did to the arctic, but has been visible over lake alberta and canada, and as far south as the u. s. state of new mexico. the rare phenomenon is caused by solo when particles smashing into the earth's atmosphere and turning energy into light. and they're said to be mo, displays over the next 2 years. that's because the sun is reaching the most active part of it's 11 years cycle. the storm has thrown vivid colors across the sky and europe, including this light show in finland. scientists observing the flares in sweden see it is not dangerous, although the jew magnetic activity has the strength to bulk out power grids. it will not count the right kind of the regions, life result, gps, satellite tv, or mobile format. so to have all this, we need to know space was a when we have strong continue to, don't get it to you to all this stuff can be destroyed. you will space. will there

be no reports of puzzle got so far for now in the northern hemisphere, this all and wonder for people looking. oh, when we consume sharif al jazeera ah again, the headlines on al jazeera, the world health organizations as rapid response. teams are being deployed to tons and he had to investigate an outbreak of the marble virus disease. at least 12 people have died since the new outbreak began. their and, and equitorial guinea camera and your guns are now on high alerts and they've started screaming travelers on their borders with times in the em fencin moran go. as a public health specialist on promoter ox from kenya and says the virus is spread is cause for concern because it's easily spread from human to human. it's actually

close associated with their, you know, travel. so that's what, that's what it is, what is up to disposing asterisk, and that's why you really concern because of the human traffic between kenya terms and intell gamma and morsel because of the, you know, we enjoy informally, you know, porous borders in on the lake on the land and we think that's really very close because more and then i will be the only 611 and 10 cent 10 into many kilometers from they percent and before but so that's what, that's what actually weight because some of the disease at least $34.00 can fall are missing. after about carrying mostly african asylum seekers sank off the coast of tennessee. it's the 5th such incident in 2 days because finance facts has become a major departure point for europe. 2 people have been found dead and 30 another a suffering illness inside a sweltering train car in southern texas. they are believed to be migrants who crossed into the u. s. from mexico. the us border patrol stopped the train on

friday after an an anonymous emergency call. at least $23.00 people have been killed after tornadoes ripped through the us state of mississippi winds of more than a 100 kilometers per hour. tor roofs, from houses uprooted trees and knocked out power. firefighters in spain have contained the 1st major wildfire of the year. the flames spread through the valencia region, destroying more than 4000 hector is a forest. those are the headlines. the news, ours at the top of the hour with folly, but up next that's upfront. but by the latest news, as it breaks, evidence in a place like this, where people say just a few bodies have been recovered compared to the number of people missing with detailed coverage. a government policies are making it difficult for them to export on climate change. have all impacted of supply from around the world. their rescue plan showed their confidence in 1st republic bank,

so all sides of which are critical to the functioning of the financial system. 20 years after the 2003 invasion of iraq as the world reflects on the legacy of that defining moment in history. we talked to the top united states officials who were intimately involved in both the decision to go to war in the 1st place. and some of the key policies that shaped post saddam iraq will speak to diplomat paul bremar, who us president george w bush put in charge of administering iraq is head of the coalition provisional authority or c, p a. the immediate aftermath of the invasion will challenge him on what impact his decisions had on iraq for the decades that father for the 1st. john bolton was one of the strongest proponents for war in the bush administration. and the run up to the war, he repeatedly made the case that saddam hussein was a threat, not just to the united states, but also to the wide world amplifying claims about weapons of mass destruction and links to our cause. it actively maintains all key aspects of its defensive biological weapons program. and in terms of its support for terrorism,

we have established that iraq has permitted al qaeda to operate within its territory. were these claims just prefect use to, for the long time, objective of some of the administration to overthrow saddam in how much the sending evidence was ignored and the run up to the war. i last. this week's headliner, former us under secretary of state for arms control, john both the john bolton. thank you so much for joining me on upfront. i had to be with you, but you are the president, george w bush is under secretary of state for arms control and international affairs in the lead up to the iraq war. and you were one of the strongest advocates for the invasion of iraq saying, quote, we are confident that saddam hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction or w indeed in iraq. but intelligence even at the time, didn't fully support that statement throughout 2002,

