Paris, the President, and Accountability: That's Hot!

[Guernicaa]

Paris, the President, and Accountability: That's Hot!
Arianna Huffington
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/laxplayer566/parisjail.jpghttp://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/laxplayer566/bushmissionaccomp.jpg

So it's finally happening: accountability. At long last, a prominent public figure is being punished for serial reckless behavior and the willful denial of its consequences.

Unfortunately, the public figure in question is Paris Hilton, not George W. Bush.

The two have more in common than a privileged background and a reputation for dimwitted pronouncements.


When called to task for continuing to drive after her license was suspended in an alcohol-related reckless driving case, Paris blamed her handlers: "I just sign what people tell me to sign. I'm a very busy person."

When Bush was called to task for invading Iraq under false pretenses, he blamed George Tenet. Those 16 words in his State of the Union speech? He just read what people told him to read.

After being spanked by a Los Angeles judge and sentenced to 45 days in jail, Paris "took responsibility" by firing her longtime publicist, Elliot Mintz. After being spanked by the American people in November, Bush "took responsibility" by firing his longtime Pentagonist, Don Rumsfeld.

And both remain firmly in the grip of denial. "I don't know what happened," said Paris after being sentenced. "I follow the law."

For his part, "Commander Guy" Bush marked the fourth anniversary of his "Mission Accomplished" speech by claiming that the results of the 2006 election gave him a mandate to follow his surge strategy. Hmm... so when that police officer made Paris sign a document acknowledging that she wasn't supposed to drive, that was a mandate to drive around with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent and make illegal left turns, right?

The good news is that, for better or worse, Paris has always been a trend setter (without her, we never would have had the Kim Kardashian sex tape or Britney flashing her privates in public). Maybe her high-profile punishment will lead to more high-profile accountability. Starting with Alberto Gonzales, who continues to run the Justice Department despite his inability to remember important meetings he attended and orders he gave. "I'm a very busy person." (Quick Quiz: who said "From now on I'm going to pay complete attention to everything," Paris to the judge, or Gonzales to Congress? Answer: Paris. Gonzales vowed: "I am dedicated to correcting both the management missteps and the ensuing public confusion that now surrounds what should have been a benign situation.")

Then there is Paul Wolfowitz, who is still refusing to clean out his desk at the World Bank despite being found guilty of a conflict of interest by a World Bank committee -- and despite demonstrating a diligence about his girlfriend's post-World Bank arrangements that he failed to show for America's post-invasion arrangements in Iraq. "I just sign what people tell me to sign."

In an interesting development, Steve Clemons reports chatter that Wolfowitz is negotiating an exit deal but is dragging his feet because if he hangs on until June 1, he'll become eligible for an estimated $400,000 bonus. That would actually be more of an accounting moment than an accountability moment. It's not exactly 45 days in Century Regional Detention Center in Lynwood, California (aka the Slammer Hilton), but given how low the accountability bar has been set by this administration, it would at least qualify as some sort of comeuppance.

Paris Hilton drove while drunk, was given every opportunity to correct course, and is now being punished for her recklessness.

George Bush, while dry drunk, drove our country into a disastrous war, has been given every opportunity to correct course, but seems determined to keep his foot on the pedal. Will his accountability moment come only after we have careened over the edge of the cliff? And even then will he continue to point the finger at Tenet and the intelligence community, claiming as he plummets: "I don't know what happened. I did what they said."?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/paris-the-president-and_b_47894.html?view=print

[nevadamedic]

You cant blame the war on Bush when Senators like Clinton, Osama(I mean Obama) and Edwards voted and pushed for the war. Go back to your delusional thinking that Clinton, JFK, and Carter were good President's.

[Guernicaa]

You cant blame the war on Bush when Senators like Clinton, Osama(I mean Obama) and Edwards voted and pushed for the war.
Obama never voted nor pushed for the war in Iraq you fucking dumbass.

Get your facts right.

Also, Clinton and Edwards voted BASED ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S ADMINISTRATION WAS TELLING THEM (SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD WMD)

Then we invaded Iraq, killed thousands, and not once have we ever found WMD.

[Pale Rider]

Obama never voted nor pushed for the war in Iraq you fucking dumbass.

Get your facts right.

Also, Clinton and Edwards voted BASED ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S ADMINISTRATION WAS TELLING THEM (SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD WMD)

Then we invaded Iraq, killed thousands, and not once have we ever found WMD.

clinton and edwards are both on record of saying they supported taking out saddam you fucking imbicile.

Wipe the spit off your mouth, you're frothing again jackass.

[stephanie]

That was a pretty goofy article by Arianna...:poke:

[Pale Rider]

That was a pretty goofy article by Arianna...:poke:

Yeah... it's like this... now tell me again that 95% of everything in print, aired on TV, and on the internet isn't slanted/biased liberal left... yeah right. :uhoh:

[Guernicaa]

clinton and edwards are both on record of saying they supported taking out saddam you fucking imbicile.
Because they were being told by the Administrations "intelligence" that he wanted to enrich uranium and that he had gotten uranium from Niger.

All of the above turned to be false lies. The American public, including our Senators and Representatives were mislead and LIED to by this President and his administration.

[stephanie]

Because they were being told by the Administrations "intelligence" that he wanted to enrich uranium and that he had gotten uranium from Niger.

All of the above turned to be false lies. The American public, including our Senators and Representatives were mislead and LIED to by this President and his administration.

Man....We really have some stupid Senators and Reps...

Get rid of all the one's who are now saying they we're misled, if they can be fooled THAT easily...:poke:

[Guernicaa]

That was a pretty goofy article by Arianna...
Is that all you have to say Miss. Troll??

Please, do us all a favor...
If you’re going to try and talk about serious issues, try and actually find an argument to respond with. Don't just come in here and say something stupid about a woman with more intelligence than you'll ever have.

[stephanie]

Is that all you have to say Miss. Troll??

Please, do us all a favor...
If you’re going to try and talk about serious issues, try and actually find an argument to respond with. Don't just come in here and say something stupid about a woman with more intelligence than you'll ever have.


