Interesting article from a veteran

[billvon 3,125]

By MAX CLELAND, for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

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

The president of the United States decides to go to war against a nation led by a brutal dictator supported by one-party rule. That dictator has made war on his neighbors. The president decides he is a threat to the United States.

In his campaign for president he gives no indication of wanting to go to war. In fact, he decries the overextension of American military might and says other nations must do more. However, unbeknownst to the American public, the president's own Pentagon advisers have already cooked up a plan to go to war. All they are looking for is an excuse.

Based on faulty intelligence, cherry-picked information is fed to Congress and the American people. The president goes on national television to make the case for war, using as part of the rationale an incident that never happened. Congress buys the bait -- hook, line and sinker -- and passes a resolution giving the president the authority to use "all necessary means" to prosecute the war.

The war is started with an air and ground attack. Initially there is optimism. The president says we are winning. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense says we are winning. As a matter of fact, the secretary of defense promises the troops will be home soon.

However, the truth on the ground that the soldiers face in the war is different than the political policy that sent them there. They face increased opposition from a determined enemy. They are surprised by terrorist attacks, village assassinations, increasing casualties and growing anti-American sentiment. They find themselves bogged down in a guerrilla land war, unable to move forward and unable to disengage because there are no allies to turn the war over to.

There is no plan B. There is no exit strategy. Military morale declines. The president's popularity sinks and the American people are increasingly frustrated by the cost of blood and treasure poured into a never-ending war.

Sound familiar? It does to me.

The president was Lyndon Johnson. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense was Robert McNamara. The congressional resolution was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The war was the war that I, U.S. Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and John McCain and 3 1/2 million other Americans of our generation were caught up in. It was the scene of America's longest war. It was also the locale of the most frustrating outcome of any war this nation has ever fought.

Unfortunately, the people who drove the engine to get into the war in Iraq never served in Vietnam. Not the president. Not the vice president. Not the secretary of defense. Not the deputy secretary of defense. Too bad. They could have learned some lessons:

• Don't underestimate the enemy. The enemy always has one option you cannot control. He always has the option to die. This is especially true if you are dealing with true believers and guerillas fighting for their version of reality, whether political or religious. They are what Tom Friedman of The New York Times calls the "non-deterrables." If those non-deterrables are already in their country, they will be able to wait you out until you go home.

• If the enemy adopts a "hit-and-run" strategy designed to inflict maximum casualties on you, you may win every battle, but (as Walter Lippman once said about Vietnam) you can't win the war.

• If you adopt a strategy of not just pre-emptive strike but also pre-emptive war, you own the aftermath. You better plan for it. You better have an exit strategy because you cannot stay there indefinitely unless you make it the 51st state.

If you do stay an extended period of time, you then become an occupier, not a liberator. That feeds the enemy against you.

• If you adopt the strategy of pre-emptive war, your intelligence must be not just "darn good," as the president has said; it must be "bulletproof," as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed the administration's was against Saddam Hussein. Anything short of that saps credibility.

• If you want to know what is really going on in the war, ask the troops on the ground, not the policy-makers in Washington.

• In a democracy, instead of truth being the first casualty in war, it should be the first cause of war. It is the only way the Congress and the American people can cope with getting through it. As credibility is strained, support for the war and support for the troops go downhill. Continued loss of credibility drains troop morale, the media become more suspicious, the public becomes more incredulous and Congress is reduced to hearings and investigations.

Instead of learning the lessons of Vietnam, where all of the above happened, the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense and the deputy secretary of defense have gotten this country into a disaster in the desert.

They attacked a country that had not attacked us. They did so on intelligence that was faulty, misrepresented and highly questionable.

A key piece of that intelligence was an outright lie that the White House put into the president's State of the Union speech. These officials have overextended the American military, including the National Guard and the Reserve, and have expanded the U.S. Army to the breaking point.

A quarter of a million troops are committed to the Iraq war theater, most of them bogged down in Baghdad. Morale is declining and casualties continue to increase.

