Iraq? A Mistake????

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,827
1,790
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/22/p...=4dc66408752abf1f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

September 22, 2004
C.I.A. Review Is Critical of Prewar Iraq Analysis
By DOUGLAS JEHL

cLEAN, Va., Sept. 21 - A review by the Central Intelligence Agency has identified serious weaknesses in analytical work on Iraq but continues to hold that the prewar conclusion that Iraq possessed illicit weapons was reasonable based on the information available at the time, an internal document shows.

"We're not kidding ourselves," John E. McLaughlin, the acting director of central intelligence, said Tuesday in an hourlong interview in his office at the agency's headquarters here. "Reasonable doesn't mean we were right."

But the description of the prewar conclusions as reasonable is very different from the judgment reached unanimously in July by the Senate Intelligence Committee, whose report described the conclusions as having been unwarranted and unfounded.

The C.I.A. document, dated August 2004 and obtained by The New York Times, summarizes conclusions reached by a panel called the Iraq W.M.D. Review Group, which completed a 10-month review in May but has not made its findings public. Among the analytical flaws identified in the group's report were what was described as "imprecise language" and "insufficient follow-up" as well as "sourcing problems" in the prewar intelligence on Iraq, including "numerous cases" in which analysts "misrepresented the meaning" of intelligence reports about Iraq's weapons.

The August report, a new C.I.A. publication known as "Tradecraft Review," found the agency's analytic judgments to have been reasonable, but it also described the C.I.A.'s analytical branch as having "never been more junior or more inexperienced" than it is now and said that some of the "systemic problems" uncovered might reflect more general "tradecraft weaknesses" across the branch, known as the Directorate of Intelligence.

The interview with Mr. McLaughlin was arranged by the C.I.A. after The Times obtained the internal document and requested that a senior official be made available to discuss it. The document was based on a presentation made to C.I.A. analysts in May by Jami Miscik, the deputy director for intelligence. Ms. Miscik joined Mr. McLaughlin in his office for the interview.

In particular, the document says, the now-discredited National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which found that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons and was reconstituting its nuclear program, was not double-checked to be sure that its assertions were properly backed up. Efforts by intelligence agencies to substantiate the estimate proved "unable to support some of the text with sources," the document says.

Mr. McLaughlin has served as the agency's acting director since July 12, during a period in which the agency has come under scrutiny more intense than any it has faced in more than a quarter century. Representative Porter J. Goss is expected to win Senate confirmation this week as director of central intelligence, and as Mr. McLaughlin prepares to give way, he said in the interview that he was not being complacent or in denial about the quality of intelligence on Iraq, the Sept. 11 attacks, and other issues that have kindled sharp criticism and given rise to calls for an intelligence overhaul.

After the interview, Mr. McLaughlin telephoned a reporter to say he wanted to emphasize that the criticisms spelled out in the internal review on Iraq and illicit weapons should demonstrate that the C.I.A. was "not shying away from the problem." The review represented "a lot of work put together by people who clearly get it," he said. He said he took issue with those who have labeled the agency's prewar judgments on Iraq and illicit weapons as unreasonable because they were doing so with the benefit of hindsight.

Mr. McLaughlin described the internal review as part of a concerted effort by the agency that began in July 2003, after the failure to find illicit weapons in Iraq raised questions about the prewar intelligence. The purpose, Mr. McLaughlin said, has been to identify problems and lessons that should be learned by analysts whose duties cover the broad spectrum of the agency's analytical work.

Still, the bottom-line conclusion, which Mr. McLaughlin emphasized in the interview, was the same one that C.I.A. officials have offered for more than a year in response to criticisms of the prewar intelligence on Iraq. "Based on the information we had in hand and in front of us, the judgments were reasonable" at the time, Mr. McLaughlin said of the conclusions spelled out in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.

Ms. Miscik said, "You could see how people could have gotten to that conclusion" that Iraq had such weapons.

Mr. McLaughlin's tenure has included the sharp criticisms spelled out in final reports from the independent Sept. 11 commission as well as from the Senate committee, against a backdrop of calls for intelligence reform that have included one high-level call, from Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, that the C.I.A. be dismantled.

But in the interview, Mr. McLaughlin, who rose through the agency's analytical ranks to become deputy director of central intelligence in 2000, also sought to turn attention to the agency's successes. Among them, he mentioned the apparent disruption in Pakistan and Britain this summer of a Qaeda cell that had produced surveillance reports on buildings in New York, New Jersey and Washington.

Still, Mr. McLaughlin said in the interview, the volume and intensity of outside criticism and internal business has made his short time as acting director "the equivalent of two or three years of the typical directorship." He said he had sometimes felt the need to reassure the agency's employees.

"People here are resilient or they wouldn't be in this business," he said. "And they don't come here for public praise. But it's been a rough couple of months for people here, in terms of some of the public criticisms."

In the interview, both officials said the use of the word "reasonable" in describing the C.I.A.'s prewar judgments should not be given undue emphasis. They noted that the overall tone of the August 2004 document, which summarized comments Ms. Miscik made in presentations to analysts in May, was critical, encouraging more "analytical humility" and discouraging "analytical arrogance" within the intelligence directorate, known as the D.I.

"The directorate's track record will never be all right or all wrong," the document says, "but the Iraq W.M.D. review can provide analysts some important lessons on how to improve D.I. analysis across the board regardless of the issues they cover. The purpose is not to point fingers, but to demonstrate through concrete examples that the D.I. can improve."



Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
 
-Cp said:
Who actually reads - and trusts - anything the NY Times has to say?

What are they saying, other than the CIA used the best available data?
 
Still, the failures in intelligence are disconcerting to say the least. We haven't been hit domestically since 9/11, but one can only wonder if the failures associated with such flawed findings in Iraq might also be associated with the elements of our intelligence agencies tasked with finding and tracking international terrorists planning attacks against civilians in the U.S.
 
Zhukov said:
Still, the failures in intelligence are disconcerting to say the least. We haven't been hit domestically since 9/11, but one can only wonder if the failures associated with such flawed findings in Iraq might also be associated with the elements of our intelligence agencies tasked with finding and tracking international terrorists planning attacks against civilians in the U.S.

agreed
as well, its not just the system but a good number of individuals in the system who are so incompetent.
 
Kathianne said:
What are they saying, other than the CIA used the best available data?

This is strange how the best available data from February 2001 that Powell and Bush discussed was...

"the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place"

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

Then 18 months later all of this turned around to Iraq had WMDs and is likely to use it against the U.S.. I just find it strange how Iraq could so quickly under the same sanctions that have worked according to Colin Powell be in the position to wreak such havoc.

Isn't it also strange that David Kay who investigated post war Iraq came to the conclusion that the weapons programs were in check since 1998.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1160665,00.html


Kay sat down in front of the Senate microphone on January 28, and with a few blunt words, swept all that carefully calibrated verbiage away. "Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here," he told the open-mouthed senators. It was a mea culpa - he had been convinced since his days as a UN inspector that Saddam Hussein was concealing a potentially devastating arsenal - but it was much more than that.

In simply stating that there were no stockpiles, Kay declared that the would-be emperors on both sides of the Atlantic had no clothes. His call for a full inquiry ultimately tipped the balance in Washington and led to the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate the intelligence fiasco. That, in turn, stampeded Blair into the Butler inquiry.

But nothing stays clear for long when it comes to the justification for the Iraq war. Even since Kay's seminal testimony there have been attempts to reinterpret what he actually said. The media has been accused of focusing on a single soundbite, ignoring the ISG's findings that the Iraqis had indeed been trying to develop long-range missiles they were not entitled to, and had the means to reconstitute their weapons programmes once the international pressure was off.


"reconstitute their weapons programmes once the international pressure was off" Said Kay... but the pressure wasn't off. So with the pressure on... as Powell said it was... how could they reconstitute the programmes? :dunno:
 
poebassman said:
This is strange how the best available data from February 2001 that Powell and Bush discussed was...

