Background Check Authorization Form: Fill & Download for Free

My interview was originally on 31st March, 2020. But then happened Corona! It got postponed to 30 July (the last date for interviews). After a long wait, my time had finally come.I woke up at 6 in the morning after a good sleep of around 7 hours. I hurriedly freshened up, brushed, ate some toast. I checked my suit, tie to do a final check on whether they were spotless and ensured that i looked smartly dressed. I was staying at the West Bengal Guest house and the vehicle to drop me off at the UPSC building was scheduled to arrive at 8. I re-checked all the documents, took passport size photos, called my parents and close relatives to get their blessings before the interview.Finally, i got in the car and reached at 8–15 am sharp. After interaction with fellow aspirant and discussing the major points of New Education Policy (it had come out last evening itself), we got entry into the UPSC building We were given masks, face shields, gloves, sanitizers and we wore them as our documents were verified and we waited for our turn for the interview.I was the 3rd person to go. The official came at sharp 11 and said “Ashish Kumar?”. I said “Yes sir, it is me” and he began escorting me to the place where interviews were conducted. On route i asked him, “whose board is it?” out of curiosity. He said “Air Marshal Bhonsle sir’s board”.i was made to wait just outside the interview room. I thought i would have to wait for 5–10 mins but the wait extended to almost 30 mins and i was finally called in at 11–30. The bell rang. My time had come.I entered and said “Good Morning sirs” and then greeted “good morning Mam” to the lady member. They were seated in a U shaped pattern. Bhonsle sir then told me to have a seat and told me to remove the face shield. However i still had to wear the mask and gloves. Moreover the board was also wearing masks and sometime it would become difficult to find out exactly what they were thinkingBhonsle sir starts“Mr Ashish, you have a great academic profile. You’re also an economics graduate. Great to see that, we have mostly people from technical fields trying for the civil services.”I just smiled within the mask. Btw Bhonsle sir does this quite a lot as i read from transcripts to make candidates comfortableYou are a footballer? Which position do you play in?Sir, i play as a central midfielder. Sir was like yes yes that is a very crucial position.you have a great physique, you must have a really intimidating presence on the field - i (greatly amused) said Yes sir.Ok Mr ashish, i wanted to ask this quote to the previous candidate but i couldn't. So i want your opinion on this “Hard work and Talent have their limits”I said “Yes sir, i do partially agree. Other things like resources, opportunities, teamwork, etc also matter”All that is fine Mr Ashish, but i wanted to take you to the nature v/s nurture debate. Do you think a person’s background, friends, teachers, etc are more important to their success. if a person has all of this, do you think hard work and talent are required much?I said that sir i partially agree. While background, etc does matter, hardwork, perseverance to realize one’s talents are a bare minimum for successright, right. So Ashish tell me what are your qualitiesI said sir im a very calm person, im optimistic, a quick learner and a person of high integrity.How did you develop these qualities over time?Gave examples from school, stay in Delhi, etcAlso Mr Ashish there is a talk of U shaped recovery of our economy, V shaped and the other alphabets. Which alphabet is your favourite and what kind of recovery and within what time frame can we see our economy recover?Sir, it would be difficult to exactly predict given the uncertainty surrounding the Corona virus (he prodded me to tell any guesstimate). I said sir if we have a vaccine within 1 year, it will bring certainty into the economy and we may start seeing a V shaped recovery after 1 year (in retrospect, i could’ve answered this much better by pointing to the already present green shoots in economy, etc - but UPSC is UPSC and this point didnt come to my mind then)Bhonsle sir points to Member 1 (M1)M1 - so Mr Ashish your father is a tea garden manager. Give me a brief overview of the tea industry and answer from the perspective of an economist, since you are one.Sir the tea industry is an imp indsutry for employment, tourism, revenue generation, forex, etc with a size of 28k crore, blah blah. However it is suffering from certain challenges like low productivity, stagnant demand and poor price realization (again could’ve been a better answer)Ok Ok, so tell me how is tea manufactured - answeredWhat is green tea - answeredWhat is white tea and which tea would you recommend to usexplained. Then i said sir i would recommend green tea given its health benefits and also that it contains strong anti-oxidants which is good if one is living in the polluted environment of Delhi (Everyone laughed here)Since you come from a hill area (darjeeling), tell me the problems one may face in hilly areasi said connectivity, water, unregulated development, congestionand what are the advantages an administrator will get in managing a hilly district like Kalimpong or Darjeeling for instanceFor some