In addition to the human cost, the war in dollars costs $1 billion a week, adding to the additional burden of an already depressed economy.

The president has declared "major combat over" and sent a message to every terrorist, "Bring them on." As a result, he has lost more people in his war than his father did in his and there is no end in sight.

Military commanders are left with extended tours of duty for servicemen and women who were told long ago they were going home. We are keeping American forces on the ground, where they have become sitting ducks in a shooting gallery for every terrorist in the Middle East.

Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President. Sorry you didn't go when you had the chance.

[TheAnvil 0]

Quote

The president of the United States decides to go to war against a nation led by a brutal dictator supported by one-party rule. That dictator has made war on his neighbors. The president decides he is a threat to the United States.

In his campaign for president he gives no indication of wanting to go to war. In fact, he decries the overextension of American military might and says other nations must do more. However, unbeknownst to the American public, the president's own Pentagon advisers have already cooked up a plan to go to war. All they are looking for is an excuse.

Based on faulty intelligence, cherry-picked information is fed to Congress and the American people. The president goes on national television to make the case for war, using as part of the rationale an incident that never happened. Congress buys the bait -- hook, line and sinker -- and passes a resolution giving the president the authority to use "all necessary means" to prosecute the war.

The war is started with an air and ground attack. Initially there is optimism. The president says we are winning. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense says we are winning. As a matter of fact, the secretary of defense promises the troops will be home soon.

However, the truth on the ground that the soldiers face in the war is different than the political policy that sent them there. They face increased opposition from a determined enemy. They are surprised by terrorist attacks, village assassinations, increasing casualties and growing anti-American sentiment. They find themselves bogged down in a guerrilla land war, unable to move forward and unable to disengage because there are no allies to turn the war over to.

There is no plan B. There is no exit strategy. Military morale declines. The president's popularity sinks and the American people are increasingly frustrated by the cost of blood and treasure poured into a never-ending war.

Sound familiar? It does to me.

The president was Lyndon Johnson. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense was Robert McNamara. The congressional resolution was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The war was the war that I, U.S. Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and John McCain and 3 1/2 million other Americans of our generation were caught up in. It was the scene of America's longest war. It was also the locale of the most frustrating outcome of any war this nation has ever fought.

Mr. Cleland needs a history lesson. US entry into Vietnam was more or less an extension of Kennan's containment theory as espoused in his famous X article. This is well known to us who have read about the war.

Quote

Unfortunately, the people who drove the engine to get into the war in Iraq never served in Vietnam.

Nor did El Jefe Clintonista - but hey ! John Kerry did!

Quote

• If you adopt a strategy of not just pre-emptive strike but also pre-emptive war, you own the aftermath. You better plan for it. You better have an exit strategy because you cannot stay there indefinitely unless you make it the 51st state.

If you do stay an extended period of time, you then become an occupier, not a liberator. That feeds the enemy against you.

If elections weren't being held and a new Iraqi government being formed, Mr. Cleland might have a point.

Quote

• If you want to know what is really going on in the war, ask the troops on the ground, not the policy-makers in Washington.

If the media actually did this then democrats would have no public support for their views. Those of us with friends over there know what is going on. It's much better than the media's portrayal.

Quote

president, vice president, the secretary of defense and the deputy secretary of defense have gotten this country into a disaster in the desert.

Ooooh the quagmire theory again. Does the left ever come up with anything new?

Quote

A key piece of that intelligence was an outright lie that the White House put into the president's State of the Union speech.

OK I used to respect Mr. Cleland a bit - despite his leftist leanings and this article's obvious partisan and false tenor/theme. This is uncalled for. Democrats will stop cowering behind this lie if they want respect from me. President Bush lost some of my respect when I found out the circumstances behind those 16 words. Democrats lost even more when they started to use those words in a smear campaign and lied to do so.

Quote

These officials have overextended the American military, including the National Guard and the Reserve, and have expanded the U.S. Army to the breaking point.

One can argue that Mr. Cleland is correct here and present a formidable argument without lying. I agree to a certain extent.