:laugh2:

What is there to debate...on a article written by Arianna Huffington???
Especially, when she sticks Paris Hilton in the same article with President Bush..

[Pale Rider]

Because they were being told by the Administrations "intelligence" that he wanted to enrich uranium and that he had gotten uranium from Niger.

All of the above turned to be false lies. The American public, including our Senators and Representatives were mislead and LIED to by this President and his administration.

"EVERYONE" worked off the same intelligence osama.... "EVERYONE." That's why every single one of your precious LIBERALS AGREED that invading Iraq and taking out sadam was the right thing to do.

This "Bush lied" bit is old as SHIT osama, and DON'T FLY! There isn't a single person here buying that stale old turd but YOU!

[Guernicaa]

Man....We really have some stupid Senators and Reps...

Get rid of all the one's who are now saying they we're misled, if they can be fooled THAT easily...
Are you retarded? Or do you just enjoy spinning things because you can't admit your monkey in chief is a failure?

Whenever a President wants to invade a country, he gets approval from congress. During this process, the administration must state its reasoning for why it wants to go to war (intelligence briefings).

All members of congress get their information from federal intelligence sources that work for the President and other areas of national executive power. Many of them asked questions, and were continuously re-affirmed by the Administration that Saddam was a threat.

Then, once we invaded the country, we found out that everything the administration had told us was a lie.

[Pale Rider]

Whenever a President wants to invade a country, he gets approval from congress.

HE HAD IT YOU FUCKING MORON... HE HAD IT!!!

[Guernicaa]

"EVERYONE" worked off the same intelligence osama.... "EVERYONE." That's why every single one of your precious LIBERALS AGREED that invading Iraq and taking out sadam was the right thing to do.

This "Bush lied" bit is old as SHIT osama, and DON'T FLY! There isn't a single person here buying that stale old turd but YOU!
Members of congress worked of intelligence that WAS NOT FUCKING TRUE.
Everything that came out the administrations mouth was a LIE. BIG FAT FUCKING LIE.


WHERE ARE THE WMD?
WHERE IS THE URANIUM HE WAS ENRICHING?


WE NEVER FOUND IT DUMBASS!

[Fountainhead]

Paris, the President, and Accountability: That's Hot!
Arianna Huffington
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/laxplayer566/parisjail.jpghttp://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/laxplayer566/bushmissionaccomp.jpg

So it's finally happening: accountability. At long last, a prominent public figure is being punished for serial reckless behavior and the willful denial of its consequences.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/paris-the-president-and_b_47894.html?view=print

Arianna Huffington is one of MY FAVORITE celebrities !! She and Terrrzzzzza Heinz Kerry are AWESOME !!!!

They both have really odd accents, in a psycho-killer Za Za Gabor kind of vibe. Both were born into aristocratic foreign families. Both learned how to fuck their way to the top. They both married REALLY, really, FILTHY-RICH Republicans ... took their husbands money (by death and divorce) ... and reverted back to their Succubus form

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succubus

I LOVE these chicks !!!

These women ARE Paris Hilton !!! They ARE the very thing that they rail against. Their delusions are fantastic entertainment !

They're HOT !

[Guernicaa]

he Had It You Fucking Moron... He Had It!!!
Learn to fucking read!
I never said he didn't!!!!!!!!!

HE LIED TO CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THEY WERE VOTING UPON WHAT HE TOLD THEM..WHICH WAS NOTHING BUT LIES.

[stephanie]

Arianna Huffington is one of MY FAVORITE celebrities !! She and Terrrzzzzza Heinz Kerry are AWESOME !!!!

They both have really odd accents, in a psycho-killer Za Za Gabor kind of vibe. Both were born into aristocratic foreign families. Both learned how to fuck their way to the top. They both married REALLY, really, FILTHY-RICH Republicans ... took their husbands money (by death and divorce) ... and reverted back to their Succubus form

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succubus

I LOVE these chicks !!!

These women ARE Paris Hilton !!! They ARE the very thing that they rail against. Their delusions are fantastic entertainment !



They're HOT !


:laugh2:

[Pale Rider]

Members of congress worked of intelligence that WAS NOT FUCKING TRUE.
Everything that came out the administrations mouth was a LIE. BIG FAT FUCKING LIE.


WHERE ARE THE WMD?
WHERE IS THE URANIUM HE WAS ENRICHING?


WE NEVER FOUND IT DUMBASS!

BUT IT WASN'T *********BUSH********** THAT WAS LYING A-HOLE! THE INTELLIGENCE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SLIGHTLY FAULTY, BUT THAT WASN'T BUSH'S FAULT IDIOT!!

GET WITH IT MAN. YOU'RE UNREAL.

[Pale Rider]

Learn to fucking read!
I never said he didn't!!!!!!!!!

HE LIED TO CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THEY WERE VOTING UPON WHAT HE TOLD THEM..WHICH WAS NOTHING BUT LIES.

YOU WILL NEVER PERPETUATE THAT LIE HERE. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT BELIEVES THAT. YOU ARE ALL ALONE PAL. YOU ARE THE ONLY IDIOT.

FACT REMAINS, BUSH DIDN'T LIE ABOUT SHIT. YOU ARE A LYING PIECE OF SLIME.

[Guernicaa]

BUT IT WASN'T *********BUSH********** THAT WAS LYING A-HOLE! THE INTELLIGENCE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SLIGHTLY FAULTY, THAT WASN'T BUSH'S FAULT IDIOT!!

GET WITH IT MAN. YOU'RE UNREAL.
..lollolololololol

The administration was told by its intelligence "There is no case for war here. He does not have WMD. The UN has been there. We've had inspectors go there. He is not a threat"

BUSH IGNORED ALL OF THAT AND USED FAULTY INTELLIGENCE TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

[Sitarro]

Is that all you have to say Miss. Troll??

Please, do us all a favor...
If you’re going to try and talk about serious issues, try and actually find an argument to respond with. Don't just come in here and say something stupid about a woman with more intelligence than you'll ever have.

