The Black Vault

vulcan6gun wrote:Lash-- no intent to confuse you. The second line of my previous answer is the most important.

* Most helpful I'm sure.

Congress was undecided on the subject of entering WW2 until Japan attacked us

* Yes. The Americans didn't want to go to war against Germany, so you arranged Pearl so you could legitimise war through the back-door so-to-speak.

(one reason we were unprepared was they wouldn't approve funding for more Radio Aircraft Detection And Ranging installations).

* And your radar was working fine in Hawaii. It picked up the Japanese attack and the radar operators reported it. None so blind as those what don't wanna see, eh!

It was Roosevelt, not Congress, that sent the USN into the North Atlantic on convoy escort missions, and created the AVG to fight for Nationalist China.

* And though US sh!t-stirring there, your nemesis was created.

Congress could not decide whether we should (militarily) help South Korea, but Truman did.

* Brilliant man - in retrospect.

Congress failed to decide the issue of military aid for Vietnam, so Johnson did.

* And wasn't Vietnam a great idea. ... The soldiers had to fight with one hand tied to their willies!

Congress made no decision concerning military aid for Kuwait, so 'Bush Sr' did.

* And public support for that adventure was created through absolute bullshit.

Basically, if the President didn't have the capability to make war, we and a large portion of the free world would be, in a word, screwed.

* Patently false.

In my eyes, all Tony Blair is guilty of is taking action against an oppressive foreign power at the request of Britain's strongest ally.

* Then you're eyes need some attention. You appear to have a serious case of tunnel-vision.

Lashmar wrote:

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was warned by his chief legal adviser two months before the invasion of Iraq that such a move would be unlawful.

BOOK ... Andrew Wilkie - Axis of Deceit -

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/ ... 10240.html

Senior intelligence officer, Andrew Wilkie, resigns in protest AM Archive - Wednesday, 12 March , 2003

Reporter: Catherine McGrath
LINDA MOTTRAM: Unable, he says, to sit and watch in silence as Australia drifts towards war with Iraq, Andrew Wilkie, a senior Australian intelligence officer is this morning jobless at his own hand, after his resignation in protest against the Howard Government's position.

He says he hopes his public comments will help open debate on the proposed war, which, on the basis of his work at the Office of National Assessments, he says could end in a military or humanitarian disaster, pushing Saddam Hussein, he says, towards the terrorist groups which the world now so fears.

Mr Wilkie also asserts that war is not about the fight against those groups, but rather about US politics.

Andrew Wilkie's credentials put him firmly in the camp of the establishment. He was a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Australian Army, a Duntroon graduate who spent nearly 20 years in the infantry, before moving to the Office of National Assessments as a civilian, and that underscores the broad community base from which war opposition continues to come.

So does he expect to be vilified for his stance, a question our Chief Political Correspondent, Catherine McGrath, put to Mr Wilkie in Canberra last night.

ANDREW WILKIE: ONA's statement to the media yesterday, I think has tried to play down my access to information on the Iraq issue, as I would have expected them to do, and I would expect that sort of management of the issue to continue from within Government.

CATHERINE MCGRATH: You believe this war is bad policy, why?

ANDREW WILKIE: In essence, Catherine, I think that invading Iraq at this time would be wrong. For a start, Iraq does not pose a security threat to any other country at this point in time. Its military is very weak, it's a fraction of the size of the military at the time of the invasion of Kuwait. Its weapons of mass destruction program is very disjointed and contained by the regime that's been in place since the last Gulf War. And there is no hard intelligence linking the Iraqi regime to al-Qaeda in any substantial or worrisome way.

CATHERINE MCGRATH: Now this gets to the key of the problem for the Government with you going public yesterday, because Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, has emphasised this week, but has emphasised for months and months, the link between terrorism and Iraq, his belief that weapons of mass destruction will pass from Iraq to terrorist groups if Saddam Hussein is not stopped. Now you're saying that is completely untrue?

ANDREW WILKIE: What I'm saying, Catherine, is that the Iraq problem is unrelated to the war on terror, it's more related to US-Iraq bilateral relations, US domestic politics, the issue of US credibility and so on. It's unrelated to the war on terror and yes, Iraq as rogue state should worry us as a potential source of weapons to terrorists, but there are other ways to manage that risk.

