StockSelect - Investments

Zurück   stock-channel.net - Das Finanzportal > Zeitgeschehen
Benutzername
Kennwort
Aktuelle Uhrzeit 23:03

Antwort Gehe zum letzten Beitrag
 
Themen-Optionen
Alt 19.01.2004, 19:06   #31
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Posting

Blair faces new 'war crimes' accusation

By Severin Carrell
18 January 2004


An eminent panel of legal experts is to accuse Tony Blair of committing war crimes in Iraq in a formal complaint to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

The panel, which includes law professors from universities in Britain, Ireland, France and Canada, will claim on Tuesday there is compelling evidence that the Prime Minister broke international law and UN treaties by invading Iraq last year.

The eight experts will recommend that the ICC launches a formal investigation into the Government's conduct - the first step towards indicting ministers for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Their dossier will add to the renewed controversy over Mr Blair's stance on Iraq. It will be published a week before Lord Hutton issues his report into the death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly, which examines the Prime Minister's role in the decision to name him.

The ICC has already rejected several attempts by Greek and Belgian lawyers to investigate the Government's behaviour, but in this case its lawyers have contacted the panel in advance to ask for a copy of their report.

The panel includes Guy Goodwin-Gill QC of All Souls, Oxford, Professor Christine Chinkin of LSE, Professor Upendra Baxi from Warwick University and Professor William Schabas, director of the Irish Centre of Human Rights.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/po...sp?story=482331

syr :
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 21.01.2004, 06:42   #32
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Posting

THE NEW BARBARIANS

LIES "R" US


By Novakeo

What does it take to overwhelm the better angels of our nature and enter the dark psychosis of malevolence and fear? What possesses human beings to choose the path of lies, thievery, and mass murder, to do things that in normal circumstances would be impossible to contemplate let alone implement. Could it simply be pure unadulterated ambition mixed in with avarice and vanity?

Behind the eyes of a neocon in the position of power is a cold calculating murderer, a new barbarian, and what makes the neocon so effective is that they disguise themselves brilliantly as pious Romans. They project an image of normality, rational thinking individuals who have successfully convinced the masses that their idealism and intellectual mendacity is the true righteous path for national salvation and virtue.




Of course, we have known the true motives of the Bush clan as reported here since boy George took office. Neocon diehards regarded us as a fringe element, un-patriotic shills for the Bush-haters in the liberal establishment. Such sour grapes, what are they to do with all those internet writers who are free from corporate sleaze and report the truth? Their only recourse then and now was to smear the truth seekers and engage in character assassination in a retreating action worthy only of chicken hawks, and if all else fails they use their disingenuous trump card, the often used prevarication of anti-Semitism.

One fundamental aspect in a neocon that ordinary Americans must come to realize is that they hate God, and since they hate God and all His attributes like - God is Truth, they choose to serve the god of forces and illusion. They cannot acknowledge to this simple truth, instead, they present themselves as godly servants who are working for your interests and that of your nation.

From the outset, the Bush clan was engaged in warmongering and pursued a course for the criminal invasion of another sovereign nation. In this criminal conduct, the murder of tens of thousands has taken place. September 11th was the perfect smoke screen for their violent policies for a New American Century. The recent revelation by former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill further revealed to us that when President Bush took office in January 2001 he fully intended to invade Iraq and needed to find an excuse for preemptive war against Saddam Hussein, then the twin towers came down, setting the stage for the neocons, and the delusional war on evil began.

None of this is new to us, one by one, we exposed the lies that the Bush administration perpetrated against the American people concerning their illegitimate war on Iraq.

They lied to us when war profiteer extraordinaire Vice-President Dick Cheney declared on August 26th 2002 – "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

They lied to us when President Bush stated on September 12th 2002 - "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

They lied to us when Secretary of State Colin Powell stated on February 5th 2003 - "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."

They lied to us when President George Bush on March 17th 2003 declared - "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

They lied to us when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on March 30th 2003 revealed that - "We know where they are (WMD). They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

They lied to Congress, a criminal act in itself in a long trail of criminality; they made wild erroneous claims to the house of pusillanimous imposters. The Bush administration went to congress and warned palm greased senators of the specter of a fast approaching apocalypse, according to Senator Bill Nelson, the Bush clan claimed that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities. The senators lapped up the pretense like the loyal pavlovian lap dogs that they are.

Secretary of State Colin Powell lied to us and to the Security Council when he declared on February 5th 2003 – "Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network, headed by Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants." And that a "sinister nexus" existed "between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder." Powel recently admitted that there was no hard evidence linking the two.