That's funny coming from someone that would actually post an article coughed up by that monumental idiot Arianna. Who are you going to quote next...the little dim troll Bill Maher?:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
Go back to bed and pull the covers over your head kid. You are nothing but another useful fool for the far leftist, head in the camel shit crowd.:smoke:

[Sitarro]

..lollolololololol

The administration was told by its intelligence "There is no case for war here. He does not have WMD. The UN has been there. We've had inspectors go there. He is not a threat"

BUSH IGNORED ALL OF THAT AND USED FAULTY INTELLIGENCE TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The UN was in Saddams pocket, they were being paid off.....remember?

[Guernicaa]

YOU WILL NEVER PERPETUATE THAT LIE HERE. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT BELIEVES THAT. YOU ARE ALL ALONE PAL. YOU ARE THE ONLY IDIOT.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Would you like to see some poll numbers you fucking moron???

http://www.democrats.com/bush-lied-polls

[Guernicaa]

The UN was in Saddams pocket, they were being paid off.....remember?
Thats a lie.

Also, if that were true...WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE WMD???

[Pale Rider]

The administration was told by its intelligence "There is no case for war here.

Here's where your whole arguement is going to fall apart. YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT.
Sadam had broken 17 UN resolutions which included removing him from power by military force. That alone was reason enough for going to war.

[Pale Rider]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Would you like to see some poll numbers you fucking moron???

http://www.democrats.com/bush-lied-polls

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT... POST A LINK TO A DEMOLIBERALNUTS WEBSITE POLL... HA HA HA HA HA HA GHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!

[Guernicaa]

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT... POST A LINK TO A DEMOLIBERALNUTS WEBSITE POLL... HA HA HA HA HA HA GHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!

Again...You either continue to not read...or your just ignore what you do read.

The website has a series of polls that come from a variety of National News sources. The only one not mentioned on there is FOX, because FOX is a propaganda machine that provides opinion...not news.

[Kathianne]

..lollolololololol

The administration was told by its intelligence "There is no case for war here. He does not have WMD. The UN has been there. We've had inspectors go there. He is not a threat"

BUSH IGNORED ALL OF THAT AND USED FAULTY INTELLIGENCE TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Not quite true, actually not even close. This was from 1/03, later ones become even more concerned, as their capabilities to investigate became better:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:rTAcdhwzHpcJ:www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm+Blix+weapons+iraq+2003&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a


...The declaration of 7 December



On 7 December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to paragraph 3 of resolution 1441 (2002) and within the time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward. This is welcome.



One might have expected that in preparing the Declaration, Iraq would have tried to respond to, clarify and submit supporting evidence regarding the many open disarmament issues, which the Iraqi side should be familiar with from the UNSCOM document S/1999/94 of January1999 and the so-called Amorim Report of March 1999 (S/1999/356). These are questions which UNMOVIC, governments and independent commentators have often cited.



While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current “unresolved disarmament issues” and “key remaining disarmament tasks” in response to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two reports as unresolved, professionally justified. These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.



They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq’s letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.



I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons.




Chemical weapons



The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.



Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.



UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.



There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.



I would now like to turn to the so-called “Air Force document” that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.



The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.



The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.



The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.



The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.



I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.



Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.




Biological weapons



I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.



Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.



There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.



In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.




Missiles



I turn now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained SCUD-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of SCUD missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defence system during the 1980s. Yet no technical information has been produced about that programme or data on the consumption of the missiles.



There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years presented by Iraq as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions.



Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.



The Al Samoud’s diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.



During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programmes. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km.



These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 km are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made, before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the mean time, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.



In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.



Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.



Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.





Mr. President,



I have touched upon some of the disarmament issues that remain open and that need to be answered if dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. Which are the means at the disposal of Iraq to answer these questions? I have pointed to some during my presentation of the issues. Let me be a little more systematic. Our Iraqi counterparts are fond of saying that there are no proscribed items and if no evidence is presented to the contrary they should have the benefit of the doubt, be presumed innocent. UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq, but nor is it – or I think anyone else after the inspections between 1991 and 1998 – presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem. Evidence and full transparency may help. Let me be specific.




Find the items and activities



Information provided by Member States tells us about the movement and concealment of missiles and chemical weapons and mobile units for biological weapons production. We shall certainly follow up any credible leads given to us and report what we might find as well as any denial of access.



So far we have reported on the recent find of a small number of empty 122 mm warheads for chemical weapons. Iraq declared that it appointed a commission of inquiry to look for more. Fine. Why not extend the search to other items? Declare what may be found and destroy it under our supervision?




Find documents



When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents. All existing relevant documents have been presented, we are told. All documents relating to the biological weapons programme were destroyed together with the weapons.



However, Iraq has all the archives of the Government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports on how they have been used. It should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports on production and losses of material.



In response to a recent UNMOVIC request for a number of specific documents, the only new documents Iraq provided was a ledger of 193 pages which Iraq stated included all imports from 1983 to 1990 by the Technical and Scientific Importation Division, the importing authority for the biological weapons programme. Potentially, it might help to clear some open issues.



The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.



Any further sign of the concealment of documents would be serious. The Iraqi side committed itself at our recent talks to encourage persons to accept access also to private sites. There can be no sanctuaries for proscribed items, activities or documents. A denial of prompt access to any site would be a very serious matter.




Find persons to give credible information: a list of personnel



When Iraq claims that tangible evidence in the form of documents is not available, it ought at least to find individuals, engineers, scientists and managers to testify about their experience. Large weapons programmes are moved and managed by people. Interviews with individuals who may have worked in

programmes in the past may fill blank spots in our knowledge and understanding. It could also be useful to learn that they are now employed in peaceful sectors. These were the reasons why UNMOVIC asked for a list of such persons, in accordance with resolution 1441.



Some 400 names for all biological and chemical weapons programmes as well as their missile programmes were provided by the Iraqi side. This can be compared to over 3,500 names of people associated with those past weapons programmes that UNSCOM either interviewed in the 1990s or knew from documents and other sources. At my recent meeting in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to supplementing the list and some 80 additional names have been provided.