"the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place"

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

Then 18 months later all of this turned around to Iraq had WMDs and is likely to use it against the U.S.. I just find it strange how Iraq could so quickly under the same sanctions that have worked according to Colin Powell be in the position to wreak such havoc.

Isn't it also strange that David Kay who investigated post war Iraq came to the conclusion that the weapons programs were in check since 1998.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1160665,00.html


Kay sat down in front of the Senate microphone on January 28, and with a few blunt words, swept all that carefully calibrated verbiage away. "Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here," he told the open-mouthed senators. It was a mea culpa - he had been convinced since his days as a UN inspector that Saddam Hussein was concealing a potentially devastating arsenal - but it was much more than that.

In simply stating that there were no stockpiles, Kay declared that the would-be emperors on both sides of the Atlantic had no clothes. His call for a full inquiry ultimately tipped the balance in Washington and led to the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate the intelligence fiasco. That, in turn, stampeded Blair into the Butler inquiry.

But nothing stays clear for long when it comes to the justification for the Iraq war. Even since Kay's seminal testimony there have been attempts to reinterpret what he actually said. The media has been accused of focusing on a single soundbite, ignoring the ISG's findings that the Iraqis had indeed been trying to develop long-range missiles they were not entitled to, and had the means to reconstitute their weapons programmes once the international pressure was off.


"reconstitute their weapons programmes once the international pressure was off" Said Kay... but the pressure wasn't off. So with the pressure on... as Powell said it was... how could they reconstitute the programmes? :dunno:
We are now discovering that the pressure wasn't on !
 
According to Powell, the U.N. sanctions were working well to keep the pressure on.

I'd kind of like to take his word on that but it is tough to know who to believe in our government anymore.
 
What about the 17 violated un resolutions? Those are not debatable. He kicked out inspectors. That alone should have been reason enough for any thinking person.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmp
rtwngAvngr said:
What about the 17 violated un resolutions? Those are not debatable. He kicked out inspectors. That alone should have been reason enough for any thinking person.

Obviously if you had read the U.N. resolution 1441, you'd notice that it recalled all previous resolutions with its violations. The U.N. gave Iraq a new deadline and qualifications for compliance. Kofi Anan agreed he met those qualifications.

http://www.middleeastinfo.org/article1606.html

UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 13 — Iraq said very reluctantly today that it would "deal with" a Security Council resolution obliging it to disarm and allow United Nations weapons inspectors to begin work, but it also denied that it possessed any prohibited weapons.

Most Security Council nations welcomed Baghdad's statement, which came two days before a deadline set in the resolution that the council unanimously approved last week. Iraq's response came in a nine-page letter that its United Nations ambassador, Muhammad al-Douri, delivered today to the office of Secretary General Kofi Annan.

The White House dismissed as fabrication Saddam Hussein's contention that Iraq possesses no weapons of mass destruction.

Earlier, shortly before the Iraqi envoy announced that Baghdad had accepted terms of the resolution, Mr. Bush told reporters at a cabinet meeting that he was firm in what he expected.

"Zero tolerance — about as plain as I can make it," he said. "We will not tolerate any deception, denial or deceit, period."

A White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said the administration was taking a cautious approach to Iraq's promise to comply. "We have heard this before, and now it's time to see it by their actions," he said.

In pages of hostile language, the Iraqi letter calls the United States and Britain, allies who wrote the resolution, "the gang of evil" and accuses them of manipulating the Security Council with "the biggest and most wicked slander" against Iraq.

In the text, Baghdad provides the bare minimum expression of agreement to allow the inspections to go forward under the tough terms of Resolution 1441.

But it was enough for the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Anan, who said after meeting with President Bush in Washington that Iraq had met the first deadline set out in the resolution.

"Iraq has accepted," Mr. Annan said outside the White House. "I think the word, the acceptance and inviting the inspectors to come in, is there, so we take it that they have accepted it."

Mr. Annan said that the first inspectors would head for Iraq on Monday and that he and President Bush had agreed that their reception would be the first true test of Iraq's compliance.

"The issue is not the acceptance but performance on the ground,"` he said. "I urge the Iraqis to cooperate with them and to perform. I think that is the real test we are all waiting for.