They lied to us about Iraqi attempts to acquire “yellowcake” from Niger, and used the yellowcake forgeries as evidence in President Bush’s State of the Union to congress. In attempt to cover up this fabrication which was exposed as such by former ambassador Joseph Wilson, the Bush administration outed a CIA operative in a classic Mafioso hit on Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife Valerie Plame, a CIA operative whose function was to run an undercover network to track the proliferation of WMD to terrorist organizations, another criminal act defined under Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities act of 1982. They put at risk all those undercover agents associated with her.

So what, the sullied deed is done right? Why harp on such trivial aspects to the portrait when one needs to see the big picture? The question now for Americans is - do you want to continue to die and kill for nothing other than stale clichés, to lose your sons and daughters for murky intelligence, for contrived threats? Think about it, killing and dying for the economic gain of your elites, for the augmentation of the interests of Israel, for the defense of the mighty dollar, for the resources of oil and strategic positioning against perceived rivals, are you willing to sacrifice your lives for these? Would your founding fathers die for such policies or did they shed their blood against the murderous sophistries of the empire at large.

Iraq is but one piece to the neocon puzzle for world domination or at least domination of the Middle East. Take a trip to PNAC, one of many intellectual mansions for neocons such as Vice President Dick Cheney, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is a member, and a host of other slimy characters like Bill Kristol.

It is all out in the open to see, their megalomania, their determination to create murder and chaos, they do not hide their intentions as far as formulating policy in their think tanks, and the subterfuge only begins when they try to convince Americans to lay down their lives for their portfolios, for the illusion of a greater national good, for a virtual peace and security.

The neocons are far from being finished with only the assets of Iraq liberated; they are screaming for regime change in Syria and Iran, and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a preemptive strike on its nuclear sites. Its all in a new book titled – “An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror” penned by the “dark prince” himself - Richard Perle, along with his sidekick and intellectual midget David Frum.

The title of the book reveals much, specifically “An End to Evil” if that was ever a human possibility for such an event outside the power of God. These pernicious jokers, clowns of the big stage do not know what evil looks like; if they did, they would recognize themselves as instruments to the forces of iniquity. Reminds me of the axiom - men never do more evil then when they believe that they are doing the greater good.

The Barbarians are within the gates, cleverly disguised as Romans. They have become the keepers of boy George’s sandbox, they are running the asylum, and have extended their intrigue and hypocrisy to the point of mass murder and have permanently defiled the last remnants of a once great republic.


http://www.etherzone.com/2004/nova011904.shtml

syr
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 22.01.2004, 10:51   #33
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Posting

Sept. 11 Leak Probe Focuses on Sen. Shelby, Paper Reports

Reuters | 01.22.04 |

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Justice Department probe of the leak of classified information about intercepted messages prior to the Sept. 11 attacks is focusing on Sen. Richard Shelby, former chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, The Washington Post reported on Thursday .

The newspaper cited a law enforcement official and congressional sources as saying that the probe has focused on the Alabama Republican who was head of the intelligence panel at the time of the disclosure.

The FBI is trying to determine the source of the leaked information that the super secret National Security Agency (NSA) had intercepted two messages hinting at an impending action on the eve of Sept. 11, 2001, but did not translate them until Sept. 12.

The information was first disclosed publicly on CNN after a 2002 classified hearing in which the director of the NSA spoke to lawmakers behind closed doors.

Citing unnamed sources, The Washington Post reported that a grand jury has been hearing information and has taken testimony from at least two witnesses including Shelby's former press secretary.

Shelby, who now heads the Senate Banking Committee, told the newspaper in a statement that he had never compromised classified information.

"To my knowledge, the same can be said about my staff," the statement said. The Post quoted the statement as saying Shelby had had no contact with investigators for more than a year.

A spokesman for Shelby could not immediately be reached for comment.

The Post said it was unclear how long the 18-month investigation had focused on Shelby or how close the FBI was to concluding the probe.

The NSA, based at Fort Meade, Maryland, is one of the government's most secretive intelligence agencies. Much of its information carries a higher classification than other sorts of intelligence. It is illegal to release classified information.

syr :
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 24.01.2004, 12:17   #34
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Posting

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 by the Boston Globe

Addressing Bush's State of Disunion

by James Carroll

IN HIS STATE of the Union address tonight, President Bush will speak of the nightmare he has created in Iraq as if it is a dream come true. Yet the contrary facts of the American misadventure have begun to speak for themselves.