Allow information through credible interviews



In the past, much valuable information came from interviews. There were also cases in which the interviewee was clearly intimidated by the presence of and interruption by Iraqi officials. This was the background of resolution 1441’s provision for a right for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to hold private interviews “in the mode or location” of our choice, in Baghdad or even abroad.



To date, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have invariably been that the individual will only speak at Iraq’s monitoring directorate or, at any rate, in the presence of an Iraqi official. This could be due to a wish on the part of the invited to have evidence that they have not said anything that the authorities did not wish them to say. At our recent talks in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to encourage persons to accept interviews “in private”, that is to say alone with us. Despite this, the pattern has not changed. However, we hope that with further encouragement from the authorities, knowledgeable individuals will accept private interviews, in Baghdad or abroad.





UNMOVIC’s capability



Mr President, I must not conclude this “update” without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC.



In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communications, translation and interpretation staff, medical support, and other services at our Baghdad office and Mosul field office. All serve the United Nations and report to no one else. Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training programme continues — even at this moment we have a training course in session in Vienna. At the end of that course, we shall have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.



A team supplied by the Swiss Government is refurbishing our offices in Baghdad, which had been empty for four years. The Government of New Zealand has contributed both a medical team and a communications team. The German Government will contribute unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and a group of specialists to operate them for us within Iraq. The Government of Cyprus has kindly allowed us to set up a Field Office in Larnaca. All these contributions have been of assistance in quickly starting up our inspections and enhancing our capabilities. So has help from the UN in New York and from sister organizations in Baghdad.



In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before. By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work. We now have eight helicopters. They have already proved invaluable in helping to “freeze” large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.



Setting up a field office in Mosul has facilitated rapid inspections of sites in northern Iraq. We plan to establish soon a second field office in the Basra area, where we have already inspected a number of sites.





Mr. President,



We have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability which has been built-up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council.

[Guernicaa]

Here's where your whole arguement is going to fall apart. YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT.
Sadam had broken 17 UN resolutions which included removing him from power by military force. That alone was reason enough for going to war



Bush Misled America about the Threat from Iraq

Why did we invade Iraq? Was it because, as the White House claimed, Saddam Hussein was an immediate and serious threat to America. Or did Bush mislead the public, the Congress and the UN by consistently overstating this threat.

Bush claims he was forced to to invade Iraq as a last resort. But Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the very beginning of his presidency. Many of his team came from the PNAC, a thinktank which urged the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and pointed out the need for a "new Pearl Harbor". “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Ron Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

This is not a situation where Bush said ten things and one of them was wrong. Basically everything Bush said about the threat from Iraq was false. He had no solid evidence of any threat but still led us into this deadly and costly war. Here are the main lies about the threat from Iraq given by Bush and Cheney:

Lie #1 - Uranium from Niger - Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address. The documents supporting that statement were forged.
Lie #2 - Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speeches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.
Lie #3 - Congress Knew - Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress. [ZNet]
Lie #4 - Aluminum Tubes - Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that some aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. [NYTimes] [MotherJones] [CNN]
Lie #5 - Iraq and Al Qaeda - Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al Qaeda was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam led a secular government instead of an Islamic government. [ZNet] [CNN] On 9/8/06 a Senate panel reported there was no relationship. [ABC]
Lie #6 - Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarized student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
Lie #7 - Mobile Weapons Labs - Bush and his team repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax. Colin Powell showed diagrams of them at his speech before the UN to justify invading Iraq. These claims originated from Curveball, a discredited Iraqi informer who fed Bush many of the stories related to WMD. On May 29, 2003, two small trailers matching the description were found in Iraq. A team of bio-weapons experts examined the trailers and concluded they were simply designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. But, for over a year, Bush claimed these were part of Iraq's bio-weapons program. The expert's report was suppressed and only recently made public. [WashPost] [ABC]
Bush wanted so much to convince people of the need to invade Iraq that the White House set up a secret team in the Pentagon to create evidence. The Office of Special Plans routinely rewrote the CIA's intelligence estimates on Iraq's weapons programs, removing caveats such as "likely," "probably" and "may" as a way of depicting the country as an imminent threat. They also used unreliable sources to create reports that ultimately proved to be false. [Mother Jones] [New Yorker] [Wikipedia]

By lying to Congress, Bush violated US Laws related to Fraud and False Statements, Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001 and Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371.
http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html

Read and learn dumbshit. The website gives the sources to all of its information. All of this was in the news.

[Kathianne]

http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html

Read and learn dumbshit. The website gives the sources to all of its information. All of this was in the news.

Dumbshit? LOL! Let's see, I gave a link to a report by Blix to the UN, you respond with a link to impeach Bush. :lame2:

[stephanie]

Dumbshit? LOL! Let's see, I gave a link to a report by Blix to the UN, you respond with a link to impeach Bush. :lame2:

No kidding...And if ANY of that information on that site were true...

It would be the Democrats DUTY to start impeachment....

So, what's that tell ya.....:coffee:

[avatar4321]

Because they were being told by the Administrations "intelligence" that he wanted to enrich uranium and that he had gotten uranium from Niger.

All of the above turned to be false lies. The American public, including our Senators and Representatives were mislead and LIED to by this President and his administration.

Saddam was trying to get uraniam from Niger. British and US intelligence have documented this thoroughly. Simply denying it doesnt change it.

[avatar4321]

Are you retarded? Or do you just enjoy spinning things because you can't admit your monkey in chief is a failure?

Whenever a President wants to invade a country, he gets approval from congress. During this process, the administration must state its reasoning for why it wants to go to war (intelligence briefings).

All members of congress get their information from federal intelligence sources that work for the President and other areas of national executive power. Many of them asked questions, and were continuously re-affirmed by the Administration that Saddam was a threat.

Then, once we invaded the country, we found out that everything the administration had told us was a lie.

The President had authority to go to war from the resolution after 9/11 authorizing him to use force against any nation that supported terror. This authority was not made conditional on Congress's reapproval or even the President making a case for war. But the President allowed the Democrats to once again get on board with a second resolution they wanted to say they were all for Iraq.

They all had the same intelligence. They all made the same decision. The only difference is the Democrat members of the Congress are a bunch of pansies who are trying to blame others for their actions.

