really want to know why, I'll tell you what I think (it may be right and it may be wrong). As long as our soldiers are there they are serving as a magnet to draw in the terrorists who so desperately need an outlet to their anger for us. The reason we haven't had another attack here is because they are so focused on our soldiers over there. Less overhead involved if you want to think of it in business terms. It sucks our guys are killed over there. It sucks these people are bent on hating us. But I rather they go up against our heavily fortified and alerted marines and army than on our office workers trying to provide for their families by putting in an honest days work. We had to go in somewhere to provide the outlet to confront their aggression. They have no land of their own. Where else would you have suggested?
anonymous
2007-04-07 19:38:35 UTC
i agree that the united states had no justification to go to war with iraq. the un was aloud to check for wmd's and found none, till this day remains ton, i believe it was a perosnal conflict between bush and saddam. I did not want this war to happen in the first place but we r stuck until democracy prevails, if us troops leave chaos will be in iraq for the next century, go to google , key word "loose change" click on the first one and watch that video
anonymous
2007-04-07 15:10:03 UTC
This may help clarify things for you

Afghanistan=Japan

Iraq=Italy

Iran=Germany

As in 1941 America declared war on Japan because they attacked them.

they also declared war on Germany and Italy because of thier alliance with japan.

Saddam's intelligence were in league with al-qaeda, Zarquari's insurgents worked with former baathists.

Of course there's no documentation, the iraqis destroyed it so we couldn't prove it.

The WMDs were taken by the insurgents after the invasion, one was used in a truck bombing recently.

Unlike WW2 we didn't attack the Nazis at the same time, we're maintaining an uneasy peace with Iran at the moment (like the Russians and Germans in 1939)
Misanthrope
2007-04-07 17:23:14 UTC
The simple answer why the US went to war against both Afghanistan and Iraq is - ISRAEL. Our military people are dying and our national wealth is being squandered in support of Israel's quest to dominate the Middle East. Go ahead and call me anti-semetic, and a Nazi, and a Jew hater - that does not negate the fact that the United States is under the thumb of war mongering Jews who use Bush as their "useful idiot", as well as both Republican and Democatic politicans to do their bidding. BTW, I am retired military and I respect the rights of anyone to question the motives of our government and military. IMO, many military members are uneducated and ill-informed as to why they are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. The best way to support our troops is to bring them back home and let Israel fight her own wars.
cbrown122
2007-04-07 15:44:41 UTC
First off you need to learn a little about history. Yes, Japan attacked us. Did we immediately go after Japan? NOPE, we took a lot of losses in the Pacific with the strategy of maintaining the balance. The main focus of the U.S. was Germany and Italy which is why we went straight to Europe. We then went after two countries which DID NOT directly attack us but supported Japan's decision to attack us.



How is that any different then what is going on now? Intel for the last 12 years prior to 9/11 said that Iraq was trying to acquire a nuclear bomb. If that was not good intel then why did the UN have inspectors there? Why are the U.S. forces over there finding 20 year old bombs they just "happened to miss?" Answer is because they were hiding them and moving them from sight to sight. This makes me wonder what slipped out that was usable before we invaded in 2003. Keep in mind there were military convoys leaving Iraq.



Iraq has been a supporter of terrorism. I included a link to an article which mentions these links before the war over there began and how Kerry basically walked into a trap when he tried to say there was no terrorist support in Iraq before the war during the 2004 presidential election.



If we truly are at war with terrorism and not just muslims or Bin Laden then a factory for terrorists is definately a legitimate target in my opinion and Iraq was a supporter of terrorism financially and logistically.



CIA Analysis, January 2003--Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report):

"Iraq continues to be a safehaven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel and other allies."



Does there need to be a link between 9/11 and Iraq and Bin Laden? Absoulutely not, Iraq has a link with terrorism and needs to be dealt with. We need to take out any government that supports terrorism and let that country rebuild themselves and if they support terrorism again...do the same thing. Don't waste years in a war that we can not win because America forgot how to fight a war. If that makes me an animal with a machine gun then so be it because we need more troops ready to fire weapons without thinking of being charged for killing someone trying to kill them.



Of course, above all we need for America, liberals, and Democrats to support our word over the terrorists. We know that terrorists dress as civillians, will lie while being detained, and commit suicide bombings. Yet, if a guy holding a gun gets shot dead wearing civillian clothing and the others say it was a civillian our Democrats and liberals keep pressuring it until it becomes the "truth." If a detainee in Cuba, where I personally spent a year of my life, says we mistreat him then it is held as the truth by Democrats, liberals, and McCain.