When the awful story of the Iraq war is written, the two weeks just past may be recognized as a time when the deception and disarray of Bush's policy were made more clear than ever. These are events to which the president will not refer tonight, yet taken together, they reveal the true state of his disunion:

On Jan. 4, the tape of a belligerent voice claiming to be Osama bin Laden was broadcast on Al Jazeera television. The next day the CIA confirmed that it was bin Laden, and that, made recently, the tape showed he is still alive.

On Jan. 8, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace rebutted major Bush claims on Iraq, concluding that "administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq WMD and ballistic missile programs."

On Jan. 11, on television, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill confirmed reports in Ron Suskind's "The Price of Loyalty" that the Bush administration planned war against Iraq before 9/11, "from the very beginning."

On Jan. 12, a paper published at the Army War College described the war on terrorism as "strategically unfocused." The assessment from within the military itself blasted the Bush-led effort because it "promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate US military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security."

On Jan. 13, the Bush administration reversed itself to announce that Canada could participate in contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq. Washington's punitive rejection of countries that had opposed the war was not working.

On Jan. 14, Human Rights Watch issued a report that held some US tactics in Iraq to be in violation of the Geneva Conventions, including home demolitions that "did not meet the test of military necessity." The report accused the army of arresting and holding Iraqi civilians simply because they were relatives of fugitives.

On Jan. 14, it was reported that the captured Saddam Hussein was in possession of a letter he had written instructing his followers not to throw in with foreign fighters, further puncturing the myth that Hussein was in active alliance with Al Qaeda.

On Jan. 14, a secret study conducted by the US Army Command in Baghdad was published. It faulted the army's tactics in Iraq as needlessly confrontational, and it asserted -- against the claims of the Bush administration -- that "the capture of Saddam will have nominal effect within Iraqi borders."

On Jan. 15, responding to Shi'ite leader Ayatollah Ali Sistani, 30,000 Iraqis took to the streets to protest American plans for transition to Iraqi rule, making even more unlikely Washington's fantasy that Iraq will not join Iran as a Shi'ite dominated state. Will that put Iraq back on the axis of evil?

On Jan. 15, the Bush administration was reported to be considering opening Iraq reconstruction contracts to France, Germany, and Russia, as it had to Canada. Washington is scrambling.

By Jan. 19, yesterday, the Bush administration had reversed itself to press at the United Nations for urgent help with the transition to Iraqi self-government, the clearest sign yet that Washington's go-it-alone policy had failed.

In the days before the State of the Union address one year ago, the Bush administration denigrated UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, dismissing the inspections and containment strategy favored at the United Nations. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld mocked what he called "old Europe." Secretary of State Colin Powell promised to provide compelling evidence of Saddam Hussein's imminent threat. The State Department published an indictment of Saddam entitled "Apparatus of Lies."

In the State of the Union address itself, President Bush bragged that he had "liberated" Afghanistan -- a country which today, except for a small zone around Kabul, belongs to warlords. He boasted that "one by one terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice" -- thinking, perhaps, of the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, where American justice is mocked.

Bush detailed a long list of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He said that Iraq had obtained "uranium from Africa," and he referred to certain metal tubes to suggest a nuclear weapons program. He said that Saddam Hussein "aids and protects" Al Qaeda, and, projecting into the future, he linked the 9/11 hijackers with Saddam. He promised that Colin Powell would provide evidence of the link between Saddam and the terrorists.

The president set a rigorous standard last year, constructing an apparatus of lies it will be hard to match tonight. One bald falsehood not even he will dare repeat: "We seek peace," Bush said a year ago, "We strive for peace."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0120-03.htm

syr :
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 24.01.2004, 14:12   #35
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Posting

24.01.2004

Ex-US-Inspekteur: Keine ABC-Waffen im Irak

Der Leiter der US-Waffeninspektoren im Irak, David Kay, ist von seinem Posten zurückgetreten und vermutet nach eigenen Worten keine großen Bestände an chemischen oder biologischen Waffen in dem Land. "Ich denke nicht, dass sie existieren", sagte Kay der Nachrichtenagentur Reuters. "Alle haben über Bestände gesprochen, die nach dem letzten Golf-Krieg (1991) produziert worden sind, und ich denke nicht, dass es ein sehr großes Produktionsprogramm in den 90er Jahren gegeben hat", sagte Kay nun. Erst kurz zuvor hatte der US-Geheimdienst CIA Kays Rücktritt mitgeteilt und als Nachfolger Ex-UN-Waffeninspektor Charles Duelfer vorgestellt.