there were many descending views within the u. s. intelligence community and from the united nations around these claims of w. m. div in iraq. in fact, in september 2002, about 2 months before you made that statement of the defense intelligence agency issued a report that included a line clearly stating that they had no reliable information on whether iraq is producing and stockpiling the chemical weapons. but ultimately, these warnings weren't persuasive or they didn't seem to matter. why were you determined to invade iraq? well, the information on chemical weapons here is very important. after the 1st gulf war, under the terms of resolution $687.00 by the security council, the cease fire resolution, iraq was required to declare all of its stocks of weapons and materials related to nuclear, chemical, and biological weaponry. and in fact,

saddam hussein declared very extensive stocks of chemical weapons and related materials under the terms of 678. sorry, 687. saddam hussein was required to destroy everything that was declared. so un weapons inspectors went to saddam and said ok, we're here to help the store your chemical weapons. and the iraqi said, well, we've already destroyed our chemical weapons, the un inspectors and said ok, fine. show us the records that reflect that destruction take us to the places where he destroyed the chemical weapons. let us interview the scientists and technicians over saw the destruction of chemical weapons and the iraqis refuse. now this, they rock enrolled on this for several years. the iraqi government would never acknowledge that what exactly it had done with the chemical weapons, others and repeated assertions they've been destroyed. and i will tell you,

contrary to what you said at the beginning, i don't know of any one before the war who didn't believe that saddam had chemical weapons, including his highest military authorities. now it turned out after the war that he did, and at least we could find in this country, the rob silberman commission concluded in a study after the war, the mistake we had made was believing that saddam had told the truth when he made declarations in 1991 in 1992 about his chemical weapon stocks. he probably was lying about them. then it's still somewhat shocking to me that you would take the word of saddam hussein over the evidence provided by international inspect . there's large parts of the intelligence community as well as some of your allies, for example, un weapons inspectors worked in iraq from november 27, 2002 until march 18th, 2003. during that time,

inspectors from the i a and the you in monitoring verification inspections commission are conducted more than 900 inspections at more than 500 sites. the inspector did not find that iraq to this chemical weapons, biological weapons, or that it had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. that to me is somewhat compelling evidence. right. i mean, i could, i could give you more, but if what you just said, yeah, what you've just said refers to the un inspections after the 2nd war. i'm talking about the un effort after the 1st war to verify that saddam hussein had destroyed the chemical weapons that he claimed he had. you should do the research and if you can find anybody in the period 19981999. why? why? why would that? why? why would i have? i'm confused about the lunch here. if you're saying before going into the war in 2003,

there was countervailing evidence. why would it matter whether or not there was evidence in 1098? the point is before going into war? no countervailing evidence. no nobody. nobody could verify what stocks he had or didn't have, but we do know from interviews after the war of iraqi generals, something like that. you have chemical weapons and the iraqi general would say, well, i didn't. and chemical weapons, the general x over in the western sector had them. so we go to interview general x and he said, no i, i didn't have chemical weapons. but general, why, commander the reserves back in baghdad had chemical weapons. the, the law that saddam told began back in 1991 in 1992. but i challenge you again you, i and anybody responsible who asserted that saddam did not have chemical weapons before the war? they're already expecting that there were no chemical white inspectors did not find that iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. also they were blocked in their

efforts and they also asked for more to have it in the social. and for more just, i'm just telling you what you and said, you can believe that you and or not believe you. i'm quoting evidence of the inspectors who very clearly said that weapons of mass destruct. there was no evidence, excuse me, of chemical or biological weapons. and asking for. busy more time also. ah, hans blix former ahead of you in monitoring verification inspection commission for iraq wrote in an op ed later in 2013. he said on february 11th. less than 5 weeks before the invasion. i told us national security advisor condo liza rice. i wasn't terribly impressed by the intelligence we had received from the u. s. and that there had been no weapons of mass destruction at any of the sites we had been recommended by american forces. her response that it was iraq, not the intelligence that was on trial here. so there were credible would you would say, call serious people, who certainly at the very least said hey, we need more time, isn't evident. hinesville excel repeatedly. he told the iraqi authorities look,