Do people not realize that our enemy is outsmarting them? I know if I was being detained I would say I was being mistreated even if I was getting Tri-tip every night of the week and allowed to do whatever I wanted to do.



We are taking an offensive in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak and people want to say that we need to focus on the country that attacked us. We didn't take an offensive with Japan until the outcome in Europe was determined. We have done things better in this aspect then we did during WWII. We attacked the country that had the fugitive and harbored his terrorist group before going elsewhere, can't say that about WW II.



I know I am an animal but oh well, we haven't been attacked in 5 and a half years. Clinton managed to get us attacked 5 times in 8 years. Give me George Bush over a Dem anyday because for as many faults as the guy has, he has managed to do one thing, and that is to keep civillians in America safe.





EDIT: For LEE T



A little history lesson for you. Since you obviously know nothing about how Saddam got into his position. The U.S. had NOTHING to do with it.



Army officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963. Ba'athist leaders were appointed to the cabinet and Abdul Salam Arif became president. Arif dismissed and arrested the Ba'athist leaders later that year. Saddam returned to Iraq, but was imprisoned in 1964. Just prior to his imprisonment and until 1968, Saddam held the position of Ba'ath party secretary.[14] He escaped prison in 1967 and quickly became a leading member of the party. In 1968, Saddam participated in a bloodless coup led by Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr and Briyan al-Reddyb that overthrew Abdul Rahman Arif. Al-Bakr was named president and Saddam was named his deputy, and deputy chairman of the Baathist Revolutionary Command Council. According to biographers, Saddam never forgot the tensions within the first Ba'athist government, which formed the basis for his measures to promote Ba'ath party unity as well as his resolve to maintain power and programs to ensure social stability.



Although Saddam was al-Bakr's deputy, he was a strong behind-the-scenes party politician. Al-Bakr was the older and more prestigious of the two, but by 1969 Saddam Hussein clearly had become the moving force behind the party.



In 1976, Saddam rose to the position of general in the Iraqi armed forces, and rapidly became the strongman of the government. As the weak, elderly al-Bakr became unable to execute his duties, Saddam took on an increasingly prominent role as the face of the government both internally and externally. He soon became the architect of Iraq's foreign policy and represented the nation in all diplomatic situations. He was the de-facto leader of Iraq some years before he formally came to power in 1979. He slowly began to consolidate his power over Iraq's government and the Ba'ath party. Relationships with fellow party members were carefully cultivated, and Saddam soon accumulated a powerful circle of support within the party.





STOP SPREADING THE LIES!!!
anonymous
2007-04-07 15:06:44 UTC
There is absolutely no justification for the war in Iraq.



On another note, 9/11 was staged by the american gov't in order to place a military presence in the middle east.



Pearl Harbour was staged by the United States Gov't in order to justify entering the second world war and eventually placing thousands of military bases in Europe and Asia.



Both were also staged in order for the rich to get richer and to lubricate the gears of the American industrial war machine with the blood of the poor and non white.
anonymous
2007-04-07 15:02:42 UTC
Because at that time, all of the info we had indicated Saddam Hussein had WMD's. Dems and Republicans all say\w the same info and overwhelmingly voted to authorize GWB to go to war. This is as straight as it gets. Hope this helps.
DelK
2007-04-07 15:26:10 UTC
I assume this is a rhetorical question as it's very clear that the grounds give us for the invasion were bogus. BTW, it is not a war now--it is an insurrection against our presence (and between rival intra-country factions).
BekindtoAnimals22
2007-04-07 16:42:02 UTC
Here are several cites that I just randomly picked. All of them claim the intelligence was flawed. Please read and judge for yourself. I see by some of the answers that there must be other sources than the ones I came across, but I couldn't find them.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/



http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/23/60-minutes-cia-official-reveals-bush-cheney-rice-were-personally-told-iraq-had-no-wmd-in-fall-2002



http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_wmd_main.htm



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/29/iraq/main580692.shtml



http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20050901-0949-iraq-thewmdstory-abridged.html
SnowWebster2
2007-04-07 15:08:57 UTC
Ok, here we go again.....



The world changed for many -- apparently not you -- after 9/11.



-- Saddam Hussein violated numerous United Nations resolutions following the first Persian Gulf War. Saddam's military continuously shot at U.S. and British planes patrolling the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones. He offered $25,000 to families of homicide bombers. We know he possessed chemical and biological weapons because he used them during the Iraq/Iran war, and on his own people, the Kurds.