Now tell me, do you want a President who is going to try to pass the buck to someone else? or do you want a President who will take responsibility for his actions and follow through even when things get tough?

This is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. This is the difference between Leaders and followers.

[avatar4321]

Thats a lie.

Also, if that were true...WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE WMD???

If Bush was lyin about WMDs why didnt he plant them? He obviously has the capacity to pull off the 9/11 conspiracy to you guys. You honestly think if he was lying about it he wouldnt have planted the evidence?

[Guernicaa]

Dumbshit? LOL! Let's see, I gave a link to a report by Blix to the UN, you respond with a link to impeach Bush.
Actually I was responding to someone else.
Maybe you should look closer at who I'm quoting next time.

[Kathianne]

Actually I was responding to someone else.
Maybe you should look closer at who I'm quoting next time.

Gee, maybe you should include who you are quoting?

[Guernicaa]

Gee, maybe you should include who you are quoting?
Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension?

[Sitarro]

Thats a lie.

Also, if that were true...WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE WMD???

Gee kid, this is from a source you no-doubt give a bunch of credit too....... are you gonna give me another neg rep for showing that once again you are an ignorant fool and believe sources like Arianna and Bill Maher? Why don't you quote Paris next, she has about as much credibility as your girl Arianna?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/14/news/UN.php

Senate investigators say UN oil inspector was bribed by Saddam

By Judith Miller The New York Times

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2005



NEW YORK Investigators for the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said they had determined that a United Nations inspector was bribed to help Iraq export more oil than authorized under the oil-for-food aid program.
The investigators said that at a Senate hearing Tuesday they will present what they called "overwhelming evidence" that an inspector employed by Saybolt International, the Dutch company hired to monitor oil exports under the program, had accepted more than $100,000 to help the former Iraqi government export more than $9 million worth of oil outside the program in 2001. They said they had found no evidence of any other bribery cases.
There have been no documented cases in which Saddam Hussein's government bribed a UN inspector for a major contractor.
At least five U.S. congressional committees, the Justice Department and an independent panel headed by Paul Volcker are investigating the oil-for-food program, which ended in 2003 and allowed limited oil sales so Iraq could buy crucial goods to alleviate the effect of sanctions.
According to two letters in Arabic from Iraq's former oil minister, payments totaling $105,819 were authorized by "the leader God saves," or Saddam, to Armando Carlos, a Portuguese oil inspector.
The letters say the money was for his services in helping a French company export two extra shipments of Iraqi oil in 2001 that were not authorized by the oil-for-food program.
Copies of the letters were provided to The New York Times by Iraqi critics of the program.
Saybolt officials have confirmed that an employee is being investigated in the case, and a records search listed one of the company's inspectors as a Portuguese man named Armando Carlos Oliveira.
In response to questions Sunday, Senate officials confirmed that Oliveira was the focus of their investigation.
Contacted in Portugal by telephone Sunday, Oliveira, who identified himself as the manager of Saybolt's operations in the country, denied that he had received payments from Iraq or that he had ever worked there.
Saybolt did not respond to e-mail and telephone messages left at its Dutch headquarters, with its Washington lawyers and at an office in Houston.
In testimony before a House committee in October, Peter Boks, the company's managing director, said Saybolt's own investigation had shown that one of its inspectors had permitted "topping off" - the loading of unauthorized oil onto an approved oil shipment - but had found "no evidence" that any Saybolt inspectors "were aware of the additional unauthorized loadings."
Boks also said the company had concluded that it was "extremely unlikely" that other instances of such unauthorized shipments had occurred.
Allegations that a Saybolt inspector had received a bribe were first reported by The Wall Street Journal in October. The Financial Times reported on Saturday that documents identified Oliveira as the employee who had been offered money.
Senate investigators said Sunday that they would present "overwhelming evidence" in the hearing Tuesday that Oliveira had worked in Iraq as a UN oil inspector and had accepted money from Saddam.
They said Saybolt officials would testify at the hearing.
NEW YORK Investigators for the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said they had determined that a United Nations inspector was bribed to help Iraq export more oil than authorized under the oil-for-food aid program.
The investigators said that at a Senate hearing Tuesday they will present what they called "overwhelming evidence" that an inspector employed by Saybolt International, the Dutch company hired to monitor oil exports under the program, had accepted more than $100,000 to help the former Iraqi government export more than $9 million worth of oil outside the program in 2001. They said they had found no evidence of any other bribery cases.
There have been no documented cases in which Saddam Hussein's government bribed a UN inspector for a major contractor.
At least five U.S. congressional committees, the Justice Department and an independent panel headed by Paul Volcker are investigating the oil-for-food program, which ended in 2003 and allowed limited oil sales so Iraq could buy crucial goods to alleviate the effect of sanctions.
According to two letters in Arabic from Iraq's former oil minister, payments totaling $105,819 were authorized by "the leader God saves," or Saddam, to Armando Carlos, a Portuguese oil inspector.
The letters say the money was for his services in helping a French company export two extra shipments of Iraqi oil in 2001 that were not authorized by the oil-for-food program.
Copies of the letters were provided to The New York Times by Iraqi critics of the program.
Saybolt officials have confirmed that an employee is being investigated in the case, and a records search listed one of the company's inspectors as a Portuguese man named Armando Carlos Oliveira.
In response to questions Sunday, Senate officials confirmed that Oliveira was the focus of their investigation.
Contacted in Portugal by telephone Sunday, Oliveira, who identified himself as the manager of Saybolt's operations in the country, denied that he had received payments from Iraq or that he had ever worked there.
Saybolt did not respond to e-mail and telephone messages left at its Dutch headquarters, with its Washington lawyers and at an office in Houston.
In testimony before a House committee in October, Peter Boks, the company's managing director, said Saybolt's own investigation had shown that one of its inspectors had permitted "topping off" - the loading of unauthorized oil onto an approved oil shipment - but had found "no evidence" that any Saybolt inspectors "were aware of the additional unauthorized loadings."
Boks also said the company had concluded that it was "extremely unlikely" that other instances of such unauthorized shipments had occurred.
Allegations that a Saybolt inspector had received a bribe were first reported by The Wall Street Journal in October. The Financial Times reported on Saturday that documents identified Oliveira as the employee who had been offered money.
Senate investigators said Sunday that they would present "overwhelming evidence" in the hearing Tuesday that Oliveira had worked in Iraq as a UN oil inspector and had accepted money from Saddam.
They said Saybolt officials would testify at the hearing.
NEW YORK Investigators for the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said they had determined that a United Nations inspector was bribed to help Iraq export more oil than authorized under the oil-for-food aid program.
The investigators said that at a Senate hearing Tuesday they will present what they called "overwhelming evidence" that an inspector employed by Saybolt International, the Dutch company hired to monitor oil exports under the program, had accepted more than $100,000 to help the former Iraqi government export more than $9 million worth of oil outside the program in 2001. They said they had found no evidence of any other bribery cases.
There have been no documented cases in which Saddam Hussein's government bribed a UN inspector for a major contractor.
At least five U.S. congressional committees, the Justice Department and an independent panel headed by Paul Volcker are investigating the oil-for-food program, which ended in 2003 and allowed limited oil sales so Iraq could buy crucial goods to alleviate the effect of sanctions.
According to two letters in Arabic from Iraq's former oil minister, payments totaling $105,819 were authorized by "the leader God saves," or Saddam, to Armando Carlos, a Portuguese oil inspector.
The letters say the money was for his services in helping a French company export two extra shipments of Iraqi oil in 2001 that were not authorized by the oil-for-food program.
Copies of the letters were provided to The New York Times by Iraqi critics of the program.
Saybolt officials have confirmed that an employee is being investigated in the case, and a records search listed one of the company's inspectors as a Portuguese man named Armando Carlos Oliveira.
In response to questions Sunday, Senate officials confirmed that Oliveira was the focus of their investigation.
Contacted in Portugal by telephone Sunday, Oliveira, who identified himself as the manager of Saybolt's operations in the country, denied that he had received payments from Iraq or that he had ever worked there.
Saybolt did not respond to e-mail and telephone messages left at its Dutch headquarters, with its Washington lawyers and at an office in Houston.
In testimony before a House committee in October, Peter Boks, the company's managing director, said Saybolt's own investigation had shown that one of its inspectors had permitted "topping off" - the loading of unauthorized oil onto an approved oil shipment - but had found "no evidence" that any Saybolt inspectors "were aware of the additional unauthorized loadings."
Boks also said the company had concluded that it was "extremely unlikely" that other instances of such unauthorized shipments had occurred.
Allegations that a Saybolt inspector had received a bribe were first reported by The Wall Street Journal in October. The Financial Times reported on Saturday that documents identified Oliveira as the employee who had been offered money.
Senate investigators said Sunday that they would present "overwhelming evidence" in the hearing Tuesday that Oliveira had worked in Iraq as a UN oil inspector and had accepted money from Saddam.
They said Saybolt officials would testify at the hearing.

