Rumsfeld ritratta su Saddam-Al Qaeda

[mrmic]

Da middle-east-online.com

Rumsfeld backtracks on Saddam-Qaeda link
_
US Defense Secretary says no 'strong, hard evidence' of Saddam-Qaeda link, in contrast with his 2002 report.

_
NEW YORK - US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday he has seen no "strong, hard evidence" linking former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein with Al-Qaeda, backing away from his pre-war assertions that contacts between the two went back over a decade.

"I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way," he told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations after being asked what Saddam's connection to Al-Qaeda was.

Rumsfeld said there were differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said.

The nexus between terrorism and the Iraqi regime was a key point in the US effort to persuade the world that Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

In September 2002, Rumsfeld said the United States had "credible" information that Al-Qaeda and Iraq had discussed safe havens and non-aggression agreements, and that Al-Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction.

In his comments Monday, Rumsfeld said he had relied on the Central Intelligence Agency for his information in the past, and appeared to blame the intelligence reporting for the way the relationship between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was portrayed.

"I just read an intelligence report recently about one person who's connected to Al-Qaeda who was in and out of Iraq. And it is the most tortured description of why he might have had a relationship and why he might not have had a relationship," he said.

"There are reports about people in Saddam Hussein's intelligence service meeting in one country or another with Al-Qaeda people for one person or another, which may have been indicative of something or may not have been," he said.

"It may have been something that was not representative of a hard linkage," he said. ( <<<ndr)

Rumsfeld added, however, that Saddam and his regime were "not Little Sisters of the Poor." Iraq was on the State Department's terrorist list and made payments for Palestinian suicide bombings, he said.

"The relationships between these folks are complicated. They evolve and change over time. In many cases, these different networks have common funders.

"In many cases, they cooperate not in a chain of command, but in a loose affiliation, a franchising arrangement, almost, where they go do different things and cooperate," he said.

He said most of Al-Qaeda's senior leaders had sworn an oath to Osama bin Laden.

"And to my knowledge, even as of this late date, I don't believe (Abu Mussab al-) Zarqawi, the principal leader of the network in Iraq, has sworn an oath, even though ... they're just two peas in a pod in terms of what they're doing," he said.

Zarqawi's reported presence in Baghdad before the war has been cited in the past by the US administration as evidence of a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

In his comments two years ago, Rumsfeld said the presence of senior Al-Qaeda leaders in Baghdad was backed by "solid evidence," and there was reliable reporting of contacts over the previous decade that had grown in frequency after 1998.

[cerbert]

Ma non li vedi i film?
La colpa è sempre dei perfidi agenti della CIA.

[Paracleto]

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialR...20041004a.html

[GioFX]

Originariamente inviato da Paracleto
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialR...20041004a.html

Tutto il mondo è concorde nell'affermare che prima e dopo l'11 settembre non vi erano legami tra Saddam e il terrorismo Wahabita, tra cui:

- Intelligence (Homeland Security, FBI, CIA)
- Governo americano (Difesa, Dipartimento di Stato)

e tu ancora posti provi a deviare il discorso?!?

La stessa CIA affermo nel suo rapporto sul terrorismo annuale che l'Iraq non aveva cellule di Al Qaeda all'interno del proprio territorio.

Ora lo dice pure Rumsfeld e tu non ci credi ancora?!?

[Paracleto]

Originariamente inviato da GioFX


Tutto il mondo è concorde nell'affermare che prima e dopo l'11 settembre non vi erano legami tra Saddam e il terrorismo Wahabita, tra cui:

- Intelligence (Homeland Security, FBI, CIA)
- Governo americano (Difesa, Dipartimento di Stato)

e tu ancora posti provi a deviare il discorso?!?

La stessa CIA affermo nel suo rapporto sul terrorismo annuale che l'Iraq non aveva cellule di Al Qaeda all'interno del proprio territorio.

