Thread: CIA at last makes it Public

What many have long known has at last made it to the main stream press. Russia I can understand, but France has a lot to answer for. France stabbed the US in the back and Russia went "buisiness as usual" . Yes, I'm talking about the Duelfer Report.
..........It is no wonder the french led a campaigne to keep US out of Iraq.
This link is mostly about Russian involvment.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004 ... 0946.shtml


An article in the Washington Times says
The governments of Russia, France and China also blocked U.S. efforts within the United Nations to stop abuse of the program, which was designed to get food and medicine to Iraqis through limited sales of oil.
"As the program developed, it became increasingly apparent the French, Russians, and Chinese had much to gain from maintaining the status quo," a staff subcommittee memorandum states.
The Shays investigation also concluded that the U.N. officials, including executive director Benon Sevan, also abused the oil-for-food program.

Wow, a CIA report that points fingers at individuials and companies in France, Russia and China (amongst many, many others), whilst hiding behind this little doozy when it comes to any American involvement:

The names of US citizens and business entities have been redacted from this report in accordance with provisions of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and other applicable law. The full report has been provided
to appropriate recipients in the Executive Branch and Congress.

I suggest you actualy read the report yourself rather than trusting the pre-digested commentary that passes for "news" in your country. Here, look what I've got for you:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq ... 4rpt-1.pdf

You're welcome. Now go educate yourself about stones and glass houses, and when you come back ayou might like to explain to the rest of the world why anyone should believe a single word your intelligence services say anyway, given their recent track record.

IT is quite clear from the report that France and Russia along with many other countries had illegal dealings with Iraq.

Firstly, I am not interested in US companies since it was France that would not back the US and now we have a better understanding of why.

Secondly, it was not necessarily illegal to be on the Oil Voucher list if this is what you are referring to by the fact that the names of the US companies were taken off the public version of the Duelfer Report. The US companies were listed only in phase 1 and then not again till phase 9 and then only once. Not that it makes any difference because it doesn't make it OK for everyone to do an illeagal act just because some US companies do something or not do something.

I will not bother pasteing quotes to the report. The report speaks clearly enough itself.

I suppose you think that MI6 is better?
Maybe it is.... since Clinton placed little importance on funding the CIA and human intelligence during his time in office.[/list]

Man, there's obviously nothing to worry about when I go to a news website and the first thing I see is a free offer for Ann Coulter's latest book and a link for "Learning the Secret Fight Skills the Feds Don't Want Me to Know."

That's not fair. I won't lie and say I've never heard of Newsmax before. Someone signed my email up for their mailing list and it took 4 requests to take it off before they finally stopped sending me shit.

I think, in the case of liberals, one ought to be careful about having a knee-jerk reaction. Remember that this report isn't talking about French citizens or Russian citizens, but French/Russian government and businesses. Since when, in any country, have business or government been trustworthy?

In the case of conservatives, one ought to not be so stupid as to think this was the only reason the governments were opposed to the war. We're talking about the largest global public protest in the recorded history of the world. This isn't an insignificant thing, and in most countries around the world, had the politicians supported the US they probably wouldn't have had too much luck when elections come around next term. Spain is a good example of that. Had the public remained largely silent about it in Europe, Asia, and Africa/ME, I'm sure the "coalition of the willing" would've been much, much larger.

Originally Posted by DDT

IT is quite clear from the report that France and Russia along with many other countries had illegal dealings with Iraq.

Illegal dealings in Iraq? Ahem...

Originally Posted by DDT

Firstly, I am not interested in US companies since it was France that would not back the US and now we have a better understanding of why.

So, if a French company had illegal dealings in Iraq that makes the French government, and by extension the nation of France itself, complicit and to your mind explains French opposition to the war, but if an American company had illegal dealings with Iraq that's OK because America did want to go to war, so they must be honest, and so you aren't interested? Or what? That is either incredible stupidity or rank hypocrasy of the first order.

You want to play with commentary and suposition rather than evidence, try this one:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.23D. ... vented.htm

It's amazing how different prejudices can reach different conclusions from the same set of circumstances, huh?

Originally Posted by DDT

Secondly, it was not necessarily illegal to be on the Oil Voucher list if this is what you are referring to by the fact that the names of the US companies were taken off the public version of the Duelfer Report. The US companies were listed only in phase 1 and then not again till phase 9 and then only once. Not that it makes any difference because it doesn't make it OK for everyone to do an illeagal act just because some US companies do something or not do something.