-- The October '02 National Intelligence Estimate concluded with "high confidence" -- the highest certainty allowed -- that Saddam possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. All 16 intelligence agencies contributing to the NIE unanimously agreed on the chemical and biological weapons assumptions, with disagreement only on how far along Saddam was toward acquiring nukes.



-- Weapons inspectors found no WMD stockpiles, leading many Americans to feel that the president either lied or cherry-picked intelligence to lead us into war. But the Robb-Silverman Commission concluded that the president didn't lie. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee's 511-page report concluded that the president did not lie. The British Butler Commission, which examined whether Prime Minister Tony Blair "sexed up" the intelligence to make a case for war, concluded the PM didn't lie.



-- Kenneth Pollack, an opponent of the Iraq war, served as Iraq expert and intelligence analyst in the Clinton administration. Pollack writes that during his 1999-2001 tour on the National Security Council, " . . . the intelligence community convinced me and the rest of the Clinton Administration that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs following the withdrawal of the UN inspectors, in 1998, and was only a matter of years away from having a nuclear weapon. . . . The U.S. intelligence community's belief that Saddam was aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction pre-dated Bush's inauguration, and therefore cannot be attributed to political pressure. . . . Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. . . . Germany . . . Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States. . . . In sum, (SET ITAL) no one (END ITAL) doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."



-- Meanwhile, neighboring Iran defiantly pursues nuclear weapons. Bush reasoned that a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq would destabilize Iran, accomplishing regime change without military force. This would encourage the rest of the Arab world to direct their grievances toward their own leaders, rather than against the "infidels."



-- We remain in Iraq because, as former Secretary of State James Baker put it, "[I]f we picked up and left right now . . . you would see the biggest civil war you've ever seen. Every neighboring country would be involved in there, doing its own thing, Turkey, Iran, Syria, you name it, and even our friends in the Gulf."



-- Former Secretary of State and informal Bush adviser Henry Kissinger -- who knows something about the consequences of cutting and running -- wrote, "Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy."



-- The political aim of our Islamofascist enemies is a worldwide Caliphate, or Islamic world. Renowned Islam expert Bernard Lewis recently reiterated his support for the war: "The response to 9/11 came as a nasty surprise [to bin Laden and his followers]. They were expecting more of the same -- bleating and apologies -- instead of which they got a vigorous reaction, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. And as they used to say in Moscow: It is no accident, comrades, that there has been no successful attack in the United States since then. . . . [T]he effort is difficult and the outcome uncertain, but I think the effort must be made. Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us."



True, 2,800 of our best have died. Any figure above zero is a tragedy. But America -- on both sides of the Civil War -- lost more than 600,000 soldiers, or 2 percent of the country's population of 31 million. Of our country's 132 million, we lost more than 400,000 in World War II, or .3 percent of our population. In the Korean War, we lost 37,000, and the Vietnam War saw 58,000 dead.



Many people say that after failing to find stockpiles of WMD, Bush "switched" rationale for the war. Consider this excerpt from a New York Times editorial about a speech Bush gave weeks before the coalition entered Iraq:



"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict."



Still confused?
anonymous
2007-04-07 15:07:18 UTC
This is an ongoing debate...I doubt very seriously you will solve the mysterys of the world with yahoo answers. You are only looking for things to satisfy your own way of thinking.
Josh C
2007-04-07 15:04:34 UTC
There is no justification. FIRST, we were looking for Osama Bin Laden. When we didn't find him, Bush said Saddam had something to do it, that he help Osama and that he had WMD. When that didn't pan out, we were "liberating" the people of Iraq. Now, don't get me wrong, while I disagree with the war and it's reasonings, I LOVE and respect our military. They're just following orders and it's damn good of them to do it!
anonymous
2007-04-07 15:02:53 UTC
Iraq had connections to anti American unions they themselves being one. just google it I'm sure you will find much more credible sources then anything on this site.



if you want people to be nice you should ask what lead to the war not ask if it was justified
anonymous
2007-04-07 15:05:29 UTC
do a search for "peak oil" some feel that they are buying time to hide the fact that oil production has reached it's peak and that production capacity will begin to steadily decline as resources dwindle.
anonymous
2007-04-07 15:02:44 UTC
There has never been any connection between the two. It was a lame, transparent and short-lived but obviously successful lie - one of many used by the Bush & the Dick to trick the country into the war, like WMD, like "Mission Accomplished," and so much other crap they served the people. They very successfully rode the wave of fear most Americans felt after 9/11 and abused the people's trust.
Bethany H
2007-04-07 16:14:17 UTC
I'll give you a ligt answer about going to war with all Arabs when Arabs teach young children to hate, kill, kidnap, behead Americans and to try to confine all Americans to their countries. Now how else would America be able to outright teach hate, murder, beheading, and kidnapping to our children without going to war with all Arabs.
elmar66
2007-04-07 16:59:12 UTC
The attack on Japan was not so black and white......