Ora lo dice pure Rumsfeld e tu non ci credi ancora?!?

evidentemente non tutto il mondo

e non sto "deviando il discorso"
mica lo ho scritto io quell'articolo

[GioFX]

Originariamente inviato da Paracleto
evidentemente non tutto il mondo

Immagino allora che credi ancora che ci siano armi di distruzioni di massa, chimiche, batteriologiche e magari pure nucleari in Iraq, vero?

mica lo ho scritto io quell'articolo

ma l'hai riportato, perchè?

[GioFX]

Da BBC News:

Rumsfeld questions Saddam-Bin Laden link

Rumsfeld's comments can be revealing

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has cast doubt on whether there was ever a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
The alleged link was used as a reason by President Bush for invading Iraq.

Mr Rumsfeld was asked by a New York audience about connections between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said, though he later issued a statement saying he was misunderstood.

I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way

When asked about the putative link during a session at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Monday, the defence secretary said: "I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way."

'Misunderstood'

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says Mr Rumsfeld's blunt admission seems to give added weight to one of Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry's most telling punches, when he accused President Bush of fighting the wrong war for the wrong reasons.

However, he adds that the minds of many voters may already be made up.

In the past, Mr Rumsfeld has spoken of credible information about a link, while Vice-President Dick Cheney regularly goes further and talks of Saddam Hussein having provided safe harbour and sanctuary for al-Qaeda.

Several hours after his appearance, Mr Rumsfeld issued a statement saying his comments had been "regrettably misunderstood" and that he had acknowledged there were ties between Osama Bin Laden and Iraq based upon CIA intelligence.

This included "solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad", he said.

No proof

On Monday, Mr Rumsfeld also said intelligence about weapons of mass destruction before the invasion had been faulty and that the US had been unable to find any such weapons.

"Why the intelligence proved wrong, I'm not in a position to say, but the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail," he said.

Mr Rumsfeld added that Saddam Hussein's regime was not the "Little Sisters of the Poor" - Iraq had been on the US State Department's terrorist list and made payments for Palestinian suicide bombings, he said.

"The relationships between these folks are complicated. They evolve and change over time. In many cases, these different networks have common funders."

He also said that although most of al-Qaeda's senior leaders had sworn an oath to Osama Bin Laden, the man suspected to be the principal leader of the network in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had not.

Mr Zarqawi's reported presence in Baghdad before the war has been cited in the past by the US administration as evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Iraq mistakes

The former US governor of Iraq, Paul Bremer, said on Monday the US had made two mistakes in the conflict in Iraq - although he was still in favour of intervening in Iraq.

One error was not having enough ground troops to take control of the country, he said.

The US also made the mistake of not containing the violence and looting quickly enough after Saddam Hussein was ousted, he said.

"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he told a conference in West Virginia

[GioFX]

Da Nytimes.com:

Rumsfeld Sees Lack of Proof for Qaeda-Hussein Link

By THOM SHANKER

Published: October 5, 2004

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that he had seen no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, although he tempered his comment by noting that stark disagreements on that issue remained among American intelligence analysts.

"I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over the period of a year in the most amazing way," Mr. Rumsfeld said when asked about ties between Mr. Hussein and the terror network run by Osama bin Laden. Senior administration officials cited the existence of ties between them as a rationale for war on Iraq.

"Second, there are differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was," Mr. Rumsfeld said at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

Relationships among terrorists and terrorist networks are complicated to track, Mr. Rumsfeld said, because "in many cases, they cooperate not in a chain of command but in a loose affiliation, a franchising arrangement almost."

He said that even Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born terrorist leader blamed for some of the most violent attacks inside Iraq since the end of major combat operations, probably had no formal allegiance to Mr. bin Laden, although "they're just two peas in a pod in terms of what they're doing."

The extent of Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda has been subjected to intense and often contentious scrutiny, especially this campaign season. While Mr. Rumsfeld often has cited C.I.A. reports of murky ties, including the presence of Qaeda operatives in Iraq, he has not been as adamant on the issue as other senior administration officials, in particular Vice President Dick Cheney.