reason, i couldnt think of many points here. I said sir from my experience, people in hilly regions are very welcoming and helpfulI couldnt think of anything more here so i just said in a half-joking tone that “sir, the climate in the hills is also very good” (again most points were striking me after the interview). Everyone laughed when I said this. At that time, i thought that i have made a major mistake, but in retrospect, maybe it wasnt that big of a mistakeMember 2Again gave a long speech on how economics is the most important subject. After this long speech, sir asked “What is the trickle down theory”I said sir it is a growth based theory whereby high growth rates trickle down to even the lower rungs of the economyDo you think it has worked in India?i said that sir it has only partially worked, as we’ve never had a sustained period of high growth, esp till 1991.what about after 1991?I said sir it has partially worked but the state has had to intervene to provide social security and other benefits to the most vulnerable sections of our populationSo youre saying, a certain threshold level of growth is needed for the trickle down to work ( i said Yes sir)So if the trickle down effect hasnt worked, then why are we still focusing on it. Why not focus on the social sector and support for the vulnerable sections?I said Yes sir, we need to focus on both. High growth rates are also imp as only then will we have resources to spend on social sector, infra, etcIt also seems, you’ve taken History as an optional. What is history?Sir it is the study of humans and human civilization. It studies various dimensions of it like eco,pol, etcRousseau had said that “man is born free but everywhere he is in chains”. In light of this, dont you think civil society and state are binding man and curbing his freedom. Do we need state and civil society?I said yes sir, we do need the state. Although we do give up certain rights, however we gain much more esp in terms of protection of our life, liberty & property. M2 wanted more - so i continued. Sir, if there is no state, rights are meaningless as an individual himself cannot protect this own rights. An overarching authority like the state (e.g. police, admin, etc) is needed to protect our rights. Also , the state can ensure that benefits reach the most vulnerable sections while if there is no such authority, this may not happen and it may be every man/women for himself/herselfMember 3Give me a 1 minute speech on why civil services is the worst jobI said sir it is very challenging, one may have to sacrifice a lot, work pressure is there, family life may be affected, etc. However for a person like me, who is looking for a challenge, willing to sacrifice for the nation and willing to solve the challenges that may exist in the civil services, it is the best service (sir seemed very happy here :D)So, the RBI governor said that Rural economy and Rural infra can be game changers. What do you think?Yes sir, i do agree. This is because ppl in rural areas have higher propensity to consume, so the effect on demand will be much greater. also investments will also help agri, food processing, connectivity, etcRight Right, so tell me problems with our Infra sector. problems with PPP? why it hasnt worked? and asked me few related questions which i cant recall - answeredYou’re also interested in football it seems from your DAF. So tell me why is football so popular in West BengalSir it is due to historical reasons. When the British introduced Football here, they excluded the ppl of Bengal from their football teams saying they werent “sporty” enough. This hurt the ppl and also gave a sense of motivation to show that we were equal and even better than the Britishwhy popular in NEClose to British capital , cultural reasons (e.g. some cultures there have a game which is played with a fruit and is similar to football)Knew more points, but sir cut me short herewhy not popular in rest of Indialack of institutionalization at local level, improper domestic league structures, not an attractive career, governance issues (funding, lack of promotion)Member 4 (Lady member)So Mr Ashish, why switch from Economics (graduation) to HistoryTell me what is helicopter money? - answeredwhy do you think widows in West Bengal are in such bad condition? we hear of many widows from WB in mathura, etcMam it may be due to a few reasons - practice of kulin polygamy, violence against women (WB is 1st in human trafficking, 3rd in domestic violence as per NCRB data), lack of financial empowermentwhat do you mean by women empowerment - answeredas a DM how will you improve women’s education? and Mam said im specifically talking about women who are 30, 40, 50+I said mam we canMobilize existing teacher pool if they can teach in extra timeMobilize local volunteers like college students, etc to teachuse tele-educationthe young kids themselves can be exhorted to teach their mothers, grandmothers, etc2–3 more questions which i cant recalldo you see any similarities b/w rise of Hitler and rise of China?Mam, i see more differences than similarities, Similarities are that both are authoritarian regimes, blah blah and differences are that China is part of global governance institutions and its economy is so interconnected in the world that