Revisionist History?
- Thread starter Clashman
- Start date
You or I could call up and order research strains of anthrax, and it wouldn't cost a bundle of money such that we'd need to get a loan from the bank.
You forgot to add the best David Kay quote.
'I think the Intelligence community deserves to apologize to President Bush, not President Bush that deserves to apologize to the people'
The whole WMD imminent threat spiel was always about intelligence, both British, European and American. I think it shows the sad state of our western efforts in the Middle East more than anything else.
Did the Administration over hype the rhetoric? Yes, most likely!
Did most every reasonable person (dem, republican, analysts etc) ultimately believe that there was noncompliance with the UN resolution. A resounding yes!
Is the world a better place post Iraq invasion? Yes!
I'd do it again in a heartbeat. (But i'd still like to see a congressional review of the intelligence efforts prewar, and a few choice letters to some of the CIA heads)
'I think the Intelligence community deserves to apologize to President Bush, not President Bush that deserves to apologize to the people'
The whole WMD imminent threat spiel was always about intelligence, both British, European and American. I think it shows the sad state of our western efforts in the Middle East more than anything else.
Did the Administration over hype the rhetoric? Yes, most likely!
Did most every reasonable person (dem, republican, analysts etc) ultimately believe that there was noncompliance with the UN resolution. A resounding yes!
Is the world a better place post Iraq invasion? Yes!
I'd do it again in a heartbeat. (But i'd still like to see a congressional review of the intelligence efforts prewar, and a few choice letters to some of the CIA heads)
Both the Intelligence Community and the Bush Administration are to blame for this brouhaha. There was obviously some really bad intelligence coming out of the CIA and British Intelligence (I'm assuming Interpol), but the exaggeration of even the good intelligence by the Administration was rather blatant.
The CIA repeatedly told the Administration in 2002 and early 2003 that the Niger Uranium Yellowcake story was false and could not be corroborated. The Italians who first broke the story to the CIA and Interpol also recanted on their story. Ambassador Wilson, Dick Cheney's hand picked detective, came back from Niger stating matter-of-factly that the charge was false. Instead of paying attention to what they were saying, the Bush Administration decided to make the case anyway, and tell the American Public that it was the British who made the claim. This was a case where it is blatantly obvious that the Administration was taking anything and everything it could in order to build a case, no matter how shaky, for war. It should also be noted that just a few days later, Colin Powell neglected to mention the Niger claim to the UN Security Council. Why? Because he felt that the information was not solid enough for the governing body. Why should it not be solid enough for the UN Security Council, but solid enough to be given to the American Public as gospel?
It should also be noted that there were many instances of public dissent coming from the Intelligence Community regarding the information being used to take us to war.
The Administration, immediately following 9/11/2001, tried to tie Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein together. The CIA shot that connection down, and now we've found that in fact there were no Al-Qaeda terrorist connections in Iraq before we went in.
Certainly much of what we suspected was incorrect, and that falls squarely on the shoulders of the CIA and other intelligence communities around the world. With that said, we had the opportunity to vet the information properly with a ground inspection. The Administration officials repeatedly stated that we not only knew how much WMD Saddam possessed, but we also knew where that WMD existed. Information such as this should have been passed to the Weapons Inspectors in order to verify it. Colin Powell showed Sat Photos of the alleged WMD producing labs. Why wasn't that information given to the Weapons Inspectors for corroboration?
The job that David Kay just finished merely confirmed exactly what the UN Weapons Inspectors, led by Hans Blix, stated in their shortened reports last year, due to us kicking them out prematurely in our tunnel visioned march toward war. No WMD exists in Iraq. The capability to make WMD existed at one point, but the infrastructure was so degraded after 12 years of sanctions that there was no threat posed of any imminent kind. All of this could have been ascertained by a full inspection process.
Where does this leave us now? We have a situation in Iraq that we cannot fail at, and we cannot abandon. We are there for the long haul, no matter what any politicians, democrat and republican, state. We had massive intelligence failures in this regard, just the same as 9/11. It is telling, however, that no one was fired because of the 9/11 failures, and those same people are in power at the CIA, overseeing the Iraq failure. When will the CIA be held accountable?