this stuff isn't marmalade. that was the phrase he used, referring to the chemical weapons. if you destroy them, if you destroy them, you have records, we want to see the records. they never produced the records and the inference that everybody drew was that they still had chemical went. but what, what is this again, i think the international commuting all the people you are losing. who do not say that the inference was that they weren't there. they very clearly said, we don't have any evidence of it and they certainly didn't push for war. but we can agree to disagree for. let's keep going. president bush's former head of counterterrorism. richard clark, our accounts at the day after $911.00, he and his team told president george w bush and the defense secretary donald rumsfeld, that quote, iraq had nothing to do with this. but that didn't seem to make much difference. he also added, while the world trade center was still smoldering, while they were still digging bodies out, people in the white house were thinking, ah, this gives us the opportunity we've been looking for to go after iraq. this is president

bush's head of counter terrorism. my question, he inherited him from the clinton admin from the carter, aside from the clinton administration, has very high opinion of himself. and i think that's what's reflected in what you're reading. ok, again, a bush's had a commentary. what was ignored? no, no, he wasn't ignored. as simply not true, i mean he simply wrong on that, as i say, is a very inflated opinion of his own role in these things. one reason he was ignored was that he was such a self promoter and such a narcissist. the fact was that there were still concern that sadam hussein at the point where he could break free from un sanctions, un economic sanctions. and get rid of the international weapons inspectors would return to the pursuit of nuclear weapons. and that he was prepared to provide them to terrorist groups. okay, fair enough, but my question was, was he ignored?

he says iraq had nothing to do with that. he says he's in the meeting. but my question is, when he made that claim in these meetings in these conversations, was he ignored. and if not, what was the response to him? a look, i don't know whether he made the claims or not the decision to go after saddam hussein was not based on the 911 attack. it was based on the the belief that he had weapons of mass destruction, which ultimately turned out to be non existent. well, i just explained to you what the basis, the believe i just wasn't for elegance, wasn't anybody that line it was that said other than saddam hussein, it was the claims he had made 99192 and 93 about his own chemical right and again, and i am pursuing that thread, you had to ignore inspectors, weapons inspectors. you had to ignore advice from cherry and play role in about that. all they said was they couldn't find evidence of it. well yeah, if you call it was that he was hiding it from them 6 of the logical inference using

the logical inference of the we did not find that iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons or that had reconstituted it's nuclear weapons program, is that he's hiding them after $900.00 inspections at $500.00 sites, the inspectors say that they could not find that iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons or that had reconstituted a nuclear weapons program. they asked for more time. other folks said similar things that they did. there was no evidence of it and you're saying that the logical inference that the reasonable person, the reasonable man with our person would infer from that not that there were no weapons or that the evidence was untrue or that the claim was untrue. but that i, saddam hussein is simply hiding it from an international community and professional inspectors on the ground. that's the logical inference. let me just remind you of, of the important intelligence adage. the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. there was no dis, proof of the notion that saddam still had extensive chemical weapons stockpiles.

but those are arguments for continued monitoring. those aren't arguments for war. those are arguments for military intervention. absent evidence when people are asking for what i, i think it's a perfectly good, a good argument that we didn't want to wait until one of our cities was smoking ruin. yes. saddam, whose, whether a but that was suggested to some taking time bomb back back. whatever it is, otherwise, lation, he was a threat to peace and security in the region. he had repeatedly violated resolutions 687 i you know, if you believe in the sanctity of security council resolutions, when a country repeating violates that i would think that would concern you. so i, i have no trouble at all. busy with the conclusion that saddam was a threat and he should have been removed in 2020 hindsight, we should have removed him in 1991 john bolton. i appreciate your time. thank you so much for joining me in up front. glad to doing. ah, it's been 20 years since the united states and

a handful of allies invaded iraq in march of 2003, the following years would harold in decades of violence and stability and economic decline for the country. the iraq war killed hundreds of thousands of iraqis and over $4000.00 us service members. it gave rise to groups like al qaeda in iraq and isis, and it cost billions in us taxpayer dollars. but what happened on the ground in the weeks and months that followed the invasion, paul bremer was appointed by then president george w bush to head the coalition provisional authority. the temporary transitional government established, just after the invasion. he held the post from 2003 to 2004, mister bremo, or thank you for joining me on up front. thank you. you arrived in baghdad to lead the cpa less than 2 weeks after president bush stood in front of a banner and declared mission accomplished on board an aircraft carrier in the pacific. over the next 13 months. while you were in charge, iraq, now effectively a lawless state was seeing the rise of

