CIA Veterans Urge Bush NOT to Attack Iraq!!
 

I find it quite amazing that the US media is completely ignoring the press release put out by this group of former CIA officials:

Retired CIA Officials Urge Bush Not to Attack Iraq

Feature: CIA veterans' warning on Iraq war
By Anwar Iqbal
From the International Desk
Published 2/9/2003 3:10 PM
View printer-friendly version


WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 (UPI) -- CIA veterans have warned the Bush administration not to go to war against Iraq, saying that doing so would further widen the divide between the Western and Islamic worlds and increase the incidence of terrorism.

In a statement sent to media organizations earlier this week, the retired CIA officials also referred to an agency assessment report last fall, which, they said, opposed a military offensive against Iraq.

They urged the Bush administration to "re-read" the CIA report that pointed out: "The forces fueling hatred of the United States and fueling al Qaida recruiting are not being addressed" and that "the underlying causes that drive terrorists will persist."

That CIA report cited a Gallup poll last year of almost 10,000 Muslims in nine countries, in which respondents described the United States as "ruthless, aggressive, conceited, arrogant, easily provoked and biased."

Terrorism, the CIA veterans said, is like malaria. "You don't eliminate malaria by killing the flies. Rather you must drain the swamp. With an invasion of Iraq, the world can expect to be swamped with swamps breeding terrorists. In human terms, your daughters are unlikely to be able to travel abroad in future years without a phalanx of security personnel."

Referring to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation at the U.N. last week, the veterans said: "We give him an 'A' for assembling and listing the charges against Iraq, but only a 'C-' in providing context and perspective."

Powell, they said, effectively showed that Iraq is not cooperating fully with U.N. Security Council Res. 1441 but "the narrow focus on (the resolution) has diverted attention from the wider picture."

The key question, they said, is whether Iraq's flouting of a U.N. resolution justifies war. "Secretary Powell's presentation does not come close to answering it," they observed.

The veterans argued that there were other U.N. resolutions that had never been implemented and asked if the United States would be willing to go to war to implement those resolutions as well.

They observed that the Arab-Israel conflict was among "the root causes not only of terrorism" but also provided Saddam Hussein with an excuse to arm himself.

Challenging the perception that Iraq is a grave threat to the United States, the veterans urged the administration to reconsider its Iraq policy, as presenting Iraq as a threat to the world's only superpower did not sound very convincing.

The veterans refer to an Oct. 7, 2002 letter the CIA sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee in which the agency said that the probability is low that Iraq would initiate an attack with weapons of mass destruction or give them to terrorists. That was so unless: "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would be come much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions."

For now, continued the CIA letter: "Baghdad appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical/biological warfare against the United States."

With his back against the wall, "Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a weapons-of-mass-destruction attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

They added: "It is our view that an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future. Far from eliminating the threat, it would enhance it exponentially."

Discussing the possibility of the Iraqi use of chemical weapons, the veterans said it has been the judgment of the U.S. intelligence community for over 12 years that the likelihood of such use would greatly increase during an offensive aimed at getting rid of Saddam.

Referring to Powell's claim that Saddam had recently authorized his field commanders to use chemical weapons, the CIA veterans said: "We find this truly alarming. We do not share the Defense Department's optimism that radio broadcasts and leaflets would induce Iraqi commanders not to obey orders to use such weapons, or that Iraqi generals would remove Saddam Hussein as soon as the first U.S. soldier sets foot in Iraq."

They said the last time the United States sent more than 600,000 troops to the Gulf, one of three came back ill -- many with unexplained disorders of the nervous system.

"Today's battlefield is likely to be even more sodden with chemicals and is altogether likely to yield tens of thousands more casualties," they added.

Copyright ? 2001-2003 United Press International

how do I put this...Bush is a moron, and I couldnt agree more with the finding of this report.

Congratulations! You are the first person to be added to my ignore list. You really are a stupid fuck. Get to work and stop regurgitating "news". It must take you hours every day to find "news" that fits your conspiracy theory. Let it go. Nobody here gives a shit about this junk. Well, except for maybe that massivecock retard. Next post he makes, he goes on the ignore list too.

Your antics were amusing for a while, but it has become stale.

And how's this for the ultimate in hypocracy...

US PLANS TO USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS DURING THE INVASION OF IRAQ!!!

Click on the mp3 link to hear the actual testimony. Too fucking funny...

US to Use Chemical Weapons

Judging by the sheer number of responses to my previous posts, I would say that a great number of GFY members do indeed care. They have an opinion one way or the other.

If you want to be an ostrich and stick your head in the sand - that's your business. Go ahead and enjoy your comfy dark crevice. The rest of us can deal with the real world.

Bush's father is the former director of the CIA.

Despite the crappy website, this is actually commonly considered a reliable newssource.

The US is not going to use biological weapons, I dont care if Jesus Christ wrote that report. The united states has better technology then that.

Yes. And during the late 1970s he was the principal architect of arming Iraq to the teeth with every type of weapon imagineable, including anthrax, sarin and ricin.

Then in the 1980s when Bush Sr. was vice pres and Saddam "Gassed his own people" Bush Sr. and Reagon wholeheartedly supported Saddam. He was one of our best friends in the middle east, gassing be dammed!

:1orglaugh

What report? It's an audio clip of Rumsfeld saying that the US will use chemical weapons. It is from a hearing that was recorded by CSPAN.

It is straight from the horse's mouth.

If they are hit first with weapons of mass destruction. They would use them first

Please, put me in your ignore list . Pleeeeeeeeaaaaaase.
I don't want to be with the frozen brain gang!

Key word here is "RETIRED".

But I like this part: "....described the United States as ruthless, aggressive, conceited, arrogant, easily provoked and biased."

Let's break this down:
1) Ruthless - Yes. Piss off the US and we're gonna kick your ass.
2) Agressive - Yes. Piss us off and we are going to be aggressive. Two thousand innocent people died in the WTC attack. Bet your ass we are gonna be agressive.
3) Conceited - Hell yeah. I've got running water in my house and four fucking bathrooms! I live in the US, and we have a high living of standard here. Damn straght I'm proud of it. I don't live in a hut.
4) Arrogant - Yep. See #3 above.
5) Easily Provoked - Huh? Are you fucking shitting me? If we bombed 2000 innocent people for no reason we'd be invaded too. Duh.
6) Biased - How so? All we want is to fucking get along. Look at our past wars... Japan and Germany. We have great relationships with them, and sure as hell we don't own their asses like we could of. We want everyone to be friends. Fuck - These morons are sitting on billions of dollars of oil, yet they got their heads stuck so far up their asses they still can't improve their standard of living.

From the article

"In a statement sent to media organizations earlier this week, the retired CIA officials also referred to an agency assessment report last fall, which, they said, opposed a military offensive against Iraq."

What CIA officials???

That is actually a <b>good</b> thing. Things like knockout gas, tear gas, mace, etc fall under the category they are describing.

Why does it seem that the left, especially Hollywood, is more concerned with disarming the average american than Saddam?

If you are talking about 9/11, you aren't seriously implying that Iraq did that, are you?

Because there are drive by shooting in LA :)

Maybe because Americans kill more Americans each year than Saddam ever has and ever will? Just a thought though...

Whats' this? Another proud American? I thought I was the only one. RocHard, you just got your name on my Christmas card list. :thumbsup

Base your assumption on facts not fiction, doctors kill far more then a gun had in the USA. Fact!!!!!

Hope you both live till Christmas....

Can't argue with the fact that we do like to shoot each other, just find it somewhat ironic is all

But even if there is a .01% chance of Iraq disturbuting bio/chem agents to terrorist it would result in much worse. Being that Iraq isnt even suppose to have them, it is threat to national security. Dont you know how big the terrorist network of Al Qaida is? There doesnt even need to be a remote chance.

pre][/pre]


http://corporatism.tripod.com/charts3.htm#lead

http://nramemberscouncils.com/lifeclock/



Here is a fact about some here , stating malicious lies!!!!

Link between Iraq and Al Qaida?????

Why wouldn't we?

I have read every ridiculous conspiracy that can be thought of. Everything from the united states destroying their own trade center to the CIA spawning terror.
Dont you think if it was a conspiracy, and the US was the cause of 911 that they would cause a chemical/bio attack on US soil and blame Iraq?

Congratulations! You just won yourself the award for Stupidest Post of the Thread!

Just for the record: I did not say anything about guns killing more people than doctors, all I said was that Americans kill more Americans than Saddam has and will. Now, if you don't believe that, you most likely have the IQ of a brick. Saddam can at present be linked to the death of maybe a few dozen Americans, about 20k murders are committed in the US each year. Fact, not fiction, retarded person.

Edit:
It actually is 18k, I came pretty close though.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9901/02/murder.rate/

I hope you are well and in health for Christmas, but :

- you could be drafted to war
- you could succomb to a yellow , orange or whatever other color terror alert
- If the democrats are elected, you could suffer a cardiac arrest
- If the republicans are re-elected, you could jump so high in joy that... you could break your neck.

Hey relax, you all will be well....

I saw a poll a while back that said that most Americans believe Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 bombings.

Propaganda works.

And the NRA is the most reliable of all news sources, eh? Moron.

The American people generally believe whatever their government and the mainstream media tell them.

That way, they don't have to think.

/9/11 wasn't a CIA operation , but the act of a dozen fanatic terrorist financed by a wealthy man, who is also a fanatic. That's it.

Not CIA, not IRAQ, Not IRAn, etc...

The only thing is that this disaster has been recycled in political capital by a very ( at the time) unpopular president.

The CIA now will now follow its agenda, as it has in many instances since it's creation....

PS: don't ask for a link ... because you won't really like it!

Hey! Brick!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by woodman
Why does it seem that the left, especially Hollywood, is more concerned with disarming the average american than Saddam?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Maybe because Americans kill more Americans each year than Saddam ever has and ever will? Just a thought though...





You need to look at your past reply to a post!! You spew and don,t realize your spillage. LOL

What you think a democrat will ignore the Iraq situation? I have seen a interview with Bill Clinton less then a week ago, and he supported the current approach towards Iraq. Bill Clinton was one of the main people involved in the previous disarming of Iraq. And they had to actually bomb the weapon sites to do it.

Here is something for you conspiracy people, the US doesnt need UN approval to strike Iraq. They just know international community support is a soild benifit. If the US wanted to Iraq would be invaded tommorrow.

So where did I say that doctors kill less people than guns?

Look at these two words:
1: doctors
2: Saddam

Notice a difference?

You naughty big bully.....

We have an army here consisting of 2 inflatable rafts, 4 helicopters powered by Duracell batteries and a dozen happy soldiers... and we could invade Iraq!

Anybody can invade IRAQ !!!! France, Italy, Greece, Somalia... Burkiba Fasso, Cuba....

BTW, you will invade IRAQ. And history will write the truth about it.

(could anyone please try and explain what the moron is trying to say? at present, he makes less sense than a pink elephant in a tutu)

Edit: the moron being JOH

To Kenny
PS: your sense of humor is inexistent. Go do another fiucking free porn gallery

Hehe... im from canada... listen to canadian news, experts, journalists.... and you wouldnt believe how much important arguments against the war you would never hear on CNN, abc, nbc....

Why, because those channels report the news they think people want to hear.... anything against war might be viewed as unpatriotic.... and thats bad for business :2 cents:

Yes it will tell the truth.

After countless efforts to disarm Iraq over 12 years, the UN resolution was enforced by military force

I am from Canada also, and I have to say that you are wrong!!!!

Cnn, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox don't report the news american wants to hear, they CREATE the news that they want to hear.

A few days ago, on Jay Leno, Governor Jessie Ventura, had also that opinion.

JESSIE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!

Your just pissed because I can expose the holes in your ridiculous conspiracy theory. Your attempts to insult me prove it.

And what about if you find no weapons??? Will you " plant" them, as in previous CIA operations?

Please Expose... and make it triple xxxx ...

Yes the media reports what we want to hear, the truth. Do you honestly think that it is some big top secert comspiracy? Fucking stupid

Outside of Fox, which does have a conservative slant, all of the major cable news channels cover both pro and con stances on the war. From Dohahue to Cross-Fire to Capital Gang, there are different people with various views on this issue presented all the time.

You guys that think the American press are in lock-step with the President and this government know nothing.

Sorry, but people really do not want to hear the truth. I'm not talking about a specific situation either, people just don't like the truth.