Fast vollständiger Überblick über Iraks Waffenprogramm


Zwar werde es vermutlich noch weitere Entdeckungen geben, sagte Kay weiter. Jedoch habe man inzwischen einen fast vollständigen Überblick über Iraks Waffenprogramm gewonnen. "Ich denke, wir haben wahrscheinlich 85 Prozent von dem gefunden, was wir finden werden." US-Präsident George W. Bush und der britische Premierminister Tony Blair begründen nach wie vor den Einmarsch in den Irak mit dem Streben von Iraks Präsident Saddam Hussein nach atomaren, biologischen und chemischen Waffen.

http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/me...EF1_BAB,00.html

syr
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 25.01.2004, 11:07   #36
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Posting

Cheney war am WEF, Irak war Thema, neben anderem wie etwa Iran..... Auszug:

24.01.2004 -- Tages-Anzeiger Online
Cheney fordert mehr Engagement

Cheney verteidigte erneut den Irak-Krieg. Dank des Angriffs der US-geführten Kriegskoalition sei der gefangene irakische Ex-Diktator Saddam Hussein «nicht länger in der Lage, Terroristen Unterschlupf zu gewähren», erklärte er.

Die Nummer zwei des Weissen Hauses insistierte darauf, dass die Welt durch die Massenvernichtungswaffen Saddam Husseins bedroht gewesen seien . Dies obwohl am Freitag der eben zurückgetretene Chef der US-Waffeninspektoren in Irak David Kay erklärt hatte, dass dieses Waffenarsenal «ohne Zweifel» niemals existiert habe.

http://www.tagi.ch/dyn/news/ausland/342690.html

Eigentlich eine Schande für's WEF und wer nimmt dem Weissen Haus das eigentlich noch ab? Die eigenen Waffeninspektoren nicht mehr, die eigene Army nicht mehr, die IAEA noch nie, die UN noch nie, etc......

syr
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 26.01.2004, 16:48   #37
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Posting

Spy chiefs warn PM: don’t blame us for war

By Neil Mackay, Sunday Herald
25 January 2004

BRITISH intelligence chiefs launched a pre-emptive strike against Tony Blair last night, ahead of the publication of the Hutton report, and blamed the government for pressurising them into cherry-picking intelligence to justify the war on Iraq.


The UK’s leading spies believe the political fallout from the publication on Wednesday of the Hutton Inquiry’s report will result in an attempt by the Prime Minister and his senior Cabinet colleagues to blame the intelligence services for the shoddy information which was used by the government to convince the British people and parliament that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were a threat to the UK.

The views of senior members of the intelligence community were passed to the Sunday Herald. They include those from:


* The Defence Intelligence Staff, which helped supply intelligence for Blair’s disputed September 2002 WMD dossier.

* The Joint Intelligence Organisation, which includes John Scarlett, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) the body which liaises between the intelligence services and the government and which was supposed to have sole control of the drafting of the dossier and the JIC’s support staff.

* MI6, the Secret Intelligence Service, the main agency responsible for gathering the intelligence which went into the dossier.
The intelligence community is speaking out now in order to pre-empt any attack. It is warning the government that it will not be blamed for the failure to prove the case for war, the death of Dr David Kelly and the lack of WMD in Iraq.

The key points it wants on the record are:


* Many had been openly sceptical about the presence of WMD in Iraq for years.

* The intelligence community was under pressure to provide the government with what it wanted, namely that Iraq possessed WMD and was a danger.

* Intelligence was "cherry-picked", with damning intelligence against Iraq being selectively chosen, while intelligence assessments, which might have worked against the build-up to war, were sidelined. lIntelligence work had become politicised under Labour , and spies were taking orders from politicians. They provided worst-case scenarios which were used by politicians to make factual claims.

They accept that intelligence was used for political ends, but believe it is not their job to help politicians justify their actions, as that distorts the nature of intelligence work.

Britain’s senior spies believe they are not in the firing line over Hutton, but realise that a rethink is needed over the future of British intelligence. They say they want changes made in order to maintain their integrity.

The first attacks on British intelligence, ahead of the Hutton report, came from Donald Anderson, a Labour loyalist and chairman of the influential foreign affairs committee.

His attack followed the resignation on Friday of David Kay, the head of the Iraq Survey Group. Kay, who was appointed by the CIA to lead the hunt for Saddam’s WMD, quit his post saying he didn’t think WMD existed in Iraq.

Anderson said Blair and President George Bush had relied on intelligence regarding Iraq’s WMD, adding that Kay’s claims "raise very important questions about the quality of that intelligence".