Quote

A quarter of a million troops are committed to the Iraq war theater, most of them bogged down in Baghdad. Morale is declining and casualties continue to increase.

Bogged down? Perhaps Mr. Cleland should speak with some of the troops himself.

Quote

In addition to the human cost, the war in dollars costs $1 billion a week, adding to the additional burden of an already depressed economy.

Depressed economy? My mutuals have a damned good rate of return. We have exited the recession and started a slow recovery. The dot bomb boom is not going to happen again - it will be another boom that causes such an economic upturn if it ever happens again. Unemployment is the lagging indicator. Under whose term and budget did the recession start and end, Mr. Cleland? You neglected to mention that here.

Quote

The president has declared "major combat over" and sent a message to every terrorist, "Bring them on." As a result, he has lost more people in his war than his father did in his and there is no end in sight.

Military commanders are left with extended tours of duty for servicemen and women who were told long ago they were going home. We are keeping American forces on the ground, where they have become sitting ducks in a shooting gallery for every terrorist in the Middle East.

Name the last Hamas or Hezbollah attack against our troops in Iraq. Again, Mr. Cleland's argument only works on the ignorant. Sad.

Quote

Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President. Sorry you didn't go when you had the chance.

Mr. Cleland closes with an insult that has no bearing upon his argument. His parallels between Vietnam and the current Iraqi situation are tenuous at best and outright lies at worst. A sad partisan article full of falsehoods from a man who served his country with distinction years ago. It saddens me to see him reduced to such. He is using the residual feelings many of the Vietnam generation still have in order to entice them over to his line of thinking. Disgraceful.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Gawain 0]

Here's a better view, from Democratic Representative Jim Marshall from Georgia's 3rd District, a veteran also. This was in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. (link: http://jimmarshall.house.gov/pr03-09-22.html)

---

Media's Dark Cloud a Danger

Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in Iraq

Letter printed in The Atlanta Constitution, September 22, 2003

On Sept. 14, I flew from Baghdad to Kuwait with Sgt. Trevor A. Blumberg from Dearborn, Mich. He was in a body bag. He'd been ambushed and killed that afternoon. Sitting in the cargo bay of a C 130E, I found myself wondering whether the news media were somehow complicit in his death.

News media reports about our progress in Iraq have been bleak since shortly after the president's premature declaration of victory. These reports contrast sharply with reports of hope and progress presented to Congress by Department of Defense representatives -- a real disconnect, Vietnam déja vu. So I went to Iraq with six other members of Congress to see for myself.

The Iraq war has predictably evolved into a guerrilla conflict similar to Vietnam. Our currently stated objectives are to establish reasonable security and foster the creation of a secular, representative government with a stable market economy that provides broad opportunity throughout Iraqi society. Attaining these objectives in Iraq would inevitably transform the Arab world and immeasurably increase our future national security.

These are goals worthy of a fight, of sacrifice, of more lives lost now to save thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands in the future. In Mosul last Monday, a colonel in the 101st Airborne put it to me quite simply: "Sir, this is worth doing." No one I spoke with said anything different. And I spoke with all ranks.

But there will be more Blumbergs killed in action, many more. So it is worth doing only if we have a reasonable chance of success. And we do, but I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded, the Blumbergs. Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with "the rest of the story," the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy.

During the conventional part of this conflict, embedded journalists reported the good, the bad and the ugly. Where are the embeds now that we are in the difficult part of the war, now that fair and balanced reporting is critically important to our chances of success? At the height of the conventional conflict, Fox News alone had 27 journalists embedded with U.S. troops (out of a total of 774 from all Western media). Today there are only 27 embedded journalists from all media combined.

Throughout Iraq, American soldiers with their typical "can do" attitude and ingenuity are engaging in thousands upon thousands of small reconstruction projects, working with Iraqi contractors and citizens. Through decentralized decision-making by unit commanders, the 101st Airborne Division alone has spent nearly $23 million in just the past few months. This sum goes a very long way in Iraq. Hundreds upon hundreds of schools are being renovated, repainted, replumbed and reroofed. Imagine the effect that has on children and their parents.