it cannot be openly aggressiveBack to Bhonsle siryou talked about China’s economy being interconnected into the globe. Do you think we made a mistake by leaving the RCEPSir, in my opinion, globalization should be on mutually beneficial term and since RCEP wasn't benefiting India, we decided not to join it in the form it is today. There are some specific reasons like :It may lead to reduction in tariff barriers which may lead to flood of goods from China, SEA, etc ( Sir cut me off here)I think tariffs are a medieval concept. Then followed a long speech by sir.. Why do you think we are focusing on labor intensive goods when we should focus on producing quality goods?i gave China’s example to explain as to how China began producing lower quality labor intensive goods, assembling products in order to integrate into the global supply chains. and after doing so, it began graduating up the supply chain and producing more quality goods.But Mr Ashish, why should we follow the China way. wont we be 30 years behind?I said sir, it is necessary b/c it will ensure that our huge population gets employment, better standards of living while at the same time we integrate into global supply chains and also focus on producing quality goods simultaneously1–2 more questions on this discussion which i cant recallLast question - so Mr Ashish, what are your plans for today?I said sir, ill first talk to my parents regarding how the interview went and then maybe watch a movie or tv series.Bhonsle sir - also visit the UPSC Museum nearbyi nodded. Apparently the museum was closed that Day (haha!)I wished everyone and as i was leaving, i had forgotten my face shield. Bhonsle sir called me and smilingly said that please take your souvenir from UPSC (:D)Approx Length of interview - 40 minutesInterview was more like a conversation than a Q&A session. Answers could’ve been much better, but hey it is what it is. I felt satisfied and relieved that the long process that had started in June 2019 was finally over. I wasn't expecting a very good score, but i had done decent. There may be a slight variation in the content and length of the answers compared to the actual interview - but this is what i remember currentlyThankfully i got AIR 53 and as they say “All’s well that ends well”

The torture, abuse and murder of 7-year-old Victoria Climbié.Warning: Contains descriptions of child abuse and images some may find upsetting and/or disturbing.  What makes my blood boil is when the people who are supposed to protect our children don’t do their jobs. When society fails children like this girl.(This case is rather long, so if you’d rather skip to find out what happened to the girl, it’s the section in bold towards the bottom.)The little innocent soul of Victoria Climbie was born November 2nd 1991, in a small village on the Ivory Coast - Africa. Her parents wanted what was best for the child, as their country was being torn from civil wars, endemic poverty, many women were also illiterate. Deciding that this wasn’t the life they wanted for their child, before Victoria’s seventh birthday, her 42-year-old great aunt, Marie-Therese Kouao offers to take their daughter back with her to France.Of course, the parents of Victoria jumped on the offer, and felt that they had no reason to be concerned. After all, Victoria was going with her great aunt—a family member, someone you trust and love. However, Marie Therese only wanted Victoria so she could access state benefits.(Marie Therese and Victoria)Little did the parents know, their little girl would be dead within 18 months.Originally, Marie Therese had another target in mind. She was going to take a girl named Anna but, Anna’s parents refused the offer. Instead of getting a new passport, Victoria was made to wear extensions to resemble the girl in the photo—Anna. When Victoria came to France, she was made to use the name Anna.It worked, and they were in France (Paris) and this is where things went downhill…Victoria (registered as “Anna”) was supposed to attend school, but she rarely attended. The teachers became so concerned over her lack of attendance they got the authorities involved in March of 1999, who threatened to take action if nothing was done. Victoria would fall asleep in class, and the teachers noticed she was wearing a wig with her head shaven. The excuse given for this was a skin condition that irritated her scalp. After only 5 months, in April of 1999 - Marie Therese brought Victoria to West London, England. At this point, Victoria couldn’t speak English. Only French and her village’s language. (She was able to speak French as it was spoken in her original country.) When Marie Therese had left, she’d owed the French government over £2,000 after being wrongly paid in child benefit.On 25 April 1999, Therese and Victoria Climbié visited Esther Ackah, (a distant relative of Therese by marriage, and a midwife, counsellor and preacher). Ackah and her daughter noted that Victoria Climbié was wearing a wig and looked small and frail. On 26 April 1999, Therese and Victoria Climbié visited the Homeless Persons' Unit, where they were seen by Julie Winter, a homeless persons' officer.