Kay’s successor, Charles Duelfer, said earlier this month that he did not believe banned weapons would ever be found.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell also conceded yesterday that Iraq may not have possessed any WMD, even though he gave a presentation to the United Nations in the run-up to war saying Saddam had large stockpiles of banned weapons.

what we think: Now we know. We were lied to about WMD. So now Blair should go


http://www.sundayherald.com/39548

Mittwoch soll der Untersuchungsbericht vorgestellt werden. Wird wohl kaum positiv für Toni Blush verlaufen wenn sich der Geheimdienst schon mal im Vorfeld absichert. Mal sehen ob er wenigstens das Rückgrat zu einem Rücktritt hätte wie angekündigt falls er gelogen haben sollte (in dem und nicht den anderen, schon bekannten falschen Punkten).....

syr

Geändert von syracus (26.01.2004 um 16:50 Uhr).
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 27.01.2004, 17:02   #38
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Posting

11:54am 01/27/04 BUSH: U.S. HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO MOVE AGAINST SADDAM

11:51am 01/27/04 BUSH: NO DOUBT SADDAM WAS A "GATHERING THREAT"

11:52am 01/27/04 BUSH: WORLD IS SAFER WITHOUT SADDAM

11:50am 01/27/04 BUSH: HAS "GREAT CONFIDENCE" IN U.S. INTELLIGENCE

Baum brennt .......

syr
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 01.02.2004, 13:42   #39
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Posting

Toni hat's formal überlebt, nur sind die Umfragewerte nochmals eingebrochen. Scheint am Ende der Glaubwürdigkeit angekommen zu sein ......

Aber viel wichtiger :

Bush rejects inquiry into Iraqi WMD

Saturday 31 January 2004, 15:56 Makka Time, 12:56 GMT


President George Bush has declined to endorse calls for an independent inquiry into intelligence failures regarding Saddam Hussein's alleged cache of WMDs.

Bush said on Friday that he wanted “to know the facts" about any intelligence failures about the deposed Iraqi President's supposed weapons programme.

But the issue of an independent commission has blossomed into an election-year problem for the president, with Democrats and Republicans alike supporting the idea.

Former chief weapons inspector David Kay has concluded that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, which Bush had cited as a rationale for going to war against Iraq.

Bush said he wants to be able to compare the administration's pre-war intelligence with what will be learned by inspectors who are now searching for weapons in Iraq. There is no deadline for those inspectors, the Iraq Survey Group, to complete their work.

"I want the American people to know that I, too, want to know the facts. I want to be able to compare what the Iraq Survey Group has found with what we thought prior to going into Iraq.

"One thing is for certain - one thing we do know from Mr Kay's testimony, as well as from the years of intelligence that we had gathered, is that Saddam Hussein was a danger. He was a growing danger.

"And given the circumstances of September the 11th, this country went to the United Nations and said, 'Saddam Hussein's a danger, let us work together to get him to disarm.'

"He was defiant, he ignored the request of the international community and this country led a coalition to remove him," Bush said after meeting with economists.

Independent commission

Parting company with many of his fellow Republicans, Senator John McCain said on Thursday he wants an independent commission to take a sweeping look at recent intelligence failures.

Some of the Democratic candidates for president said they support an independent commission.

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean criticised Vice President Dick Cheney for berating CIA operatives because he did not like their intelligence reports.

"It seems to me that the vice president of the United States therefore influenced the very reports that the president then used to decide to go to war and to ask Congress for permission to go to war," Dean said during a campaign debate on Thursday night.

John Edwards said his support for the Iraq war was based on years of intelligence briefings and evidence of Saddam's atrocities against his own people. He supports an independent commission "that will have credibility and that the American people will trust, about why there is this discrepancy about what we were told and what's actually been found there."

Senator John Kerry said whether Cheney berated CIA officials to shape the intelligence that he wanted is "a very legitimate question. ... There's an enormous question about the exaggeration by this administration."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...AD948C17205.htm

syr :
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 02.02.2004, 13:26   #40
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Posting

7:20am 02/02/04
Britain to address 'valid questions' on WMD and Iraq

By Emily Church

LONDON (CBS.MW) -- The British government expects to "shortly" detail to parliament how it will address calls for an inquiry into the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and Iraq, the BBC reported Monday. Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman said there was a need "to address valid questions" about WMDs intelligence, the BBC report said. Reuters reported the spokesman saying "we are close to announcing how we are going to address these questions but we want first to announce that to parliament."

Quelle

************************************

For Bush, a Tactical Retreat on Iraq

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 2, 2004; Page A01



In deciding to back an independent review of the intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, President Bush is implicitly conceding what he cannot publicly say: that something appears to be seriously wrong with the allegations he used to take the nation to war in Iraq .

Most everybody in a position to know has agreed that a huge mistake has been made.