Please research how we provoked them and did nothing to warn of their attack.



Or did you forget that?
anonymous
2007-04-07 15:14:25 UTC
Google PNAC (or Wolfowitz), you will find all the answers, if you are really interested.
phil c
2007-04-07 15:04:06 UTC
Read "Deliver Us From Evil" by Sean Hannity. That will answer your question.
wolf
2007-04-07 15:22:33 UTC
Democrats demanded that Bush take out Saddam because of his WMDs.

(You demand respect, but your hatred of our soldiers stands out loud & clear.)

WHY DO YOU DEMAND RESPECT, & YET SHOW HATRED TOWARD OUR SOLDIERS???????????????

You hate our soldiers so much, you must be a Democrat.
koalatcomics
2007-04-07 15:07:34 UTC
have you ever thought people insult you and spit on you because you cant accept whats in front of you and understand the obvious....

YOU LOST

GET OVER IT

GROW UP

MOVE ON.
John16
2007-04-07 15:03:18 UTC
I think this matter was settled in November 2004.



You lost.



Move on.



.
Mark W
2007-04-07 15:22:22 UTC
The Ukrainians were eager to provide the United States with documents from their own archives on Soviet arms transfers to Iraq and on ongoing Russian assistance to Saddam, to thank America for its help in securing Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union, Shaw said.



In addition to the convoys heading to Syria, Shaw said his contacts "provided information about steel drums with painted warnings that had been moved to a cellar of a hospital in Beirut."



But when Shaw passed on his information to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and others within the U.S. intelligence community, he was stunned by their response.



"My report on the convoys was brushed off as ‘Israeli disinformation,'" he said.



One month later, Shaw learned that the DIA general counsel complained to his own superiors that Shaw had eaten from the DIA "rice bowl." It was a Washington euphemism that meant he had commited the unpardonable sin of violating another agency's turf.



The CIA responded in even more diabolical fashion. "They trashed one of my Brits and tried to declare him persona non grata to the intelligence community," Shaw said. "We got constant indicators that Langley was aggressively trying to discredit both my Ukranian-American and me in Kiev," in addition to his other sources.



But Shaw's information had not originated from a casual contact. His Ukranian-American aid was a personal friend of David Nicholas, a Western ambassador in Kiev, and of Igor Smesko, head of Ukrainian intelligence.



Smesko had been a military attaché in Washington in the early 1990s when Ukraine first became independent and Dick Cheney was secretary of defense. "Smesko had told Cheney that when Ukraine became free of Russia he wanted to show his friendship for the United States."



Helping out on Iraq provided him with that occasion.



"Smesko had gotten to know Gen. James Clapper, now director of the Geospacial Intelligence Agency, but then head of DIA," Shaw said.



But it was Shaw's own friendship to the head of Britain's MI6 that brought it all together during a two-day meeting in London that included Smeshko's people, the MI6 contingent, and Clapper, who had been deputized by George Tenet to help work the issue of what happened to Iraq's WMD stockpiles.



In the end, here is what Shaw learned:





In December 2002, former Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov, a KGB general with long-standing ties to Saddam, came to Iraq and stayed until just before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.



Primakov supervised the execution of long-standing secret agreements, signed between Iraqi intelligence and the Russian GRU (military intelligence), that provided for clean-up operations to be conducted by Russian and Iraqi military personnel to remove WMDs, production materials and technical documentation from Iraq, so the regime could announce that Iraq was "WMD free."



Shaw said that this type GRU operation, known as "Sarandar," or "emergency exit," has long been familiar to U.S. intelligence officials from Soviet-bloc defectors as standard GRU practice.



In addition to the truck convoys, which carried Iraqi WMD to Syria and Lebanon in February and March 2003 "two Russian ships set sail from the (Iraqi) port of Umm Qasr headed for the Indian Ocean," where Shaw believes they "deep-sixed" additional stockpiles of Iraqi WMD from flooded bunkers in southern Iraq that were later discovered by U.S. military intelligence personnel.



The Russian "clean-up" operation was entrusted to a combination of GRU and Spetsnaz troops and Russian military and civilian personnel in Iraq "under the command of two experienced ex-Soviet generals, Colonel-General Vladislav Achatov and Colonel-General Igor Maltsev, both retired and posing as civilian commercial consultants."



Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz reported on Oct. 30, 2004, that Achatov and Maltsev had been photographed receiving medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed in a Baghdad building bombed by U.S. cruise missiles during the first U.S. air raids in early March 2003.



Shaw says he leaked the information about the two Russian generals and the clean-up operation to Gertz in October 2004 in an effort to "push back" against claims by Democrats that were orchestrated with CBS News to embarrass President Bush just one week before the November 2004 presidential election. The press sprang bogus claims that 377 tons of high explosives of use to Iraq's nuclear weapons program had "gone missing" after the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq, while ignoring intelligence of the Russian-orchestrated evacuation of Iraqi WMDs.



The two Russian generals "had visited Baghdad no fewer than 20 times in the preceding five to six years," Shaw revealed. U.S. intelligence knew "the identity and strength of the various Spetsnaz units, their dates of entry and exit in Iraq, and the fact that the effort (to clean up Iraq's WMD stockpiles) with a planning conference in Baku from which they flew to Baghdad."



The Baku conference, chaired by Russian Minister of Emergency Situations Sergei Shoigu, "laid out the plans for the Sarandar clean-up effort so that Shoigu could leave after the keynote speech for Baghdad to orchestrate the planning for the disposal of the WMD."



Subsequent intelligence reports showed that Russian Spetsnaz operatives "were now changing to civilian clothes from military/GRU garb," Shaw said. "The Russian denial of my revelations in late October 2004 included the statement that "only Russian civilians remained in Baghdad." That was the "only true statement" the Russians made, Shaw ironized.

The evacuation of Saddam's WMD to Syria and Lebanon "was an entirely controlled Russian GRU operation," Shaw said. "It was the brainchild of General Yevgenuy Primakov."



The goal of the clean-up was "to erase all trace of Russian involvement" in Saddam's WMD programs, and "was a masterpiece of military camouflage and deception."



Just as astonishing as the Russian clean-up operation were efforts by Bush administration appointees, including Defense Department spokesman Laurence DiRita, to smear Shaw and to cover up the intelligence information he brought to light.



"Larry DiRita made sure that this story would never grow legs," Shaw said. "He whispered sotto voce [quietly] to journalists that there was no substance to my information and that it was the product of an unbalanced mind."



Shaw suggested that the answer of why the Bush administration had systematically "ignored Russia's involvement" in evacuating Saddam's WMD stockpiles "could be much bigger than anyone has thought," but declined to speculate what exactly was involved.



Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney was less reticent. He thought the reason was Iran.



"With Iran moving faster than anyone thought in its nuclear programs," he told NewsMax, "the administration needed the Russians, the Chinese and the French, and was not interested in information that would make them look bad."



McInerney agreed that there was "clear evidence" that Saddam had WMD. "Jack Shaw showed when it left Iraq, and how."



Former Undersecretary of Defense Richard Perle, a strong supporter of the war against Saddam, blasted the CIA for orchestrating a smear campaign against the Bush White House and the war in Iraq.



"The CIA has been at war with the Bush administration almost from the beginning," he said in a keynote speech at the Intelligence Summit on Saturday.



He singled out recent comments by Paul Pillar, a former top CIA Middle East analyst, alleging that the Bush White House "cherry-picked" intelligence to make the case for war in Iraq.



"Mr. Pillar was in a very senior position and was able to make his views known, if that is indeed what he believed," Perle said.



"He (Pillar) briefed senior policy officials before the start of the Iraq war in 2003. If he had had reservations about the war, he could have voiced them at that time." But according to officials briefed by Pillar, Perle said, he never did.



Even more inexplicable, Perle said, were the millions of documents "that remain untranslated" among those seized from Saddam Hussein's intelligence services.



"I think the intelligence community does not want them to be exploited," he said.



Among those documents, presented Saturday at the conference by former FBI translator Bill Tierney, were transcripts of Saddam's palace conversations with top aides in which he discussed ongoing nuclear weapons plans in 2000, well after the U.N. arms inspectors believed he had ceased all nuclear weapons work.



"What was most disturbing in those tapes," Tierney said, "was the fact that the individuals briefing Saddam were totally unknown to the U.N. Special Commission."



In addition, Tierney said, the plasma uranium programs Saddam discussed with his aids as ongoing operations in 2000 had been dismissed as "old programs" disbanded years earlier, according to the final CIA report on Iraq's weapons programs, presented in 2004 by the Iraq Survey Group.



"When I first heard those tapes" about the uranium plasma program, "it completely floored me," Tierney said.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...