CATHERINE MCGRATH: So do you believe containment of Saddam Hussein is possible, rather than military action?

ANDREW WILKIE: Yes. I think there should be more time allowed for a, a better, more developed strategy of containment to see how it goes. I mean, it may well be that we have to go to war against Iraq eventually, but we should be exploring better inspections and so on, before we go to that last resort.

CATHERINE MCGRATH: In terms of weapons of mass destruction, do you believe that if war goes ahead, it's more likely those weapons will end up in the hands of terrorist groups?

ANDREW WILKIE: What worries me is that a war, an invasion, is the option that's most likely to prompt Saddam to do exactly what we're trying to prevent. A war is what is most likely to force him to act recklessly, to possibly use weapons of mass destruction himself and to possibly play a terrorism card.

CATHERINE MCGRATH: If war goes ahead, if next week Australia is at war as part of this military coalition led by the United States, how do you think at the moment things are going to play out?

ANDREW WILKIE: A war at this time is just not worth the risk. I think there is too great a risk of a military or humanitarian disaster and I think there's a real risk that a war now will further inflame popular anti-western opinion in the Middle East and push Saddam closer towards al-Qaeda, and push us all just that little bit closer to the so-called, clash of civilisations, that we've so far managed to stay well clear of.

LINDA MOTTRAM: Former Office of National Assessments intelligence analyst, Andrew Wilkie, speaking to our Chief Political Correspondent, Catherine McGrath, in Canberra.


Britain: Parliamentary probe exposes lies on Iraqi weapons

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul20 ... -j04.shtml

Death, 'Lies' & WMDs
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/ ... 0236.shtml

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... 23604.html

Blair to face Iraq Inquiry
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1174 ... aq-Inquiry

Broadcast: 23/7/2002

Iraq to halve Australian wheat exports

Iraqi diplomats have delivered a blunt message on behalf of Saddam Hussein's regime. The Iraqi Trade Minister has announced that Australian wheat exports to Iraq will be halved.


TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

Compere: Tony Jones
Reporter: Jonathan Harley

It is not often we hear anything from Iraqi diplomats in Canberra, but today they had a blunt message to deliver on behalf of Saddam Hussein's regime. It seems the Government's tough talk about Iraq has finally ruffled feathers in Baghdad.

So the reclusive diplomats were out and about explaining a statement the Iraqi Trade Minister had made overnight to the regime's official news agency. The minister announced that Australian wheat exports to Iraq will be halved.

If carried through, the decision will cancel 500,000 tonnes in grain orders.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says we'll find other markets, but farmers are not so relaxed.

JONATHAN HARLEY, REPORTER: All smiles with Washington may come at a high cost down on the farm. Last year, $800 million worth of wheat went to Iraq, but now that may be slashed.

SAAD ALSAMARAI, IRAQI CHARGE D'AFFAIRES: Australian troops will participate in attacking Iraq. So we are asking again, why?

ALEXANDER DOWNER, FOREIGN MINISTER: At the end of the day, international security can't be held hostage to trade threats where there is a very serious international security issue at stake.

JONATHAN HARLEY: What's at stake, says the Opposition, is an unnecessary risk to at least $200 million in wheat exports.

KEVIN RUDD, SHADOW FOREIGN MINISTER: Over-the-top, Rambo rhetoric by a foreign minister who seems to be on steroids.

JONATHAN HARLEY: But if anything, Alexander Downer appears very relaxed about the threatened loss of an important market.

ALEXANDER DOWNER: All of the time we're looking to diversify our markets and have recently opened up the Libyan market to Australian wheat exports. So there are always opportunities for our wheat exporters.

JONATHAN HARLEY: But farmers, especially those in Western Australia, reliant on export markets, are worried.

COLIN NICHOLL, WA FARMERS' FEDERATION: There are not many markets in the world that would be available to take up any additional grain that wasn't sold to Iraq for Australian grain.