(Parents of Victoria Climbie)Together, Therese and Winter completed a housing application form. Therese again, as routine, explained that Victoria Climbié was wearing a wig because she had short hair, an explanation accepted quickly by Winter. Although Winter was shown Victoria passport (with a photograph of Anna). Winter confirmed her decision with believing they weren’t eligible for housing, and told Therese. She rang the referral across to Pamela Fortune, a social worker in Ealing's Acton referral and assessment team. She did not produce documentation of the referral—something which would have helped in double-checking the accounts that Therese gave.Between 26 April and early July 1999, Therese visited Ealing’s social services 18 times for housing and financial purposes. Victoria was with her on at least ten occasions. The staff there noted Victoria's unkempt appearance, with one staff member, Deborah Gaunt, thinking that she looked like a child from an “action aid” (charity) advertisement. Yet, no action was taken. They assumed that Victoria’s appearance was intentional to "persuade the authorities to hand out money". On 8 June 1999, Therese got a job at Northwich Park hospital. During her first month, no effort was made by Therese or Ealing social services to enroll Victoria in school.(Victoria’s social worker)On 8 June 1999, Therese took Victoria to a local GP surgery. The doctor never carried out a physical examination as she was not reported to have any current health problems. By the middle of June 1999, Victoria Climbié was spending the majority of her days at the Brent home of Priscilla Cameron, (an unregistered childminder, who Therese met at her job at the hospital.) On several occasions, Cameron observed small cuts to Climbié's fingers. When questioned by Cameron, Therese said that they were caused by razor blades that Climbié played with. Therese and Climbié met Ackah on the street on or around 14 June 1999. Ackah noted a scar on Climbié's cheek, which Therese said was caused by an apparent fall on an escalator. On 17 June 1999, in response to what she had seen three days earlier, Ackah decided to visit Therese and Climbié's home, and thought that the accommodation was unsuitable.On 18 June 1999, Ackah anonymously rang social services expressing concern over Climbié's situation. Samantha Hunt, the customer-service officer who received the call, faxed the referral to the children's social work department on that same day. Nobody picked up the referral on that Friday afternoon. A few days later, possibly on 21 June 1999, Ackah phoned Brent social services again to make sure her concerns were being addressed. Ackah said that she was told by the person on the other end of the telephone that "they (social services) had done something about it". Yet, nothing happened - again. The referral was not seen until THREE WEEKS later on 6 July 1999, when RobertOn 14 June 1999, Therese and Victoria, whilst on a bus met a man named Carl Manning, only 2 weeks later did they move in together.On 7 July 1999, social services sent a letter to where Therese and Climbié were staying, informing them of a home visit. On 14 July 1999, two social workers (Lori Hobbs and Monica Bridgeman), visited the address but found no answer: Therese and Climbié had already moved out on 6 July 1999.Hobbs and Bridgeman made no further inquiries at the property; inquiries that might have led to a trail on Climbié's whereabouts! Prior to the visit, they had not done any background checks and had only the "haziest idea" of what they were investigating. The Laming report suggests that no reports or follow-up notes were made and that the only information additional to the referral were the notes "Not at this address. Have moved."In 13 July 1999, Therese took Climbié to Cameron's house, asking her to take Climbié permanently because Manning did not want her. Cameron agreed to take her, only for the night. Cameron, her son Patrick, and her daughter Avril, noticed that Climbié had quite a few injuries; including a burn on her face and a loose piece of skin hanging from her right eyelid, which Therese said was supposedly “self-inflicted.” Carl Manning's (Therese’s new boyfriend’s) account of inquiry differed and he said that he hit Climbié because of her incontinence, beginning with slaps, but progressing to using his fist by the end of July.(Carl Manning)The doctors alerted Brent police and social services, she was then placed under police protection, with a 72-hour protection order preventing her from leaving hospital. Therese told the doctors that Victoria had scabies, and that the injuries were self-inflicted. Many doctors and nurses suspected that the injuries were non-accidental. However, Ruby Schwartz, the consultant paediatrician and named child protection doctor at the hospital, diagnosed her with scabies and decided that it was scratching that caused the injuries (which bearing in mind, were supposedly looking non-accidental). She made the diagnosis without even speaking to Climbié alone. Another doctor, one of Schwartz's juniors, wrote to social services saying there was no child protection issues. Preventing Victoria from help, even FURTHER.After two weeks in North Middlesex hospital, Victoria returned to her aunt's flat (August 6th 1999). On the previous day, in a meeting at Haringey's social services department, Therese had told them and the police (P.C