[Guernicaa]

Saddam was trying to get uraniam from Niger. British and US intelligence have documented this thoroughly. Simply denying it doesnt change it.
Thats false. The administration sent Joe Wilson to Ninger in order to look up on the claims. Wilson returned with a report that debunked this, and the administration was well aware of that.

Iraq's alleged uranium shopping had been strongly disputed in the intelligence community from the start. In a closed Senate hearing in late September 2002, shortly before the October NIE was completed, then-director of central intelligence George J. Tenet and his top weapons analyst, Robert Walpole, expressed strong doubts about the uranium story, which had recently been unveiled publicly by the British government. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, likewise, called the claim "highly dubious." For those reasons, the uranium story was relegated to a brief inside passage in the October estimate.

But the White House Iraq Group, formed in August 2002 to foster "public education" about Iraq's "grave and gathering danger" to the United States, repeatedly pitched the uranium story. The alleged procurement was a minor issue for most U.S. analysts -- the hard part for Iraq would be enriching uranium, not obtaining the ore, and Niger's controlled market made it an unlikely seller -- but the Niger story proved irresistible to speechwriters. Most nuclear arguments were highly technical, but the public could easily grasp the link between uranium and a bomb.

Tenet interceded to keep the claim out of a speech Bush gave in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002, but by Dec. 19 it reappeared in a State Department "fact sheet." After that, the Pentagon asked for an authoritative judgment from the National Intelligence Council, the senior coordinating body for the 15 agencies that then constituted the U.S. intelligence community. Did Iraq and Niger discuss a uranium sale, or not? If they had, the Pentagon would need to reconsider its ties with Niger.

The council's reply, drafted in a January 2003 memo by the national intelligence officer for Africa, was unequivocal: The Niger story was baseless and should be laid to rest. Four U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge said in interviews that the memo, which has not been reported before, arrived at the White House as Bush and his highest-ranking advisers made the uranium story a centerpiece of their case for the rapidly approaching war against Iraq.

Bush put his prestige behind the uranium story in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address. Less than two months later, the International Atomic Energy Agency exposed the principal U.S. evidence as bogus. A Bush-appointed commission later concluded that the evidence, a set of contracts and correspondence sold by an Italian informant, was "transparently forged."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916_pf.html

[Kathianne]

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension?

Thanks for giving an example of what I was speaking of. You were 'quoting' me, right?