JONATHAN HARLEY: Meanwhile, advocates of applying greater diplomatic pressure on Iraq rather than the use of force, accuse the Howard Government of trying to have it both ways.

BILL HARTLEY, AUSTRALIA-IRAQI FRIENDSHIP ASSOCIATION: It's saying we like the colour of your money, but not your politics and it's deeply offensive to the whole of the Arab world.

JONATHAN HARLEY: But trade and politics get entangled even among the best of friends. The United States has accused the Government of inflating the impact of its $135 billion hike in farm subsidies.

MICHAEL DELANEY, US EMBASSY: There's no obvious relationship between US farm income support and Australian farm income.

JONATHAN HARLEY: The Government is less than impressed.

JOHN ANDERSON, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: It is absolutely the wrong way to go and it will impact. There's no doubt about that.

JONATHAN HARLEY: All that does seem to be left in doubt is when, rather than if, US troops, backed by Australia, will lead an attack on Baghdad. Perhaps the Howard Government is bargaining on it being before serious harm is done to Australian wheat exports.



The AWB was an Australian government body known as the Australian Wheat Board until 1 July 1999, when the AWB was transformed into a private company, owned by wheat growers & the Australian Government. On 22 August 2001, AWB was floated on the Australian Stock Exchange.

AWB has been the subject of controversy recently, amid revelations that the company paid kickbacks to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. These revelations and the subsequent Cole Inquiry called by the Australian Government may result in criminal charges being brought against 12 current and former executives of AWB.

AWB exports "into more than 50 countries, with Australian wheat exports worth up to $5 billion per year" (AWB 2006). AWB had veto power over any other prospective exporters of wheat, which effectively eliminated competition on the export market for Australian wheat, thereby capturing freight differentials. Exports are typically managed through commodity pools, which are managed investment schemes. The beneficial interest in the export grain is distributed to participants in the commodity pool.

AWB has three core divisions - Rural Services, Financial Services and Commodity Management (which includes the National Pool). Rural Services and Financial Services offer products and services through the Landmark network, a 430 store retail distribution business serving rural Australia. Commodity management provides grain products to global customers with offices in Australia, Singapore, Tokyo, China, India, Geneva and Brazil.

Australian Wheat Board implicated in “oil-for-food scandal”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/nov2005/awb-n14.shtml


Scandal costs AWB its monopoly

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/scandal-costs-awb-its-monopoly/2006/02/10/1139542402621.html

Win-win for AWB as US lawsuit thrown out of court

THE fortunes of beleaguered wheat exporter AWB took two turns for the better yesterday, with a US lawsuit dismissed and outstanding issues with Iraq resolved.
The former means AWB faces just one legal battle in the US, which may itself be dismissed in the new year. The latter means trade may soon resume with Iraq.

Prior to the oil-for-food scandal that engulfed AWB in 2006, the wheat exporter had sold about $800 million a year of wheat to Iraq. It was the largest single supplier, and Iraq was among its biggest customers.

The trade collapsed in the wake of revelations that AWB had been paying kickbacks to the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Iraq was at first reluctant to resume trade with Australia, buying most of its wheat from the US and other sources, and then AWB became reluctant to deal with Iraq because of continuing disputes over the cost of transport, storage and demurrage.

But in a statement yesterday, AWB said outstanding issues between it, Iraq's Ministry of Trade and the Grain Board of Iraq had been resolved, "paving the way for trade to resume".

AWB said it had a self-imposed ban on doing business with Iraq until the arguments about costs were resolved.

Now they are, it is in theory free to do business with Iraq. The disputes related to the 2005-06 grain pool. AWB managing director Gordon Davis said the resolution "opens the way for AWB to export wheat to Iraq in the future".

AWB shares rose slightly to $1.25 on the announcement before falling back to $1.24, but the stock is still down 40 per cent this year, and well down on the $6.50 peak reached before the scandal.

Also yesterday, the company announced that the US Court of Appeal dismissed a class action appeal by three Iraqi provinces, which had accused AWB of financing the Saddam regime, and denying them humanitarian aid that might otherwise have been forthcoming.