On the other hand, the Administration shares a tremendous amount of the blame as well. There are many documented instances where our Intelligence informed the Administration that certain things, such as the Niger claim, were patently false and/or misleading and/or suspect and/or uncorroborable. Yet the Administration still used many of these "facts" to build their case for war. It was a case of willful denial and "head in the sand" syndrome in order to push forward to war. The Administration had a chance to give its intel to the Weapons Inspectors for the sole purpose of checkmating our "friends" at the UN (France, Germany, Russia). Maybe they knew that their intel wouldn't hold up under scrutiny. Maybe not. Either way, there were ways of handling this war that would have been far better and far more preferrable to what we got.
Both the Administration and the Intelligence Community must share in the blame for this failure. However, it disgusts me that the Administration is now trying to whitewash it all onto the CIA when it is patently obvious that there were times the CIA tried to reign the Administration in, only to be overruled.
In closing, the most damning piece of evidence imo is the documented fact that the Administration asked the CIA to build worst case scenarios. Instead of presenting those worst case scenarios as such, the Administration presented those to the american public as inevitabilities. One such instance is the "Nuclear weapon within a year" claim, or Condi Rice's now infamous "Mushroom clouds in every city" statement on Meet The Press and Hardball. This "worst case scenario" request, along with the best case scenario resolution to the war presented to the American public, such as "We will be greeted as liberators" and "The oil money will pay for everything," is solely the doing of the Administration. We have spent over $200 Billion in Iraq to date, with billions more coming in the near future. We have found no WMD in Iraq, nor the capability to make WMD anytime soon. We have found no definitive terrorist ties in Iraq that pre-dated our war. Both the Administration and the Intelligence communities around the world must share the blame for these failures. Unfortunately the current spin campaign on the part of the Administration is to put all of the blame on the CIA.
I love the outcome of the war, i.e. an evil dictator has been deposed and a people have been exposed to freedom for the first time in decades, maybe ever. But the means used to get us to this point are simply deplorable.
The Administration is practicing extreme revisionism now in order to save their political hides at the sole expense of the CIA, and it is completely wrong.
The CIA repeatedly told the Administration in 2002 and early 2003 that the Niger Uranium Yellowcake story was false and could not be corroborated. The Italians who first broke the story to the CIA and Interpol also recanted on their story. Ambassador Wilson, Dick Cheney's hand picked detective, came back from Niger stating matter-of-factly that the charge was false. Instead of paying attention to what they were saying, the Bush Administration decided to make the case anyway, and tell the American Public that it was the British who made the claim. This was a case where it is blatantly obvious that the Administration was taking anything and everything it could in order to build a case, no matter how shaky, for war. It should also be noted that just a few days later, Colin Powell neglected to mention the Niger claim to the UN Security Council. Why? Because he felt that the information was not solid enough for the governing body. Why should it not be solid enough for the UN Security Council, but solid enough to be given to the American Public as gospel?
It should also be noted that there were many instances of public dissent coming from the Intelligence Community regarding the information being used to take us to war.
The Administration, immediately following 9/11/2001, tried to tie Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein together. The CIA shot that connection down, and now we've found that in fact there were no Al-Qaeda terrorist connections in Iraq before we went in.
Certainly much of what we suspected was incorrect, and that falls squarely on the shoulders of the CIA and other intelligence communities around the world. With that said, we had the opportunity to vet the information properly with a ground inspection. The Administration officials repeatedly stated that we not only knew how much WMD Saddam possessed, but we also knew where that WMD existed. Information such as this should have been passed to the Weapons Inspectors in order to verify it. Colin Powell showed Sat Photos of the alleged WMD producing labs. Why wasn't that information given to the Weapons Inspectors for corroboration?
The job that David Kay just finished merely confirmed exactly what the UN Weapons Inspectors, led by Hans Blix, stated in their shortened reports last year, due to us kicking them out prematurely in our tunnel visioned march toward war. No WMD exists in Iraq. The capability to make WMD existed at one point, but the infrastructure was so degraded after 12 years of sanctions that there was no threat posed of any imminent kind. All of this could have been ascertained by a full inspection process.
Where does this leave us now? We have a situation in Iraq that we cannot fail at, and we cannot abandon. We are there for the long haul, no matter what any politicians, democrat and republican, state. We had massive intelligence failures in this regard, just the same as 9/11. It is telling, however, that no one was fired because of the 9/11 failures, and those same people are in power at the CIA, overseeing the Iraq failure. When will the CIA be held accountable?
