government because it's a fact that a government in the middle of a crisis is a government that gets punished. but at the same time, the new national assembly needs to get involved in the day to day problems. people face and get into a debate forum, i believe. but not every one is convinced. thousands of people took to the streets in july 2021. in the largest anti government protests in years. it were demanding freedom. hundreds were detained, and remaining prison. medium lever has been an outspoken critic of cuba government . her husband spent years in prison, if you're not really ever wanna it, that the cuban reality doesn't need to be exaggerated because it's tragic. after years. it's my duty to say the truth. the situation is so difficult that we have to see how the government solstice and opens up because there is one reality. the control here is not in a civilian government, but in the hands of the military. and now more than ever, the government is promising to improve the country's devastated economy. millions

in cuba are waiting for those reforms that will provide the relief that many here so desperately need. oh did is i will, i'll jessina havana, cuba. ah, this is al jazeera and these are the top stories, the south israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, as in crisis talks with members of his coalition. local media say he was planning to suspend a controversial judicial overhaul, but it's now being delight. didn't yahoo's far right coalition partner to my being here has urged him not to back down the proposed legislation, his bank weeks of anti government protests. the main labor union has called for a nationwide strike. natasha game is following developments from whist, jerusalem. the conversation has shifted from hitting the pause button on this judicial overhaul package. one of the most controversial policies in is really

history to now some people calling for the removal of prime minister netanyahu. you have a former prime minister, a who'd barrack calling for netanyahu's removal. you have a member of the gilbert governing coalition abbot are lieberman saying that it is time for netanyahu to step down and for another prime minister to be selected within low coud party. so what you're seeing are fishers within the governing coalition and a deepening of the divisions mean mass military leader, men along has pledge to deal decisively with what he called terrorists. people who resist military role speaking on armed forces day in the capital nato. the general also said countries critical of his regimes, human rights record are supporters of terror. public transport strike is underway in germany. a violent boss services have ground to a halt causing mess of disruptions to the morning commute. it's the biggest walk out in 30 years. part of

a long running wage dispute unions deadlocked in negotiations with public transport . employers like a sons former prime minister, cameron carnis, it to appear in court to face a string of charges that he says are politically motivated. can, along with 16 members of his pakistan to rekey and soft political party had been summoned to face charges of sedition and terrorism. both the headlines, the news continues on al jazeera, after upfront up next. russia's invasion of ukraine has traditionally neutral theresa to apply for native membership. austria, however, has shown no interest in joining the alliance, thinking that either with us or you're against us. this is a very simplified way of looking at your history and foreign minister teams to l. to the 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 and head of the coalition provisional authority or c, p a. the immediate aftermath of the invasion will challenge him on what impacts his decisions had on iraq for the decades that followed. but 1st, john voltage 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 claim about weapons of mass destruction and links to it actively maintains all key aspects of a 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. where these claims just prefect use to for the long term objective of some of the administration to overthrow saddam in how much the sending evidence was

ignored in the run up to the war. last this we've headliner. former us under secretary of state for arms control, john both the john bolton. thank you so much for joining me on up front. lead to be with you. but you are the president, george w bush's 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. what 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 story, your chemical weapons and the iraqi said, but we've already destroyed our chemical weapons, the un inspectors and said, okay, 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 who oversaw 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 a chemical weapons, others and repeated assertions they'd been destroyed. and i will tell you, contrary to what you said at the beginning, i don't know of anyone before the war who didn't believe that saddam had chemical weapons including his highest military, foreigners. now it turned out after the war that he did,

and least that 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 1909 to 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 your own allies. for example, un weapons inspectors worked in iraq from november 27th, 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, 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 19981990. right? why, why would that, why, why would i have? i'm confused about the lunch here. if you're saying that before going into the war in 2003, there was countervailing evidence. why would it matter whether or not there was evidence in $1098.00. the point is before going into war is no countervailing evidence. no nobody. nobody could verify what stocks he had or didn't have. but we do know from interview just after the war of iraqi generals,