a violent insurgency. there were the now infamous really revelations about torture and i will re, are there are billions of dollars in reconstruction funds, allegedly squandered or misplaced, or all this happens in just over a year. in a recent article you wrote that when you arrived in baghdad in 2003, you found very different conditions than what washington had prepared you for a. how big was that disconnect? how unprepared were you for what you? my job would directly from the president was to help the iraqis get on the past to representative government. that was the political objective and try to get the come, our economy going again, had been under incompetent direction by saddam hussein and his cronies. and also under un sanctions and i would argue, and i will argue that given those 2 tasks, we actually had quite a lot of success in the coalition provisional authority in the next 14 months when

we left iraq, they were already on the path for representative government and the economy was substantially stronger than it had been when we arrived. let, let's, let's, let's talk about some of the policies for a specific policy and some specific decision making in may of 2003, you ordered dissolution of the iraqi armed forces and security forces which effectively left the country a lawless, and also left 350000 people up without jobs, many of whom were well armed and well trained. ah, help me think through help me understand your thought process with that what, what, what drove you to that decision where you got to go back a effectively what it, what had happened was the army self demobilized, which was the term that the pentagon you, what does it me, it meant they all left. a general ab as aide who was the deputy commander of the

forces said there was not a single unit of saddam's army left standing to arms anywhere in the country. there was no army. the mistake was to say disbanding an army. when in fact there was no army to disband. now the army under saddam hussein was a huge army. it was a $700000.00 men and soldiers. so the army was saddam's primary instrument of control and had been for 30 years, it was disbanded, it was not there. and so the choice we faced was whether to recall that army or to build a new army, some american officers, officers, american soldiers had been talking around among themselves about recalling units or parts of the iraqi army. but i want to ask a question about that. the early point you made, because at various moments i feel like you've, you've made different sort of analyses of this idea of disbanding the army in 2005,

you said i think it disbanding the army. ah, was probably the most important decision i made. and it had the effect of avoiding a civil war in iraq. the old army had been used to crush curds or fruit for years. ah, ah, how do you sort of make sense of that kind of claim while subsequently saying, hey, and there was no army to disband the submit, it varies mode. you may different claims about that. no, i don't think that's correct. then you may, may, you may be able to find some sentences, not the same, but the concept all along was the choice i face was do we recall parts of the army and start a civil war? cause that was, was what was going to happen, or do we build a new army? and it's an important point about building the new army that we agreed we were going to pay. and we did pay a severance pay to all of the draftees. this was a draft army, we agreed to pay them all a severance pay, which we paid,

and we agreed to put the officers all, but the top generals ah, on pension, and we doubled the pension that they would have got under saddam hussein. so the argument that these people may have gone on, some of them may have gone on to the part of the terrorist or the insurgency really at that point, that's possible. but if they did that, it wasn't because they didn't have an opportunity to take their money and go set up a business. they could start a newspaper or television station. there were a 100 newspapers in baghdad, within 2 weeks of my arrival, everybody was out saying whatever they wanted to say that they're us military personnel on the ground in baghdad at the time, who look at a little bit differently. they know it's an immediate shift in public behavior, colonel alan king. when he reflects on situation course, he's the head of civil affairs. he said, the insurgency went crazy. this is after your decision up when they disbanded the

military and announced we were occupiers. that was it, every moderate, every person that had lean towards us was furious. there were also protests with thousands of iraqi soldiers. some threatened to launch suicide attacks unless they were paid wages. i mean, there's a way that the very thing that you were trying to avoid seems to have been intensified through this voice and when you, well, no, it, it, it. first of all the demonstrations that you're just preferred to stopped. and soon as we announced the, the pension which was about 2 weeks, ah, into june, maybe late june, but the printer's just one part of it is also a lot easier than i finish here. i just want to make sure that we're on the same page here. i'm thinking specifically about the idea that you are now being viewed as occupiers that now those moderates who are key to maintaining peace are now also becoming angry and completely under septic. under the intervention i how do you, what about that these 2 points? first of all, we were occupiers because that's what international law and the united nations, ah,