AWB said it had been advised that the US Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs had appealed against the original verdict of the US District Court for the southern district of New York. The court had found in favour of AWB Ltd, AWB (USA) Ltd, BNP Paribas and Commodity Specialists.

The plaintiffs filed their appeal soon after the original case was dismissed in October last year.

An Australian class action, brought on behalf of shareholders, is still pending, and due to begin next month.

The Rudd government stripped AWB of its wheat marketing monopoly in 2006 for paying $300m in bribes to Saddam's regime.

Wheat Industry Supports U.S. Action Against AWB

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=839

U.S.A calls for dissolution of AWB in wake of Iraq scandal
http://magissues.farmprogress.com/MOR/M ... /mor22.pdf


U.S. wheat trade sees more sales to Iraq
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2145832620080721

US WHEAT LOBBY DENIES EXPLOITING AWB-IRAQ SCANDAL.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-138684000.html


(CNN) --- grisly photographs and videos have emerged From Australia that appear to show U.S. soldiers abusing prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, some of whom were apparently forced to engage in sex acts.

The Australian television network SBS program "Dateline" broadcast the pictures and videos Wednesday night. One of the more graphic videos shows five men wearing hoods and masturbating for the camera, presumably under orders from their guards.

The photos and videos reportedly date from 2003 -- the same time that previously released photographs of prisoner abuse were taken.

Olivia Rousset, the SBS reporter on the story, said she came across the photographs while researching a story on guards at Abu Ghraib.

"We hope that the release of these photographs will bring about further pressure to hold high-ranking officials accountable for what we now know to have been systemic and widespread abuse occurring throughout Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay," said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Amrit Singh on "Dateline," adding that she had not seen the images. (Watch why the hoods, nudity and poses suggest abuse -- 2:02)

Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, said he thought the timing of the new report was "unnecessarily provocative" and "irresponsible." He said any photos from that time period "do not reflect what is happening at Abu Ghraib now."

Interviewed before the photos and videos aired, Johnson said he hadn't seen the newly released images.

Publication of the original set of pictures sparked widespread international condemnation of the United States. (Gallery: Abu Ghraib pictures)

The newly released photographs appear to show more abuse, including cases of torture and sexual humiliation. They do not appear to show any new perpetrators.

In September, after the ACLU won access to those set of pictures via a Freedom of Information Act request, the U.S. government appealed the decision, tying up their release.

Mike Carey, executive producer of "Dateline," said on the SBS network's Web site that his program "obtained a file of hundreds of pictures, some that have been seen before and others that show new abuses."

Some images too graphic to air
The program did not show all of the pictures. It deemed some of them too graphic for air, Carey said.

Among the images broadcast were pictures of naked men who appeared to have suffered physical trauma, one of whom the report said had 11 nonlethal bullet wounds in his buttocks.

Other pictures show corpses, one of which the program said a U.S. Army report identified as one of three men killed during a riot over living conditions at the prison.

According to the TV report, two Abu Ghraib soldiers said that guards were ordered to use lethal rounds on prisoners after they ran out of rubber bullets trying to halt the riot.

One image depicts two women described by a guard to "Dateline" as prostitutes held at the prison for two days. In one picture, the breasts of one of the women are exposed.

Another grisly image shows a corpse that appears to have had a section torn from its head, while another one features a man whose arms are covered in purple bruises.

Also broadcast was video that appears to show a prisoner -- handcuffed to a metal door -- repeatedly slamming his head full force against the door. Though the guards appear to have videotaped the incident from several vantage points, no one is seen intervening to stop the prisoner.

The network said the man allegedly had mental problems and frequently covered himself in feces, but he was not given any psychiatric care.

The TV program obscured most of the prisoners' faces so they could not be identified.

The release of the photographs follows the release of a 2004 videotape apparently showing British soldiers beating Iraqis. Three people have been arrested in that case, which was condemned by Prime Minister Tony Blair. (Full story)

ACLU alleges orders came from brass
When the original set of Abu Ghraib photographs was released nearly two years ago, members of Congress said they had received a private viewing of other, unreleased pictures.