[Guernicaa]

Gee kid, this is from a source you no-doubt give a bunch of credit too....... are you gonna give me another neg rep for showing that once again you are an ignorant fool and believe sources like Arianna and Bill Maher? Why don't you quote Paris next, she has about as much credibility as your girl Arianna?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/14/news/UN.php

Senate investigators say UN oil inspector was bribed by Saddam

By Judith Miller The New York Times

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2005



NEW YORK Investigators for the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said they had determined that a United Nations inspector was bribed to help Iraq export more oil than authorized under the oil-for-food aid program.
The investigators said that at a Senate hearing Tuesday they will present what they called "overwhelming evidence" that an inspector employed by Saybolt International, the Dutch company hired to monitor oil exports under the program, had accepted more than $100,000 to help the former Iraqi government export more than $9 million worth of oil outside the program in 2001. They said they had found no evidence of any other bribery cases.
There have been no documented cases in which Saddam Hussein's government bribed a UN inspector for a major contractor.
At least five U.S. congressional committees, the Justice Department and an independent panel headed by Paul Volcker are investigating the oil-for-food program, which ended in 2003 and allowed limited oil sales so Iraq could buy crucial goods to alleviate the effect of sanctions.
According to two letters in Arabic from Iraq's former oil minister, payments totaling $105,819 were authorized by "the leader God saves," or Saddam, to Armando Carlos, a Portuguese oil inspector.
The letters say the money was for his services in helping a French company export two extra shipments of Iraqi oil in 2001 that were not authorized by the oil-for-food program.
Copies of the letters were provided to The New York Times by Iraqi critics of the program.
Saybolt officials have confirmed that an employee is being investigated in the case, and a records search listed one of the company's inspectors as a Portuguese man named Armando Carlos Oliveira.
In response to questions Sunday, Senate officials confirmed that Oliveira was the focus of their investigation.
Contacted in Portugal by telephone Sunday, Oliveira, who identified himself as the manager of Saybolt's operations in the country, denied that he had received payments from Iraq or that he had ever worked there.
Saybolt did not respond to e-mail and telephone messages left at its Dutch headquarters, with its Washington lawyers and at an office in Houston.
In testimony before a House committee in October, Peter Boks, the company's managing director, said Saybolt's own investigation had shown that one of its inspectors had permitted "topping off" - the loading of unauthorized oil onto an approved oil shipment - but had found "no evidence" that any Saybolt inspectors "were aware of the additional unauthorized loadings."
Boks also said the company had concluded that it was "extremely unlikely" that other instances of such unauthorized shipments had occurred.
Allegations that a Saybolt inspector had received a bribe were first reported by The Wall Street Journal in October. The Financial Times reported on Saturday that documents identified Oliveira as the employee who had been offered money.
Senate investigators said Sunday that they would present "overwhelming evidence" in the hearing Tuesday that Oliveira had worked in Iraq as a UN oil inspector and had accepted money from Saddam.
They said Saybolt officials would testify at the hearing.
NEW YORK Investigators for the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said they had determined that a United Nations inspector was bribed to help Iraq export more oil than authorized under the oil-for-food aid program.
The investigators said that at a Senate hearing Tuesday they will present what they called "overwhelming evidence" that an inspector employed by Saybolt International, the Dutch company hired to monitor oil exports under the program, had accepted more than $100,000 to help the former Iraqi government export more than $9 million worth of oil outside the program in 2001. They said they had found no evidence of any other bribery cases.
There have been no documented cases in which Saddam Hussein's government bribed a UN inspector for a major contractor.
At least five U.S. congressional committees, the Justice Department and an independent panel headed by Paul Volcker are investigating the oil-for-food program, which ended in 2003 and allowed limited oil sales so Iraq could buy crucial goods to alleviate the effect of sanctions.
According to two letters in Arabic from Iraq's former oil minister, payments totaling $105,819 were authorized by "the leader God saves," or Saddam, to Armando Carlos, a Portuguese oil inspector.
The letters say the money was for his services in helping a French company export two extra shipments of Iraqi oil in 2001 that were not authorized by the oil-for-food program.
Copies of the letters were provided to The New York Times by Iraqi critics of the program.
Saybolt officials have confirmed that an employee is being investigated in the case, and a records search listed one of the company's inspectors as a Portuguese man named Armando Carlos Oliveira.
In response to questions Sunday, Senate officials confirmed that Oliveira was the focus of their investigation.
Contacted in Portugal by telephone Sunday, Oliveira, who identified himself as the manager of Saybolt's operations in the country, denied that he had received payments from Iraq or that he had ever worked there.
Saybolt did not respond to e-mail and telephone messages left at its Dutch headquarters, with its Washington lawyers and at an office in Houston.
In testimony before a House committee in October, Peter Boks, the company's managing director, said Saybolt's own investigation had shown that one of its inspectors had permitted "topping off" - the loading of unauthorized oil onto an approved oil shipment - but had found "no evidence" that any Saybolt inspectors "were aware of the additional unauthorized loadings."
Boks also said the company had concluded that it was "extremely unlikely" that other instances of such unauthorized shipments had occurred.
Allegations that a Saybolt inspector had received a bribe were first reported by The Wall Street Journal in October. The Financial Times reported on Saturday that documents identified Oliveira as the employee who had been offered money.
Senate investigators said Sunday that they would present "overwhelming evidence" in the hearing Tuesday that Oliveira had worked in Iraq as a UN oil inspector and had accepted money from Saddam.
They said Saybolt officials would testify at the hearing.
NEW YORK Investigators for the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said they had determined that a United Nations inspector was bribed to help Iraq export more oil than authorized under the oil-for-food aid program.
The investigators said that at a Senate hearing Tuesday they will present what they called "overwhelming evidence" that an inspector employed by Saybolt International, the Dutch company hired to monitor oil exports under the program, had accepted more than $100,000 to help the former Iraqi government export more than $9 million worth of oil outside the program in 2001. They said they had found no evidence of any other bribery cases.
There have been no documented cases in which Saddam Hussein's government bribed a UN inspector for a major contractor.
At least five U.S. congressional committees, the Justice Department and an independent panel headed by Paul Volcker are investigating the oil-for-food program, which ended in 2003 and allowed limited oil sales so Iraq could buy crucial goods to alleviate the effect of sanctions.
According to two letters in Arabic from Iraq's former oil minister, payments totaling $105,819 were authorized by "the leader God saves," or Saddam, to Armando Carlos, a Portuguese oil inspector.
The letters say the money was for his services in helping a French company export two extra shipments of Iraqi oil in 2001 that were not authorized by the oil-for-food program.
Copies of the letters were provided to The New York Times by Iraqi critics of the program.
Saybolt officials have confirmed that an employee is being investigated in the case, and a records search listed one of the company's inspectors as a Portuguese man named Armando Carlos Oliveira.
In response to questions Sunday, Senate officials confirmed that Oliveira was the focus of their investigation.
Contacted in Portugal by telephone Sunday, Oliveira, who identified himself as the manager of Saybolt's operations in the country, denied that he had received payments from Iraq or that he had ever worked there.
Saybolt did not respond to e-mail and telephone messages left at its Dutch headquarters, with its Washington lawyers and at an office in Houston.
In testimony before a House committee in October, Peter Boks, the company's managing director, said Saybolt's own investigation had shown that one of its inspectors had permitted "topping off" - the loading of unauthorized oil onto an approved oil shipment - but had found "no evidence" that any Saybolt inspectors "were aware of the additional unauthorized loadings."
Boks also said the company had concluded that it was "extremely unlikely" that other instances of such unauthorized shipments had occurred.
Allegations that a Saybolt inspector had received a bribe were first reported by The Wall Street Journal in October. The Financial Times reported on Saturday that documents identified Oliveira as the employee who had been offered money.
Senate investigators said Sunday that they would present "overwhelming evidence" in the hearing Tuesday that Oliveira had worked in Iraq as a UN oil inspector and had accepted money from Saddam.
They said Saybolt officials would testify at the hearing.
That shit means nothing.
Even if he was bribed, where are the WMD???
We have yet to find them.