"There is no question but that there have been interactions between the Iraqi government, Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda operatives," Mr. Rumsfeld said in November 2002. "They have occurred over a span of some 8 or 10 years to our knowledge. There are currently Al Qaeda in Iraq.''

But even when discussing intelligence pointing to Iraq- Qaeda links, he has noted the absence of certainty. In September 2002, he warned that it was not always possible for the government to satisfy a public desire for "some hard evidence" of Iraq's ties to terrorist networks. "We have to face that fact that we're not going to have everything beyond a reasonable doubt," he said.

Mr. Rumsfeld's comments were made one day before Mr. Cheney is to meet Senator John Edwards in a vice-presidential campaign debate, during which the topic of administration statements on Iraq-Qaeda ties are likely to come up.

Mr. Rumsfeld issued a statement late last night in which he stated, "I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

That assessment, he said in the statement, was based on points provided by George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, to describe the C.I.A.'s understanding of the Qaeda-Iraq relationship. Those points, Mr. Rumsfeld said, included evidence of Qaeda members in Iraq, reports of senior-level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade and of possible chemical and biological agent training, and of information that Iraq and Al Qaeda discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq.

In his speech yesterday, Mr. Rumsfeld praised a weekend offensive by the First Infantry Division and members of the new Iraqi security force that chased insurgents from Samarra. He said the offensive should serve as a warning to other guerrillas holding territory before elections scheduled for January.

In the face of a tenacious insurgency, he said, "your first choice is to talk and to gather people together.

"And that's what they tried in some areas, and it worked, and in some areas it didn't," he added. "And the next thing you have to do is have the threat of force. And finally you may have to use force. And that's what happened in Samarra."

Mr. Rumsfeld also gave an impassioned defense of President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan for his actions in support of the military effort to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan and for serving as a voice of moderation in the Muslim world.

[Paracleto]

Originariamente inviato da GioFX
Immagino allora che credi ancora che ci siano armi di distruzioni di massa, chimiche, batteriologiche e magari pure nucleari in Iraq, vero?

credo che, poichè ci sono state, e vista la volontà di saddam di usarle, fosse un buon motivo rendere inoffensivo saddam prima che potesse metterci le mani sopra

ma l'hai riportato, perchè?

perchè mi pare che si faccia a gara per fraintendere volutamente

in questo stesso thread rumsfeld avanza dei dubbi

Saddam and his regime were "not Little Sisters of the Poor." Iraq was on the State Department's terrorist list and made payments for Palestinian suicide bombings, he said.

"The relationships between these folks are complicated. They evolve and change over time. In many cases, these different networks have common funders.

"In many cases, they cooperate not in a chain of command, but in a loose affiliation, a franchising arrangement, almost, where they go do different things and cooperate," he said.


e dice
ok, non c'era una collaborazione attiva, ma saddam era un finanziatore di terroristi, non questi, magari,ma altri

ora, ok, non era culo e camicia con al qaeda

ma non è che al qaeda sia l'unica organizzazione terroristica del mondo

l'articolo linkato non è frutto della mia fantasia, è frutto di "Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com"

e inoltre

"A senior government official who is not a political appointee provided CNSNews.com with copies of the 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service documents. The originals, some of which were hand-written and others typed, are in Arabic. CNSNews.com had the papers translated into English by two individuals separately and independent of each other."


e mi sembrava interessante e in linea con il thread

[GioFX]

Originariamente inviato da Paracleto
credo che, poichè ci sono state, e vista la volontà di saddam di usarle, fosse un buon motivo rendere inoffensivo saddam prima che potesse metterci le mani sopra

ci sono state?!? si, quando? negli anni '80 quando sterminava chiunque con il benestare di tutto l'Occidente Democratico?!?

prima e dopo la guerra Saddam non aveva armi, come riportano TUTTI I RAPPORTI UFFICIALI DEL MONDO, DA QUELLO DELLE NAZIONI UNITE, a QUELLO DEGLI AMERICANI (Tre missioni CIA-FBI nel paese), alla stessa PAROLA DEL GOVERNO BUSH.