"We were almost all wrong," David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, testified last week.

"In this case, there's no question that there was an intelligence failure, in some form or another," Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), a member of the Intelligence Committee, said yesterday on "Fox News Sunday." "Clearly this is not the immediate threat many assumed before the war," is how Charles Duelfer, Kay's replacement, put it a few months ago when he noted "the apparent absence of existing weapons stocks."

Bush will announce this week that he is creating, by executive order, a bipartisan independent panel of at least nine members that will make a report in 2005, the White House confirmed yesterday. But those close to the president say he is doing so while continuing to avoid any explicit public acknowledgment that the intelligence was wrong. Why the reluctance to state what appears increasingly obvious as Kay spent the past 10 days dashing prospects that significant weapons stockpiles would be found in Iraq? Although the tactic may appear to be obtuse, there is a real strategy behind the Bush response -- and one that has been used before, to great effect.

Bush aides have learned through hard experience that admitting error only projects weakness and invites more abuse. Conversely, by postponing an acknowledgment -- possibly beyond Election Day -- the White House is generating a fog of uncertainty around Kay's stark findings, and potentially softening a harsh public judgment.

"They aren't giving up," Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, said recently. Blix's failure to find weapons of mass destruction before the war was ridiculed by the administration. "They all prefer to retreat under a mist of controversy rather than say, 'I'm sorry, this was wrong,' " he said.

Of course, Bush and his top aides are as aware as anyone -- and acknowledge as much in private -- that Kay's remarks of the last week have dispelled remaining hope that the intelligence might prove correct. Although some in the White House favor having Bush admit publicly that the intelligence was flawed, a high-ranking Republican source said such a step is not yet being contemplated.

Instead, for the White House, agreeing to allow an external review -- which Kay advocates -- amounts to a tacit acknowledgement of reality without an admission of error that would encourage opponents. Indeed, having a commission could postpone Bush's need to admit error indefinitely; in that sense, it is something of a tactical retreat.

Nobody expects any hard conclusions to be reached before the Nov. 2 election -- either by congressional probes or an independent inquiry -- on what went wrong with the intelligence. Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), chairman of the House intelligence committee and a former CIA case officer, said recently that partisan politics would make it impossible to get any real work done before the election. "Not this year," Goss said. "You couldn't get the members together, or even the rules set up."

Bush has lately found many of his rationales for the war in Iraq being challenged. Just as Kay has undermined the WMD rationale, a report published by the Army War College challenged the notion that the war in Iraq was part of the overall war on terrorism, while the group Human Rights Watch has disputed Bush's notion that the Iraq war was a humanitarian mission. Vice President Cheney has implicitly acknowledged that the Iraq war has not spurred peace in the Middle East, saying peace is not possible while Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat remains in power.

To all of these challenges, though, there is a simple solution for Bush: If the on-the-ground situation improves in Iraq, with violence abating and U.S. troops returning home, the American public will almost certainly forgive any flaws in the rationale for going to war. Discussing the weapons dilemma, Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who backs the president on Iraq, sees it this way: "If people feel things are under control in Iraq, the WMD issue doesn't have traction. If things go badly, then it does have traction."

Also, the alternative for Bush -- admitting an error in the prewar allegations -- has not worked well for him in the past. Administration officials now say it was a mistake to acknowledge that Bush should not have included in last year's State of the Union address an allegation that Iraq tried to buy nuclear material in Africa. The admission of error, they say, made Bush appear weak and encouraged more skeptical coverage than if the White House had refused to budge.

Before deciding to endorse an independent review, White House officials had little alternative but to rely on some unsatisfying answers when asked about the intelligence failure. On Wednesday, for example, Bush suggested that war came because Saddam Hussein did not let inspectors into Iraq, when in fact it was the United States that called for inspections to end. "It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in," Bush said.

That same day, Bush press secretary Scott McClellan said the White House never said Iraq was an "imminent" threat. But when McClellan's predecessor, Ari Fleischer, was asked whether Iraq was an imminent threat, he replied: "Absolutely." And when White House communications director Dan Bartlett was asked whether Hussein was an imminent threat to U.S. interests, he replied: "Well, of course he is."

In addition, Bush aides have regularly said that they were following the advice of intelligence experts. On Thursday, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the weapons conclusion "was the judgment of our intelligence community, the judgment of intelligence communities around the world." Yet the White House, at various times, went beyond what the CIA advised. In addition to the allegation about Hussein's nuclear purchases in Africa, which the CIA discouraged, the White House asserted, without consulting with the CIA, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."

