AP Probe suggests Bolton manipulated Iraq inspections to favor War: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| [unchecked revision] | [checked revision] |
Content deleted Content added
Kevin Baas (talk | contribs) |
m added Category:Chemical weapons using HotCat |
||
| (47 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{develop}} |
|||
{{date|June 5, 2005}} |
{{date|June 5, 2005}} |
||
[[Image:John R. Bolton.png|left]] |
|||
{{Pre-war_intelligence_infobox}} |
|||
A deputy acting for [[w:John R. Bolton|John Bolton]] told the ''[[w:Associated Press|Associated Press]]'' that Mr. Bolton orchestrated the firing of the head of a global arms-control agency in 2002. Jose Bustani, a [[w:Brazil|Brazilian]] diplomat for the agency, was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors into [[w:Baghdad|Baghdad]]. The former deputy told the ''AP'' that Mr. Bolton did not want that to happen because it might help defuse the crisis over [[w:Iraq disarmament crisis|alleged Iraqi weapons]] and thereby undermine a U.S. rationale for war. A spokeswoman told ''AP'' that Bolton has no comment. |
|||
==from source1== |
|||
"John R. Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved. |
|||
This new information comes in the wake of what is purported to be the [[w:Downing Street memo|leaked minutes]] of a 2002 meeting between top [[w:United States|US]] and [[w:United Kingdom|UK]] government officials, in which [[w:Matthew Rycroft|Matthew Rycroft]] reported "''Bush wanted to remove [[w:Saddam Hussein|Saddam]], through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [[w:Weapons of mass destruction|WMD]]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.''" Neither the UK nor the US government is disputing the accuracy of the memo. |
|||
A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt Jose Bustani ''"had to go," particularly'' '''because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad.That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war.''' |
|||
According to multiple reports, during a 2002 meeting between National Security Advisor [[w:Condoleezza Rice|Condoleezza Rice]] and a group of US Senators, [[w:George W. Bush|President Bush]] interrupted and changed the subject to Iraq. One of the people present told ''[[w:CNN|CNN's]]'' Daniel Eisenberg that Bush used a vulgar epithet to refer to Saddam and concluded by saying, "''We're taking him out.''" |
|||
Bustani, who says he got a "menacing" phone call from Bolton at one point, was removed by a vote of just one-third of member nations at an unusual special session of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), at which the United States cited alleged mismanagement in calling for his ouster. |
|||
Following the 2004 presidential election, Republican members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence refused to carry out plans to review how U.S. policymakers used pre-war Iraq intelligence. The plans to review the intelligence after the election were reached as a compromise with the Democratic members of the committee, prior to elections. According to a co-chair, the president's commission on intelligence is not authorized by its charter to look into the subject. Proponents of an inquiry have been unsuccessful in getting an investigation of the matter. |
|||
The United Nations' highest administrative tribunal later condemned the action as an "unacceptable violation" of principles protecting international civil servants. The OPCW session's Swiss chairman now calls it an "unfortunate precedent" and Bustani a "man with merit." |
|||
"Many believed the U.S. delegation didn't want meddling from outside in the Iraq business," said the retired Swiss diplomat, Heinrich Reimann. "That could be the case." |
|||
The Iraq connection to the OPCW affair comes as fresh evidence, known as the "Downing Street Memo," surfaces that the Bush administration was intent from early on to pursue military and not diplomatic action against Saddam Hussein's regime. " |
|||
==from source 2== |
|||
"Two months ago, a group of Republican and Democratic Senators went to the White House to meet with Condoleezza Rice, the President's National Security Adviser. Bush was not scheduled to attend but poked his head in anyway--and soon turned the discussion to Iraq. The President has strong feelings about Saddam Hussein (you might too if the man had tried to assassinate your father, which Saddam attempted to do when former President George Bush visited Kuwait in 1993) and did not try to hide them. He showed little interest in debating what to do about Saddam. Instead, he became notably animated, according to one person in the room, used a vulgar epithet to refer to Saddam and concluded with four words that left no one in doubt about Bush's intentions: "We're taking him out."" |
|||
==from the downing street memo== |
|||