Zogby International recently released the results of an August poll showing hope and progress. My own unscientific surveys told me the same thing. With virtually no exceptions, hundreds of Iraqis enthusiastically waved back at me as I sat in the open door of a helicopter traveling between Babylon and Baghdad. And I received a similar reception as I worked my way alone, shaking hands through a large crowd of refinery workers just to see their reaction.

We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[turtlespeed 226]

Q - Why are those articles on the internet?
A - They aren't worth the paper that they could be printed on.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Q - Why are those articles on the internet?
A - They aren't worth the paper that they could be printed on.

I was simply providing a press release from a US Representative's own site, plus publication in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (a bonafide printed newspaper), as a counter to the bellicose article Bill provided, from a source that is likely more politically aligned to his own views...perhaps...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[turtlespeed 226]

I read both, and I stand by my opinion. I wasn't bashing either one of you, I simply attacked the articles.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[steve1 5]

Quote

the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops.

I don't think this is the case. The media should be free to show more than one perspective on an issue.

I also see many similarities between this war and Vietnam. I would think we would want to learn from our mistakes in the past. I remember well, Johnson's speeches about how we need to escalate the war, how we need to send more men to kill an enemy that was inferior to us, and then watching American morale slide further and further down hill as more and more American's died with no end in sight. And why were we there. I was in the military during the 70's and everyone was saying the reason was to stop Communism. Is that really the reason that over 50,000 of America's best died, not to mention the ones who were wounded and tramatized for life. I wish someone would explain what was accomplished there, because I don't get it.

And why are we in Iraq. Are we really stopping terrorism. I don't think so. Where are the weapons of mass destruction. Seems like they're nowhere to be found. Sure they had a tyranical government, but what about all the other countries in the world that have the same thing. Is it our job to invade all these other countries too?

So, what's the answer in Iraq? It would have been smart not to invade the place......

I'm not sure if I have that answer. I see a quagmire very similiar to Vietnam. The good news is that the Iraqi guerrilla forces aren't being heavily supported by another country. In Vietnam the Communists were supplying the enemy with high tech weaponry, training, and provisions. So maybe it will be possible to conquer the guerrilla forces in Irag. I support our Armed Services 100%, but I have a hard time believing in some of our leaders. I do see many similarities between President Bush and President Johnson.

I know better than to jump into a political thread like this, but this is how I see it. I'm willing to listen to other ideas. I think it's refreshing to find people who respect and show pride in our troops. There wasn't much of that in the Vietnam years. I truly question though whether we are doing the right thing in Iraq. I'm not saying we should just pull out. If this guerrilla force isn't being heavily resupplied it can probably be beaten. It's going to take a lot of time and plenty of American lives. I just hope the price is worth it. Bush's tough talk has scared me, from the beginning.......Steve1

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops.

I don't think this is the case. The media should be free to show more than one perspective on an issue.

The point is that the media is not showing more than one perspective. I have yet to see a single report or read a single assessment from any of the main press (Fox largely included) that does not favor a casualty report over any real progress. They're free to report as they wish, I believe in a free press. I just wish they'd report less selectively.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[livendive 8]

Quote

The point is that the media is not showing more than one perspective. I have yet to see a single report or read a single assessment from any of the main press (Fox largely included) that does not favor a casualty report over any real progress. They're free to report as they wish, I believe in a free press. I just wish they'd report less selectively.

"If it bleeds, it leads."

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

I don't think this is the case. The media should be free to show more than one perspective on an issue.
***
Are they not the NEWS media? If so they should not show any one perspective. They should show the facts whether they agree with them or not. jmho

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

• Quote

[billvon 3,125]

>I have yet to see a single report or read a single assessment from
> any of the main press (Fox largely included) that does not favor a
> casualty report over any real progress.

The death of a US soldier does, and always should, take precedence over opening a new soccer field or fixing a balky pipeline pump - at least in my book. We are going to pay a huge price in Iraq both in terms of money and human lives, and I am glad we don't trivialize it.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>I have yet to see a single report or read a single assessment from
> any of the main press (Fox largely included) that does not favor a
> casualty report over any real progress.

