How were they THAT wrong
-
Envisioning him with WMDs was not a stretch by any means. But I think that you'd agree that "envisioning" and claiming that he in fact has them, that he has so many WMD's and that the only way to protect the US was to preemptively invade Iraq, is a bit of a stretch. And when Bush made his 2003 invasion speech these were the primary reasons given for hte invasion, not humanitarian ones, if I recall correctly. If we are going to invade another country half way across the world, risk US soldiers lives, and risk the lives of innocent civilians, don't we need a little better reason than we "envision" someone to have dangerous weapons? And if we are now claiming that the invasion was soley for the benefit of the Iraqi people, to liberate them from a cruel dictator, and to stand up for human rights, well that sounds a bit hollow, given ALL the human rights abuses that happen all over the rest of the world. Sudan, Botswana, Palestine (and why the hell don't we invade their and "free" the Palestinians from Arafat?), Darfur, North Korea, etc, etc, etc. How we can claim to invade *just* this country (Iraq) and blow off the rest of the world, ignoring human rights violations just as gross as what Iraq had ( and I believe in some cases worse). ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned
Whoa there, big fella! Re-read my post. I never said that any of the additional points I brought up justified the war. The question was (in a nutshell): How was the Bush Administration so wrong about Iraq's WMDs? Marc correctly stated that the Bush administration had a pre-concieved idea that WMDs existed. Faulty "intelligence" supported that claim. All I did was point out a few other items that combined with Marc's point make it easy to believe SH had WMDs. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
On WMD's Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney August 26, 2002 There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Response to Question From Press 9/6/2002 Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George W. Bush, President Speech to UN General Assembly 9/12/2002 _Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have_George W. Bush, President Radio Address 10/5/2002 _We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas_George W. Bush, President Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002 _We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more._Colin Powell, Secretary of State Remarks to UN Security Council 2/5/2003 ----------------------------- All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Because when the US, British, and Russian Intelligence Agencies say there are WMDs most people would believe it to be true. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
Two names: George "Slam Dunk" Tenet Chalabi The latter provided fabricated evidence, the former believed it and assured his superiors of its accuracy. That, combined with ambiguous (in retrospect) satellite photos, and Saddams behavior with the inspectors, combined with his past history had almost everyone believing in the likelyhood of their existance. I fault Tenet the most, because of his "slam dunk" assurances. It was his job to know whether the 'evidence' and reports were accurate. He, more than anyone else, failed. Chalabi was no more than a liar with his own motives and ambitions, and should have been recognized as such by any competent 'intelligence' agency. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
you can't blame Chalabi without blaming all the people who trusted him, even after the CIA had stopped trusting him, and had stopped trusting defectors and informants that the CIA knew had been coached by Chalabi and his organization. since the mid 90's it's been known that Chalabi is a con-man who hoped to get installed as leader of Iraq. anything coming out of such a person's mouth should be immediately suspect. the people who started this war believed him anyway: Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney - the neo-cons. note that the congressional investigation into the intelligence failures has been delayed until after the election. Software | Cleek
-
Whoa there, big fella! Re-read my post. I never said that any of the additional points I brought up justified the war. The question was (in a nutshell): How was the Bush Administration so wrong about Iraq's WMDs? Marc correctly stated that the Bush administration had a pre-concieved idea that WMDs existed. Faulty "intelligence" supported that claim. All I did was point out a few other items that combined with Marc's point make it easy to believe SH had WMDs. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
OK - but you have to look at some of the goings on behind the scenes that are not being widely reported in the mainstream media. The New Yorker has an article on the OSP - Office of Special Plans run by insiders, that was created specifically within the Pentagon to theorize on Iraq intelligence and then to report them directly to Dick Cheney. This is not only highly irregular, Cheney and Bush then used this information to goad the CIA into producing reports that they liked. New Yorker Article[^] ----------------------------- All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
-
Because when the US, British, and Russian Intelligence Agencies say there are WMDs most people would believe it to be true. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves"You want to keep your job ? Tell me what I want to hear" X| Too close to reality for my liking. The tigress is here :-D
-
"You want to keep your job ? Tell me what I want to hear" X| Too close to reality for my liking. The tigress is here :-D
How can that apply to the Russians though?? BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
How can that apply to the Russians though?? BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The StovesWhat are you talking about? The Russians were strongly anti-invasion. They passed on some information on the aluminum tubes, but these turned out to be for rockets and not for a centrifuge.
-
What are you talking about? The Russians were strongly anti-invasion. They passed on some information on the aluminum tubes, but these turned out to be for rockets and not for a centrifuge.
Jeff Bogan wrote: They passed on some information on the aluminum tubes, but these turned out to be for rockets and not for a centrifuge. I remember hearing that the US got info from Russia regarding weapons, but don't recall specifics. Maybe this is all it was. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
you can't blame Chalabi without blaming all the people who trusted him, even after the CIA had stopped trusting him, and had stopped trusting defectors and informants that the CIA knew had been coached by Chalabi and his organization. since the mid 90's it's been known that Chalabi is a con-man who hoped to get installed as leader of Iraq. anything coming out of such a person's mouth should be immediately suspect. the people who started this war believed him anyway: Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney - the neo-cons. note that the congressional investigation into the intelligence failures has been delayed until after the election. Software | Cleek
Chris Losinger wrote: you can't blame Chalabi without blaming all the people who trusted him, even after the CIA had stopped trusting him, and had stopped trusting defectors and informants that the CIA knew had been coached by Chalabi and his organization. I don't. I just put Tenet at the top of my list of those who should have stopped trusting him earlier, and spoken out about it. if "Mr President, WMD is a slam dunk" had been "Mr. President, I think we are being lied to" instead, much history might have been different. Rumsfeld & the DIA probably belong right up there as well. It's damn near impossible to make good decisions based on bad information. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
"You want to keep your job ? Tell me what I want to hear" X| Too close to reality for my liking. The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: "You want to keep your job ? Tell me what I want to hear" Too close to reality for my liking. I disagree. Had that been the case, I would have expected Tenet (a democratic appointee, held over from the Clinton administration) to have been very vocal about it. Instead he stood behind the intelligence (including his statement to the President the WMD were a "slam dunk") to the bitter end. Bush protected him far longer than anyone expected. The CIA and DIA failed here, not because they were under pressure to come up with the 'right answers', but because they bought in to fraudulent HUMINT (human intelligence), and found ELINT (electronic/satellite intelligence) that appeared to support it. They failed to be sufficiently skeptical of their sources, failed to vet that information with other sources (there were none besides Chalabi's stooges, it turns out). They even managed to convince Colin Powell, who appears to have been the only skeptic in the administration. I seriously doubt that Powell would have been pressured, Bush would have been destroyed by a Powell resignation...who already has a lifetime pension from his stint as JCS and had little to lose by leaving, and much to lose (stature and reputation wise) by his eventual buy-in. Perhaps the post election congressional investigation into this will shed more light, but I will be surprised if we get anything other than partisam finger pointing out of it. The frightening thought to me, is that most of the folks responsible for this lousy 'intelligence' will remain in the same jobs regardless of the outcome of the election, and may well fail again. Elections don't change the bureaucrats (beyond the very top layer), unfortunately. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
OK - but you have to look at some of the goings on behind the scenes that are not being widely reported in the mainstream media. The New Yorker has an article on the OSP - Office of Special Plans run by insiders, that was created specifically within the Pentagon to theorize on Iraq intelligence and then to report them directly to Dick Cheney. This is not only highly irregular, Cheney and Bush then used this information to goad the CIA into producing reports that they liked. New Yorker Article[^] ----------------------------- All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.