Evidence Distorted for War

[brainsmile]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20030607/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_us_intelligence_030606200812

Ex-Official: Evidence Distorted for War
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration distorted intelligence and presented conjecture as evidence to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq (news - web sites), according to a retired intelligence official who served during the months before the war.

"What disturbs me deeply is what I think are the disingenuous statements made from the very top about what the intelligence did say," said Greg Thielmann, who retired last September. "The area of distortion was greatest in the nuclear field."

Thielmann was director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. His office was privy to classified intelligence gathered by the CIA (news - web sites) and other agencies about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.

In Thielmann's view, Iraq could have presented an immediate threat to U.S. security in two areas: Either it was about to make a nuclear weapon, or it was forming close operational ties with al-Qaida terrorists.

Evidence was lacking for both, despite claims by President Bush (news - web sites) and others, Thielmann said in an interview this week. Suspicions were presented as fact, contrary arguments ignored, he said.

The administration's prewar portrayal of Iraq's weapons capabilities has not been validated despite weeks of searching by military experts. Alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons have not turned up, nor has significant evidence of a nuclear weapons program or links to the al-Qaida network.

Bush has said administration assertions on Iraq will be verified in time. The CIA and other agencies have vigorously defended their prewar performances.

CIA Director George Tenet, responding to similar criticism last week, said in a statement: "The integrity of our process was maintained throughout, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong." On Friday, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency acknowledged he had no hard evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons last fall but believed Iraq had a program in place to produce them.

Also Friday, Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites), said he was not prepared to place blame for any intelligence shortcomings until all information is in.
"There are always times when a single sentence or a single report evokes a lot of concern and some doubt," Warner told reporters after a closed hearing of his committee. "But thus far, in my own personal assessment of this situation, the intelligence community has diligently and forthrightly and with integrity produced intelligence and submitted it to this administration and to the Congress of the United States."

Thielmann suggested mistakes may have been made at points all along the chain from when intelligence is gathered, analyzed, presented to the president and then provided to the public.

The evidence of a renewed nuclear program in Iraq was far more limited than the administration contended, he said.
"When the administration did talk about specific evidence — it was basically declassified, sensitive information — it did it in a way that was also not entirely honest," Thielmann said.

In his State of the Union address, Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The Africa claim rested on a purported letter or letters between officials in Iraq and Niger held by European intelligence agencies. The communications are now accepted as forged, and Thielmann said he believed the information on Africa was discounted months before Bush mentioned it.

"I was very surprised to hear that be announced to the United States and the entire world," he said.
Thielmann said he had presumed Iraq had supplies of chemical and probably biological weapons. He particularly expected U.S. forces to find caches of mustard agent or other chemical weapons left over from Saddam's old stockpiles.

"We appear to have been wrong," he said. "I've been genuinely surprised at that."

One example where officials took too far a leap from the facts, according to Thielmann: On Feb. 11, CIA Director Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq "retains in violation of U.N. resolutions a small number of Scud missiles that it produced before the Gulf War (news - web sites)."

Intelligence analysts supposed Iraq may have had some missiles because they couldn't account for all the Scuds it had before the first Gulf War, Thielmann said. They could have been destroyed, dismantled, miscounted or still somewhere in Saddam's inventory.
Some critics have suggested that the White House and Pentagon (news - web sites) policy-makers pressured the CIA and military intelligence to come up with conclusions favorable to an attack-Iraq policy. The CIA and military have denied such charges. Thielmann said that generally he felt no such pressure.

Although his office did not directly handle terrorism issues, Thielmann said he was similarly unconvinced of a strong link between al-Qaida and Saddam's government.

Yet, the implication from Bush on down was that Saddam supported Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s network. Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks frequently were mentioned in the same sentence, even though officials have no good evidence of any link between the two.

[Joshua]

heh.. ya gotta do what'chya gotta do, right? :D

[Cantacuzene]

I'll say it right now, Bush HAS to find wmd in order to be re-elected. If it turns out there were no weapons then he won't be re-elected. Too many people in the middle ground will turn on him.

[Joshua]

:stupid:

[faither]

Short the emergence of a dynamic Democratic nominee (read Bob Kerry), all Bush has to do to win again is get the economy moving in the right direction and avoid another 9/11. None of the nine or so current candidates can beat him.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by faither
Short the emergence of a dynamic Democratic nominee (read Bob Kerry), all Bush has to do to win again is get the economy moving in the right direction and avoid another 9/11. None of the nine or so current candidates can beat him.

I disagree, the current tide of opinion is turning in the past few weeks to very anti-administration. Notice the growing discontent about the lack of WMD in Iraq and the Ashcroft/Patriot Act hearings going on now, plus despite the market's gains recently, the job market still sucks.

If the economy does not improve, no WMDs are found and the discontent over the Patriot Act grows or knock on wood another 9/11 happens Bush will at very least have some explaining to do. If those factors occur I don't see how he could win a debate against a determined Democrat. I'm really pulling for Gephardt as I have said before, simply because he doesnt have the baggage of Kerry and is easily the best speaker running for nomination the Dems have.