Jones) that Victoria had poured boiling hot water over her head because it was itchy and that the girl injured herself with a fork and spoon.The next day, Therese made a sexual assault allegation against her new boyfriend, Karl Manning. She claimed that he had sexually assaulted Victoria, and then quickly withdrew the statement.After months of torture, Victoria died of hypothermia at her aunt's flat. She had 128 injuries all over her body.Over the 18-month period, the 7-year-old girl had been tied up for periods of over 24 hours, starved, hit with hammers, bike chains, boiling water poured over her, burnt with cigars. She only weighed 3 stone and 10 pounds (23kg). Manning forced her to sleep in the bathtub with only a black trash bag to keep her warm. She was often tied up in the trash bag and forced to urinate and drop her faeces in it and left there in her own excrement. They also forced her to eat from a bowl on her hands and knees tied up—like a dog. Except, dogs aren’t tied up and in bin bag’s full of their own excrement. Victoria was beaten so bad that only after a few months of being in the country, she couldn’t control her bladder or bowels.(Bath tub she was made to sleep in)All this happening whilst the social services only had “the haziest idea” of Victoria and why they were even involved. Virtually happening for everyone to see. It was said that there were up to 12 occasions where social services could have stepped in.They didn’t even bother looking into the allegations of sexual assault of the 7-year-old.The pathologist described it as “the worst abuse case, he’d ever seen”On November 20th - 2000, the trial of Marie Thérèse Kouao and her boyfriend Carl Manning for Victoria's murder opened at the Old Bailey, London.(Photo of Victoria’s hand—just to give you an idea of the condition her body was in)The court heard how the girl was beaten and tied up for 24 hours or more. The child protection team's investigation of Victoria's case, which allowed her to be returned to Therese and Manning, was criticised as "blindingly incompetent". The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children called for a complete overhaul of child protection procedures.On January 12th, 2001, Marie Thérèse Kouao and her boyfriend Carl Manning were jailed for life for Victoria's murder. Judge Richard Hawkins said: "What Anna endured was truly unimaginable." The health secretary, Alan Milburn, ordered a statutory inquiry into her death headed by former chief inspector of social services, Lord Laming. The government also placed Haringey social services department under special measures requiring close supervision by the social services inspectorate.The government announced that the inquiry into Victoria's death will be public, on April 22nd, 2000. John Hutton (then the health minister responsible for children's services) said it would be the first "tripartite" investigation using powers under the Children's Act, the NHS Act and Police Act. In effect there would be three simultaneous inquiries, producing a single report in spring 2002 to the health secretary and the home secretary.Lord Laming appealed for witnesses to give evidence at the inquiry. Speaking to the Guardian, he disclosed that ministers believed her death may have been the result of "a gross failure of the system" rather than the failings of individual staff in May 7th of 2001.May the 31st, of 2001, official inquiry into how Victoria died opened. Lord Laming revealed that her killers, Marie Thérèse Kouao and Carl Manning, were likely to be called to give evidence on the role of social services in the period leading up to her death.The high court ordered that internal disciplinary proceedings against the two Haringey social workers suspended from duty following Victoria's murder be postponed for at least two months in July of 2001. However, the court rejected attempts by Lisa Arthurworrey and Angella Mairs to delay the disciplinary proceedings, in which both were accused of gross misconduct, until after the Climbié inquiry had reported in a year's time.The head of the commission for racial equality, Gurbux Singh, was ordered to give evidence at the inquiry. Mr Singh was chief executive of Haringey council at the time when its social services failed to act and stop the horrific abuse of Victoria. By now 232 witnesses had been called, 144 were to take the stand, on September 21st 2001.Victoria's parents (Bethe Amoissi and her husband, Francis Climbié) travelled from the Ivory Coast to Britain, on September 23rd, 2001. They would be the first witnesses to give evidence at the inquiry on the following Friday.The murderers have been sentenced to life in prison and Victoria has finally been laid to rest.If you know or feel that someone is being abused. Please contact social services or abuse helplines for your country.It’s better to get it wrong, and look like a fool. Than to ignore it and be partially responsible for a child’s death and suffering.This poor soul is just one of many children who suffered the same fate.This is the hardest case I’ve researched. There was so much information and facts, it was like information overload. So, if I’ve mixed anything up or gotten anything wrong, please tell me, but don’t bite my head off. :)Took me 3 weeks to research this…If anyone has any grammar edits, please suggest them.If there’s too much info. Here is the case broken down for you.Timeline for the Climbié case | Children | The GuardianBBC NEWS | UK | Timeline: Victoria ClimbieBBC NEWS | UK | Victoria Climbie: Chain of neglect