What, you mean American companies are listed where the CIA list its evidence, but not where it lists its conclusions drawn from that evidence? Surely that can't be possible!

Originally Posted by DDT

I will not bother pasteing quotes to the report. The report speaks clearly enough itself.

It does indeed for those who have both read it and understood it.

I suppose you think that MI6 is better?

Why do you suppose that? Because I happen to be British? Heh, I think you need to re-adjust your assumptions when talking to people who weren't forced to swear an oath of allegiance to a flag every day at school.

Originally Posted by DDT

Maybe it is.... since Clinton placed little importance on funding the CIA and human intelligence during his time in office.

What makes you think I give the slightest hoot about what Clinton did? I'm not an American, so the meaningless distincions you lot seem to hold so dear between the Republicat and Democron parties are irrelevant to me.

When I speak of illegal dealings I speak of selling Iraq wepons. Russia was worse than France in this respect maybe Ukraine even more so but FRance seems to be, for a supposed close ally, nothing more than a liability.

Don't confuse me with a flag waver. I am not even a Yank. I just call them as I see them.

There has been talk behind the scenes about certain deals France and Russia had with Saddam for a long time now. Im just glad it is starting to make the mainstream.

I picked NewsMax because it gives a better picture on the Russian part of the report. There are plenty more more mainstream and even liberal sources that say the same.

I think you are miss-understanding me.

I am not suggesting for a second that French and Russian companies weren't involved in illegal dealings in Iraq. Not for a second. What I am suggesting is, given that the report was published by an organisation with a large axe to grind, that much of the allegations come from a certain Ahmed Chalabi who was in control of the documents used in the investigation (you remember him, he was the Iraqi exile who the Neocons had wanted to install as President of Iraq, but who was too unpopular and corrupt for them to do so), and given also that any US involvement has been censored from the evidence that is actually presented in original form, it is verging on ludicrous that anyone could use this as a stick to beat the governments who opposed the war (in countries where an overwhelming majority of the electorate were also opposed to it) and who have subsequently been proven 100% correct regarding the stated (and fase) aim of the war, which was the central brief of the report in the first place!

To summarise the report:

It's Official, Iraq Had Absolutely No WMDs Whatsoever!(but look, here's a suggestion that the French and Russians may have been duplicitous (amongst many others, and we won't tell you if there was any American involvement) )

and the pro-war brigade, still scrabbling around for any justifications for have been proven wrong at every single stage, latch onto the second sentence and scream "BURN THE WITCHES!!!".

Brilliant piece of smokescreen/ damage limitation on behalf of the CIA, but you need to understand that it is preaching to the choir and isn't going to shift public opinion one iota, so you are wasting your breath with your "Look We Told You So" BS.

Ouch

IT is pretty naiive of you to be so adament that Iraq had no WMD.....Now given the fact that a WMD plant can fit in a suitcase (ie biological ) You will probably never know until much later in history what the truth is and even then........we just may never get the truth.
There is a team who have been going aroud Iraq since Bagdad fell, who have been gathering the information that was used in the Duelfer Report. Not Chalabi.
You are most correct when you say "it is preaching to the choir". No one will be persuade by this. And that is thing most puzzling to me. Why is everyone so sure that they are right? Me? I don't care. There is no draft. Our volunteer army volunteered to beat up on Saddam and his supporters. Fine. They only thing that concerns me is the personal safety of Iraqis that I have known who may still be there but they had it pretty bad before the invasion anyway
The point of this thread was not about WMDs or the invasion because I already know that it is a fruitless subject. It is to shine light on pre war affairs and dealings by Russia and France which were against the UN sanctions.

IT is pretty naiive of you to be so adament that Iraq had no WMD.....Now given the fact that a WMD plant can fit in a suitcase (ie biological ) You will probably never know until much later in history what the truth is and even then........we just may never get the truth.

You can not be serious! Even Bush and Blair have stated that there were no WMDs in Iraq, that is exactly what this report was about!

Sorry, end of conversation. Anyone still clinging to that spurious justification even after its architects have abandoned it is either too stupid or too intrasigent to waste my time on.

[Adds DDT to ignore list]

No, I am serious. There is a lot more going on in the world that you or your news source is telling you.

And only NewsMax can provide the truth!