In all their efforts last week to blunt the issue, though, White House officials have been careful not to say the intelligence was wrong. Invited to do so in a television interview Thursday with CBS News, Rice replied: "I don't think . . . that we know the full story of what became of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." Those close to the White House said that, now that Bush has backed an independent review, there is no need for an immediate revision of that official position.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?nav=hptop_tb

Waterloo 2004 :.......

syr
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 02.02.2004, 13:39   #41
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Posting

12:10 02.02.2004

Britische Opposition fordert Irak-Untersuchung wie in den USA


[sda] - Die Opposition im britischen Unterhaus hat Premierminister Tony Blair aufgefordert, nach dem Vorbild der USA die Geheimdienstinformationen über die Existenz irakischer Massenvernichtungswaffen überprüfen zu lassen.

"Ich hoffe, dass Tony Blair nicht weiter isoliert bleiben wird", sagte der konservative Oppositionsführer Michael Howard im britischen Fernsehen. "Jeder erkennt doch jetzt, dass bei den Geheimdienstinformationen etwas schief gegangen ist."

Es sei "interessant", dass US-Präsident George W. Bush dies nun anscheinend von einer unabhängigen Kommission untersuchen lassen wolle. Auch die britischen Liberaldemokraten und einzelne Abgeordnete aus Blairs Labour-Partei forderten eine Untersuchung darüber, ob sich die Geheimdienste in der Existenz irakischer Massenvernichtungswaffen getäuscht hätten.

Die Regierung Blair lehnt eine solche Untersuchung bisher jedoch ab. "Es würde wenig bringen", sagte Justizminister Lord Falconer, ein Vertrauter von Blair. Allerdings berichteten am Montag mehrere Zeitungen, Blair wolle in Kürze erstmals zugeben, dass im Irak wohl keine Massenvernichtungswaffen mehr auffindbar seien.

Unterdessen deuten sechs verschiedene Umfragen darauf hin, dass der für Blair so positiv ausgefallene Untersuchungsbericht von Lordrichter Hutton die Öffentlichkeit nicht überzeugt hat. So bezeichnete in einer Umfrage des Fernsehsenders ITV mehr als die Hälfte der Befragten den Bericht als ein einseitiges Reinwaschen der Regierung.

Hutton war zu dem Schluss gekommen, dass die Regierung keine Mitverantwortung für den Selbstmord des Waffenexperten David Kelly trägt.

http://information.bluewin.ch/de/in...9,40979,00.html

syr :
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 03.02.2004, 11:28   #42
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Posting

11:04 03.02.2004

Blair kündigt Untersuchung der Irak-Geheimdiensterkenntnisse an

[sda] - Der britische Premierminister Tony Blair hat eine unabhängige Untersuchung der Geheimdienstberichte über angebliche irakische Waffenprogramme angekündigt. Dies sagte er vor einem Unterhaus-Ausschuss in London.

Am Vortag hatte bereits US-Präsident George W. Bush eine solche Prüfung angekündigt. Die Untersuchungen sollen klären, warum sich Berichte der Geheimdienste über Bestände von biologischen und chemischen Waffen in Irak bislang nicht bestätigt haben. Die Bedrohung durch irakische Massenvernichtungswaffen war einer der Hauptgründe für den Irak-Krieg.

Quelle

syr
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 03.02.2004, 17:47   #43
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Posting

Super, Spitze, einfach gut... Es hat Folgen, endlich .......

Disapproval of Bush's Iraq policy rises sharply: poll (Gallup)

Gallup Poll via Channel Asia | Feb 3, 04 |

WASHINGTON : US President George W. Bush's popularity has tumbled below 50 percent, with dissatisfaction mounting sharply over his handling of the Iraq war, foreign affairs and the economy, a new poll showed.

The poll published by USA Today, CNN and the Gallup organisation showed Senator John Kerry, the leading Democratic candidate for president, opening up a seven-point lead over the Republican Bush in a head-to-head matchup.

The poll was conducted from Thursday to Sunday, after the chief US arms inspector resigned and said he found no trace of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that Bush used to justify last year's invasion.

Forty-nine percent of the 1,001 people interviewed said they approved of the overall way Bush was doing his job, while 48 percent disapproved and three percent had no opinion.

A similar poll conducted January 2-5 found 60 percent approved of Bush and 35 percent disapproved. The president's popularity was also down from the 70 percent approval registered just after the fall of Baghdad last April.

The new survey showed that 46 percent approved of the president's performance on Iraq, down from 61 percent four weeks earlier. The disapproval rate rose from 36 to 53 percent.

For the first time in the USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, less than half of those interviewed thought it was worth going to war in Iraq to oust the dictator Saddam Hussein.