[InfiniteNothing]

I'm so disappointed in the Bush administration.
Why did we have to go to war? I feel less safe than I was because the whole world is watching us. They are all thinking that we are greedy oil cowboys. This war has not defeated any terrorists, it has only created terrorists.

[Dave_7]

Leave Saddam in power and continue with the "inspections" charade.

OR

Forcibly remove Saddam from power.



Sometimes, there's no good/easy way out of a situation. I think we made the right choice between two undesireable options.





Dave.

[sbp]

Quite a rush to judgment.

The UN gets over 12 years plus to deal with this issue and peeps wanted to give them more time. Yet the coalition in only 2 month has to produce the goods.

Even if WMD programs were found overwhelmingly, some detractors still wouldn't be satisfied and would find something to carp on. Typical. Its cause these fools think the US is a rogue nation and believe it is the problem.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10470-2003Jun3.html?nav=hptoc_eo

PRESIDENT BUSH'S claim last week that U.S. forces in Iraq already "have found the weapons of mass destruction" has made a difficult problem for the administration worse. In fact, no Iraqi chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have been located, though a couple of mobile laboratories likely constructed for producing banned biological agents have been found. It still is possible -- we'd say probable -- that weapons will be found. After all, coalition forces haven't found Saddam Hussein or his sons, either, but they or their remains surely do exist; conditions in Iraq remain chaotic, and American control over large parts of the country is still tenuous. But Mr. Bush's attempt to dismiss the WMD issue, like his equally premature description of the Iraq war as a mission accomplished, has damaged U.S. credibility abroad and raised troubling questions about the administration's intentions.

Many critics of the war have rushed to the conclusion that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction and that the Bush administration falsified or deliberately hyped the evidence. This seems unlikely on both counts. Saddam Hussein was proven to have biological and chemical arms during the 1990s. He repeatedly refused to provide evidence that he had destroyed them, even when the survival of his regime was at stake. Not only was the Bush administration convinced that weapons and weapons programs continued: The Clinton administration publicly stated the same conclusion, as did the governments of Britain and France. In December the U.N. Security Council concluded, by a vote of 15 to 0, that Iraq was in "material breach" of repeated U.N. orders to disarm. That conclusion may be proven wrong, but if so the error was shared by two U.S. administrations and most of the world's intelligence community.

So did the administration deliberately overstate the threat? Some of the claims tossed off by Vice President Cheney and other senior officials in the heat of the debate appear unlikely to be borne out. But the administration's most serious presentation of its case -- delivered by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to the Security Council on Feb. 5 -- still looks pretty strong. Mr. Powell offered detailed evidence of Iraqi acts of concealment and deception. He repeated U.N. accounts of chemical and biological agents that Iraq had not accounted for. He described at length the biological labs that have since been found and offered other reports of weapons systems and attempts to acquire nuclear materials. His estimate that "Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent" has yet to be confirmed -- but neither that claim nor most of the other assertions in his presentation have been contradicted.

Saddam Hussein openly defied the United Nations on a critical security matter: weapons of mass destruction. To shrink from responding to his violations even after the events of 9/11 would have gravely damaged international order and U.S. security. By acting, the United States made clear that the proliferation of such weapons to rogue states will not be tolerated, removed the most dangerous regime in the Arab Middle East and ended the criminal repression of millions of Iraqis. Yet that hardly means the Bush administration can now play down the question of weapons. It is vital to prevent any such arms from falling into the hands of terrorists or other rogue states. And it is crucial to the administration's ability to tackle the threat of WMD in other rogue states that it show the world proof of Saddam Hussein's arsenal. If U.S. intelligence was wrong, it is important to learn why. If administration officials misused intelligence, that also should be made clear. What's needed is careful and patient investigation, open to audit by Congress and U.N. inspectors. Hasty conclusions, either by the president or his critics, won't serve.

[Cantacuzene]

SBP, that article proves nothing. Its whole purpose is to say, "Look liberals, your hero Bill Clinton agreed with Bush, you should too!" Rather than actually finding weapons to prove skeptics wrong, it seeks to divide the skeptics into arguing amongst themselves and take heat off the administrations.

[brainsmile]

do you think the administration would sink as far as to plant WMD?

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by brainsmile
do you think the administration would sink as far as to plant WMD?

I doubt it. It would require a massive conspiracy. And if it was uncovered there would be SERIOUS reprecussions, both in american politics and foreign relations.

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by Dave_7

Sometimes, there's no good/easy way out of a situation.

I agree. but how do you justify that we made the best choice. As I see it we just increased the threat to the nation and stuck our noses into someone elses buisness.


Its cause these fools think the US is a rogue nation and believe it is the problem

Darn them, it's all their fault that they think the US is a rogue nation. It can't be because we destroy governments that are no clear and present danger.


Even if WMD programs were found overwhelmingly, some detractors still wouldn't be satisfied and would find something to carp on. Typical.

Even if no WMD are found, some people will still just defend Bush blindly. I'm curious would you defend anything he did? What if he had an affair? What if he lied to the nation...oh wait.