"The president is determined that the disarmament will take place and that we should press ahead with our plans."

As Mr. ad-Douri arrived at the United Nations this morning to deliver to deliver the letter, he told reporters: "The letter is saying that Iraq will deal with the Security Council Resolution 1441 despite its bad contents. We are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable. We are eager to see them perform their duties in accordance with international law as soon as possible. This is the essence of the letter.

"We explained in the letter the whole Iraqi equation dealt with here within the United Nations activities," Mr. al-Douri went on. "So we tried to explain our position, saying that Iraq have and have not and will not have any mass destruction weapons." He added that Iraq therefore had no concerns about the inspectors' return to the country.

In answer to a reporter's question, he said, "Iraq is clean, yes."

Asked why Iraq had accepted the resolution after so adamantly opposing the idea, Mr. al-Douri said it was "the right time to give the answer right now."

"We choose always the peaceful ways and means," he continued. "And this is part of our policy, vis-à-vis to protect our country, to protect our nation, to protect the region also from the threat of war, which is real. And everybody knows about it."


U.N. resolution 1441


Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,


http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/
 
poebassman said:
This is strange how the best available data from February 2001 that Powell and Bush discussed was...

Can you think of anything that might have happened, say 7 months, after that that may have led the Sec. to re-evaluate his position? Perhaps decide it was better to err on the side of caution?
 
Zhukov said:
Can you think of anything that might have happened, say 7 months, after that that may have led the Sec. to re-evaluate his position? Perhaps decide it was better to err on the side of caution?

Let's see.... um... bin Laden attacked the WTC on 9/11.

What does Iraq have to do with that?

The fact that Iraq didn't "have significant capabilities with respect to weapons of mass destruction" according to Powell in Feb 2001 and that the sanctions were working to prevent them didn't change in Sept 2001. The sanctions were removed after the U.S. and the coalition of the willing invaded Iraq. Therefore the sanctions prevented Iraq from developing WMDs. Powell said he discussed this with Bush.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

"the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."


How long would it take to develop a significant weapons of mass destruction progam? David Kay said there wasn't anything since 1998.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1160665,00.html

"He now believes that any weapons the Iraqis had were probably destroyed before 1998. "

Re-evalution is necessary as Powell pointed out in his speech, however David Kay confirmed the 2001 assessment when he concluded his research in 2004.

What happened between Sept 2001 and Nov 2003 when the Bush administration knew for sure there were WMDs when The head of the State Dept said there wasn't WMDs in Feb 2001 because of the U.N. sanctions on producing WMDs which didn't become lifted until July 2004?

The answer? bush's rhetoric on Terror.

“The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology—when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends—and we will oppose them with all our power.”

President Bush
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002


Ari Fleischer's statement in Oct 2002 pushed Iraq as a threat that can grow stronger if we let them. But the sanctions which Powell said worked were still in place. Ari planted a seed.

QUESTION: Ari, if there is a war in Iraq, can the American public and the world expect any incontrovertible proof that this menace is growing?

MR. FLEISCHER: Incontrovertible -- I think there is only one way to have to incontrovertible proof and that's when it's too late. If you're asking about a menace growing, the risk -- and this is why Presidents make very difficult decisions about war and peace -- the risk is how long do you wait for Saddam Hussein to grow stronger, to develop those weapons and acquire nuclear weapons before it's too late? Do you only act after he has used them? Or if we had known that 9/11, for example, was coming, would we have acted to stop it? Of course, we would have. Now with Saddam Hussein the President has to ask similar tough questions. Can we know with certainty what Saddam Hussein is going to do? Only Saddam Hussein knows with certainty what he's going to do with all the weapons that he's growing and acquiring. And the risk of inaction is it means we have to trust Saddam Hussein to use wise judgment and discretion, something he has never shown an ability to do. Instead he's done just the opposite; he's used his weapons to invade his neighbors. And that's how the President approaches this.


Of course Iraq was punished by the U.N. for its invasion of Kuwait in 1991 and since then according to the U.S. State Dept, "is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors". More over the Sanctions have worked to prevent WMDs programs again... according to the U.S. State dept.