something like that. you have weapons and the iraqi general would say, well, i didn't have chemical weapons, but general x over the western sector had them. so we go to interview general x and he'd say, no, i didn't have chemical weapons. but general, why, commander of the reserves back in baghdad had chemical weapons. the lie that saddam told began back in 1991 in 1992. but i challenge you again. you find anybody responsible who asserted that saddam did not have chemical weapons before the war. they're expected. there were no chemical way to go back is did not find that the rock possess chemical or biological weapons. also they were blocked in their efforts. and then from what i mean also or more just, i'm just telling you what the un said, you can believe it or not, believe i'm quoting evidence of the inspectors who very clearly said that weapons of mass instruct. there was no evidence, excuse me,

of chemical or biological weapons and asking for. busy more time also, hans blix form ahead. of you in monitoring verification inspection commission for iraq rotan and bit later in 2013. he said on february 11th, less than 5 weeks before the invasion. i told us national security adviser kinda leads the 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 what they call serious people, who certainly at the very least said hey, we need more time evidence on. so it's said 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 destroyed them, if you've destroyed them, you have records, we want to see the records, they never produce the records and the inference that everybody drew was that they

still had chemical. well, i did this again. i think the international community, all the people you are alluding to 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 is former head of counter terrorism. richard clark, a recounts 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, sorry, from the clinton administration. and he has very high opinion of himself. and i think that's what's reflected in what you read him. again,

a bush's head of commentary. what was ignored? no, no, he wasn't ignored. it's 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, 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 it. 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. while i just explained to you what the basis the believe i was basil full balance, 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 way right, and again, and far and 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 that was that he was hiding it from them. 6 of the logical inference using the logical inference of 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 inspections at 500 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 folk 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 arguments for continued monitoring. those aren't arguments for war. those are arguments for military intervention, absence and 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 with that was suggested this i'm taking time mom back now couldn't bird 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 had 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 on 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, instability, 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 and 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 bremar, where they could join him in 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 economy economy going again, had been under incompetent direction by saddam hussein in 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, a specific policy in some huge, specific decision making. in may of 2003,

you ordered the dissolution of the iraqi armed forces and security forces which effectively left the country a lawless, and also left 350000 people out without jobs, many of whom were oh, 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 city? where you got to go back and 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 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 you a question about that the early point you made. because at various moments i feel like 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 for it for years . ah, how do you sort of make sense of that kind of claim?

while subsequently saying, hey, i know there was no army to despair to submit, it varies mode, you may different claims about it. 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? because 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 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 announced an immediate shift in public behavior colonel alan king. when he reflects on situation, of 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 toys and when, when you, well, no, it, it, it, 1st of all the demonstrations that you're just preferred to stopped. and soon as we announced that the, the pensions, which was about 2 weeks ago into june, maybe late june, but the pensions just one part of it is also to learn when i finish here. i just wanna 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. now those moderates who are key to maintaining peace are now also becoming angry and completely unreceptive 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 decision resolution identified, the united states as the occupying powered. 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 the 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 disarming. stay up in retrospect, would you not have done anything differently? no, the mistake that i made was not announcing the ah, retirement plans, the pension plans at the same time as we said, we are 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. he signed a decree which granted the u. s. other western contractors, immunity from iraqi law, including criminal prosecutions, while performing other jobs in iraq in 2007 guards are from private security contract or black water open fire into oncoming traffic. at the busy and the sort

of squares intersection in baghdad, they killed 17 iraqi civilians including children on the injured 20 others. according to eye 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 sign? i don't know. the, i don't know the, i didn't follow the court case. obviously, the blackwater ah attack on these people are response to their attacks. was outrageous and completely uncalled for and i 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 it 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 negotiated 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. oh 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 it's a $1000000000.00 money. no drink operation. the coal marsha is bigger than the company

with financial institutions, regulators and governments complicit. but we're hoping with right to strike in a 4 part series al jazeera is investigative unit because on the cover in southern africa, his birth control is 90 percent of the dublin was calling with brandon good heart to on al jazeera ah al jazeera ah, with all coveted beyond well taken without hesitation, fought and died for power. defines how well we live here. we make the rule, not them, they find an enemy, and then they try and scare the people with people and power. investigate,

exposed it and questions they use them to be used of our around the cloud on now to sierra. the levy breech on the powder river is widening that's ominous for the town of pyro downstream as more storms bear down on the farming community this week. out of 1700 residents were told to evacuate the county of monterey has performed more than 170 high water rescues. as a result of this blood, these storms are the result of atmospheric long currents of waste churned the air that caused rain and snow fall california has experienced no less than 10, such once rare phenomena. since january an impact of climate change and a probable trend into the future, ah .