ah, decision resolution identified the united states as the occupying power. i didn't think that up and i don't, i never liked the word the idea of being an occupier, but at that was the legal, this a definition of us. right. but this isn't a legal issue. dish. the question is, when once you disband the military, it's no longer, it is not viewed by the public in the same way. now you look like an occupy, that's the point of eyes that the energy on the ground. the if, if soldiers joined the insurgency, they did it much, you know, and out of, out of concern for the fact that we were going to produce a decent modern army. and that we were helping to iraqis to change their political system. so they could choose their government, colonel paul hughes, of the u. s. army. he also reflected on this decision, ah, he was an aide to your predecessor, of course j garner. he said, we changed from being a liberator to an occupier with that single decision. he said by abolishing the

army we destroy in the iraqi mind the last symbol of sovereignty that they could recognize. and as a result, created a significant part of the resistance. and again, as we saw that eventually splintered in through these various factions, various groups that eventually became these walmack stay up in retrospect, would you not have done anything differently? no, the, the mistake that i made was not announcing the ah, retirement plans, the pension plans at the same time as we said, were going to build a new army. we. we delayed that for 2 weeks during which time there were demonstrations by ex army. as soon as we announced the decision to pay double the pensions, the demonstration stopped outside the green zone. it directly stopped just before leaving office resigned to decree,

which granted the u. s. and other western contractors, immunity from iraqi law, including criminal prosecutions, while performing other jobs in iraq in 2007 guards are from private security contractor, black water open fire into oncoming traffic. at the busy and the sort of squares intersection, baghdad, they killed 17 iraqi civilians including children on the injured 20 others. according to our witnesses, including other blackwater employees, people were going down as they attempted to flee the shooting. the iraqi government was unable to prosecute them because of this immunity decree of the guards who are eventually sentenced by the u. s. federal court were given pardons by president trump in 2020. how much of the blame for this level of impunity lies in the order that you saw? i don't know them. i don't know the, i didn't follow the court case. obviously the black border ah, attack on these people are response to their attacks. was outrageous and completely

uncalled for and i, i would certainly not, and i did not support them being led off. i don't think that was a mistake. would you have supported the iraqi government, having the legal power to well with the, the, the order actually was replaced by a negotiation between the united states government and the iraqis about the whole question are under which provisions we would provide security we, we have arrangements like that in other countries where we have soldiers, for example, i lived in the netherlands for some years. we had american soldiers there, and they were always as part of the agreement, bilateral agreement. the question about how far american law would reach to those troops is always a matter of negotiation as it was after i left iraq, there was no sovereign government at that time. but, but the question is they were immune under iraqi law. because of this decree,

was it a mistake to have that decree? no, the decree only was in effect during the time of the occupation, it was replaced by a, an agreement between a bilateral agreement negotiate between the american and the iraqi government to cover american military and forces that were there later. so it didn't, it didn't it was, it was a songwriter assigning disorder. i'm sorry you have no regrets about this or not, or no, i was to promise a pleasure having you on up front. i want to thank you for your time. good to see everybody that is our show up front will be back next. ah,

and i imagine a mosque without pressure. oh, without a family country without people people without that country. imagine fasting without if oh rift, ha. without gatherings. imagine compassion without action. oh, imagine ramadan, without giving me millions of refugees are still up rooted from their homes struggling to afford even their basic needs. now imagine what your donation can do . every gift counts from breaking down the headlines to

exposing the power, attempting to silence reporting. the listening post doesn't just cover the news. it covers the way the news is coming. oh, now does it on counting the cost, the u. s. high interest rates, again, despite financial turmoil, plunged into darkness. county south africa fixes electricity crisis, but 20 years off. the invasion of iraq, whose do you meant to be economy of opec, 2nd largest oil, producer counseling, the cost on al jazeera. the u. s. is always of interest to people over the world. this has been going on for a number of hours with you got the use of the whole story from an international perspective required waiting for global audience, how that could impact their life. this is an important part of the world and our view is very good at bringing the news to the world from here. ah.