[Guernicaa]

The President had authority to go to war from the resolution after 9/11 authorizing him to use force against any nation that supported terror. This authority was not made conditional on Congress's reapproval or even the President making a case for war. But the President allowed the Democrats to once again get on board with a second resolution they wanted to say they were all for Iraq.

They all had the same intelligence. They all made the same decision. The only difference is the Democrat members of the Congress are a bunch of pansies who are trying to blame others for their actions.

Now tell me, do you want a President who is going to try to pass the buck to someone else? or do you want a President who will take responsibility for his actions and follow through even when things get tough?

This is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. This is the difference between Leaders and followers.
This is the problem: There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.
The administration made that claim up as an attempt to connect Iraq with the "war on terror".

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/10/iraq.intelligence/index.html

The biggest discrepancy between public statements by the Bush administration and judgments by the intelligence community centered on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, he said.

"The enormous attention devoted to this subject did not reflect any judgment by intelligence officials that there was or was likely to be anything like the 'alliance' the administration said existed."

Rather, "the administration wanted to hitch the Iraq expedition to the 'war on terror' and the threat the American public feared most, thereby capitalizing on the country's militant post-9/11 mood," Pillar wrote.

[Sitarro]

Thats false. The administration sent Joe Wilson to Ninger in order to look up on the claims. Wilson returned with a report that debunked this, and the administration was well aware of that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916_pf.html

No wonder Wilson(Hollywood) didn't find any info in Niger, Obama claims he went to Ninger, wherever the hell that is.:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

[Guernicaa]

No wonder Wilson(Hollywood) didn't find any info in Niger, Obama claims he went to Ninger, wherever the hell that is.
hahahahahahaha good one!
Your so fucking smart! You found a typo!!!:lol:

[Kathianne]

That shit means nothing.
Even if he was bribed, where are the WMD???
We have yet to find them.
Who are you referring to with 'kid'?
I would have expected more from an Obama acolyte, like the ability to quote a post. Maybe I've too high of expectations for Obama?

[avatar4321]

Thats false. The administration sent Joe Wilson to Ninger in order to look up on the claims. Wilson returned with a report that debunked this, and the administration was well aware of that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916_pf.html

The administration didnt send Joe Wilson anywhere and he has been repeatedly shown as a liar.

[avatar4321]

This is the problem: There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.
The administration made that claim up as an attempt to connect Iraq with the "war on terror".

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/10/iraq.intelligence/index.html

The only connection there needs to be with 9/11 is the involvement of terror. The authorization for the use of force after 9/11 authorized the use of force for any nation that supports terror. It's uncontestable that Saddam supported terrorism.

The fact there are people like you who are still too stupid to understand that is mindboggling to any sane and rational person.

[OCA]

Arianna is an embarrassment to Greeks everywhere......amiali poutana!

Anyway Bush did not lie to anyone, he acted on the intelligence that was available and had been available for many years before he took office, in fact about 30 or so Democratic political figures including Bubba all reached the same conclusion as Bush.

You will never be able to prove that the man purposely crafted a lie in order to invade Iraq, that is the thinking of leftwing nutters.

[OCA]

Members of congress worked of intelligence that WAS NOT FUCKING TRUE.
Everything that came out the administrations mouth was a LIE. BIG FAT FUCKING LIE.


WHERE ARE THE WMD?
WHERE IS THE URANIUM HE WAS ENRICHING?


WE NEVER FOUND IT DUMBASS!

They are in Syria, Iran and Russia.

[OCA]

Thats a lie.

Also, if that were true...WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE WMD???


Syria, Iran and Russia. Possibly China also.

[avatar4321]

They are in Syria, Iran and Russia.

Actually I read a newspaper article from italy, i believe, that stated that yellow cake was being smuggled out of Iraq to the Netherlands, of all places, in scrap metal. This was years ago and ive been trying to find that article since but i havent found it.

[OCA]

Actually I read a newspaper article from italy, i believe, that stated that yellow cake was being smuggled out of Iraq to the Netherlands, of all places, in scrap metal. This was years ago and ive been trying to find that article since but i havent found it.


Holland? Interesting.

[avatar4321]

Holland? Interesting.

yeah. I wish I had the article itself. But i lost the link.

[Gaffer]

Because they were being told by the Administrations "intelligence" that he wanted to enrich uranium and that he had gotten uranium from Niger.

All of the above turned to be false lies. The American public, including our Senators and Representatives were mislead and LIED to by this President and his administration.

Because they were told by the clinton intelligence that he was developing weapons and seeking to get nukes. He was dangerous to the region and the US in the long run. So they wanted him taken out. Either the weapons weren't there or they were removed.

[Fountainhead]

They are in Syria, Iran and Russia.

The Bekaa Valley in Syria ... to be precise

http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol3Issue10/Vol3Issue10Thompson.html