Seven low-ranking guards and two military intelligence soldiers -- described by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as "bad apples" -- have been disciplined for offenses documented in the original pictures.

Last May, President Bush demoted Army Reserve Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of Abu Ghraib during the prison abuse scandal, to colonel. She had been formally relieved of command of the 800th military police brigade a month earlier.

Another officer, Col. Thomas Pappas, was reprimanded and fined.

The longest prison sentence -- 10 years -- was given to Army Cpl. Charles Graner, seen in many of the pictures. Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, a U.S. Army reservist from Virginia, received an eight-year sentence.

"Looking at the documents we've received under FOIA, it is very clear to us that the actions of these soldiers were part of a larger program to abuse detainees that was put in place by high-ranking officials," the ACLU's Singh told "Dateline."

__________________________________________________________END OF ARTICLE _______

Tony Blair is in the hot seat, Cameron about to FORCE the Intelligence agency to turn over the ( as yet to be declassified ) Blair Bush letters, those written prior to the INVASION of Iraq.

Once declassified they may shed some light on this ridiculous occupation! The occupation for profit!

Cole

Wrong about WMD's--REALLY--Then why in hell are we STILL over there? Idiot's!

Rumsfeld breaks his silence: Bush defence chief confesses he was wrong about WMDs in Iraq in new autobiography

Rumsfeld's remorse (or lack thereof): The former defence chief during an interview in Washington in January. Excerpts from his new autobiography have been released

In my personal opinion: Just one of many arrogant elite BASTARDS.

In his new autobiography, scheduled for release next Tuesday, the former Pentagon boss said George Bush called him into his office just fifteen days after 9/11 to tell him to start making plans to attack Iraq.

‘Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, those of us in the Department of Defence were fully occupied,’ he wrote.

But he said the president was insistent even then that Mr Rumsfeld should come up with ‘creative’ options to topple Saddam.

‘Had the 2003 invasion not taken place, the Middle East would be ‘far more perilous than it is today,’ he added.

The 78-year-old former defence chief – a leading architect of the Iraq war – did, however say he regretted saying ‘stuff happens’ about the early looting in postwar Iraq.

He also concedes it wasn’t diplomatic to blast Germany and France as ‘old Europe’ for failing to support the invasion.

Addressing charges that he failed to provide enough troops for the war, Mr Rumsfeld wrote: ‘In retrospect, there may have been times when more troops could have helped.’

But he insisted that if senior military officers had reservations about the size of the invading force, they never informed him.

Both the New York Times and the Washington Post revealed the highlights of the book after obtaining advance copies.

In a lengthy section on the administration's treatment of wartime detainees, he admitted his biggest regret was not leaving office in May 2004, after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal erupted.

‘Looking back, I see there are things the administration could have done differently and better with respect to wartime detention,’ he acknowledged.

The flinty Washington veteran wrote complimentarily about his old boss in the White House, but criticised Mr Bush’s confused decision-making over national security matters.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... raphy.html

Cole

Iraq scmiraq...done deal. Get over it.

Ya gotta love Egypt. Care to give the brothas a call Cole Baby,? but then I don't think they need much encouraging.

Hey Meal... U volunteer. Bubba.

Dime a dozen---what's your point?

Cole

Iraq Informant Lied to U.S. About WMD

Informant Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, better known as ‘Curveball’, has admitted he fabricated claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction to get rid of Saddam’s regime. His claims were used by the Bush administration to invade Iraq in March 2003.

Curveball told the BND, Gemany’s secret service, that Saddam’s regime had mobile bioweapons trucks and several secret factories producing chemical and biological weapons.

Strangely enough, the American government continued to take him seriously despite warnings from BND questioning the authenticity of his claims.

Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell described the Iraqi defector as an “Iraqi chemical engineer who supervised one of these facilities” and used a computer generated image of a mobile biological weapons laboratory during his presentation at the United Nations on February 5, 2003.

“He actually was present during biological agent production runs and was also at the site when an accident occurred in 1998,” said Powell to the UN.

“Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right. They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy,” said Curveball.

link to article

I wonder if there will EVER be a war crimes investigation and trial when it comes to our invasion of Iraq.