quote: Saddam told his top aides in November 2002 that, contrary to what he had encouraged them all to believe, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction to fall back on if the United States were to invade.
For a long time, Saddam's own scientists and advisers, fearful of giving him bad news, misled him into believing they'd made more progress on exotic weaponry than they had.
(Quotes are actually from a slat article)
I know on this board there's been a lot of discussion, sometimes heated, on the topic. I've seen two or three general types comments on Bush and the WMD topic. One, he flat out lied about them. Two, he's terribly incompetent. And last, he didn't do anything really bad, it was mostly intelligence organizations that dropped the ball.
My question is if anyone feels that this somewhat exonerates Bush and the intelligence agencies of the accusations of lying and being incompetent. My view is that it does, to a certain degree. It seems that if Saddam was able to keep his own military advisors believing he had WMD until Nov 2002, it's no wonder that all the international intelligence organizations believed the same thing.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I don't know if you've had time to read the article Bok, but from my understanding it was from tape recordings and intercepted communications. The article I linked to seems pretty positive it was him. I think you can dismiss that concern.
Additionally, it was only 3-4 months between the time when Saddam secretly mentioned the fact that he had no WMD to his top generals and the start of the war. They had every interest in allowing us to believe they had WMDs since they thought it was a deterent to the potential war. After years of contrary intelligence, information that the last decade of intel was completely wrong would be treated dubiously. It appears that we had no such intel at all.
Really, why not keep an open mind about it all and see what happens as things develop?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Iraq's military believed Saddam knew of secret WMDs cuz they read/heard the nonsense that the DubyaAdministration generated. As for international intelligence agencies believing the same thing, none of them did: not even the CIA.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or if he had let them inspect things for the ten years before that point, that might have helped, too.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, some people knew about this, even if Saddam didn't. It was certainly possible to learn about WMDs regardless of whether Saddam did or not.
mph, I know he wasn't exactly following the spirit of the sanctions (an understatement), the inspectors also said that they shouldn't have been pulled out when President Bush said, "Enough is enough." So they felt some good was being done, even if Bush thought otherwise. ---
Hey, I figured Saddam was a dangerous dictator that had some weapons/functional weapons programs too, and wasn't exactly upset that he got toppled. At the time I also thought, however, that we had to be careful, much more so than Afghanistan, because the clear and present danger argument wasn't so clear cut, if one wasn't just listening to the administration. There was a lot of nuance that went unsaid, or was footnoted in really tiny letters (or so it seemed to me). I wasn't the only one saying this, for what its worth, even as much as I'd like to portray myself as a Modern-Day Cassandra... Mmmm, angst. I don't know, I just have never seen the invasion of Iraq as an all-or-nothing thing. Which is why I don't expect (or particularly desire) a pullout any time in the next 4-5 years, unless we can get some verifiable proof of progress and stability.
Except, of course, the huge permanent bases we have built/are building over there. Those we keep.
BTW, this story about Saddam not being told feels rather old to me. Didn't we already know he was being misled?
posted
I think Bush and his administration dug up all the information that they could that would support an invasion of Iraq. I also think they could and probably did exclude information that would be against invasion. Either way, it doesn't matter what the perception is. Maybe Saddam was misled, and maybe he in turn misled the international community. It doesn't change the fact that at the time of invasion, there were no actual WMD found. Although there was evidence that such programs existed, there was no proof that the programs were at all successful.
Besides, it doesn't really matter now. We're stuck in Iraq and we'll continue to be stuck for a while. Meanwhile, US soldiers are being killed and billions of dollars are being spent on this war that should be going to education and social programs. I do believe that since we have been in Iraq we have helped the country in helping them to democratically elect their government. However, I'd rather that we never went in and I am concerned on how we are going to leave since the government has not offered any semblance of an exit strategy or even an estimate of when the US will leave. Now if you have a link to the contrary, feel free to post it.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The debate is over--or it should be. According to the report released today by the Senate intelligence committee, the intelligence community--led by the CIA--"overstated" and "mischaracterized" the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. In the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced hastily and haphazardly in October 2002, the intelligence community concluded that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed chemical and biological weapons, was "reconstituting" its nuclear weapons program, was supporting an "active" and "advanced" biological weapons program, and was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle "probably intended to deliver" biological weapons. All of these critical findings, the committee report says, "either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting."
If you disregard the language from the obviously biased link, the quoted part tells a pretty damning tale about the intelligence in this case.
However, it should also be clear that the administration was looking for a reason to invade Iraq and to provide a clear win, as recounted in Woodward's book, Plan of Attack(Link}:
quote: Woodward reports that just five days after Sept. 11, President Bush indicated to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that while he had to do Afghanistan first, he was also determined to do something about Saddam Hussein.
”There's some pressure to go after Saddam Hussein. Don Rumsfeld has said, ‘This is an opportunity to take out Saddam Hussein, perhaps. We should consider it.’ And the president says to Condi Rice meeting head to head, ‘We won't do Iraq now.’ But it is a question we're gonna have to return to,’” says Woodward.
“And there's this low boil on Iraq until the day before Thanksgiving, Nov. 21, 2001. This is 72 days after 9/11. This is part of this secret history. President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically, and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, ‘What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.’"
Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam - and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
”Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the preparations in Kuwait, specifically to make war possible,” says Woodward.
Do you really think after all that money, effort and planning of how to go to war in Iraq there wouldn't be some expectation of evidence of WMD and therefore, very reasonably from a psychological point of view, some cherry-picking of intelligence in that area? It doesn't matter if it was intentional or not. If you look for reasons to go to war, you will find them. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy - the Bush administration was sure it was going to war with Iraq. It was just a matter of time.
It didn't matter what Saddam's advisors believed. We still would have gone to war.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't be so naive. Iraq was invaded to continue war as a distraction from the DubyaAdmininistration's and the RepublicanCongress' looting of America after 9/11. Nothing more, and nothing less.
IF they had had the slightest interest in actually winning the war and transitioning to peace, they would have gone in with twice the number of troops as was recommended by the career professionals in the military and at the StateDepartment.
IF the DubyaAdministration were interested in ensuring a peaceful transition, they wouldn't have necessitated and encouraged the looting after the fall of Saddam's regime; most especially the looting of Iraqi armories which provided weapons now being used to kill and maim US&Coalition soldiers, civilian contractors from around the world, and Iraqi citizens.
posted
Aspectre, I'm sure you have plenty of proof for all of your claims?
quote: DubyaAdmininistration's and the RepublicanCongress' looting of America
So they have a vast treasure trove hidden in the White House? I see you also edited out one more of your claims about the firing of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
quote: they wouldn't have necessitated and encouraged the looting after the fall of Saddam's regime; most especially the looting of Iraqi armories
I'm sure you have proof that Bush encouraged people to loot the armories and whatever after the fall of Saddam.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dubya appointee Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld himself stated on US national television that the looting was "...Iraqis celebrating their new found freedom." And the DubyaAdministration fired over a quarter of all working Iraqis during the initial phase of the Occupation, effectively telling them "you and your families can starve while we think for a nebulously indeterminate amount of time about what we're gonna do with ya."
I edited out my comment inregard to General Shinseki because it is less than clearly provable that he was fired for testifying in opposition to the DubyaAdministration's desire to occupy Iraq with half the number of troops recommended.
"So they have a vast treasure trove hidden in the White House?"
Cute. Try again when ya can find an example of any redrafting of regulations or piece of legislation that the DubyaAdministration and/or the Republican-controlled Congress has done which hasn't had the net effect of rewarding their political contributors at extreme expense to the American public.
I don't see any mention of Rumsfeld telling or encouraging anyone to loot things?
quote: And the DubyaAdministration fired over a quarter of all working Iraqis during the initial phase of the Occupation, effectively telling them "starve while we think about what we're gonna do with ya."
Please provide any proof that Bush effectively did anything like this. I think you are referring to the dismissal of Iraq's military? Perhaps an article like this is where you get your information Washington Post Of course you would have to read the whole article to find out what the actual facts are. Here's another article with a different view Weekly Standard
As far as General Shinseki is concerned, of course it is "less than clearly provable that he was fired for testifying in opposition to the DubyaAdministration's desire to occupy Iraq with half the number of troops recommended" because that is not what happened.
Bush Legislation Bi Partisan support... BBC story There are plenty more too, and most of your assertions about Bush and his legislation are just your opinion about who benefits and why.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am referring to dismissal of all Iraqi govenment workers. And the government ran most of the largest industrial concerns within the country: from oil to fertilizer to cement to electricity production to bakeries to furniture making to baby formula to...
"because that is not what happened." No, that is not what the DubyaAdministration claimed happened. And we know that no one there ever lies about anything.
Opinions, pffeh. Ya still haven't come up with a single example of any redrafting of regulations or piece of legislation that the DubyaAdministration and/or the Republican-controlled Congress has done which hasn't had the net effect of rewarding their political contributors at extreme expense to the American public. Cuz ya can't.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You really should do some research especially about General Shinseki and the timeline of when his successor was announced and when he made his comments on troop levels. Not that you will, but it would be nice. I came up with two pieces of legislation that hasn't had the net effect....actually I don't even know why I discuss this with you. Your mind is completely made up that if Bush did it then that means it HAS to be evil and can ONLY benefit his political contributors at the extreme expense to the American public. Which if you think about it, is again intentionally misleading. ANYTHING the government does is at the expense of the American public because that is where the money is taken from (which ironically means the RICH pay for virtually all of it) and rewards somebody, even it is the AARP or NEA (who are political contributors to both parties).
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that the whole "the rich pay for it all" canard is silly. Sure they do, but incidentally, they also own an even higher percentage of the wealth of the nation. And at a certain point (which we can all argue, no doubt), the tax comes out of essentially non-essential living; it generally doesn't hurt someone making even $200k a year to pay $25 of the income between $125k and $200k. They still took home, within that range, more than the median income for the average American.
I make a good income; I am well above the modian (though not near $200k). At worst I begrudge how well my tax money is used; if we could lower the tax rates because we were effectively and more efficiently using every tax dollar, I'd have no issues.
The solution ought not to be "starve the beast", rather, I think it should be to put the beast on an exercise plan.
-Bok
EDIT: Sorry for the tangent.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
DefenseSecretary Rumsfeld announced Shinseki's successor well before Shinseki's retirement -- lameducking Shinseki's authority to military subordinates, which is extremely unusual -- soon after the US invasion of Afghanistan. When the stated goal of the DubyaAdministration was to suppress Taleban remnants and to capture binLaden and his alQaeda associates, undermining the Army Chief of Staff while he is in the midst of coordinating an Occupation would seem to be highly counter-productive.
Unless that publicized goal was merely propaganda -- ie the DubyaAdminsitration wasn't particularly interested in capturing the perpetrators of 9/11 or in rebuilding Afghanistan -- and the true goal had already been changed into the invasion of Iraq, in keeping with the longheld desires of the neocons that Dubya appointed to high DefenseDepartment positions. Then it could be inferred that Rumsfeld's announcement was intended to undermine the Army Chief of Staff because Shinseki's evaluation of rumors about Iraqi WeaponsOfMassDestruction differed sharply from those who wished to have an excuse to invade, and/or his assessment of the cost of an invasion with regard to manpower&funding was already far above the hyper-optimistic minimalized cost that the Administration was willing state to the public.
But as I said before: I edited out my comment because it is less than clearly provable. And the truthfulness of such a scenario isn't currently investigatable because the DubyaAdministation will clamp down a "national security" shield over any attempt at fact-finding, and the Republican-controlled Congress has steadfastly refused to use its oversight powers on a RepublicanAdministration which has allowed them to loot the American economy at will.
quote:Mon Mar 27, 1:49 AM ET NEW YORK (AFP) - US President George W. Bush made clear to British Prime Minister Tony Blair in January 2003 that he was determined to invade Iraq without a UN resolution and even if UN arms inspectors failed to find weapons of mass destruction in the country, The New York Times reported.
Citing a confidential British memorandum, the newspaper said the president was certain that war was inevitable and made his view known during a private two-hour meeting with Blair in the Oval Office on January 31, 2003.
Information about the meeting was contained in the memo written by Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The Times.
...
Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, then US secretary of state Colin Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.
...
The document indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable, the paper said.
Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Blair agreed with that assessment.
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq, The Times noted.
Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a US surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Iraqi president Saddam Hussein
Huh. There's already been a lot of damning stories about Iraq and Bush's dishonesty/arrogance/incompetence/whatever, but that's one of the most serious I've seen yet.
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except there's a 6 month gap where we could have found the truth.
If Saddam had allowed the UN inspectors inspect things before the deadline, we would have.
Um, UN inspectors DID go in before the deadline. I didn't feel like finding a more direct link talking about the inspectors, but they were there, and with even more unfettered access than they'd ever had before. They could go literally anywhere in the nation, whereas before they had to stay away from the palaces and other areas.
The inspectors were quite frankly what I found to be the most hilarious part of this entire debacle. UN inspectors go in before the war and Saddam throws millions of papers at them, gives them unfettered access and says "have at it." Bush gives them what, a couple months at most? Then he declares them ineffective and puts the burden of proof on Saddam. Now assuming, as it seems clear now, that those weapons were long gone, how would it ever have been possible for Saddam to prove he had no weapons? He had to prove that non-existant weapons DID exist but were destroyed. It's a ridiculous burden of proof. And either way, I have little doubt that Bush would've said "whew, well we have the papers in hand, I guess we can call this one a wash" and that he'd actually walk away from it.
So we invade. And three months later, after having a thousands of more people than the UN ever had scouring the country looking for weapons they STILL can't find them. So Bush tellst he world "hey, this kind of thing takes time!" Heh. So, diplomacy and UN WMD inspectors should be able to find something in three months or they are useless, but the entire US military combing the desert ("Sir, are you sure we aren't being too literal?" "He told us to comb the desert, we're combing the desert.") for the same amount of time just means that we need more time because it's "hard work."
The hypocrisy is hysterical.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saddam had suffered from the same ailment that Moamar Qadafi, Benito Mussolini and any neighborhood bully do: the willingness to threaten and intimidate any and all who would listen. The guts to overstate their capabilities to the point where they kinda even believed it themselves.
And sooner or later, someone big and strong will knock down the bully and expose them for what they are.
In the case of the US and Iraq, I fully believed we went to his neighborhood (so to say) looking for the fight. And we weren't going to let him back down, even if we had to let Saddam's protestations of innocence fall on deaf ears. But the problem is that if the bully backs down before the fight and is exposed as the coward, you are in the wrong to start pounding on them. It's no longer about justice then, it's about becoming the new bully.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