Bush had said in his Cincinatti speech Oct 10, 2002

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

"The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people. The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

"


But as Powell said about the sanctions in Feb 2001 "They have worked" and that "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction".

So what changed in Iraq for Saddam to accomplish these significant program changes? Remember David Kay said they didn't change since 1998.

How did the Bush Administration see Iraq as such a threat from Sept 2001 to Oct 2002 that we needed to go to war with or without the U.N.?

U.N. Inspectors in early 2003 saw no significant programs just days before the war. From their inspections, they concluded in March of 2003 nearly exactly what David Kay concluded, that Iraq had no significant chemical or biological advancements.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/UNMOVIC UDI Working Document 6 March 03.pdf

"In general, there is little evidence of change in the chemical and biological disciplines beyond that noted above. No proscribed activities, or the result of such activities from the period of 1998-2002 have, so far, been detected through inspections. . There are a number of chemical and biological facilities or production units that could be used for both proscribed and non-proscribed purposes. In order to verify and monitor the status of such facilities, information such as original documents concerning budgets, the employment of certain individuals, planning, imports and log books of key items of equipment should be provided to UNMOVIC."

From

How and why did the Bush Administration see it differently?
 
While I understand your desire to discredit Bush, please take note they we are in Iraq. NOW what do you suggest that the US do ? Vote for Kerry? Why?
 
dilloduck said:
While I understand your desire to discredit Bush, please take note they we are in Iraq. NOW what do you suggest that the US do ? Vote for Kerry? Why?

Don't you feel the need to investigate how our intelligence organizations could say in feb 2001 that the sanctions worked, Iraq has not WMD programs and can't project conventional warfare on its neighbors to Iraq is our arch enemy and it is actively seeking/developing WMDs to attack the U.S.?

Someone in those organizations was ignoring or disregarding information used in the past few years which would discredit or invalidate the reports of WMD programs growing in Iraq.

The reports given the bush administration contained information that didn't match previous intelligence reports from the U.S. and the U.N. about the situation of Iraq weapons programs. Some of these reports to bush didn't pass through Tenet's hands prior to being delivered.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/10/12/MN186933.DTL#

With what we know now by United Nations and United States assessments, allegations of WMDs after Feb 2001 were unsubstantiated. There were also suspect if you compared them to the intelligence behind Powell's statement of feb 2001. From the article noted above...

But the authoritative International Institute for Strategic Studies, based in London, concluded in a report issued last month (Sept 2002) that "Iraq does not possess facilities to produce fissile material in sufficient amounts for nuclear weapons" and that "it would require several years and extensive foreign assistance to build such fissile material production facilities."

How could Iraq make these weapons so quickly? Less than a year after our intelligence agencies provided Powell with the information where he could make a bold statement that Iraq couldn't "project conventional warfare on its neighbors".

If you read into my posts... its not a discredit of bush I seek but those who misinform him. Bush should take responsibility for his administration though.
 
poebassman said:
Don't you feel the need to investigate how our intelligence organizations could say in feb 2001 that the sanctions worked, Iraq has not WMD programs and can't project conventional warfare on its neighbors to Iraq is our arch enemy and it is actively seeking/developing WMDs to attack the U.S.?

Someone in those organizations was ignoring or disregarding information used in the past few years which would discredit or invalidate the reports of WMD programs growing in Iraq.

The reports given the bush administration contained information that didn't match previous intelligence reports from the U.S. and the U.N. about the situation of Iraq weapons programs. Some of these reports to bush didn't pass through Tenet's hands prior to being delivered.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/10/12/MN186933.DTL#

With what we know now by United Nations and United States assessments, allegations of WMDs after Feb 2001 were unsubstantiated. There were also suspect if you compared them to the intelligence behind Powell's statement of feb 2001. From the article noted above...

But the authoritative International Institute for Strategic Studies, based in London, concluded in a report issued last month (Sept 2002) that "Iraq does not possess facilities to produce fissile material in sufficient amounts for nuclear weapons" and that "it would require several years and extensive foreign assistance to build such fissile material production facilities."