The death of a US soldier does, and always should, take precedence over opening a new soccer field or fixing a balky pipeline pump - at least in my book. We are going to pay a huge price in Iraq both in terms of money and human lives, and I am glad we don't trivialize it.

No dispute there and I should clarify my meaning, I understand the priority, but there is no other items making it to the news in the west. What about the relative progress going on there when someone isn't killed? I have to try and learn through osmosis that power has largely been restored in most of the country? What's been happening in the areas that Polish troops are monitoring? What about Basra? You catch my drift overall. I'm just ticked that we're only given a sliver of the events going on over there.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lummy 4]

Quote

plus publication in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (a bonafide printed newspaper), as a counter to the bellicose article Bill provided, from a source that is likely more politically aligned to his own views...perhaps...

The byline from Bill's Article also comes from a bonafide printed newspaper.

Quote

By MAX CLELAND, for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Interesting.. the same source...

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[billvon 3,125]

>No dispute there and I should clarify my meaning, I understand the
> priority, but there is no other items making it to the news in the
> west. What about the relative progress going on there when
> someone isn't killed?

You mean like:

- Iraq says it will stay in OPEC
- Iraqi minister: Empowerment under way
- Bush, Schroeder mend fences
- Ancient mask recovered in Iraq

All in the first 10 hits from CNN when "iraq" is searched for.

>What's been happening in the areas that Polish troops are
> monitoring?

Those two convenience stores are doing just fine. (Sorry, had to do that . . .)

>What about Basra? You catch my drift overall. I'm just ticked that
>we're only given a sliver of the events going on over there.

There are way more articles about Iraq than about Wyoming; doesn't mean Wyoming is being neglected, just that "New highway opens in Wyoming" isn't that interesting compared to a dead GI. Neither is "New highway open in Iraq."

In any case, the Guardian, the BBC, and Al-Jazeera are all pretty good sources as well. (Once you understand their respective biases, of course.) US sources tend to cover more sensationalistic stories, and gradually getting the power back on in most of Iraq is no more of a sensational story than getting the power back on in most of the East Coast after the hurricane.

[Guest]

Quote

What about the relative progress going on there when someone isn't killed? I have to try and learn through osmosis that power has largely been restored in most of the country? What's been happening in the areas that Polish troops are monitoring? What about Basra? You catch my drift overall. I'm just ticked that we're only given a sliver of the events going on over there.

James F. Dunnigan's Strategy Page on Iraq

IRAQ: Good News is No News


September 22, 2003: The war against Baath continues, with coalition casualties running at 3-4 a day, from a dozen or so combat actions. Many of the raids on suspected Baath bases result in no violence, as overwhelming force is customarily used and sometimes negotiations with local civilians (and the payment of cash rewards) precedes the raids. Email from the troops is full of amazement at how the media is reporting the situation in Iraq. Most of the country is peaceful and getting itself back together after three decades of corruption and tyranny. But the journalists rush to the sound of any gunfire (usually in a Sunni neighborhood where the locals want Saddam back) and report a war that doesn't exist. Troops who have confronted journalists and pointed this out either get a shrug or are told, in so many words, that "good news is no news."

September 22, 2003: While the US is buying AK-47s on the world market for $59 each (to equip the new Iraqi army), it is offering $250 for illegal AK-47s in Sunni Arab (pro-Baath) areas. For RPG launchers (and rockets), $500 is offered.

A suicide car bomber was stopped by police when he tried to enter the UN compound in Baghdad. The bomber and a policeman were killed, and some twenty Iraqi civilians and police were wounded.

September 21, 2003: Islamic fundamentalists continue to attack shops selling music, videos and alcohol. Some of the shop owners, noting the large demand for their products, have hired armed guards.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Interesting.. the same source...