Chiaro ora?

l'articolo linkato non è frutto della mia fantasia, è frutto di "Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com"

Abeh!!!! E proprio vero allora, un bel documento "confiscato" dalle non meglio identificate "U.S. Forces" e ottenuto da questa grande fonte...

[Bet]

che bello il forum di hwupgrade: si riesce a sapere tutto su cio' che hanno detto, non detto, fatto, non fatto e direi sino pensato in qualsiasi posto del mondo (usa in testa ovviamente): Echelon ci fa un baffo

[Paracleto]

Originariamente inviato da GioFX
ci sono state?!? si, quando? negli anni '80 quando sterminava chiunque con il benestare di tutto l'Occidente Democratico?!?

prima e dopo la guerra Saddam non aveva armi, come riportano TUTTI I RAPPORTI UFFICIALI DEL MONDO, DA QUELLO DELLE NAZIONI UNITE, a QUELLO DEGLI AMERICANI (Tre missioni CIA-FBI nel paese), alla stessa PAROLA DEL GOVERNO BUSH.

Chiaro ora?

A dire il vero dopo le ispezioni le parole di Blix furono che L'Iraq non aveva collaborato abbastanza con gli ispettori dell'Onu e che quindi non si poteva dire se ci fossero o meno armi

e a luglio saddam rifiuitò le ispezioni (ma se non aveva niente...)

e nel '98 i risultati delle ispezioni furono simili, nessuna collaborazione e ritiro degli ispettori dall'iraq

ma se non c'erano armi... ...

Abeh!!!! E proprio vero allora, un bel documento "confiscato" dalle non meglio identificate "U.S. Forces" e ottenuto da questa grande fonte...

non meglio identificate?
non ho mica detto che sia tutto attendibile al 100%, ho detto che mi pareva in linea con il thread

aspetto conferme sull'articolo riportato

[mrmic]

Originariamente inviato da Paracleto

aspetto conferme sull'articolo riportato

Ecco infatti, aspettiamo. Almeno quello che ho postato io e GioFX riportsno fonti ufficiali.

E poi se non ho capito male quel documento di 42 pagine riporta, principalmente, una comunicazione di Saddam alla sua intelligence per aiutare i Somali nel 1993 a cacciare gli americani. Si fa poi allusione alle "migliaia" di documenti da tradurre che l'amministrazione Bush non ha dunque ancora letto e alla possibile presenza di ulteriori conferme....insomma, per me si è troppo allusivi. Che Saddam non fosse un santarellino, come dice Rumsfeld e come sanno tutti i qui presenti interlocutori non lo nega nessuno, ma certi legami non prprio diretti bisogna stare attenti a dargli credibilità.

CNSNews parla anche del coinvolfimento del gruppo islamico Al Islami e del suo rapporto con Saddam: lo sanno anche i sassi che Sadat è stato ucciso con la partecipazione dei Fratelli Musulmani, e che questi intrattenevano, e intrattengono, rapporti con mezzo mondo arabo! E dai!

[parax]

Non a caso Kerry nel faccia a faccia con Bush gli ha detto che invadere l'Iraq dopo l'11 Settembre è stato come invadere il Messico dopo Pearl Harobur.

[flisi71]

Ecco una notizia che si ritrova sia sul Corriere che sulla Repubblica:

http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/E...6/Legame.shtml

L'annuncio contenuto in un rapporto dell'intelligence Usa
La Cia: «Nessu legame Saddam-Zarqawi»
«Il caso tuttavia non è chiuso» tiene a precisare un funzionario che conferma però la notizia data per prima da Abc News

WASHINGTON - Nessuna prova del legame tra Saddam e Al Zarqawi. Lo dice un rapporto Cia. Non esistono dunque prove definitive che l'ex presidente iracheno Saddam Hussein abbia dato rifugio ad Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, come sostenuto dall'amministrazione Bush prima dell'invasione dell'Iraq.
«Non c'è alcuna prova definitiva che il regime di Saddam Hussein abbia dato ospitalità a Zarqawi» ha detto un funzionario Usa a proposito delle conclusioni della Cia. Ma il funzionario, parlando in condizioni di anonimato, ha sottolineato il fatto che il documento, incrociando nuove informazioni ad una panoramica sulle vecchie, non ha espresso un giudizio finale né è giunto ad una conclusione definitiva.
«Non sarebbe corretto suggerire che il caso è chiuso», ha detto il funzionario confermando una notizia di Abc News riguardo al rapporto della Cia che sarebbe stato consegnato questa settimana alla Casa Bianca. Il rapporto Cia ha concluso che Zarqawi andava e veniva dall'Iraq ma mette in dubbio il fatto che Zarqawi avesse ottenuto un'autorizzazione ufficiale per essere curato lì, come aveva affermato quest'estate il presidente George W. Bush , ha detto Abc. Prima dell'invasione che ha spodestato Saddam, l'amministrazione Bush aveva ritratto la figura di Zarqawi come quella che rappresentava il legame tra al Qaeda e Baghdad. Dopo la cattura di Saddam in dicembre e ondate di attentati suicidi contro militari americani e iracheni, Zarqawi è rapidamente diventato il nemico numero uno dell'America in Iraq e sulla sua testa gli Usa hanno posto una taglia di 25 milioni di dollari.

A me sembra che una conclusione si possa già trarre: si dice che non c'è nessun legame evidente, anzi è probabile che non ve ne sia stato alcuno (anche se bisogna andarci cauti); allora come mai l'amministrazione Bush era così certa del contrario?

Ciao

Federico

[The Mad Hatter]

Non mi sembra che ci sia molto da stupirsi.

Il governo americano ha, in modo incredibilmente stupido, pensato che invadendo l'Iraq avrebbe trovato la popolazione festante ad accogliere i soldati, un po' come nella seconda guerra mondiale.
Peccato che adesso si siano accorti che se permettessero libere elezioni, si troverebbero con uno stato fondamentalista islamico da Teheran a Bagdad.
Per cui quello che faranno sarà riprendersi un po' dei vecchi gerarchi di Saddam e rimetterli al potere, creando un nuovo stato "forte" e legato agli interessi USA.

La discussione si allargherebbe, e premetto che io considero una minaccia alla nostra sicurezza (mondo occidentale) l'esistenza di uno stato fondamentalista islamico.
Il problema è che per Saddam, non costituendo una reale minaccia immediata, poteva essere progressivamente avvicinato all'occidente, un po' come nel caso Libia

[GioFX]

Da CNN.com:

Official: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein's weapons capability weakened during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year.

Contrary to prewar statements by President Bush and top administration officials, Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, according to the report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.

Duelfer's findings come less than four weeks before an election in which Bush's handling of Iraq has become the central issue. Democratic candidate John Kerry has seized on comments this week by the former U.S. administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, that the United States didn't have enough troops in Iraq to prevent a breakdown in security after Saddam was toppled.

The inspector's report could boost Kerry's contention that Bush rushed to war based on faulty intelligence and that sanctions and U.N. weapons inspectors should have been given more time.

Saddam a threat
But Duelfer also supports Bush's argument that Saddam remained a threat. Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made clear to inspectors that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted, the report said.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks," Bush said in a campaign speech in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, defending the decision to invade. "In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

A top Democrat in Congress, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, said Duelfer's findings undercut the two main arguments for war: that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he would share them with terrorists like al-Qaeda.

"We did not go to war because Saddam had future intentions to obtain weapons of mass destruction," Levin said.

Traveling in Africa, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday that the report shows that Saddam was "doing his best" to get around the United Nations' sanctions. For months, Blair has been trying to defend his justification for joining the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in the face of heavy criticism from some in his own party.

Duelfer presented his findings in a report of more than 1,000 pages, and in appearances before Senate committees.

The report avoids direct comparisons with prewar claims by the Bush administration on Iraq's weapons systems. But Duelfer largely reinforces the conclusions of his predecessor, David Kay, who said in January, "We were almost all wrong" on Saddam's weapons programs. The White House did not endorse Kay's findings then, noting that Duelfer's team was continuing to search for weapons.

Duelfer found that Saddam, hoping to end U.N. sanctions, gradually began ending prohibited weapons programs starting in 1991. But as Iraq started receiving money through the U.N. oil-for-food program in the late 1990s, and as enforcement of the sanctions weakened, Saddam was able to take steps to rebuild his military, such as acquiring parts for missile systems.

However, the erosion of sanctions stopped after the September 11, 2001, attacks, Duelfer found, preventing Saddam from pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

Duelfer's team found no written plans by Saddam's regime to pursue banned weapons if U.N. sanctions were lifted. Instead, the inspectors based their findings that Saddam hoped to reconstitute his programs on interviews with Saddam after his capture, as well as talks with other top Iraqi officials.

The inspectors found Saddam was particularly concerned about the threat posed by Iran, the country's enemy in a 1980-88 war. Saddam said he would meet Iran's threat by any means necessary, which Duelfer understood to mean weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam believed the use of chemical weapons against Iran prevented Iraq's defeat in that war. He also was prepared to use such weapons in 1991 if the U.S.-led coalition had tried to topple him in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday that Saddam "had the intent and capability" to build weapons of mass destruction, and that he was "a gathering threat that needed to be taken seriously, that it was a matter of time before he was going to begin pursuing those weapons of mass destruction."

But before the war, the Bush administration cast Saddam as an immediate threat, not a gathering threat who would begin pursuing weapons in the future.

For example, Bush said in October 2002 that "Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." Bush also said then, "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, said Wednesday that Duelfer's findings showed there is "no evidence whatsoever of the threats we were warned about." He spoke after Duelfer gave a closed-door briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, said Duelfer showed Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction had degraded since 1998. But Roberts called the report inconclusive on what happened to weapons stockpiles Saddam is believed to have once possessed.

Interviews with Saddam left Duelfer's team with the impression that Saddam was more concerned about Iran and Israel as enemies than he was about the United States. Saddam appeared to hold out hope that U.S. leaders would ultimately recognize that it was in the country's interest to deal with Iraq as an important, secular, oil-rich Middle Eastern nation, the report found.

The Iraq Survey Group will continue operations and may prepare smaller reports on issues that remain unresolved, including whether weapons had been smuggled out of Iraq and about intelligence that Saddam had mobile biological weapons labs.

[SaMu]

Nelle note politiche circola la battuta "il Listone finirà per essere scavalcato a sinistra da Rumsfield".

Questa invece è mia "quando gli americani si ritireranno dall'Iraq, gli antiamericani che ora chiedono il ritiro, cosa chiederanno? Che ci tornino?"

[prio]

Originariamente inviato da SaMu

Questa invece è mia "quando gli americani si ritireranno dall'Iraq, gli antiamericani che ora chiedono il ritiro, cosa chiederanno? Che ci tornino?"

Lo chiedi solo agli antiamericani o anche ai non antiamericani che purtuttavia ne chiedono il ritiro?

[SaMu]

Originariamente inviato da prio
Lo chiedi solo agli antiamericani o anche ai non antiamericani che purtuttavia ne chiedono il ritiro?

Do per scontato che i nonantiamericani che chiedono il ritiro, quando saranno esauditi diranno "brava america", hai fatto ciò che è giusto, quel che ti abbiam chiesto.