How could Iraq make these weapons so quickly? Less than a year after our intelligence agencies provided Powell with the information where he could make a bold statement that Iraq couldn't "project conventional warfare on its neighbors".

If you read into my posts... its not a discredit of bush I seek but those who misinform him. Bush should take responsibility for his administration though.

The Bush adminstration did not create the intelligence agency nor the faulty intel that they came up with. I assume by taking responsibilty you mean that they should apologize. This is just a leftist ruse that the Bush admonistration is too smart to fall for.
The intelligence community HAS been investigated by the 9/11 Commission. It recommended changes ( some of which are already in place ) but no where did they accuse or even infer that Bush purposely lied. I will openly admit to the weakness that exisited in our intel prior to 9/11 and we still hae a long way to go to improve it but the left has gotta quit beating this dead horse. IT HAS NO LEGS. The question is " can Kerry do better" . Is he bringing in a new intelligence system along with all the foreign troops for Iraq?
 
poebassman said:
Let's see.... um... bin Laden attacked the WTC on 9/11.

What does Iraq have to do with that?


et cetera

Do you realize how many times you highlighted the phrase 'project conventional power'? Do you realize that 'conventional' means tanks, troops, planes, and such, not WMD?

What did Iraq have to do with that? Well it is a fact that Saddam colluded with terrorist organizations, and it is a fact that Saddam possessed ongoing chemical and biological programs and retained the ability to construct biological and chemical weapons.

In the post 9/11 environment officials in this administration had to make some tough decisions concerning islamofascist terrorism and the greater Middle East, and one of them was obviously to get tough with Saddam concerning his failure to meet his post-Gulf War obligations.

Since you mentioned Dr. Kay:

Sen. Warner: As you recently stated, Dr. Kay -- and I quote you -- "It was reasonable to conclude that Iraq posed an imminent threat. What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war," end quote.

Further, you said on NBC's "Today Show" on Tuesday that it was, quote, "absolutely prudent for the U.S. to go to war."

Dr. Kay, I concur in those conclusions. I believe a real and growing threat has been eliminated and a coalition of nations acted prudently in the cause of freedom.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KAY401A.html


Any way you look at, Sec. Powell was probably wrong in Feb. 2001, (after having held his current position for, what, a week? and a shortened prep period before the President's inauguration because of the Florida coup attempt).

I would imagine a re-evaluation of evidence viewed in light of 9/11 (which has changed the way we look at everything), led him to change his earlier position. Or perhaps he didn't change his opinion, but the vast majority of administration officials did, and he did his job. He is after all the Sec. State, not the NSA.
 
dilloduck said:
The Bush adminstration did not create the intelligence agency nor the faulty intel that they came up with. I assume by taking responsibilty you mean that they should apologize. This is just a leftist ruse that the Bush admonistration is too smart to fall for.
The intelligence community HAS been investigated by the 9/11 Commission. It recommended changes ( some of which are already in place ) but no where did they accuse or even infer that Bush purposely lied. I will openly admit to the weakness that exisited in our intel prior to 9/11 and we still hae a long way to go to improve it but the left has gotta quit beating this dead horse. IT HAS NO LEGS. The question is " can Kerry do better" . Is he bringing in a new intelligence system along with all the foreign troops for Iraq?


I did not say that bush created the intel agency.

Bush received intelligence that was contradictory to intelligence given by Colin Powell prior to 9/11 which WAS NOT WEAK. According to David Kay's and the United Nation's reports, it was factual. This I revealed in my previous post. The 9/11 commission has been useful in starting to enravel the problems with the intelligence agencies. More investigations need to be done to find and remove those who ignored the valid intelligence to present guesswork intelligence to the president.

I do not accuse bush. He received tainted information.

Prior to 9/11, there was good intelligence because it match current information. There was a lapse of reason between Feb 2001 and Nov 2003 when the administration believed there were WMDs in Iraq. This lapse of reason lead to war that with the correct intelligence, would have kept us from war. Is it possible that you don't care that we went to war with incorrect intelligence? Do you excuse it?

