Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

[Rajiv]

Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

I am putting this in the news section as opposed to "Rant and Rave" because I believe that this needs to be discussed -- as to how we the people in the US are manipulated into supporting wrong -- I would go so far as to say evil - policies -- If we as a group do not discuss this honestly, and become fragmented over political partisanship and bickering, then we as a group deserve all that is coming down the pike at us,

This is a blog post from Washington's blog, and I am posting it in full.

Everyone knew the WMD claims were fake.

For example, Tony Blair - the British Prime Minister - knew that Saddam possessed no WMDs. If America's closest ally Britain knew, then the White House knew as well.
And the number 2 Democrat in the Senate -who was on the Senate intelligence committee - admitted that the Senate intelligence committee knew before the war started that Bush's public statements about Iraqi WMDs were false. If the committee knew, then the White House knew as well.

But we don't even have to use logic to be able to conclude that the White House knew.
Specifically, the former highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe says that Bush, Cheney and Rice were personally informed that Iraq had no WMDs in Fall 2002 (and see this).
Former Treasury Secretary O’Neil - who was a member of the National Security Council - said:

In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

The CIA warned the White House that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions (using forged documents) were false, and yet the White House made those claims anyway.Indeed, a former high-level CIA analyst (who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials) says that falsified documents which were meant to show that Iraq's Saddam Hussein regime had been trying to procure yellowcake uranium from Niger can be traced back to Dick Cheney, and that:

CIA Director George Tenet told his "coterie of malleable managers" at the CIA to create a National Intelligence Estimate "to the terms of reference of Dick Cheney's speech of August 26, 2002, where Dick Cheney said for the first time Saddam Hussein could have a nuclear weapon in a year, he's got all kinds of chemical, he's got all kinds of biological weapons."

Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind says:

Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official "that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion."

The Washington Post reports that a secret, fact-finding team of scientists and engineers sponsored by the Pentagon determined in May 2003 that two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops were not evidence of an Iraqi biological weapons program. The nine-member team “transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003.” Despite having authoritative evidence that the biological laboratories claim was false, the administration continued to repeat the myth over the next four months.

A British official said that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”.

In January 2004, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report on WMDS in Iraq concluded that the evidence prior to the war indicated that Iraq’s nuclear program had been dismantled and its chemical weapons had lost most of their lethality. In addition, the report concluded that the administration “systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs”.

Fool Me Once ...

In addition, it is a well-understood principle that if someone has been caught in a lie, we are less likely to believe him. For example, a witness who is caught in a lie during trial is unlikely to be believed by the jury when he makes another statement.

Well, Cheney and other high-level White House officials repeatedly implied that Saddam and Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda and 9/11, when they knew that wasn't true.

Indeed, Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind reports that the White House ordered the CIA to forge and backdate a document falsely linking Iraq with Muslim terrorists and 9/11 ... and that the CIA complied with those instructions and in fact created the forgery, which was then used to justify war against Iraq. And see this.

The government also spied on American citizens (even before 9/11 ... confirmed here and here), while saying "we don't spy".

And the government tortured prisoners in Iraq, but said "we don't torture".

In other words, high-level officials in the administration were caught in repeated untruths, and so their statements about believing good faith that Iraq had WMDs is less believable.

What Really Happened?

But if the White House knew that Iraq didn't have any WMDs, why did we go to war in Iraq?

Well, several very high-profile figures have said it was for the oil. See this, this and this.

Perhaps Tom Brokaw says it most simply:

All wars on based on propaganda.

If you still believe that the government invaded Iraq due to WMDs or links to terrorists, this is why.

And please do click on the last this is why.

[rjwjr]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

My opinion...move to Rant & Rave.

[Rajiv]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

If people are not honest in confronting the lies that are told to them, then they do not deserve the courtesy of being believed themselves.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

I never believed it. You'd be amazed at how many still do believe it though.

Saddam had to be taken out because he refused to play by the rules set by the U.S. - take a loan from the IMF, let the World Bank and National Endowment for Democracy in through the front door, join the World Trade Association and conduct cross border trade in dollars.

Our leaders didn't want to deal with sanctions and fly zones for another thirty years, waiting out Saddam's death and they wanted a team player in Iraq, like a Karzai. Who was their corrupt-ass point man in Iraq? I know Rajiv will know whose name I can't recall right now.

[GRG55]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

...Who was there corrupt-ass point man in Iraq? I know Rajiv will know whose name I can't recall right now.

I presume you are referring to Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi?

[MulaMan]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

Depends on your definition of WMD. Just ask Dick "The Dick" Cheney:

Weapons of Mass Destruction

then it became - Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs

then it became - Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Programs

America & UK murdered 100,000 humans (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) because of "WMD related programs".