On the other hand, the Administration shares a tremendous amount of the blame as well. There are many documented instances where our Intelligence informed the Administration that certain things, such as the Niger claim, were patently false and/or misleading and/or suspect and/or uncorroborable. Yet the Administration still used many of these "facts" to build their case for war. It was a case of willful denial and "head in the sand" syndrome in order to push forward to war. The Administration had a chance to give its intel to the Weapons Inspectors for the sole purpose of checkmating our "friends" at the UN (France, Germany, Russia). Maybe they knew that their intel wouldn't hold up under scrutiny. Maybe not. Either way, there were ways of handling this war that would have been far better and far more preferrable to what we got.
Both the Administration and the Intelligence Community must share in the blame for this failure. However, it disgusts me that the Administration is now trying to whitewash it all onto the CIA when it is patently obvious that there were times the CIA tried to reign the Administration in, only to be overruled.
In closing, the most damning piece of evidence imo is the documented fact that the Administration asked the CIA to build worst case scenarios. Instead of presenting those worst case scenarios as such, the Administration presented those to the american public as inevitabilities. One such instance is the "Nuclear weapon within a year" claim, or Condi Rice's now infamous "Mushroom clouds in every city" statement on Meet The Press and Hardball. This "worst case scenario" request, along with the best case scenario resolution to the war presented to the American public, such as "We will be greeted as liberators" and "The oil money will pay for everything," is solely the doing of the Administration. We have spent over $200 Billion in Iraq to date, with billions more coming in the near future. We have found no WMD in Iraq, nor the capability to make WMD anytime soon. We have found no definitive terrorist ties in Iraq that pre-dated our war. Both the Administration and the Intelligence communities around the world must share the blame for these failures. Unfortunately the current spin campaign on the part of the Administration is to put all of the blame on the CIA.
I love the outcome of the war, i.e. an evil dictator has been deposed and a people have been exposed to freedom for the first time in decades, maybe ever. But the means used to get us to this point are simply deplorable.
The Administration is practicing extreme revisionism now in order to save their political hides at the sole expense of the CIA, and it is completely wrong.
Fred said:
Yes, by the British secret service. Not by the CIA, or the Italian Intelligence that originally informed the CIA and the British. Dick Cheney didn't believe the CIA, so he formed his own intelligence committee to gather intelligence that would support his beliefs. Ambassador Wilson was charged with going to Niger to find out whether this claim was true or not, and he came back with proof that it was not. So not only was the CIA and the Italians saying it wasn't true, but Cheney's hand picked man stated the same thing as well.
Instead of taking the prudent course of action and not presenting that information to the american public as truth, the administration decided to play fast and loose with the data, legally presenting it as hearsay (We've recently learned from british intelligence that Iraq tried to purchase Uranium from Niger....), but hearsay has no place in a State of the Union lest it become no better than a gossip column. Hearsay should have no place in going to war.
And of course, we have the little problem of the administration squashing dissent, or at least giving the appearance of squashing dissent, in our intelligence community when it didn't jive with the portrait they were trying to paint. Look no further than the "outing" of Ambassador Wilson's wife, a high crime, and one potentially dangerous not only to her life, but to the lives of those she's had direct, but totally unrelated, contact with.
So as I said before, the Administration wanted to go to war from day 1 as presented by Paul O'Neill, and they did anything and everything to find reasons to go to war, even if those reasons weren't necessarily true, or presented a solid foundation of fact.
As you said before, the Administration hyped the threat. Now they're saying "Oh well we just took what our Intel gave us and presented that carte blanche." That is revisionist. That is wrong.
p.s.: It should be noted that just a few days ago, Dick Cheney made several public comments stating that he still believes WMD exist in Iraq and still believes that they will be found and that Iraq had Al-Qaeda terrorist ties. Even after everything that has come out. This stance comes even as Bush himself and Powell and others have come out stating that there are no WMD or terrorist ties. Cheney, frankly, troubles me, especially given his position of power as VP.
As everyone knows, Cheney and Rumsfeld were the chief powers in the white house behind going into Iraq without the UN whereas Powell was for going through the process and exhausting all options. His statements as of late give an even deeper understanding of the processes that occurred in 2002 and early 2003 that pushed us toward war.
Look, the Clinton administration believed Saddam had WMD. Virtually every intelligence agency around the world believed it. Clinton's Congress passed a near unanimous resolution with only 4 people voting against it which stated Saddam had WMD.
In no way can this issue purely be laid at the feet of Bush "sexxing up" intelligence. Whether or not Bush even went to war, there was a MASSIVE WORLDWIDE intelligence failure. The uranium issue, like the "45 minute" issue is a red herring and simply a matter of people trying to use it for political gain.
To me, the fact that the American intelligence agencies, the British, the French, the Israelis, even the Russians, were all wrong about Iraq is the central issue.
How can we expect to win against terrorism and non-proliferation if the world's intelligence about a relatively open country like Iraq is so horribly bad. What's that mean for our North Korean intelligence?
I still dispute your Paul O'Neil claim. Day 1? You mean, after Bush's oath of office, they were already committed to a war, even before 9/11? I mean, come on. Do you know how absurd this sounds? Oh, I suppose they knew WTC was gonna happen to, and let it happen, so they could go to Iraq, which was their real goal in the first place?
Natoma, you let your anti-Bush agenda go too far. Like I said before, Bush should be thrown out of office for an unneccessary war unrelated to the war on terrorism (which I do support, including Afghanistan). If they wanted to move Saudi Arabian troops out to satisfy Bin Laden, without losing face, they could have just moved them to Kuwait, Qatar, or even Afghanistan, which needsa more troops.
Bush also thoroughly trashed all the support and sympathy for our cause after 9/11. On those grounds alone, he should fail reelection, not to mention his Democrat-esque spend-o-mania (oh, did you hear, he's including spending to the NEA as well?) Like a Saudi Ruler, he is bribing everyone with pork to win reelection.
He failed as a statesmen, and he failed as a executive.
On the other hand, I think all these nutty theories about Bush wanting the Iraq war even from the very beginning of his presidency are absurd. There was ZERO hint of this before 9/11. In fact, Bush seemed way more worried about his dosmestic agenda, not foreign policy. Can anyone find any Bush speech even mention Saddam or Iraq before 9/11?
It would be fair to say that the Pentagon, and even some of Bush's cabinets may have dreamed of Saddam out of power, but who hasn't? We also dream of a collapse of NK's government, of the Ayatollah in Iran falling from power, and other despots, and people study various plans to do this all the time.
But all of this other prattle is simply irrelevent to the fact that for who knows how long, the leaders of the world's great powers have been getting thoroughly bad intelligence data and making policy decisions on it.
There needs to be a massive investigation and reorganization of the intelligence community.
In no way can this issue purely be laid at the feet of Bush "sexxing up" intelligence. Whether or not Bush even went to war, there was a MASSIVE WORLDWIDE intelligence failure. The uranium issue, like the "45 minute" issue is a red herring and simply a matter of people trying to use it for political gain.
To me, the fact that the American intelligence agencies, the British, the French, the Israelis, even the Russians, were all wrong about Iraq is the central issue.
How can we expect to win against terrorism and non-proliferation if the world's intelligence about a relatively open country like Iraq is so horribly bad. What's that mean for our North Korean intelligence?
I still dispute your Paul O'Neil claim. Day 1? You mean, after Bush's oath of office, they were already committed to a war, even before 9/11? I mean, come on. Do you know how absurd this sounds? Oh, I suppose they knew WTC was gonna happen to, and let it happen, so they could go to Iraq, which was their real goal in the first place?
Natoma, you let your anti-Bush agenda go too far. Like I said before, Bush should be thrown out of office for an unneccessary war unrelated to the war on terrorism (which I do support, including Afghanistan). If they wanted to move Saudi Arabian troops out to satisfy Bin Laden, without losing face, they could have just moved them to Kuwait, Qatar, or even Afghanistan, which needsa more troops.
Bush also thoroughly trashed all the support and sympathy for our cause after 9/11. On those grounds alone, he should fail reelection, not to mention his Democrat-esque spend-o-mania (oh, did you hear, he's including spending to the NEA as well?) Like a Saudi Ruler, he is bribing everyone with pork to win reelection.
He failed as a statesmen, and he failed as a executive.
On the other hand, I think all these nutty theories about Bush wanting the Iraq war even from the very beginning of his presidency are absurd. There was ZERO hint of this before 9/11. In fact, Bush seemed way more worried about his dosmestic agenda, not foreign policy. Can anyone find any Bush speech even mention Saddam or Iraq before 9/11?
It would be fair to say that the Pentagon, and even some of Bush's cabinets may have dreamed of Saddam out of power, but who hasn't? We also dream of a collapse of NK's government, of the Ayatollah in Iran falling from power, and other despots, and people study various plans to do this all the time.
But all of this other prattle is simply irrelevent to the fact that for who knows how long, the leaders of the world's great powers have been getting thoroughly bad intelligence data and making policy decisions on it.
There needs to be a massive investigation and reorganization of the intelligence community.
Yes, the question came up in a presidential debate and an interview before he got elected.DemoCoder said:
I think if anything we can never go to war again relying solely on intelligence. Its a watershed and should be respected in the future. Imagine, as I had feared, if this massive failure in intelligence had been wrong the other way and Saddam had had means to seriously retaliate...
Boggles my mind...
When I think of it pre emption as policy is, should be, dead in the water as well...
Boggles my mind...
When I think of it pre emption as policy is, should be, dead in the water as well...
DemoCoder said:
I'm doing as I've always done. I'm blaming our Intelligence, and I'm blaming the misuse of that intelligence by the Administration. Both are at fault here.
Natoma said:
DemoCoder said:
My Paul O'Neill claim? Uhm, Paul O'Neill is the one who said it, in his own book. He's the one who provided the documents and the minutes from the meetings in his book in which it was clearly stated that the President was looking for a reason, any reason, to go to war with Iraq.
And come now regarding 9/11 and pre-knowledge.
DemoCoder said:
Yea.... So simply because I have strong disagreements with documented miscues and failures on the part of not only the Intelligence communities, but the Administration itself, I somehow have a rampant and out of control anti-Bush agenda? Please DemoCoder, spare me?
DemoCoder said:
Why do you hate america? Why are you letting your anti-Bush agenda blind you to the truth? You're obviously just a muslim loving unpatriotic enemy combatant.
DemoCoder said:
Paul O'Neill provided the documents and the minutes from meetings where Bush Administration clearly stated that it wanted war with Iraq from the very beginning. That was precisely what the whole brouhaha when it hit a couple of weeks ago was about. You must not watch the news much.
DemoCoder said:
Ahem.
Natoma said:
Natoma said:
Who's sexing up stuff now? O'Neill's claim from what I read is that Bush NSC meetings were about "how can we go after Saddam", "How can we change his regime". They were not "Let's find an excuse to invade Iraq with 100,000 troops. Anyone got any ideas how to sell this?" There are many ways to "go after" someone, and they all don't involve a massive war.
So please, tell me how Bush's NSC meetings are different than NSC meetings with Clinton, the result of which was a secret executive order to funnel money to the Kurds and to Iraqi army divisions to institute a coup? Do you know for a fact that Clinton's didn'ta sk similar questions in his NSC meetings, like "ok, if the intelligence is correct, we need to go after this guy. How do we get rid of him?"
Your claim is that the president was looking for any reason to go to war. What O'Neill actually said was something like Bush was looking for any way to get rid of Saddam. War != "find a way to deal with him"
Let's not forget that O'Neill is disgruntled, a blabber-mouth treasury secretary who f*cked up the markets cause he can't hold his mouth like Greenspan, and that his entire book is an episode of aggrandtizment, which even liberal critics acknowledge. What O'Neil claims may or may not be true, the issue is the intepretation of his claims by the media, and people like you, and even to some extent, himself.
If O'Neill's claims are so strong, why don't the democrats and the media have Bush's head on a platter? Because the evidence and your interpretation (as well as O'Neills) don't fit together.
Because it's still too early for it to have maximum impact on the election, just wait.DemoCoder said:
Tho there may not be truly hugely scandalous revelations in Oneill's book I think there are at least insights into the way business is conducted in the WH. Could lead to improvements that I think are needed at this point. Such as the much needed reevaluation of the value of intelligence gathering and its impact on policy.
I certainly dont think we can write off Oneill outright whatever failings he has had as he certainly has no more failings than GW himself.
