LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Original article contained 'gross distoritons'
I am indebted to Ms Orysiek for her castigation (see below) of my comments (see further below) as "a gut reaction - not a thoughtful factual rebuttal."
They certainly were and are a gut reaction! What else could they be?
There is no way that anyone can dream up much less actually manufacture "a thoughtful factual rebuttal" to the unsupported and gross distortions of reality that Ms Orysiek has mis-represented to your readers as 'fact.'
I started my original comments with a reference to her original statement:
"After Sept. 11, 2001, the American president going on the best intelligence estimates at the time including those of other nations: Britain, France, Israel, Russia, etc., invaded Iraq because he couldn't take the chance that Iraq harbored weapons of mass destruction."
Since Ms Orysiek did not provide any evidence - besides her own allegations, imagination or erroneous recall, to support her so called "facts" concerning intelligence estimates from Britain, France. Israel Russia etc. there was nothing to rebut.
My memory of events in 2003 are obviously at variance with hers.
I seem to recall that the French and the Germans actually told the US government very publicly and volubly both in the press and in the UN that their intelligence services had NOT found any evidence of WMDs.
I am happy to spend hours of my time digging up all the references from the archives in newspapers and news broadcasts from that time and bring them to the attention of your readers, should there be a need.
However, those of your readers who were alive at the time and no doubt glued to their TV sets or with their noses buried in the papers of the time, will not need my efforts - they will recall these realities for themselves.
I have no idea what the Israelis told the Americans, nor what they did not tell them. They at least seem to be able to keep some secrets safe. All I know is that when the Israelis are concerned about even the possibility of WMDs they don't muck around - they send their bombers over and bomb potential targets into oblivion without going through any rigmarole. Indeed if memory serves they did that to Iraq and some nuclear installations some years before all this started!
However, if Ms Osyriek has some information which she wishes to share with us about their contribution in the form of intelligence estimates, I for one would be delighted to see them. If they support her allegations, then I will be the first to apologise!
Let's not forget that the Israelis did manage to score a coup from the eventual invasion of Iraq - they were the first group of people outside the USA ever, to get restricted defensive missile technology from the US after the first missiles from Iraq struck Israel with (oh what a surprise) conventional explosives and not nuclear warheads or warheads filled with the fruits of any Iraqi poison gas or germ warfare laboratories.
Interesting that isn't it? When they had nothing to lose the Iraqis used what amounted to old WW2 technology to launch conventional warheads at their most hated enemy.
The Russians? They have been notably absent from anything to do with the Iraqi invasion besides expressing opposition to it from the outset!
As for the British - it was only around 2006 that the truth started to emerge about the collusion between the British and American governments planning to go to war with NO evidence about WMDs.
For example:
Richard Norton-Taylor Friday February 3, 2006 Guardian Unlimited reported on:-
"A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme."
The disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Professor Sands last year exposed the doubts shared by Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced the prime minister to publish the full legal advice given to him by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.
The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:
· Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".
· Mr Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about Saddam's WMD". He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a "small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated"."
Readers of this article need only to go to the following link to explore the story in full with all the quotes and all the sources displayed for their reading pleasure http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1700881,00.html
This quote is merely the tip of an iceberg of evidence that has so upset so many people in so many countries.
Ms Orysiek - Please present some evidence that supports your assertions, then I will be happy to produce the 'thoughtful factual rebuttal" you seem to crave.
Peter Garas
Canberra, Australia
* *
Letter 'quotes no facts...relies on emotion'
Editor, San Diego Jewish World
Interesting response to my article (by Peter Garas, printed below) - he quotes no facts and totally relies on emotion - impugning my mental process and assuming my "unquestioning support for the Republican Party" - nothing could be further from the truth - I am heartily disappointed by the Republican party. I don't consider myself a Republican - I am, however, a conservative.
Based on Israel's history I don't think they allowed anyone to feed them intelligence without verifying it. The French, Russians, or Germans, either. He quotes no sources for this.
Calling my comments "bulldust" - is name calling not a factual response. Using platitudes of "fool me once....etc." is not a factual response.
Saying that I need to "remove cobwebs from my eyes" etc. - is not ta factual response, but rather a denigration of someone with whom he doesn't agree. Denigration is not a factual response.
Claiming someone (Bush) isn't intelligent because he doesn't pronounce "nuclear" as others think he should - is not a parameter for judging intelligence.
When one has little facts to share - one resorts to name calling and platitudes.
The intelligence on Iraq existed before Bush became president - Clinton responded to it with a call - seconded by Congress - for regime change in Iraq. Bush wasn't yet on the scene.
This reader's response is a gut reaction - not a thoughtful factual rebuttal. A fine example of the irrationality of which I spoke.
I would, however, be interested in a well thought out rational rebuttal.
Sheila Orysiek
San Diego
* *
Opponents of President Bush quite rational
Editor, San Diego Jewish World
I simply have to respond to Ms Orysiek's article entitled: "If U.S. intelligence was so wrong about Iraq, why does Left believe it about Iran?"
Orysiek writes: "After Sept. 11, 2001, the American president going on the best intelligence estimates at the time including those of other nations: Britain, France, Israel, Russia, etc., invaded Iraq because he couldn't take the chance that Iraq harbored weapons of mass destruction."
Forgive me for being absolutely blunt, but this is what we in Australia would call "bulldust"
Actually, it was the USA that fed this malarkey to the other nations. Indeed the other nations had intelligence which suggested that what the USA reported it had found was wrong. It was the US President who convinced them to take his word for the truth of the assertions.
What's worse, the US intelligence was most likely misled by "an Iraqi who successfully pursued a scam on American operatives." (according to Professor Ira Sharkansky see SDJW December 6, 2007)
A lot of people from a lot of countries have died as a result of this "OOPS"! A lot of anger has been left behind and a lot of clearing up is required as a result.
You write "This is what happens when a president is undermined by irrational politically driven hatred."
Irrational? You have to be kidding!
No offence meant, but you have had the wool pulled over your eyes several times by this President and his associates.
Is there any time soon you would like to recall a popular saying from my childhood which went something like: "Fool me once - shame on you! Fool me twice - shame on me!"
Stop dancing around the issues - this President who cannot even pronounce the word "nuclear" regardless of his MBA from Harvard has spent the last few years making the world a much more scary place to live.
Regardless of your apparently staunch and unquestioning support for the Republican Party and its leadership - it may be time for you to clear the cobwebs like a web of deceit from your eyes, and think again.
Then, when it comes time to vote, throw off the yoke of this Presidency in much the same way that Australian voters have dispensed with John Howard, the former PM of Australia and his coalition of cronies. He was of course Mr Bush's "great friend" down under.
Australian voters finally realised that they had been lied to, scammed and misled on numerous occasions and threw out this leader.
Australia will be a better place as a result.
Let's hope that American voters will have the good sense to realise that they too have been lied to, scammed and misled by the people in power often enough to question their right to continue to lead a nation that still flies "old glory" and has some residual claim to being the "land of the free and home of the brave."
Peter Garas
Canberra, Australia