Then again, I'm certain they still had some of the musturd gas GW Bush Sr. gave them to murder the Kurds.

It was a complete engineered war by the American & UK administrations and the American people absolutly have blood on thier hands.

If I was an Iraqi, then I would absolutly revenge the deaths of my people, so I am certain that some sort of revenge will be taken even if it takes generations for the opportuntiy to arise.

The best thing we can still do is lock up GW Bush and Tony Blair, throw away the key.

[Crazyfingers]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.
-Mark Twain

[oddlots]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

There's a stunning moment in Richard Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies," where he's giving the first security briefing after the 911 attacks I believe. He makes his recommendation: strike Al Queda in Afghanistan and Rumsfeld immediately replies: "There are no good targets in Afghanistan."

This was mere hours after the attacks.

I have thought of that every time since that I heard a politician or bureaucrat try to evoke the memory of 9-11 (implicitly or explicitly in support of some action.)

I really think that, at base, the thinking of Rumsfeld here - what is to be gained, how can we use this to our own advantage, the pitiless drive to power - is indistinguishable from the criminal instrumentality of Al Queda's way of thinking.

I fear that the significance of modern democracy in a sober-eyed view is that it is the penultimate marketing plan for the "great game" of imperial power for all the reasons the sociologists in the linked article illuminate.

I don't know how you fight that but I, for one, agree that it is a legitimate, fundamental question that we should be able to discuss here rationally.

[ASH]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

I am putting this in the news section as opposed to "Rant and Rave" because I believe that this needs to be discussed -- as to how we the people in the US are manipulated into supporting wrong -- I would go so far as to say evil - policies -- If we as a group do not discuss this honestly, and become fragmented over political partisanship and bickering, then we as a group deserve all that is coming down the pike at us.

I'm going to rant and rave if I write about this at any length, so I'll limit this to two points.

First, the intelligence was mixed. Citing some of the intelligence which happened to be right after the fact doesn't prove that anybody 'knew' anything -- it merely proves that the right information was mixed in with the wrong information, and our decision-makers went with the wrong information. How can you tell the difference between someone who knows the right information pretending to believe the wrong information, and mere confirmation bias?

Second, if you really believe that the Bush Administration were a bunch of competent Machiavellian geniuses rather than a clutch of irrational, idealistic morons, ask yourself this: why did they build their entire public case for the war on WMD and then fail to 'find' any? If this was all about manipulation, and they are so evil, why wouldn't they have fabricated WMD to 'find' in the invasion?

For what it's worth, here's what I believe. I do think that the Bush Administration hijacked patriotic sentiment following 9/11 to pursue a pet foreign policy objective in Iraq. I think they were victims of confirmation bias when assessing the intelligence presented to them, and I think they cynically over-sold their certainty about WMD and Al Quaeda connections to the public. This was manipulation, and I do think it extended to presenting 'intelligence' they knew to be bad, for the purpose of engaging public support. Further, I don't think current Iraqi WMD capabilities were the actual focus of their war aims. I think the war was about (a) the combination of sanctions and the no-fly zones slowly failing, (b) eliminating Saddam as a potential future threat to oppose American interests, and (c) expanding and consolidating American influence in the Middle East [because of the oil]. None of these objectives have the heft or immediacy required to justify war in the eyes of the people, so yes -- an immediate security threat was sold as the justification for what was actually an elective war, using 9/11 as an opportunity. However, the intelligence about WMD was mixed, and I'm pretty sure the Bush Administration really did expect to find some WMD in Iraq... enough, at least, to provide the fig leaf they needed for public relations. I also believe that the Bush Administration honestly did connect the vulnerability of the homeland demonstrated by 9/11 to Saddam's potential as a future threat -- the same way they worried about future threats from Iran and North Korea. It's just that North Korea wasn't touchable; maybe Iran would have been next if Iraq had gone better. Regardless, however much sense pre-emptive war makes, it is a tough sell politically, and can be disastrous if you are wrong. Instead, no WMD were found, and this turned into a huge debacle for the Bush Administration and the Republican party in general. As I wrote above, in my mind, the fact that no WMD were fabricated to meet the PR necessity speaks volumes about the limits of duplicity in high places. Alas, competence seems to be limited, as well.

[MulaMan]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

even Woody Guthrie new Iraq didn't have WMDs





...and it seems he understood the festering disease taking over the Republican party'...