Especially since GW has more than a good chance of staying on for another 4 years. Any insights delivered to the public from such an authoritative source at this point that could help to remove him are good.
I certainly dont think we can write off Oneill outright whatever failings he has had as he certainly has no more failings than GW himself.
Especially since GW has more than a good chance of staying on for another 4 years. Any insights delivered to the public from such an authoritative source at this point that could help to remove him are good.
Sorry, I don't see any evidence of the administration sexing up reports or doctoring claims that they knew for a fact were incorrect. The fact that the Niger report was debated in the intelligence community is not grounds for its outright dismisal, it could very well have been right. Moreover, that was one piece in a intricate chain of evidence, (and i suspect there was much that we have never seen made public)
What I do see are reports that are handed to Bush that are faulty, and that are subsequently overhyped without sufficient caution to make sure that everyone understands that this material is not 100% reliable.
The funny thing is, assume for instance the Uranium connection was valid, and that we hadn't gone to war and some awful nuclear disaster occured somewhere in the Middle East. People would be up in arms about how we failed to act on our intelligence.
In the end, we can't have it both ways. Either we go with the evidence the experts give us, or we don't. Talk to Mr Gephardt or Mr Clinton about that, they both got the same briefs and they were both willing to go with the same policies.
Moreover, In the case of Iraq, there was sufficient reasons even if everything turned out to be false, to justify it nonetheless. So from a policy standpoint, I can see why it was an obvious choice.
What I do see are reports that are handed to Bush that are faulty, and that are subsequently overhyped without sufficient caution to make sure that everyone understands that this material is not 100% reliable.
The funny thing is, assume for instance the Uranium connection was valid, and that we hadn't gone to war and some awful nuclear disaster occured somewhere in the Middle East. People would be up in arms about how we failed to act on our intelligence.
In the end, we can't have it both ways. Either we go with the evidence the experts give us, or we don't. Talk to Mr Gephardt or Mr Clinton about that, they both got the same briefs and they were both willing to go with the same policies.
Moreover, In the case of Iraq, there was sufficient reasons even if everything turned out to be false, to justify it nonetheless. So from a policy standpoint, I can see why it was an obvious choice.
I cannot beleive youguys believe all this. The CIA was dissenting, but they were told what was desired, and they produced it. This is why it is better to have more seperation between intelligence and politics.
If you noticed the head of the CIA was not dismissed did you ever think about why? Well it is obvious he went along with the BS that the whitehouse was doing, so they have to keep him around.
P.S. Russ I don't think you could order research anthrax anymore, you have to have some specific credentials and that sort of thing to get it now. However if you wanted it badly enough you could get some out west of where you live from the deer that it crops up in every 4 years in texas.
If you noticed the head of the CIA was not dismissed did you ever think about why? Well it is obvious he went along with the BS that the whitehouse was doing, so they have to keep him around.
P.S. Russ I don't think you could order research anthrax anymore, you have to have some specific credentials and that sort of thing to get it now. However if you wanted it badly enough you could get some out west of where you live from the deer that it crops up in every 4 years in texas.
DemoCoder said:
The point that I've long argued is that our intelligence should have been fully vetted with ground inspections before heading to war by ourselves. And please don't say we had help. Britain? Certainly. Australia? I suppose. But when you have another 20 countries that can spare 20 troops each and a few pesos here and there and call that a "Multilateral Coalition," we've got problems.
It is telling that David Kay wrote in his final report that the job the UN Weapons Inspectors were doing was highly commendable and accurate. That given time, they would have come to the same conclusions Kay did, without the need to go to war necessarily. Again, was it the right thing to do in terms of freeing the Iraqi people and removing a despot? Certainly and you will hear no complaints from me along those lines.
But I'm concerned about WMD, the failure of intelligence, the highly visible lack of vetting of that intelligence and/or misuse of the intelligence we knew, or strongly suspected, was false.
Unfortunately, we didn't give the weapons inspectors time to complete their work, or fought the process itself every step of the way, which has been one of my dissents since late 2002/early 2003.
I think the inspections were a good route/excuse to get spys into the country, since our HUMINT seems to suck so badly now. No matter how you slice it, the intelligence agencies seem almost laughably bad on Iraq. That should kill any "they knew and coulda stopped 9/11" conspiracies.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 13524
- VR and AR
