(English translation at end of post)
Erinnern Sie sich an Joseph Cirincione, den "Experten" von "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace", der Präsident Bush Anfang Januar 2004 wegen der Massenvernichtungswaffen im Irak kritisierte und (deswegen) herzlich von den deutschen Medien begrüßt wurde? Das war seine Aussage zu Massenvernichtungswaffen im Irak:
Das Ausmaß der irakischen nuklearen und chemischen Waffen war vor dem Krieg "größtenteils bekannt". Das irakische nukleare Programm war beendet und es gab keinen "überzeugenden Beweis für seine Neuauflage". ... Die Operation Desert Storm in 1991 und Desert Fox in 1998, in Verbindung mit UN Inspektionen und Sanktionen, hatten die irakischen Fähigkeiten zur Großproduktion dieser Waffen "praktisch zerstört".
Und dies hat der "Daily Pundit" herausgefunden:
Ein Bericht von "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace" stellte August 2002 fest, daß der Irak "fast mit Sicherheit eine große Zahl chemischer und einige biologische Waffen" hat.
Anscheinend hat die "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace" elegant vergessen, daß sie (und die UN Waffeninspektoren) genau so falsch lagen wie die Geheimdienste.
...der Carnegie Bericht, geschrieben von dem selben Joseph Cirincione, der den letzten Carnegie Bericht schrieb, in dem die westlichen Geheimdienste attackiert wurden, weil sie in der Frage der irakischen Massenvernichtungswaffen so falsch lagen.
Wie konnte es dazu kommen?
Selektiver Gedächtnisverlust? Oder selektive Ziele?
Ich vermute, es ist selektive Wahrnehmung der Wirklichkeit, ein Virus, der in den deutschen Medien sehr verbreitet ist...
English translation
Expert Got It Right ... the First Time
Remember Joseph Cirincione, the "expert" from the "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace", who criticized President Bush early January 2004 on WMD in Iraq and (therefore) got a hero's welcome in the German media? Here's what he said about WMD in Iraq:
The extent of Iraq’s nuclear and chemical weapons programs was “largely knowable” before the war. Iraq’s nuclear program had been dismantled and there “was no convincing evidence of its reconstitution.” ... Operations Desert Storm in 1991 and Desert Fox in 1998, coupled with U.N. inspections and sanctions, had “effectively destroyed” Iraq’s capabilities to produce these weapons on a mass scale.
And here's what the "Daily Pundit" found out:
An August 2002 report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said Iraq "almost certainly does have large numbers of chemical weapons and some biological weapons."
Apparently the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has conveniently forgotten that it (and the UN weapons inspectors) were just as wrong as the intelligence agencies.
... the Carnegie report, written by the very same Joseph Cirincione, who wrote the latest Carnegie report blasting the western agencies for getting the Iraqi WMD question so wrong.
How could this be?
Selective amnesia? Or selective agendas?
I suppose it's selective perception of reality, a virus very common in the German media...
"Ein Bericht von 'Carnegie Endowment for International Peace' stellte August 2002 fest, daß der Irak 'fast mit Sicherheit eine große Zahl chemischer und einige biologische Waffen' hat."
Vorsicht! Irak hatte möglicherweise, sogar relativ wahrscheinlich, nach Abzug der UNSCOM noch einige chemische und biologische Waffen übrig. Allerdings gibt es dafür keine Beweise. Nur: Diese Waffen sind, soweit ich informiert bin, nicht unbegrenzt haltbar, sie zerfallen (chemische Waffen wie z.B. VX-Nervengas) oder keimen (biologische Waffen wie z.B. Anthrax) binnen weniger Jahre und werden damit unbrauchbar. Das scheint Mr Cirincione vergessen zu haben. Allerdings: Worüber der "Daily Pundit" schweigt, ist, dass der Originalbericht eine ganz andere Tendenz hatte: Cirincione schrieb, dass Irak so gut wie sicher keine nuklearen Waffen hat und es völlig irrational wäre, wenn Saddam die (angeblichen) chemischen und biologischen Waffen gegen die USA einsetzen und seine Vernichtung riskieren würde. Man kann seine Zusammenfassung auf der Website des Carnegie-Instituts nachlesen: http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/Iraq%27s%20WMD%20Arsenal1.asp?from=pubdate
Also: Fehlberichterstattung zum Irak ist keine ausschließlich deutsche Krankheit.