I have written about this extensively on Quora and elsewhere so this answer should be read in the context of and along with my other answers.In the first place, I think the question, understandably but incorrectly, focuses on the wrong figure. The key figure in the dissemination of propaganda and misleading information leading up to the invasion of Iraq was not Bush. It was Dick Cheney.At a congressional hearing examining the march to war in Iraq, Republican congressman Walter Jones posed a question about the administration's manipulation of intelligence: "How could the professionals see what was happening and nobody speak out?"Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, responded with a simple answer: "The vice president."Of course he had plenty of help. There were the intelligence operatives who sat silent as the administration cherry-picked its case for war. There were people like Colin Powell and Hans Blix, who allowed themselves into being intimidated into silence and did not air their considerable doubts and misgivings. There was a compliant and weak press corps, most notably but by no means exclusively the New York Times' Judith Miller. There was the right wing press gang lead by Fox News which vilified anybody who disagreed with the war and intimidated others into silence. And then of course there is us, the American people, who, in our fear and rage over the catastrophic events of September 11, 2001, allowed ourselves to be suckered into the most audacious bait and switch of all time.In this framework of deception and lies, Bush was actually one of the least important figures despite the fact that he was President of the United States!!! His lack of curiosity about the world and his inability or unwillingness to second guess or scrutinize the behavior and actions of his Vice President and his neoconservative gang of allies is what ultimately blundered us into a disastrous war, the effects of which we have not yet even fully felt let alone recovered from.Now to your question. While at various times, the specific arguments used to advocate for war in Iraq may have varied, the overall themes of the administration's talking points, I think, largely remained the same. They are as follows.1. Saddam Hussein was a dangerous immoral dictator who needed to be removed to bring stability and peace to the Middle East.2. There was substantial evidence that Saddam Hussein had WMD's, particularly mobile chemical weapons plants and quite possibly nuclear weapons. The so called evidence of chemical WMD's was derived from the statements of an Iraqi defector known as "Curveball" , a puppet of Ahmed Chalabi and a convicted sex offender and low-level engineer. What we were never told and never told and never found out until it was far too late was that Curveball was a notorious liar and a drunk whose testimony was discredited and mocked by senior members of our intelligence community as well as the intelligence agencies of several of our allies. And with good reason. We now know that Curveball simply made everything up in order to curry favor with the Americans and his patron Chalabi who had visions of talking over a "democratic" Iraq. Sadly though, US agents never actually debriefed Curveball or performed a thorough background check before passing on his information to senior policymakers.3. The Iraq war, the administration argued, was all about protecting our security and the security of our allies in the Middle East and had nothing to do with oil despite the fact that Dick Cheney was holding secret meetings with oil company executives prior to the invasion. These meetings were not known to the public until later and the contents of what was discussed has never been made public. I am sure that Iraq was never discussed. After all that would be wrong and we all know that Dick Cheney never did anything that wasn't in the best interests of the United States right??4. The CIA had claimed that centrifuge tubes, intercepted while on their way to Iraq, could only be used for nuclear weapons production, a clear sign that Saddam was developing or had developed an active nuclear weapons program. This revelation, first reported on in September of 2002, was a major factor in rallying the public and the Washington elite to support the war. Judith Miller devoted breathless coverage to this "discovery" on the front page of the New York Times. What we did not know is that it was complete nonsense. In fact, there was no evidence that the intercepted tubes were in fact designed or could be used for nuclear enrichment and that many members of the CIA and intelligence who had studied the tubes had concluded they were worthless. Additionally, a memo to CIA from Energy Department experts eviscerated the CIA's initial theory (which seems to have been the work-product of a single low level agent). that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were for nuclear centrifuges. Nevertheless Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice all continued