Approval of Bush's foreign policies dropped from 58 to 46 percent, while disapproval jumped from 39 to 51 percent. Support for his handling of the economy fell from 54 to 43 percent.

The new poll came with Bush increasingly on the defensive over the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which he said had made military action urgent.

It was published the same day the president bowed to growing pressure from both Republicans and Democrats and announced an independent inquiry into pre-war intelligence on Saddam's weapons capabilities.

Bush also drew heat after unveiling Monday a revised budget for 2004 with a record 521 billion dollar deficit, leaving himself open to new charges from the Democrats that he was mismanaging the economy.

The poll, taken right after the New Hampshire primary, showed Kerry leading the field in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination with a 49-14 percent edge over former Vermont governor Howard Dean. North Carolina Senator John Edwards was third with 13 percent.

Kerry has opened up a 53-46 percent lead over Bush in a one-on-one contest for the White House, according to the poll. Edwards was also on top 49-48 percent in a face-off with the president.

But the poll showed Bush leading both Dean and former NATO commander Wesley Clark.

- AFP

syr
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 05.02.2004, 08:07   #44
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Posting

Billig, billiger, Blair...... :

01:54 05.02.2004

Blair hat 45-Minuten-These in Irak-Dossier missverstanden

[sda] - Der britische Premierminister Tony Blair hat eingeräumt, vor der Parlamentsabstimmung über die Teilnahme Grossbritanniens am Irak-Krieg die Zeitangaben zur Einsatzbereitschaft irakischer Waffensysteme missverstanden zu haben.

Vor der Debatte am 18. März 2003 habe er keine genaue Kenntnis über die Art der Waffen gehabt, die gemäss einem Geheimdienstdossier binnen 45 Minuten einsatzbereit gewesen wären, sagte Blair am Mittwoch im Parlament.

Die umstrittene 45-Minuten-These bezog sich laut Blair nicht auf Langstreckenraketen, sondern auf taktische Gefechtswaffen. "Ich habe bereits genau gesagt, wann ich davon Kenntnis erhalten habe. Das war nicht vor der Debatte am 18. März vergangenen Jahres", sagte der Premnier wörtlich.

Das Dossier vom September 2002 hatte der Regierung als Argumentationsgrundlage für die britische Beteiligung am Irak-Krieg gedient. Vor allem die Behauptung, Irak sei in der Lage, binnen 45 Minuten chemische oder biologische Waffen einzusetzen, stürzte die Regierung in eine tiefe politische Krise.

Lordrichter Brian Hutton hatte Downing Street vergangene Woche jedoch von dem Vorwurf freigesprochen, den Bericht aufgebauscht zu haben. Blair kündigte einen Untersuchungsausschuss zu den Geheimdienstberichten über die angeblichen irakischen Massenvernichtungswaffen an.

Der aussenpolitische Sprecher der britischen Konservativen, Michael Ancram, forderte Blair auf, sich zu "entschuldigen" und zu "korrigieren". Die Rede des Premiers werfe "schwerwiegende Fragen" bezüglich dessen auf , "was die Regierung wusste, als Grossbritannien in den Krieg eintrat".

Ausserdem stehe sie in Widerspruch zu Aussagen des früheren Aussenministers Robin Cook und des amtierenden Verteidigungsministers Geoff Hoon. Hoon habe gesagt, dass sich die 45-Minuten-Passage auf "einfache taktische Munition" und nicht auf "chemische und biologische Waffen von grosser Reichweite" bezogen hätten, sagte Ancram.

http://information.bluewin.ch/de/in...9,41150,00.html

syr :
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 05.02.2004, 08:20   #45
syracus
*****
 
Benutzerbild von syracus
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Posting

MASSENVERNICHTUNGSWAFFEN

CIA-Chef Tenet wäscht seine Hände in Unschuld

Falsche Analysen zur Existenz irakischer Waffenvernichtungsmittel? Davon will CIA-Chef George Tenet nichts wissen. Er beschuldigt vielmehr das Weiße Haus "falscher Wahrnehmung". In London kam es bei einer turbulenten Unterhaus-Debatte zu Festnahmen .

...

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausla...,284979,00.html

Überraschend hatte Tenet am Mittwoch eine Rede zur Verteidigung seiner Behörde für heute (15.30 Uhr MEZ) angekündigt.

Platzt heute die Bombe, Waterloo 2004 ?!?

syr
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Antwort Gehe zum letzten Beitrag



Themen-Optionen

Gehe zu



Aktuelle Uhrzeit 23:03
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © stock-channel.net