Jesus Christ was a man who traveled through the land
A hard-working man and brave
He said to the rich, "Give your money to the poor,"
But they laid Jesus Christ in His grave

Jesus was a man, a carpenter by hand
His followers true and brave
One dirty little coward called Judas Iscariot
Has laid Jesus Christ in His Grave

He went to the preacher, He went to the sheriff
He told them all the same
"Sell all of your jewelry and give it to the poor,"
And they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

When Jesus come to town, all the working folks around
Believed what he did say
But the bankers and the preachers, they nailed Him on the cross,
And they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

And the people held their breath when they heard about his death
Everybody wondered why
It was the big landlord and the soldiers that they hired
To nail Jesus Christ in the sky

This song was written in New York City
Of rich man, preacher, and slave
If Jesus was to preach what He preached in Galilee,
They would lay poor Jesus in His grave.

[medved]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

I'm going to rant and rave if I write about this at any length, so I'll limit this to two points.

First, the intelligence was mixed. Citing some of the intelligence which happened to be right after the fact doesn't prove that anybody 'knew' anything -- it merely proves that the right information was mixed in with the wrong information, and our decision-makers went with the wrong information. How can you tell the difference between someone who knows the right information pretending to believe the wrong information, and mere confirmation bias?

Second, if you really believe that the Bush Administration were a bunch of competent Machiavellian geniuses rather than a clutch of irrational, idealistic morons, ask yourself this: why did they build their entire public case for the war on WMD and then fail to 'find' any? If this was all about manipulation, and they are so evil, why wouldn't they have fabricated WMD to 'find' in the invasion?

Right on Ash.

People that repeat “Bush lied” ad nauseam tend to have short memories. They forget, the same statements about dangers of Iraqi WMDs were made by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and his Secy of State Sandy Burglar long before GW became president.

Even the “whistleblower” and “truth teller” Joe Wilson (husband of Valery Plame) stated in his NYT article : “I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program -- all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.”

The people with short memories tend to forget, possibility of the US military presence in the Gulf was always a bipartisan idea first proclaimed by Jimmy Carter with full approval by both parties (Carter Doctrine).

Obviously, the Carter Doctrine is the main foundation behind invasion of Iraq, and WMD is only an excuse. Indeed, it was very stupid to base the whole war effort on the WMD propaganda. Bushies believed in it so much, they had no doubt the WMD would be found. It is more faith than lie, just like AGW. The AGW proponents don’t lie, they sincerely believe in their religion. But religion is not a good foundation for any government action, be it foreign policy or environmental protection.

BTW, I don’t see a lot of anti-war protests now, in spite of our soldiers still dying. I guess, the main purpose of the whole "anti-war" movement was purely political.

[Shakespear]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

People will think "what THEY want to think". However implicating this story/issue with "rant and rave" demeans the seriousness of the situation discussed.

What I find amazing is that many "conspiracy nuts" and their theories somehow frequently have 80% accurately described the situation regardless whether FOX News, CNN or New York Times said otherwise. That speaks volumes for me.

So Rajiv, this belongs in the NEWS section because for a lot of people this jigsaw puzzle "solution" is news to them.

How can you tell the difference between someone who knows the right information pretending to believe the wrong information, and mere confirmation bias?

I think a Senior CIA officer has the right stuff to be able to tell and did so.

Wilson also said in the NYT article

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM6oj...eature=related

[D-Mack]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

In one of his Gloomiest predictions, Faber, referred to as Dr Doom, said "the average family will be hurt by that, and then in order to distract the attention of the people, the governments will go to war".

"People ask me against whom? Well, they will invent an enemy," Faber said.

"At some stage, somewhere in future, we will have a war - that you have to be prepared for. And during war times, commodities go up strongly,” said Faber.

"If you want to hedge against war, you don't want to own derivatives in UBS and AIG, but you have to own them physically, like farmland and agricultural commodities. That is something to consider for you as a personal safety and hedge. You have to own some commodities," he added.

http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=422...cg=4&mset=1011

nothing new under the sun

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

As I wrote above, the fact that no WMD were fabricated to meet the PR necessity speaks volumes about the limits of duplicity in high places.

Just curious, how would you fabricate WMD? Fabricating the doubt/fear that they were there was easy. Slipping some real ones in would be mind boggling, with less than a 1 % chance of success.

[rjwjr]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

My opinion...move to Rant & Rave.

Does anyone else feel that the use of Woodie Guthrie lyrics as a post is grounds for immediate transfer to Rant & Rave?

Rajiv, you may have hoped that this thread would be an intelligent discussion about learning from recent history and being manipulated by our political leadership, but your choice of example (Bush/WMD's) was certain to bring-out a completely different argument.

So, were you being intellectually naive or were you yourself playing the iTulip members in hopes of sparking another tired argument about the Bush administration (an administration that wasn't much liked by most of the conservatives on this site by the way, but do we really need to re-hash this WMD stuff ad naseum)?