I will admit that I'm acting a bit over-left here. I'm just a little frustrated with how people can't see that how the US acts determines how the US is treated. To say that Terrorists are just jealous of US wealth is ignorant. There is something (right or wrong) that we do to frustrate them.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
If those factors occur I don't see how he could win a debate against a determined Democrat.

That may be true, but I don't believe the majority of the voting public would be responsible enough to watch a debate. They'll vote for who has the prettiest TV commercial. This is the state of US politics- we've become a nation of indifferent, petty, and irresponsible voters.



Originally posted by sbp
After all, coalition forces haven't found Saddam Hussein or his sons, either, but they or their remains surely do exist

Good point.

[Cantacuzene]

Whats the easier thing to hide, 3 people that may or may not be dead, or a gigantic cache of WMD?

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Whats the easier thing to hide, 3 people that may or may not be dead, or a gigantic cache of WMD?

Point taken, the WMD stockpiles should be easier to find.

But IF there are WMD in Iraq, consider that they've been hidden from the international community for a very long time and probably won't be found in plain sight. Also consider that it's a far more difficult (if not impossible) task to show that there AREN'T WMD in Iraq.

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
I agree. but how do you justify that we made the best choice. As I see it we just increased the threat to the nation and stuck our noses into someone elses buisness.

Edit: Saddam violated enough UN resolutions, showed NO interest in proving that he destroyed or otherwise disposed of WMDs that we have documented that he had... and he killed enough of his own people that... I figured enough is enough and it was time to remove him before his potential threat level grows any greater.

How then, on the other side of the coin, do you justify allowing him to continue with the charade of mass murdering his people while violating UN resolutions to the point that he did?
/edit:


Well, ok. Let's say we DIDN'T uproot Saddam's regime. Would we then be safer than we are now? I don't think so. And I'm not saying I don't think so sarcasticly, I really don't think we'd be safer then... than we are now.

That's my opinion.

It's not the Iraqi people that threatened us... it was the all-powerful regime. The regime had nearly limitless resources, and no opposing party to keep it in check.

Not a good combo given Saddam's proven ruthlessness and general disregard for human rights and international law.

I'll stop there and ask, "Exactly who do you think hates us for removing Saddam?"




Dave.

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Whats the easier thing to hide, 3 people that may or may not be dead, or a gigantic cache of WMD?

Not to mention WMD don't have legs;)


Who hates us? Well let my start by saying it only takes one. If someone loved sadam enough I'm sure he could rally people against us. I can see how it would be easy to persuade people that we are a rouge nation. Also, anyone who's bro, sis, etc was killed in the war. Anyone who didn't like us before and who now has just had enough of us.

*Written before your edit*
So you think Sadam's regime was a threat? I don't see why you'd belive we are safer now. Honestly I'm not trying to attack. Like I said I was a bit tempremental when I wrote that. So if you think we are safer let me know because I like to hear most peoples opinions. (Of course there are some who are just so narrow minded. They frustrate me because they expect me to listen to them when they are so stuborn that they never really listen to me. Also I hate arguments that have no logic to back them up)

*Written after your edit:
About the humanitarian cause for going into Iraq: I don't know what to think about that. Of course you can as why Iraq why not say Cuba or the Ivory coast or other countries with similarly opressive dictators. I guess my argument for now is that our resources should go towards self defence and the economy before they go into freeing people. Though, I'm not sure our resources should every go towards medling with opressive governments. I honesly can't figure out the pros and cons of that.

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
Not to mention WMD don't have legs;)


Ha! Well... maybe some of the biological ones could. :P

I edited the post so that I could try to directly answer the question you posed (that I quoted). I didn't address your question, specifically, in my original post.

And a point of the rest of the post includes the idea that people waiting to attack us through terrorist means aren't going to start liking us anytime soon... regardless if we took out Saddam or not. For most of them, it's beyond the point of no return. And the fewer legs terrorism has to stand on, the safer I feel. A reasonable case can be made that international terrorism could be at the doorstep of Saddam's regime calling for support more often people knock on my door trying to convert me to their religion of choice. So we lop off a table-leg (Saddam) that is disobedient, to say the least.

When North Korea stops (one way or another) illegally/secretly shipping weapons to potential terrorist end-users, I'll feel safer, yet.

When Iran is certified free of nuclear weapons capabilities, I'll feel safer, still.

By that time... perhaps a different threat will require our attention.

And Saddam's resources (I think we discussed this in another thread) and history of waging aggressive war are a large part of "why Saddam and not Cuba/African Countries."

I've said it before and I'll say it again... what's a major difference between the right and the left in America... the left believes that the world is a nice place, the right knows that it's not.




Dave.

[brainsmile]

Originally posted by Napoleon54


That may be true, but I don't believe the majority of the voting public would be responsible enough to watch a debate. They'll vote for who has the prettiest TV commercial. This is the state of US politics- we've become a nation of indifferent, petty, and irresponsible voters.


If the economy doesn't pick up then I think more people will tune in

[brainsmile]

maybe they'll be more stories such as this one