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. '''There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.''' ''But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'' ..." |
|||
... |
|||
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. '''It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided.''' But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and ''his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.'' '''We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.''' |
|||
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change. |
|||
''The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors.'' '''Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD.''' ..." |
|||
==Sources== |
==Sources== |
||
*{{source|url=http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000946569 |
*{{source|url=http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000946569 |
||
|title=AP Probe on Bolton Finds Disturbing Links to Iraq War |
|title=AP Probe on Bolton Finds Disturbing Links to Iraq War |
||
|author=Charles J. Hanley, AP |
|author=Charles J. Hanley, AP |
||
|pub=Editor & Publisher |
|pub=Editor & Publisher |
||
|date=June 5, 2005}} |
|date=June 5, 2005}} |
||
| Line 50: | Line 29: | ||
|date=May 1, 2005}} |
|date=May 1, 2005}} |
||
*{{source|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html |
|||
|title=British Intelligence Warned of Iraq War |
|||
|author=Walter Pincer |
|||
|pub=The Washington Post |
|||
|date=May 13, 2005}} |
|||
{{PD-Article}} |
|||
{{archive}} |
|||
{{publish}} |
|||
[[Category:North America]] |
|||
[[category:North America]][[category:United States]][[category:Politics and conflicts]][[category:Bush administration handling of pre-war intelligence]] |
|||
[[Category:United States]] |
|||
[[Category:Baghdad]] |
|||
[[Category:Republican Party (United States)]] |
|||
[[Category:Democratic Party (United States)]] |
|||
[[Category:Iraq]] |
|||
[[Category:Middle East]] |
|||
[[Category:Chemical weapons]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 01:24, 29 August 2013
Sunday, June 5, 2005
A deputy acting for John Bolton told the Associated Press that Mr. Bolton orchestrated the firing of the head of a global arms-control agency in 2002. Jose Bustani, a Brazilian diplomat for the agency, was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors into Baghdad. The former deputy told the AP that Mr. Bolton did not want that to happen because it might help defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and thereby undermine a U.S. rationale for war. A spokeswoman told AP that Bolton has no comment.
This new information comes in the wake of what is purported to be the leaked minutes of a 2002 meeting between top US and UK government officials, in which Matthew Rycroft reported "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Neither the UK nor the US government is disputing the accuracy of the memo.
According to multiple reports, during a 2002 meeting between National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and a group of US Senators, President Bush interrupted and changed the subject to Iraq. One of the people present told CNN's Daniel Eisenberg that Bush used a vulgar epithet to refer to Saddam and concluded by saying, "We're taking him out."
Following the 2004 presidential election, Republican members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence refused to carry out plans to review how U.S. policymakers used pre-war Iraq intelligence. The plans to review the intelligence after the election were reached as a compromise with the Democratic members of the committee, prior to elections. According to a co-chair, the president's commission on intelligence is not authorized by its charter to look into the subject. Proponents of an inquiry have been unsuccessful in getting an investigation of the matter.
Sources
- Charles J. Hanley, AP. "AP Probe on Bolton Finds Disturbing Links to Iraq War" — Editor & Publisher, June 5, 2005
- Daniel Eisenberg. ""We're taking him out"" — CNN, May 6, 2002
- Matthew Rycroft. "The Secret Downing Street memo" — The Sunday Times, May 1, 2005
- Walter Pincer. "British Intelligence Warned of Iraq War" — The Washington Post, May 13, 2005
 | The text of this article has been released into the public domain. In the event that this is not legally possible, this article may be used for any purpose, without any condition, unless such conditions are required by law. This applies worldwide. Copyright terms on images, however, may vary, so please check individual image pages prior to duplication. Please note that this only applies to Wikinews content created prior to September 25, 2005. All content created after that date is released under a Creative Commons license which is mentioned at the bottom of each article. This is currently the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. |