Posted by: SRK | January 31, 2004 at 11:32 AM
A very good article regarding the intelligence reports and the conclusions to be drawn from them can be read on the Daily Telgraph's website.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2004%2F02%2F01%2Fdo0102.xml&sSheet=%2Fopinion%2F2004%2F02%2F01%2Fixopinion.html
The article states that from the "small print" of the Kay report you do see that Saddam was a imminent threat as he still tried to work on WMD and how distorted the media reports about this report are.
Thus the coalition might have gone too early to war as the WMD programmes were not working. But what would it have meant waiting until they are working? A multiple of casualties of coalition soldiers and Iraqi people than we have now.
So Bush, Blair and the coalition did the right thing because their action saved many lives.
Posted by: tomminger | February 01, 2004 at 01:54 PM
Well, what your article has to say should be taken seriously by any opponent of the Iraq war (like me). But I am still very sceptical, mainly for these reasons:
1. You're wrong in saying "...you do see that Saddam was a imminent threat...". Neither the journalist who wrote your article nor David Kay make a case for the inference that there was a proof for the "imminent threat". When he was asked by a senator wether the ISG-research showed that Saddam was an imminent threat, David Kay answered: "Perhaps."
2. I am very sceptical about unilateral inspections, especially if they're led by a person like David Kay who, according to articles I have read about him, was fired by UNSCOM for "unethical behaviour" in 1993: He forged evidence on Iraq's WMD programms. (Of course it's possible that these articles aren't telling the full story, so please correct me if I am wrong.) The same Joseph Cirincione who is criticized by the "Daily Pundit", but, as I pointed out in my first comment here, wasn't as contradictory as one may believe, said in a CNN-interview:
CIRINCIONE: ...I saw him [Kay] just last week at the Frankfurt Airport as we were both waiting for planes. He had said he had written the report. Apparently that report is now being rewritten in Washington, trying to spin it up into something...
HEMMER: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. What's the suggestion there, if they're rewriting that report?
CIRINCIONE: I'm suggesting that David Kay's initial report to the White House fell flat, that he didn't have enough in the report that they felt they could go forward with. That's why the report has been delayed. People had expected it last week, two weeks ago. And I believe it's now being rewritten to try and spice it up a bit, to come up with some explanation
HEMMER: You're getting into this area about spice up and sex up. It sounds a little bit like the British report. Dire warning from you?
CIRINCIONE: I suspect that this report is going to try to make more of what they found than, in fact, they found and they're trying to find a phrase, a paradigm to explain it. We've fallen back from expectations of finding weapons to now weapons programs to now plans for programs. So now David Kay says the desire for plans for programs.
(http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/26/ltm.03.html)
3. There are too much words like "possibly" in David Kay's testimonies. Laboratories that could POSSIBLY be used to do research on biological or chemical weapons, for example.
So, even after reading this article, I am not really convinced that the war was justified although the article makes me doubt my own opinion on Iraq.
Posted by: SRK | February 03, 2004 at 02:52 PM
Aus Welt Newsticker: Blöder geht's nimmer:
Powell äußert Zweifel an Kriegs-Entscheidung
Großansicht
Washington/London (dpa) - Ein Jahr nach seinem leidenschaftlichen Plädoyer für ein Eingreifen im Irak vor dem Weltsicherheitsrat hat US-Außenminister Colin Powell Zweifel an der Entscheidung für den Krieg geäußert. Unterdessen kündigte einen Tag nach US-Präsident George W. Bush auch der britische Premierminister Tony Blair eine Untersuchung zu möglichen Geheimdienstpannen vor dem Irak-Krieg an.
Auf die Frage, ob er sich für den Krieg ausgesprochen hätte, wenn damals bekannt gewesen wäre, dass der Irak keine Massenvernichtungswaffen hatte, antwortete Powell in einem am Dienstag veröffentlichten Interview der «Washington Post»: «Ich weiß es nicht.»
Das ist also eine Nachricht im Newsticker wert! Was wäre wenn? Ich weiß es nicht.
Posted by: Gabi | February 04, 2004 at 07:46 AM