Sending our soldiers to war should only occur when it's necessary. The incorrect intelligence gave an appearance it was necessary.

Aren't you in the least bit interested in who gave this incorrect intelligence? It wasn't Tenet. Memos circumvented him that went to the Whitehouse. Since he was a good leader though, he took responsibility but the wrong people are still there.

Can Kerry do better? If he received the incorrect intelligence as did Bush, would Kerry have gone to war with Iraq? According to Kerry, Not unless the United Nations presented that Iraq was not complying with resolution 1441 and that there was a resolution for an invasion. That alone would be better. However, the war is over. Now there is chaos.

What Kerry should do is convince the United Nations to take over in a slow rotation, the occupancy of Iraq removing the United States influence. Can he do that? He has a better chance than Bush does of accomplishing that.

Bush will continue the current push for elections while loosing military control of Iraq. Many more soldiers will die and we will be there for a long term.
 
poebassman said:
I did not say that bush created the intel agency.

Bush received intelligence that was contradictory to intelligence given by Colin Powell prior to 9/11 which WAS NOT WEAK. According to David Kay's and the United Nation's reports, it was factual. This I revealed in my previous post. The 9/11 commission has been useful in starting to enravel the problems with the intelligence agencies. More investigations need to be done to find and remove those who ignored the valid intelligence to present guesswork intelligence to the president.

I do not accuse bush. He received tainted information.

Prior to 9/11, there was good intelligence because it match current information. There was a lapse of reason between Feb 2001 and Nov 2003 when the administration believed there were WMDs in Iraq. This lapse of reason lead to war that with the correct intelligence, would have kept us from war. Is it possible that you don't care that we went to war with incorrect intelligence? Do you excuse it?

Sending our soldiers to war should only occur when it's necessary. The incorrect intelligence gave an appearance it was necessary.

Aren't you in the least bit interested in who gave this incorrect intelligence? It wasn't Tenet. Memos circumvented him that went to the Whitehouse. Since he was a good leader though, he took responsibility but the wrong people are still there.

Can Kerry do better? If he received the incorrect intelligence as did Bush, would Kerry have gone to war with Iraq? According to Kerry, Not unless the United Nations presented that Iraq was not complying with resolution 1441 and that there was a resolution for an invasion. That alone would be better. However, the war is over. Now there is chaos.

What Kerry should do is convince the United Nations to take over in a slow rotation, the occupancy of Iraq removing the United States influence. Can he do that? He has a better chance than Bush does of accomplishing that.

Bush will continue the current push for elections while loosing military control of Iraq. Many more soldiers will die and we will be there for a long term.
You disagree with our invasion of Iraq and are desperately trying to subtantiate your belief. Don't feel alone, your conspiracy buddies are out there everywhere. You nor Kerry can say for certain what he would have done as evidenced by the fact that you are suggesting that Kerry do certain things regarding the UN which Kerry himself has not suggested. Why do you have to tell your candidate what he should do? Where is you evidence that Iraq is in chaos? Would you agree that many areas are secure, free and prosperous ?
 
Kathianne said:
What are they saying, other than the CIA used the best available data?

Ummm... that the CIA used data that supported the position the Bush Administration asked them to support, and that it did not excercise normal, or even any, checks to make sure this data was valid?

Basically what the CIA did was to provide fantasy data knowing they might take a hit for it later when it didn't turn out correct. Their response now is to claim it was an "honest mistake" and claim they are doing something about the problems which cause these "accidental errors".

Any fool should be able to see they are trying to sell us bullshit.
 
Zhukov said:
Still, the failures in intelligence are disconcerting to say the least. We haven't been hit domestically since 9/11, but one can only wonder if the failures associated with such flawed findings in Iraq might also be associated with the elements of our intelligence agencies tasked with finding and tracking international terrorists planning attacks against civilians in the U.S.

I'm not worried about that Zhukov, because this was not an intelligence failure, it was an intelligence succcess. The purpose was to provide false information which Pres. Bush could use to get the USA into a war against Iraq. It succeeded!

Wade.
 

Forum List

Back
Top