to insist that the tubes were a smoking gun and failed to revel any of the contrary analysis or evidence to the public. Neither did the press despite the fact that Miller at least was aware of the contrary evidence as a result of her conversations with administration officials. When asked later why she did not push the administration harder for proof on their claims regarding the tubes, Miller replied, "[M]y job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of the New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal.5. In the immediate hours following 9/11, Bush told Richard Clarke, his top counterterrorism czar, that 'I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this.'" Told that the evidence for Al Qaeda being the culprit was overwhelming, Bush asks for "any shred" Saddam was involved. Meanwhile Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz argued to Bush and other administration officials that Iraq should be invaded shortly after if not before Afghanistan despite the fact that there was no evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Rumsfeld justified this by saying that the US needed to "kick some ass" to show the Islamic world that we were back in charge and that "there were no good targets in Afghanistan". The public knew nothing of these conversations until after the invasion.6. Neoconservative groups write a letter to Bush on September 20, 2001 arguing that “Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power."7. In November of 2001, the New York Times and Frontline report that an Iraqi general witnessed the Iraqi military training Arab fighters to hijack airplanes. Mother Jones later reports the general to be bogus Chalabi plant.8. Bush declares Saddam to be evil and reminds everyone that he "tried to kill my dad," George H.W. Bush, US President and former CIA Director.9. In December of 2001, Dick Cheney appears on Meet the Press and states that: "The evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists." Also claims 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi spy in Prague, a claim he'll repeat long after CIA and Czechs disavow. He also fails to mention the fact that most analysts concluded that Saddam's regime was far too secular and hostile to Islamic political movements to ever be an effective ally of Al-Qaeda and that he would be very unlikely to join forces with such a group against the United States since he could not control them and could not control or predict the outcome of such an alliance. These counter-arguments are reported on but are ignored and/or dismissed by the media elite, and the general public.10. In March of 2002, Cheney tells CNN that "Saddam is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time."11. On August 26, 2002, Cheney says "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends…and against us."12. Cheney also tells Rush Limbaugh that : "What's happening, of course, is we're getting additional information that, in fact, Hussein is reconstituting his biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs." In fact this is a lie. There is no such new intel. And in fact more information has been given to the White House which indicates that exact opposite.13. In October of 2002, a National Intelligence Estimate is produced for the first time after Senate Democrats demand one. It states that Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear program" and "has now established large-scale, redundant and concealed BW agent production capabilities"—an assessment based largely on Curveball's statements. But NIE also notes that the State Department has assigned "low confidence" to the notion of "whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with Al Qaeda." The report also cites State Department experts who concluded that "the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapons program." Also says "claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa" are "highly dubious." It is later revealed that only six senators bothered to read all 92 pages of this report.14. That same month, Bush gives a speech in which he says , "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." . Later that month, Congress votes overwhelmingly to authorize Bush to go to war with Iraq.15. In his State of the Union address given on January 28, 2003, Bush says" "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Bush adds Saddam has "tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production" and has "mobile biological weapons labs.". All of this is nonsense that has already been discredited. Later, this would become known as the infamous 16 words that was the final blow towards war in Iraq and the impetus for the claim that Bush lied and people died. But it was part of a chain of deception as the above demonstrates.The above list is far from complete. The most notable omissions concern arguments and statements regarding the ease within which the war would be won, i.e how they would greet us as liberators and how we could succeed without committing massive amounts of American troops and treasure.All of which I might add proved to be completely wrong.For a far more extensive timeline of events and statements leading up to the war in Iraq see Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq.