White House Stalled ISIS Rescue. Foley, Sotloff, and Mueller Died.

The U.S. did not think British intelligence was good enough to act on and waited a month to launch a mission to rescue ISIS's hostages. By then it was too late.
The U.S. government obtained intelligence on the possible location of American captives held by ISIS in Syria last year, but Obama administration officials waited nearly a month to launch a rescue mission because of concerns that the intelligence wasn’t conclusive and some of it had come from a foreign service, U.S. and British officials told The Daily Beast.
British officials, as well as private security contractors, said they were frustrated by Washington’s hesitance to give the go-ahead for a rescue attempt, which eventually was carried out on July 4, 2014, by which time the hostages had been moved. The following month, ISIS began beheading its American and British prisoners in a series of grisly Internet videos.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/12/obama-s-isis-hesitation-cost-u-s-lives.html


I like Obama and it is easy to say in hindsight us Brits were right after all, but what should be asked is why the US does not think our intelligence services are reliable?

Cause they know how much other mis-information they have fed you (and us)

And they're racists

Brasidas wrote:I like Obama and it is easy to say in hindsight us Brits were right after all, but what should be asked is why the US does not think our intelligence services are reliable?

Are you suggesting that simply because it is a British source, we should accept it without other verification? That would be foolish, with lives at risk in the direst of circumstances and the press watching every move. See, Morrison, "British Intelligence Failures in Iraq," http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02684527.2011.580604#preview

Rash and intemperate, like Bush and Cheney...okay. But I can't fault Obama for being careful.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:I like Obama and it is easy to say in hindsight us Brits were right after all, but what should be asked is why the US does not think our intelligence services are reliable?

Are you suggesting that simply because it is a British source, we should accept it without other verification?  That would be foolish, with lives at risk in the direst of circumstances and the press watching every move.  See, Morrison, "British Intelligence Failures in Iraq," http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02684527.2011.580604#preview

Rash and intemperate, like Bush and Cheney...okay.  But I can't fault Obama for being careful.

Never claimed any such thing and again if you read the US view was as seen that the Brits intelligence was unreliable and foreign. This is based on a policy they have of where the source comes from. Yes its also easy to speak in hindsight hence why I have made no view to condemn anyone for any wrongs here.
My view is though we do have a very strong bond with the US and have shared countless intelligence. Imagine if they took that approach when the Brits cracked the enigma code? Imagine where if just like Stalin was, that Roosevelt was also paranoid of intelligence coming from the Brits. The reality is Stalin also took on board the intelligence as well, he was not that stupid even if paranoid.
So the US may want to  revisit their policy here on how they view intelligence coming from their strong allies. Again I am not saying they should act immediately as even the source gave 3 locations. My view is they should have a more proactive approach to intelligence given to them from again a longtime friend.

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are you suggesting that simply because it is a British source, we should accept it without other verification?  That would be foolish, with lives at risk in the direst of circumstances and the press watching every move.  See, Morrison, "British Intelligence Failures in Iraq," http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02684527.2011.580604#preview

Rash and intemperate, like Bush and Cheney...okay.  But I can't fault Obama for being careful.

Never claimed any such thing and again if you read the US view was as seen that the Brits intelligence was unreliable and foreign. This is based on a policy they have of where the source comes from. Yes its also easy to speak in hindsight hence why I have made no view to condemn anyone for any wrongs here.
My view is though we do have a very strong bond with the US and have shared countless intelligence. Imagine if they took that approach the Brits cracked the enigma code? Imagine where if just like Stalin was, that Roosevelt was also paranoid of intelligence coming from the Brits. The reality is Stalin also took on board the intelligence as well.
So the US may want to  revisit their policy here on how they view intelligence coming from their strong allies. Again I am not saying they should act immediately as even the source gave 3 locations. My view is they should have a more proactive approach to intelligence given to them from again a longtime friend.

Strong allies, fine. But you can't accept that as verification...such as was had with the enigma code.

Are you familiar with the "dodgy" dossier? The British said: "the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons [and] that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons."

I don't say British intelligence is inherently suspect, but you can't be too careful in the wake of Iraq.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



Never claimed any such thing and again if you read the US view was as seen that the Brits intelligence was unreliable and foreign. This is based on a policy they have of where the source comes from. Yes its also easy to speak in hindsight hence why I have made no view to condemn anyone for any wrongs here.
My view is though we do have a very strong bond with the US and have shared countless intelligence. Imagine if they took that approach the Brits cracked the enigma code? Imagine where if just like Stalin was, that Roosevelt was also paranoid of intelligence coming from the Brits. The reality is Stalin also took on board the intelligence as well.
So the US may want to  revisit their policy here on how they view intelligence coming from their strong allies. Again I am not saying they should act immediately as even the source gave 3 locations. My view is they should have a more proactive approach to intelligence given to them from again a longtime friend.

Strong allies, fine.  But you can't accept that as verification...such as was had with the enigma code.

Are you familiar with the "dodgy" dossier?  The British said: "the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons [and] that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons."

I don't say British intelligence is inherently suspect, but you can't be too careful in the wake of Iraq.

No intelligence service is without faults and errors and nobody is claiming this is not the case. The British intelligent Service is very good and have been instrumental throughout the years of giving sound intelligent, not all the time, but the point is how the yanks were basically dismissing out of hand because of a perception (just like you are doing) off some past mistakes and that they are foreign. Considering both services need each other, it is not the best way to treat one of your intelligence partners. When intelligence is passed on, then it should be seen as a need to verify as quickly as humanly possible. Not as they did basically dismissing the intelligence out of hand. Plus who knows what politics were in play with Iraq in what the British intelligence service had to say. Where you had a PM adamant to go to war in Tony Blair.
Their reasoning to dismiss the British intelligence given was based on something subjective, their abilities and that they are not American. Is that sound reasoning to dismiss, or would it be prudent to check to see if their might be any reliability to this?? Again not knocking as its easy to debate after an event in hindsight being critical, but things like this can make people think twice. Whether if America's views were based on a shambles report on Iraq before the war by British intelligent. When to me should it not be off the countless excellent intelligent work that they have done, continuing to do so even here as seen.

I don't think I am dismissing the information out of hand.  Rather, I am underscoring the administration's need for verification.  Sometimes that takes a little time.

It seems your criticism is based upon the Obama administration's one-month lag and professed need for verification.  You state: "Obama administration officials waited nearly a month to launch a rescue mission because of concerns that the intelligence wasn’t conclusive..."  In light of the 'volitility' of the adversary, and the risks involved, I would applaud them for treading lightly.

Original Quill wrote:I don't think I am dismissing it out of hand.  Rather, I am calling for verification.  Sometimes that takes a little time.

It seems your criticism is based upon a one-month lag and a need for verification.  You state: "Obama administration officials waited nearly a month to launch a rescue mission because of concerns that the intelligence wasn’t conclusive..."  In light of the 'sensitivity' of the adversary, and the risks, I would applaud them for treading lightly.

Again incorrect, that is not what I am stating.
Look back and read again.
This is not really about how quickly an action should have been taken as again that is easy to say in hindsight. It is about British intelligence being passed to the US being dismissed out of hand on some former mistakes  made by British intelligence, (ignoring the countless correct intelligence they have provided) and on them being foreign.
I am just adding onto these points and again am in no way blaming anyone. My view as from the start was why the US is holding a view of the Brits and to me to dismiss such intelligence out of hand is a no brainer.



You can see for yourself:

But a U.S. official said that inside the White House, Obama’s senior national-security advisers were not willing to base a raid on intelligence developed by a foreign service. “The issue was that they didn’t trust it, and they wanted to develop and mature the intelligence, because it wasn’t our own,” said the U.S. official, who asked to remain anonymous when discussing sensitive hostage-rescue efforts.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



Never claimed any such thing and again if you read the US view was as seen that the Brits intelligence was unreliable and foreign. This is based on a policy they have of where the source comes from. Yes its also easy to speak in hindsight hence why I have made no view to condemn anyone for any wrongs here.
My view is though we do have a very strong bond with the US and have shared countless intelligence. Imagine if they took that approach the Brits cracked the enigma code? Imagine where if just like Stalin was, that Roosevelt was also paranoid of intelligence coming from the Brits. The reality is Stalin also took on board the intelligence as well.
So the US may want to  revisit their policy here on how they view intelligence coming from their strong allies. Again I am not saying they should act immediately as even the source gave 3 locations. My view is they should have a more proactive approach to intelligence given to them from again a longtime friend.

Strong allies, fine.  But you can't accept that as verification...such as was had with the enigma code.

Are you familiar with the "dodgy" dossier?  The British said: "the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons [and] that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons."

I don't say British intelligence is inherently suspect, but you can't be too careful in the wake of Iraq.

unfortunately Q the research work for the doggy dossier that sections where plagiarised by the British gov in the September(i think) report
was done by then American Californian student Ibrahim al-Marashi. who is now an assistant professor at California State University, San Marcos researching modern Iraqi history. He holds a DPhil in History from Oxford University, where his thesis was on the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait

my point is there is enough blame to go around

In the end the fact is he did have WMD and used them ,they where not nuclear, although i do suspect he was interested in nuclear technology
And Americans seem to forget you guys created Saddam in the first place,you trained him you financed him right up to the point he started doing things America did not like then he became public enemy number one

so yes blame the British rightly or wrongly for having Americas back, regardless of the damage it has done to our political system and trust in out government because it has done a lot of damage

but don`t forget Saddam was Americans mess
We just got dragged in to it TWICE

Brasidas wrote:Again incorrect, that is not what I am stating.
Look back and read again.
This is not really about how quickly an action should have been taken as again that is easy to say in hindsight. It is about British intelligence being passed to the US being dismissed out of hand on some former mistakes  made by British intelligence, (ignoring the countless correct intelligence they have provided) and on them being foreign.
I am just adding onto these points and again am in no way blaming anyone. My view as from the start was why the US is holding a view of the Brits and to me to dismiss such intelligence out of hand is a no brainer.

The reason I was able to quote your precise words is because I had looked back.  Even in your original post, I don't see where the Obama administration "dismissed out of hand" the British intelligence.  I believe you characterized the position of the Obama administration as: "the intelligence wasn't conclusive."

In the wake of the past twenty years, I would say that was a prudent position to take.  Again, with ISIL we are dealing with loose canons on the deck.  You have got to be sure before going ahead.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Again incorrect, that is not what I am stating.
Look back and read again.
This is not really about how quickly an action should have been taken as again that is easy to say in hindsight. It is about British intelligence being passed to the US being dismissed out of hand on some former mistakes  made by British intelligence, (ignoring the countless correct intelligence they have provided) and on them being foreign.
I am just adding onto these points and again am in no way blaming anyone. My view as from the start was why the US is holding a view of the Brits and to me to dismiss such intelligence out of hand is a no brainer.

The reason I was able to quote your precise words is because I had looked back.  Even in your original post, I don't see where the Obama administration "dismissed out of hand" the British intelligence.  I believe you characterized the position of the Obama administration as: "the intelligence wasn't conclusive."

In the wake of the past twenty years, I would say that was a prudent position to take.  Again, with ISIL you are dealing with loose canons on the deck.  You have got to be sure before going ahead.

Sorry you are now clearly going off what has already been stated and invented claims on me, That is nothing I have said but you. Where again I have been very precise in my meaning on this.

Again as seen they even admitted to basically dismissing it out of hand, because of a view they held of their ability and that they are foreign. They should give it a much higher level of trust to give priority in checking this intelligence out. They are as seen biased from the start to not give thus any intelligence by the British any credability. They are then not going to bother to properly check out their claim. This is proven by their stance and the length of time after a month to act. Look closer and you will see the "tells" in the article which prove  how intelligence from the British is not treated whatsoever with any credibility and also as seen by their bias not bother to properly check this out. Again I am all for being sure before going ahead, which is again not my point, that is your point Quill of which I agree on. My view is how based on this incident, it is very clear how the US does not take any British intelligence provide as in anyway credible. This is not just about this one piece of intelligence given, but of how basically now none are seen as credible. That is a real slap in the face to your ally. Who might as well not bother to pass any onto them, if as seen they are not going to be taken in anyway seriously.

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Strong allies, fine.  But you can't accept that as verification...such as was had with the enigma code.

Are you familiar with the "dodgy" dossier?  The British said: "the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons [and] that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons."

I don't say British intelligence is inherently suspect, but you can't be too careful in the wake of Iraq.

unfortunately Q the research work for the doggy dossier that sections where plagiarised by the British gov in the September(i think) report  
was done by then American Californian student Ibrahim al-Marashi. who is now an assistant professor at California State University, San Marcos researching modern Iraqi history. He holds a DPhil in History from Oxford University, where his thesis was on the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait

my point is there is enough blame to go around

In the end the fact is he did have WMD and used them ,they where not nuclear, although i do suspect he was interested in nuclear technology
And Americans seem to forget you guys created Saddam in the first place,you trained him you financed him right up to the point he started doing things America did not like then he became public enemy number one

so yes blame the British rightly or wrongly for having Americas back, regardless of the damage it has done to our political system and trust in out government because it has done a lot of damage

but don`t forget  Saddam was Americans mess
We just got dragged in to it TWICE

Interesting post Korben

I agree there is enough blame to go around and do not want to place any blame. My view is though I am concerned US policy seems to place no credibility on British intelligence. Which could and can be very counter productive. If you view something as poor from the start. You are then not going bother to place any urgency on checking out the validity on any claim from the British . This one so important at the time in the effort to save lives. So to me it is dangerous to have such a precedent. As this has a knock on affect to any British intelligence given now and the partnership. Where every piece of intelligence the Brits give is downgraded as poor. Little effort will then be made to check any of these intelligence reports. As the ethos the US has now on our intelligence, is that it is all poor. As I say, they should learn from this and treat any intelligence neutrally in regards to credibility, sources etc, not off some mistakes and that they are foreign. Britain is after all one of their strongest allies.
That is a poor strategy to me by the US, one which will create friction between both intelligence services.

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Strong allies, fine.  But you can't accept that as verification...such as was had with the enigma code.

Are you familiar with the "dodgy" dossier?  The British said: "the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons [and] that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons."

I don't say British intelligence is inherently suspect, but you can't be too careful in the wake of Iraq.

unfortunately Q the research work for the doggy dossier that sections where plagiarised by the British gov in the September(i think) report  
was done by then American Californian student Ibrahim al-Marashi. who is now an assistant professor at California State University, San Marcos researching modern Iraqi history. He holds a DPhil in History from Oxford University, where his thesis was on the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait

my point is there is enough blame to go around

I agree 100% with you KD, on this part.  I don't single out the British, but I do fault them for participating.  The "dodgy" dossier was but one example of many.  Vice President Richard Cheney was doing his best knowingly to deceive everyone.  In fact, there were layers of deception: not only was the intelligence false, but the politicians took the information and lied with, and about it.

korban dallas wrote:In the end the fact is he did have WMD and used them ,they where not nuclear, although i do suspect he was interested in nuclear technology

I was just speaking about the layers of deception and here you offer up one of the prime examples of how the principals deceived the world.  Sometimes the half-lie is the more effective, and the Bush administration managed to turn the lie about Iraq nuclear capabilities into the half-lie about WMD's.  Was Bush actually intending to mean chemical weapons when he spoke of WMDs?  I submit that his Secretary of State, Condi Rice, cleared that up when she said: "But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."   After that, there was no mistaking what the Bush administration intended by WMDs. The allegation referred to nuclear weapons.

korban dallas wrote:And Americans seem to forget you guys created Saddam in the first place,you trained him you financed him right up to the point he started doing things America did not like then he became public enemy number one

so yes blame the British rightly or wrongly for having Americas back, regardless of the damage it has done to our political system and trust in out government because it has done a lot of damage

but don`t forget  Saddam was Americans mess
We just got dragged in to it TWICE

I don't agree that Saddam was an American creation.  America helped Saddam with his war against Iran, arising out of American hostilities with Iran (which still exist).  But it's not as if America propped up Saddam, as it did the Taliban.

But this is neither here nor there when it comes to questioning intelligence.  My point is that intelligence--British, along with the American--was shaky throughout the period leading up to the second Iraq war.  So, it is with good reason that the Obama administration questions a lead that comes out of Britain about the whereabouts of hostages.

Again all intelligence should be viewed neutrally from your allies, the same allies on the same page as you not like some other allies Quill. Again you are allowing for a very poor methodology in intelligence work.  That is not rationally thinking to base such a view. As they are basically claiming the British intelligence service is 100% incompetent with such a stance.
Where here it is not based on the countless good intelligence the British Intelligence service has done, but based off them being foreign and "some" poor intelligence provided in the past. The British intelligence service has thus been judged, based off any poor intelligence given and not the many more that were good intelligence provided.

Brasidas wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
unfortunately Q the research work for the doggy dossier that sections where plagiarised by the British gov in the September(i think) report  
was done by then American Californian student Ibrahim al-Marashi. who is now an assistant professor at California State University, San Marcos researching modern Iraqi history. He holds a DPhil in History from Oxford University, where his thesis was on the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait

my point is there is enough blame to go around

In the end the fact is he did have WMD and used them ,they where not nuclear, although i do suspect he was interested in nuclear technology
And Americans seem to forget you guys created Saddam in the first place,you trained him you financed him right up to the point he started doing things America did not like then he became public enemy number one

so yes blame the British rightly or wrongly for having Americas back, regardless of the damage it has done to our political system and trust in out government because it has done a lot of damage

but don`t forget  Saddam was Americans mess
We just got dragged in to it TWICE

Interesting post Korben

I agree there is enough blame to go around and do not want to place any blame. My view is though I am concerned US policy seems to place no credibility on British intelligence. Which could and can be very counter productive. If you view something as poor from the start. You are then not going bother to place any urgency on checking out the validity on any claim from the British . This one so important at the time in the effort to save lives. So to me it is dangerous to have such a precedent. As this has a knock on affect to any British intelligence given now and the partnership. Where every piece of intelligence the Brits give is downgraded as poor. Little effort will then be made to check any of these intelligence reports. As the ethos the US has now on our intelligence, is that it is all poor. As I say, they should learn from this and treat any intelligence neutrally in regards to credibility, sources etc, not off some mistakes and that they are foreign. Britain is after all one of their strongest allies.
That is a poor strategy to me by the US, one which will create friction between both intelligence services.

All intelligence is based on available facts its nether poor or guaranteed and it wasn`t the British that had there top secret cables stolen and published on wiki leaks the biggest intelligence and security fuck up ever in the world
the Americans are lucky GCHQ will answer there phone calls if you ask me

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



Interesting post Korben

I agree there is enough blame to go around and do not want to place any blame. My view is though I am concerned US policy seems to place no credibility on British intelligence. Which could and can be very counter productive. If you view something as poor from the start. You are then not going bother to place any urgency on checking out the validity on any claim from the British . This one so important at the time in the effort to save lives. So to me it is dangerous to have such a precedent. As this has a knock on affect to any British intelligence given now and the partnership. Where every piece of intelligence the Brits give is downgraded as poor. Little effort will then be made to check any of these intelligence reports. As the ethos the US has now on our intelligence, is that it is all poor. As I say, they should learn from this and treat any intelligence neutrally in regards to credibility, sources etc, not off some mistakes and that they are foreign. Britain is after all one of their strongest allies.
That is a poor strategy to me by the US, one which will create friction between both intelligence services.

All intelligence is based on available facts its nether poor or guaranteed and it wasn`t the British that had there top secret cables stolen and published on wiki leaks the biggest intelligence and security fuck up ever in the world
the Americans are lucky GCHQ will answer there phone calls if you ask me

Hence why I have said it should be viewed neutrally from Allies on the same page and approach to such conflicts. Britain has been a reliable ally and has provided good intelligence to them . The fact is now the US will view any British intelligence provided as lower than neutral, The US will then have no view to properly clarify any such intelligence provided to them off the British.
Fair point on secret files stolen, which actually adds to my points on whether we would treat their intelligence given to us as the same. They did far worse in such top secret information being leaked. Yet I am sure we do not hold such a biased view when receiving intelligence off them. No doubt we treat it neutrally and check it out.

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:

unfortunately Q the research work for the doggy dossier that sections where plagiarised by the British gov in the September(i think) report  
was done by then American Californian student Ibrahim al-Marashi. who is now an assistant professor at California State University, San Marcos researching modern Iraqi history. He holds a DPhil in History from Oxford University, where his thesis was on the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait

my point is there is enough blame to go around

I agree 100% with you KD, on this part.  I don't single out the British, but I do fault them for participating.  The "dodgy" dossier was but one example of many.  Vice President Richard Cheney was doing his best knowingly to deceive everyone.  In fact, there were layers of deception: not only was the intelligence false, but the politicians took the information and lied with, and about it.

korban dallas wrote:In the end the fact is he did have WMD and used them ,they where not nuclear, although i do suspect he was interested in nuclear technology

I was just speaking about the layers of deception and here you offer up one of the prime examples of how the principals deceived the world.  Sometimes the half-lie is the more effective, and the Bush administration managed to turn the lie about Iraq nuclear capabilities into the half-lie about WMD's.  Was Bush actually intending to mean chemical weapons when he spoke of WMDs?  I submit that his Secretary of State, Condi Rice, cleared that up when she said: "But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."   After that, there was no mistaking what the Bush administration intended by WMDs.  The allegation referred to nuclear weapons.

korban dallas wrote:And Americans seem to forget you guys created Saddam in the first place,you trained him you financed him right up to the point he started doing things America did not like then he became public enemy number one

so yes blame the British rightly or wrongly for having Americas back, regardless of the damage it has done to our political system and trust in out government because it has done a lot of damage

but don`t forget  Saddam was Americans mess
We just got dragged in to it TWICE

I don't agree that Saddam was an American creation.  America helped Saddam with his war against Iran, arising out of American hostilities with Iran (which still exist).  But it's not as if America propped up Saddam, as it did the Taliban.

But this is neither here nor there when it comes to questioning intelligence.  My point is that intelligence--British, along with the American--was shaky throughout the period leading up to the second Iraq war.  So, it is with good reason that the Obama administration questions a lead that comes out of Britain about the whereabouts of hostages.

What i do like about this topic in America
is it isn`t a topic in America its not a issue it`s not a conspiracy nobody cares any more

however to your point

In December, the White House boldly seized Iraq's 12,000-page weapons document in order to censor parts for the non-permanent Security Council states.

Among the information deleted was a list of U.S. corporations, government agencies and laboratories that aided Iraq. The companies included Honeywell, Kodak, Bechtel, Dupont and Hewlett-Packard. Among the government agencies were the Departments of Defense, Energy, Commerce and Agriculture. And then there were government nuclear weapons laboratories Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia, which all offered training to Iraqi scientists. This information emerged only after a German news reporter obtained unedited portions of the Iraq documents.

U.S.-Iraqi relations extend back to June 1982 when President Reagan issued a National Security Decision Directive in the midst of the Iraq-Iran war. According to an affidavit by former National Security Council official Howard Teicher, from 1982 on the White House "supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld twice, in 1983 and 1984, visited Baghdad to meet with Saddam Hussein. Teicher, who traveled to Baghdad with Rumsfeld, described the mission: "Here was the U.S. government coming hat-in-hands to Saddam Hussein and saying, 'We respect you, we respect you. How can we help you? Let us help you.' "
Rumsfeld's trips came at a time when the U.S. knew Iraq had already begun gassing Iranians. In 1985, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent samples of an Israeli strain of West Nile virus to a microbiologist at Basra University in Iraq. The U.S. would also send over "various toxins and bacteria," including botulins and E. coli.

In 1986, Taicher would later recall, "President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. This message was delivered by Vice President Bush who communicated it to Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam Hussein." And the U.S. continued throughout the 1980s in backing Hussein by providing military assistance and diplomatic cover for war crimes.

In 1984, the State Department arranged for the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. Four years later The Los Angeles Times reported that "American-built helicopters" were used to gas Kurdish civilians. In March 1988 up to 6,800 Kurds were gassed to death in Halabja by Hussein's troops. In response the U.S. State Department attempted, according to a recent report in The International Herald Tribune, to place blame for the gassing also on the Iranians despite no evidence of Iranian involvement. When the UN Security Council passed a resolution to censure the Halabja attack it called on "both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons."

In July 1990, days before Iraq invaded Kuwait, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein and gave him what many believe to be a green light for invading Kuwait.
Speaking for President Bush, Glaspie said, "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." Hussein invaded Kuwait beginning a war that has yet to end. Leading the fight then Secretary of Defense was Dick Cheney.
While the Gulf War marked the end of U.S. support for Hussein, private U.S. corporations continued to quietly trade with Iraq through foreign subsidiaries. And among those who profited most was Cheney himself. In 1995, Cheney took over as CEO of Halliburton, a Dallas-based oil-field supply corporation. According to The Washington Post, two Halliburton foreign subsidiaries sold more than $73 million in oil production equipment and supplies to Iraq under Cheney's command. Cheney had helped Halliburton become the biggest U.S. oil contractor for Iraq.  

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Saddam_MadeInUSA.html


also have a look at this

Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power
From Richard Sanders, 24 October 2002
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html


to say America did not create Saddam is just wishful thinking Q .....sorry

Anyway the weekend is here and have things to do.

Enjoy the debate Korben and Quill and will catch up on it later.

Have a wonderful weekend everyone.

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I agree 100% with you KD, on this part.  I don't single out the British, but I do fault them for participating.  The "dodgy" dossier was but one example of many.  Vice President Richard Cheney was doing his best knowingly to deceive everyone.  In fact, there were layers of deception: not only was the intelligence false, but the politicians took the information and lied with, and about it.



I was just speaking about the layers of deception and here you offer up one of the prime examples of how the principals deceived the world.  Sometimes the half-lie is the more effective, and the Bush administration managed to turn the lie about Iraq nuclear capabilities into the half-lie about WMD's.  Was Bush actually intending to mean chemical weapons when he spoke of WMDs?  I submit that his Secretary of State, Condi Rice, cleared that up when she said: "But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."   After that, there was no mistaking what the Bush administration intended by WMDs.  The allegation referred to nuclear weapons.



I don't agree that Saddam was an American creation.  America helped Saddam with his war against Iran, arising out of American hostilities with Iran (which still exist).  But it's not as if America propped up Saddam, as it did the Taliban.

But this is neither here nor there when it comes to questioning intelligence.  My point is that intelligence--British, along with the American--was shaky throughout the period leading up to the second Iraq war.  So, it is with good reason that the Obama administration questions a lead that comes out of Britain about the whereabouts of hostages.

What i do like about this topic in America
is it isn`t a topic in America its not a issue it`s not a conspiracy nobody cares any more

however to your point

In December, the White House boldly seized Iraq's 12,000-page weapons document in order to censor parts for the non-permanent Security Council states.

Among the information deleted was a list of U.S. corporations, government agencies and laboratories that aided Iraq. The companies included Honeywell, Kodak, Bechtel, Dupont and Hewlett-Packard. Among the government agencies were the Departments of Defense, Energy, Commerce and Agriculture. And then there were government nuclear weapons laboratories Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia, which all offered training to Iraqi scientists. This information emerged only after a German news reporter obtained unedited portions of the Iraq documents.

U.S.-Iraqi relations extend back to June 1982 when President Reagan issued a National Security Decision Directive in the midst of the Iraq-Iran war. According to an affidavit by former National Security Council official Howard Teicher, from 1982 on the White House "supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld twice, in 1983 and 1984, visited Baghdad to meet with Saddam Hussein. Teicher, who traveled to Baghdad with Rumsfeld, described the mission: "Here was the U.S. government coming hat-in-hands to Saddam Hussein and saying, 'We respect you, we respect you. How can we help you? Let us help you.' "
Rumsfeld's trips came at a time when the U.S. knew Iraq had already begun gassing Iranians. In 1985, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent samples of an Israeli strain of West Nile virus to a microbiologist at Basra University in Iraq. The U.S. would also send over "various toxins and bacteria," including botulins and E. coli.

In 1986, Taicher would later recall, "President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. This message was delivered by Vice President Bush who communicated it to Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam Hussein." And the U.S. continued throughout the 1980s in backing Hussein by providing military assistance and diplomatic cover for war crimes.

In 1984, the State Department arranged for the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. Four years later The Los Angeles Times reported that "American-built helicopters" were used to gas Kurdish civilians. In March 1988 up to 6,800 Kurds were gassed to death in Halabja by Hussein's troops. In response the U.S. State Department attempted, according to a recent report in The International Herald Tribune, to place blame for the gassing also on the Iranians despite no evidence of Iranian involvement. When the UN Security Council passed a resolution to censure the Halabja attack it called on "both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons."

In July 1990, days before Iraq invaded Kuwait, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein and gave him what many believe to be a green light for invading Kuwait.
Speaking for President Bush, Glaspie said, "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." Hussein invaded Kuwait beginning a war that has yet to end. Leading the fight then Secretary of Defense was Dick Cheney.
While the Gulf War marked the end of U.S. support for Hussein, private U.S. corporations continued to quietly trade with Iraq through foreign subsidiaries. And among those who profited most was Cheney himself. In 1995, Cheney took over as CEO of Halliburton, a Dallas-based oil-field supply corporation. According to The Washington Post, two Halliburton foreign subsidiaries sold more than $73 million in oil production equipment and supplies to Iraq under Cheney's command. Cheney had helped Halliburton become the biggest U.S. oil contractor for Iraq.  

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Saddam_MadeInUSA.html


also have a look at this

Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power
From Richard Sanders, 24 October 2002
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html


to say America did not create Saddam is just wishful thinking Q .....sorry

Well, we just have to disagree on the Baath party taking over.

The reason why the Iraq lies of the GWB administration are not discussed is because it is no longer an issue.  I wanted to continue the issue insofar as I wanted to prosecute Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bush himself for war crimes.  But in the first days of his office, Obama said he didn't want to look back.  

I'll bet there are a lot of felons who wish the prosecutor would say 'forget the past...we won't prosecute.' But only special people get special treatment. It's not what you did, but who you know.

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
What i do like about this topic in America
is it isn`t a topic in America its not a issue it`s not a conspiracy nobody cares any more

however to your point

In December, the White House boldly seized Iraq's 12,000-page weapons document in order to censor parts for the non-permanent Security Council states.

Among the information deleted was a list of U.S. corporations, government agencies and laboratories that aided Iraq. The companies included Honeywell, Kodak, Bechtel, Dupont and Hewlett-Packard. Among the government agencies were the Departments of Defense, Energy, Commerce and Agriculture. And then there were government nuclear weapons laboratories Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia, which all offered training to Iraqi scientists. This information emerged only after a German news reporter obtained unedited portions of the Iraq documents.

U.S.-Iraqi relations extend back to June 1982 when President Reagan issued a National Security Decision Directive in the midst of the Iraq-Iran war. According to an affidavit by former National Security Council official Howard Teicher, from 1982 on the White House "supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld twice, in 1983 and 1984, visited Baghdad to meet with Saddam Hussein. Teicher, who traveled to Baghdad with Rumsfeld, described the mission: "Here was the U.S. government coming hat-in-hands to Saddam Hussein and saying, 'We respect you, we respect you. How can we help you? Let us help you.' "
Rumsfeld's trips came at a time when the U.S. knew Iraq had already begun gassing Iranians. In 1985, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent samples of an Israeli strain of West Nile virus to a microbiologist at Basra University in Iraq. The U.S. would also send over "various toxins and bacteria," including botulins and E. coli.

In 1986, Taicher would later recall, "President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. This message was delivered by Vice President Bush who communicated it to Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam Hussein." And the U.S. continued throughout the 1980s in backing Hussein by providing military assistance and diplomatic cover for war crimes.

In 1984, the State Department arranged for the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. Four years later The Los Angeles Times reported that "American-built helicopters" were used to gas Kurdish civilians. In March 1988 up to 6,800 Kurds were gassed to death in Halabja by Hussein's troops. In response the U.S. State Department attempted, according to a recent report in The International Herald Tribune, to place blame for the gassing also on the Iranians despite no evidence of Iranian involvement. When the UN Security Council passed a resolution to censure the Halabja attack it called on "both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons."

In July 1990, days before Iraq invaded Kuwait, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein and gave him what many believe to be a green light for invading Kuwait.
Speaking for President Bush, Glaspie said, "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." Hussein invaded Kuwait beginning a war that has yet to end. Leading the fight then Secretary of Defense was Dick Cheney.
While the Gulf War marked the end of U.S. support for Hussein, private U.S. corporations continued to quietly trade with Iraq through foreign subsidiaries. And among those who profited most was Cheney himself. In 1995, Cheney took over as CEO of Halliburton, a Dallas-based oil-field supply corporation. According to The Washington Post, two Halliburton foreign subsidiaries sold more than $73 million in oil production equipment and supplies to Iraq under Cheney's command. Cheney had helped Halliburton become the biggest U.S. oil contractor for Iraq.  

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Saddam_MadeInUSA.html


also have a look at this

Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power
From Richard Sanders, 24 October 2002
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html


to say America did not create Saddam is just wishful thinking Q .....sorry

Well, we just have to disagree on the Baath party taking over.

The reason why the Iraq lies of the GWB administration are not discussed is because it is no longer an issue.  I wanted to continue the issue insofar as I wanted to prosecute Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bush himself for war crimes.  But in the first days of his office, Obama said he didn't want to look back.  

I'll bet there are a lot of felons who wish the prosecutor would say 'forget the past...we won't prosecute.'  But only special people get special treatment.  It's not what you did, but who you know.

indeed,all i can go from is reports and posts the internet.

But prosecute the white house 3 .......your a lawyer dude the only people who would win are you guys with all the years of fees you could charge(the royal you)............(do you know what the royal you means ) there culpability will be a thing for future historians to debate  because they are never going to be  prosecuted.
regardless of facts


ps
"I'll bet there are a lot of felons who wish the prosecutor would say 'forget the past...we won't prosecute.'"
I'll bet there are a lot of felons who worked in high level gov who got the prosecutor to 'forget the past as well