Cleland was likely an Op-Ed Column. Rep Marshall's was a letter. Don't know if they appeared on different days or not.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[mikkey 0]

The issue at hand is - and it is a very serious issue - that it looks more and more likely that either the US and UK intelligence agencies are totally incompetent or that the US government (with UK assistance) lied and deceived its own population and it's allies in order to go to war.
This is a problem that is not going to go away. See the following article from the BBC in regard to WMDsearch:


No WMD in Iraq, source claims

Number 10 will not comment on the report
No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq by the group looking for them, according to a Bush administration source who has spoken to the BBC.
This will be the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group's interim report, the source told the presenter of BBC television's Daily Politics show, Andrew Neil.

Downing Street branded the story "speculation about an unfinished draft of an interim report".

Mr Neil said the draft report - which the source said is due to be published next month - concludes that it is highly unlikely that weapons of mass destruction were shipped out of the country to places like Syria before the US-led war on Iraq.

Analysis: High stakes for Blair

It will also say that Saddam Hussein mounted a huge programme to deceive and hinder the work of United Nations weapons inspectors, he said.

Mr Neil said that according to the source, the report will say its inspectors have not even unearthed "minute amounts of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons material".

They have also not uncovered any laboratories involved in deploying weapons of mass destruction and no delivery systems for the weapons.

CIA spokesman Bill Harlow told the Reuters news agency he expected the report would "reach no firm conclusions, nor will it rule anything in or out".

Reuters also quoted a senior US official as saying the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) was expected to report finding "documentary evidence" that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons programmes.

"Whether they will find or disclose anything on the weapons themselves, I doubt," said the official.

'Savage blow'

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said: "This is speculation on an as yet unpublished report.

"I await the report eagerly from Mr Kay (head of the survey group), as does the international community."

Mr Straw argued that the whole international community had agreed Iraq's weapons programmes had posed - the issue had been what to do about it.


Mr Neil said the report is being finalised and could undergo changes
People did not need the ISG report for evidence of that threat, he said. It was already shown in volumes of reports from UN inspectors.

A Number 10 spokesman said "we don't have this text", but asked if the prime minister had seem the report, remarked: "We are not going into details of process."

Mr Neil, a former editor of the Sunday Times, stressed he had not seen the draft report, and was reporting what a single source had said its findings were likely to be.

He said the report was still to be finalised and could undergo some changes, but the source had been told the content of some key passages which were not expected to be substantively altered.

Former Conservative cabinet minister Michael Portillo said if these details of the report were true, it would be a "savage blow" to the prime minister.

'Fake facilities'

The inspectors have uncovered no evidence that any weapons were actually built in the immediate years before the war, the leak of the report suggests.

It is alleged that Saddam Hussein's programme of deception involved fake facilities and infrastructure to deceive and hinder the work of UN weapons inspectors.

Documents have been uncovered showing weapons facilities were concealed as commercial buildings, the report is likely to say.

The ISG took over the job of finding WMD from the US military in June.

The survey group, led by David Kay, a former UN weapons inspector and now a special adviser to the CIA, is a largely US operation, although it includes some British and Australian staff.

Its 1,400 personnel are made up of scientists, military and intelligence experts, and its work is shrouded in secrecy.

Its focus is intelligence, using documents and interviews with Iraqi scientists to build up a picture of the secret world of Iraq's weapons programmes.

The survey group has been under pressure to prove the Bush administration's case that Iraq's weapons posed a significant threat.

Gary Samor, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, recently told the BBC that UN inspection teams should have been sent back into Iraq as there would be much scepticism about the ISG's findings.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[steve1 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

They're free to report as they wish, I believe in a free press. I just wish they'd report less selectively.

I agree, sometimes this is the case. I think we all want to know what really is going on over there. Sometimes the press has a one sided stance on some issues. But on the other side of the coin I remember many times, during the Vietnam years, when people were getting fed false reports of success, given by the military, that were totally false. It was very common for them to state that we had a major victory in a battle with hugely inflated enemy body counts, and tales of victory that were down right lies. The soldiers fighting the war knew better. Fortunately we have investigative reporters and freedom of press which help to route out the truth in these cases......Steve1

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites