# Could Colin Powell have stopped the Iraq war? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2013, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535 "2013-03-21T14:36:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/61 "2013-03-25T01:40:33Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The record is there. Drop it. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/62 "2013-03-25T01:51:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Like who? People who are more “credible” than his own head of the CIA? You have to keep in mind that, by definition, anyone who was saying there weren’t WMD’s in 2003 has been proven to be more credible than those saying there were. So if George Tenet honestly thought that Iraq had WMD’s we’re forced to the conclusion that Noam Chomsky was better informed than George Tenet. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/63 "2013-03-25T01:56:27Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Did the head of the CIA actually make that claim in 2003? > > In September, 2002, pretty nearly everyone “knew” that Iraq had WMD. However, after UNMOVIC re-entered the country, in November, it became increasingly clear that there were no weapons to be found. The Office of Special Plans was used by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, (and Cheney?), to cherry-pick the most suspicious data to be sent to the White House. Their information was generally contradicted by information coming from NSA, Army Intelligence, and the CIA and others, but it was the information that Bush wanted to hear. (It was the OSP that assembled the information that Powell called “bullshit.”) Tenet was certainly the author of the “slam dunk” claim in December, 2002. However, (regardless whether it was actually “twisted” by the White House as he later claimed), it appears to have been made in reference to WMD claims making the propaganda war a certitude rather than a claim that the WMD actually existed. In fact, [there are claims that as early as September, 2002](http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/), Tenet had tried to tell Bush that the WMD were gone, but Bush indicated that he did not want to hear that–at which point Tenet, too, took on his “good soldier” persona and simply dropped the topic. > > Bush was good at believing what he wanted to believe and he had long demonstrated an attitude of intellectual laziness, (not stupidity), in avoiding research on topics about which he had already made up his mind. > I see no “mistake” in Bush’s actions. [In Tenent’s own words:](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27intel.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ei=5090&en=e6f2a5232d75afb5&ex=1335326400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) > [@](#): > > Mr. Tenet takes blame for the flawed 2002 National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq’s weapons programs, calling the episode “one of the lowest moments of my seven-year tenure.” He expresses regret that the document was not more nuanced, but says there was no doubt in his mind at the time that Saddam Hussein possessed unconventional weapons. “In retrospect, we got it wrong partly because the truth was so implausible,” he writes. Unless he went to Bush in Feb 2003 and said “I take it all back”, I stand by my question if there was anyone more credible than Tenent stepping forward in that timeframe. Sure, Bush picked an chose what he wanted out of the intelligence, but I’m not seeing the CIA saying they think Iraq did not have WMDs. > [@Nemo](#): > > You have to keep in mind that, by definition, anyone who was saying there weren’t WMD’s in 2003 has been proven to be more credible than those saying there were. So if George Tenet honestly thought that Iraq had WMD’s we’re forced to the conclusion that Noam Chomsky was better informed than George Tenet. No, I don’t need to keep that in mind because we’re not engaging in 20/20 hindsight here. The head of the CIA is, by definition, the most credible source of intelligence to the president at any given time. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/64 "2013-03-25T01:57:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Like who? People who are more “credible” than his own head of the CIA? Demonstrably, yes. But “credibility” shouldn’t have really been an issue. If the CIA says one thing and Joe Wilson says another, you and I are in a poor position to judge whose right, since they’re relying on classified information. In that case, we’re stuck trying to judge whose more “credible”. Bush wasn’t in that situation. He can actually see what the basis for both men’s claims are and judge himself. The CIA’s claims seem to have been based on people like Curveball, who even a little investigation into would’ve revealed wasn’t a valid source of information. The Iraqi Aluminium tubes were claimed to be for Uranium enrichment by the CIA. This was questioned in the press. Since you and I probably don’t know about the details of Uranium enrichment, we’re stuck trying to guess whose more creditable. But Bush can actually ask the DoE, and find out that they descented from the CIA report. If the CIA says there’s an “Al-Queda training camp” in Northern Iraq, but the press says they visited the supposed location and said there wasn’t, there’s no easy way for you and I to know who to trust. But Bush has the resources to actually send someone to the camp and verify the press report. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/65 "2013-03-25T02:06:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I can’t buy the idea that Bush was mistaken. He was a willfully blind idiot who took pride in his own blindness, like deliberately not watching the news. I think it’s perfectly possible he _was_ “mistaken”, because he lived in a self created bubble of ignorance and delusion. However that doesn’t let him off the hook, because he went out of his way to ensure that he would be “mistaken” about pretty much everything. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > The head of the CIA is, by definition, the most credible source of intelligence to the president at any given time. Not if the reason the CIA has the job is because its leadership has been stuffed with people who make a point of telling the White House what it wants to hear. Then the CIA is by definition one of the least credible sources of intelligence, because the White house doesn’t want credible intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/66 "2013-03-25T02:10:27Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Demonstrably, yes. > > But “credibility” shouldn’t have really been an issue. If the CIA says one thing and Joe Wilson says another, you and I are in a poor position to judge whose right, since they’re relying on classified information. In that case, we’re stuck trying to judge whose more “credible”. > > Bush wasn’t in that situation. He can actually see what the basis for both men’s claims are and judge himself. The CIA’s claims seem to have been based on people like Curveball, who even a little investigation into would’ve revealed wasn’t a valid source of information. > > The Iraqi Aluminium tubes were claimed to be for Uranium enrichment by the CIA. This was questioned in the press. Since you and I probably don’t know about the details of Uranium enrichment, we’re stuck trying to guess whose more creditable. But Bush can actually ask the DoE, and find out that they descented from the CIA report. > > If the CIA says there’s an “Al-Queda training camp” in Northern Iraq, but the press says they visited the supposed location and said there wasn’t, there’s no easy way for you and I to know who to trust. But Bush has the resources to actually send someone to the camp and verify the press report. OK, so who was this person, more credible than Tenent, who was saying Iraq had no WMDs. **Nemo** says there were “plenty” of such people. Can you name one? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/67 "2013-03-25T02:17:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, so who was this person, more credible than Tenent, who was saying Iraq had no WMDs. **Nemo** says there were “plenty” of such people. Can you name one? And, btw, it wasn’t Blix, who should have been the 2nd most credible person in Bush’s eyes. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/68 "2013-03-25T02:18:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, so who was this person, more credible than Tenent, who was saying Iraq had no WMDs. **Nemo** says there were “plenty” of such people. Can you name one? I can rename the ones that I already mentioned in the post you quoted. The Department of Energy, the journalists who visited the “Al-Queda camp”, Joe Wilson and the German intelligence agents who said Curveball was unreliable. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/69 "2013-03-25T02:41:54Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > I can rename the ones that I already mentioned in the post you quoted. The Department of Energy, the journalists who visited the “Al-Queda camp”, Joe Wilson and the German intelligence agents who said Curveball was unreliable. Can we have the quotes where they said Saddam had no WMDs? That is the claim. Not that SH didn’t have “x” type of WMD, but had “no WMDs”. The problem here is in framing it as a yes or no question. The reports would all be couched in percentages and probabilities. One president might consider a 90% probability as being a threat while another might consider a 40% probability to be a threat. Anyone claiming they knew that SH didn’t have any WMDs would be lying. It was impossible to know that. Now, if you want to claim that Bush didn’t make an effort to seek out opposing views, then well, yeah!. But there weren’t lots of credible sources out there saying SH had no WMDs. Hell, the consensus seems to be that even SH didn’t know that he didn’t have WMDs. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/70 "2013-03-25T03:11:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can we have the quotes where they said Saddam had no WMDs? That is the claim. Not that SH didn’t have “x” type of WMD, but had “no WMDs”. I spent four paragraphs in the post you quoted explaining in what sense I thought the people I named were more credible then the CIA. They were more credible because they were right, and 20/20 hindsight wasn’t needed to see that they were right, the information was available to Bush and Powell at the time. > [@](#): > > The problem here is in framing it as a yes or no question. The reports would all be couched in percentages and probabilities. One president might consider a 90% probability as being a threat while another might consider a 40% probability to be a threat. Anyone claiming they knew that SH didn’t have any WMDs would be lying. It was impossible to know that. Again, my point is that I think its a mistake to take an aggregate assessment of whether or not Iraq had WMD’s as a single piece of evidence. The probabilities aren’t based on magic, they come from specific intelligence. Had Bush or Powell examined this intelligence (and Powell anyways, made a big deal about how he had done so prior to his UN speech), it was clear that the CIA NIE was based largely on faulty sources. Saying that the evidence that SH has WMD’s is false isn’t exactly the same thing as saying there’s a zero percent chance that SH has WMD, but it’s close. Certainly if we use “100% certainty that country X has no WMD’s” as our standard for deciding whether or not to invade someone, we’ll have to invade everyone. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/71 "2013-03-25T04:42:14Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > I spent four paragraphs in the post you quoted explaining in what sense I thought the people I named were more credible then the CIA. They were more credible because they were right, and 20/20 hindsight wasn’t needed to see that they were right, the information was available to Bush and Powell at the time. > > Again, my point is that I think its a mistake to take an aggregate assessment of whether or not Iraq had WMD’s as a single piece of evidence. The probabilities aren’t based on magic, they come from specific intelligence. Had Bush or Powell examined this intelligence (and Powell anyways, made a big deal about how he had done so prior to his UN speech), it was clear that the CIA NIE was based largely on faulty sources. > > Saying that the evidence that SH has WMD’s is false isn’t exactly the same thing as saying there’s a zero percent chance that SH has WMD, but it’s close. Certainly if we use “100% certainty that country X has no WMD’s” as our standard for deciding whether or not to invade someone, we’ll have to invade everyone. I challenged the claim that there were plenty of credible sources stating that SH had no WMDs. You spend 4 paragraphs noting that some people challenged some of the claims, but it’s unclear that those people were A) more credible than Tenent or Blix or B) made a comprehensive claim about all WMDs. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/72 "2013-03-25T05:13:13Z")
The point is that there were no current WMD programs in Iraq in 2003. That’s the reality. There were people who said they had evidence that there were no WMD programs was right. And as history demonstrated, they were right. So anyone who thought the issue was important could have looked at the same evidence and arrived at the same conclusion. Like I said, Noam Chomsky (to use him as a random example) didn’t have access to any information that wasn’t available to George Tenet and George Bush. All the CIA had to do was the amount of investigation that Chomsky did and they would have known there were no WMD’s. If the CIA had done more investigation than Chomsky did (and really they should as a general rule) then they would have found additional evidence to corroborate the fact that there were no WMD’s. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/73 "2013-03-25T05:28:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I challenged the claim that there were plenty of credible sources stating that SH had no WMDs. You spend 4 paragraphs noting that some people challenged some of the claims, but it’s unclear that those people were A) more credible than Tenent or Blix or B) made a comprehensive claim about all WMDs. I was questioning A), not B). That is, that some sort of pre-existing “credibility” was meaningful in this context (hence the second sentence of my response). Bush didn’t need to rely on a priori claims claims of who was more credible, unlike us he had the ability to actually see what the evidence for the claims was, and in some respects, the resources to test them. Doing so would’ve revealed that the CIA was wrong on multiple, major points, while their critics were right. And not just wrong, but wrong in ways that made it pretty clear they were consciously ignoring evidence that went against what Cheney/Rumsfeld/Feith wanted to hear. An unbiased observer in 2002, with access to the information Bush had (or at least, had easy access to), would’ve found the CIA NIE not credible. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/74 "2013-03-25T05:40:37Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > I was questioning A), not B). That is, that some sort of pre-existing “credibility” was meaningful in this context (hence the second sentence of my response). Bush didn’t need to rely on a priori claims claims of who was more credible, unlike us he had the ability to actually see what the evidence for the claims was, and in some respects, the resources to test them. > > Doing so would’ve revealed that the CIA was wrong on multiple, major points, while their critics were right. And not just wrong, but wrong in ways that made it pretty clear they were consciously ignoring evidence that went against what Cheney/Rumsfeld/Feith wanted to hear. An unbiased observer in 2002, with access to the information Bush had (or at least, had easy access to), would’ve found the CIA NIE not credible. But B) is the key point. And I notice that **Nemo** has made no attempt to defend his claim. I wait his further edification. I mean, if it were so, why would anyone have needed to continue inspection? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/75 "2013-03-25T06:09:20Z")
I have to admit, it would have been cool to see him do a version of the “You’re ALL out of order!” speech. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/76 "2013-03-25T06:28:34Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > My Lai does not reflect well on Powell, but there is no evidence that he actively covered it up. My memory is that he was not even in country when it happened and his investigation took place before it blew up on TV and the news magazines. He was new to Nam and told to go out and discover whether reported “routine” killings of civilians was occurring. He went out and talked to a few troops, (or, more likely, talked to a few company commanders), and returned with the verdict that civilian deaths were exaggerated. I will fault him for being a “good soldier” and doing exactly what he was told to do, but I would have a different view of him if he had been told to go investigate My Lai or My Son, explicitly, and had come back with the same report. My Lai doesn’t reflect well on Powell? Wow. That is exonerating with faint damnation. Powell also stated that he carefully reviewed the evidence and it was certain that Iraq had ongoing chemical, biological and nuclear programs. Of course it had none, and there was no such evidence. Powell’s a fucking war criminal with respect to 2003 Iraq and an accomplice after the fact with respect to My Lai. Albert Speer was efficient and well spoken and competent too, which is what saved him from the death penalty for all the slave labor abuses during WWII. Powell will never be charged because he is on the winning side. But the man is a huge war criminal. And a liar about the most serious matters possible. How do we know this? Because there were no ongoing chemical, biological or nuclear programs, much less all three. He lied to be a successful member of team warmonger. People spend decades in prison for holding a few ounces of marijuana in this country. Liberty and justice for all, indeed. There really is no such thing as liberty or justice if you aren’t in with the in crowd. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/77 "2013-03-25T07:10:29Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But B) is the key point. Well, _my_ key point is what I said it was. Bush wasn’t just one of the hoi polloi in 2002, reduced to guessing whether the NIE was believable based on some vague general notion of how credible an organization the CIA is. He had access to the actual intelligence that went into the report, and knew (or should’ve known) that much of it was flawed. Many people without access to Bush’s information and resources were able to do so. **Little Nemo** is overstating his case in so much as there wasn’t any way of absolutely ruling out that SH has WMDs. But I’m pretty sure _his_ key point was the one he started out with, that Bush wasn’t merely mistaken in thinking the WMD’s existed. Bush didn’t say we needed to go to war based on some epistemological point about how we can never know for absolute certain that Iraq doesn’t have weapons, he said “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” and “it has aided, trained and harboured terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.” Those reasons for going to war were false, and Bush and Powell should’ve known that the reasons for thinking they were true didn’t hold up. That they still presented to the public that there was “no doubt” that they were true wasn’t a mistake, it was a lie. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/78 "2013-03-25T11:24:02Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > God bless you people!!! … and I mean that in a most positive way. I have bolded what is what I consider to be a very critical fact/issue on this very appropriate topic. > > This is great I believe, because this discussion is focused on the true revelation about the intelligence that Bush referred to during the run-up to invasion. There is pre-landmark intelligence (see above) on Iraq’s WMD and then there is intelligence gathered after the inspections began in December 2002. > > We know that all pre-landmark intelligence was accepted by a decent sized majority of politicians and constituencies around the world. It is my view that there was sufficient cause after the 9/11/01 attacks on U.S. soil to take a new look at that fact that Saddam Hussein was not in compliance with his disarmament obligations with the world. > > But when Saddam allowed the return of Dr. Blix and Dr El Baradai and cooperated on process which meant that he allowed unfettered access to all requested sites, including his palaces, that meant that the all pre-landmark intelligence was to be secondary to the inspection process. > > And further, Bush as a member state of the UN and permanent member of the UNSC \*\*agreed to provide all WMD intel to the inspectors \*\*so that it could be verified. The Bush Administration claimed that they did do that, although there is evidence that they did not do so immediately as they should have. > > This is why, \*\*the Dr. Amir al Saadi offer in December 2002 is a huge landmark event, because to have offered to allow the CIA and other US Military and FBI come into Iraq, absolutely and without question puts to doubt any claims that Bush truly had any serious new and ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE \*\*with regard to what Iraq might be hiding from UN inspectors. > > Has anyone ever asked the question of Bush or the intelligence gathering community just exactly what that post-landmark intelligence was based upon or from whom did it come. > > I don’t think there is any. And here is more of the hard confirmed public record of rejections of the pre-landmark intelligence offered up by the White House in Tomndebb’s veiw: > [@tomndebb](#): > > When successive claims by the administration are shown to be false, (“yellow cake” anyone?), when the president is on record as claiming, prior to his election, [that he wanted to attack Iraq](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm), when all the “intelligence” condemning Iraq is coming from > > [advertising flacks with no intelligence training](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans) set up in the Pentagon for the express purpose of cherry-picking data, and when the evidence I was given to present to the UN causes me to declare [“this is bullshit,”](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jun/02/usa.iraq) then I would not believe the president and neither should anyone else in the administration who was not already a Neo-Con/PNAC toady. I agree with jtgain keeping in mind that this pile of documemts was all pre-landmark intelligence gathering, not up to the minute UN inspection quality intelligence, which Bush did not allow the CIA to go directly into Iraq as offered. Perhaps Powell did not not know about Iraq’s offer to let the CIA…I do know that Rumsfeld was asked about it by reporters… and he shrugged it off of course. > [@jtgain](#): > > I would think that a logical inference would be that Bush handed Powell a pile of documents and said, “Colin, read all of that. Iraq has these WMDs. Even Clinton agrees.” > > I mean, who wouldn’t believe the President? If Obama came on national TV tonight and said that Bermuda was preparing to launch a dirty bomb in Miami harbor, I would believe him. I disagree with him politically, but when it comes to matters of national import, I stand by whatever President we have. I’m still pissed that GW Bush lied/was mistaken. That is my sentinment exactly. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I can’t buy the idea that Bush was mistaken. As I’ve mentioned, there were plenty of credible people in 2003 saying that Iraq did not have WMD’s - so the possibility was certainly out there. Bush was the President and he was deciding whether or not to go to war. It was his responsibility to find out if the evidence he was looking at was credible and sufficient and to look at the counter-evidence as well. And if he had done his job, he would have learned the truth that Iraq did not have WMD’s - other people knew this and they didn’t have the resources Bush did. So if Bush was “mistaken” it was by intent - he would have had to avoid being told things he didn’t want to hear so he could claim deniability. By intent is obvious because of the fact that Bush did not pursue the peace initiative by Iraq to allow the CIA enter Iraq. … The CIA had it been true to its mission would have chomped at the bit to get into Iraq along with all those UN Inspectors and ground penetrating radar and syp planes to watch truck movements and to interview scientists. I agree with everyone here. And specifically with TomnDeb, I could not have said the following better myself. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Did the head of the CIA actually make that claim in 2003? > > In September, 2002, pretty nearly everyone “knew” that Iraq had WMD. However, after UNMOVIC re-entered the country, in November, it became increasingly clear that there were no weapons to be found. The Office of Special Plans was used by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, (and Cheney?), to cherry-pick the most suspicious data to be sent to the White House. Their information was generally contradicted by information coming from NSA, Army Intelligence, and the CIA and others, but it was the information that Bush wanted to hear. (It was the OSP that assembled the information that Powell called “bullshit.”) Tenet was certainly the author of the “slam dunk” claim in December, 2002. However, (regardless whether it was actually “twisted” by the White House as he later claimed), it appears to have been made in reference to WMD claims making the propaganda war a certitude rather than a claim that the WMD actually existed. In fact, [there are claims that as early as September, 2002](http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/), Tenet had tried to tell Bush that the WMD were gone, but Bush indicated that he did not want to hear that–at which point Tenet, too, took on his “good soldier” persona and simply dropped the topic. > > Bush was good at believing what he wanted to believe and he had long demonstrated an attitude of intellectual laziness, (not stupidity), in avoiding research on topics about which he had already made up his mind. > I see no “mistake” in Bush’s actions. > [@Simplicio](#): > > Demonstrably, yes. > > But “credibility” shouldn’t have really been an issue. If the CIA says one thing and Joe Wilson says another, you and I are in a poor position to judge whose right, since they’re relying on classified information. In that case, we’re stuck trying to judge whose more “credible”. > > Bush wasn’t in that situation. He can actually see what the basis for both men’s claims are and judge himself. The CIA’s claims seem to have been based on people like Curveball, who even a little investigation into would’ve revealed wasn’t a valid source of information. > > The Iraqi Aluminium tubes were claimed to be for Uranium enrichment by the CIA. This was questioned in the press. Since you and I probably don’t know about the details of Uranium enrichment, we’re stuck trying to guess whose more creditable. But Bush can actually ask the DoE, and find out that they descented from the CIA report. > > If the CIA says there’s an “Al-Queda training camp” in Northern Iraq, but the press says they visited the supposed location and said there wasn’t, there’s no easy way for you and I to know who to trust. But Bush has the resources to actually send someone to the camp and verify the press report. That is corrrect and on the money. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The point is that there were no current WMD programs in Iraq in 2003. That’s the reality. > > There were people who said they had evidence that there were no WMD programs was right. And as history demonstrated, they were right. So anyone who thought the issue was important could have looked at the same evidence and arrived at the same conclusion. Like I said, Noam Chomsky (to use him as a random example) didn’t have access to any information that wasn’t available to George Tenet and George Bush. All the CIA had to do was the amount of investigation that Chomsky did and they would have known there were no WMD’s. If the CIA had done more investigation than Chomsky did (and really they should as a general rule) then they would have found additional evidence to corroborate the fact that there were no WMD’s. All should weigh all this conversation in the back drop of the fact that Iraq offered to allow the CIA come into Iraq in the middled of December of 2002 and the Bush White House rejected the offer… And now one has ever asked the White House WHY? Why did they not want to CIA shoes on the ground inside Iraq instead of getting 4485 US Soldiers in boots killed? I just want the questions asked of forme Bush officials. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/79 "2013-03-25T13:31:03Z")
I find a lot of this discussion amounts to angels dancing on the head of a pin. People on this message board were unconvinced by the WMD claims just based on the fact that _they were unsupported by any sort of convincing evidence_. Such evidence as was presented to the public was either quickly revealed to be a sham, or was vague, second-hand stuff. I personally found Powell’s speech to the UN amazingly, transparently unconvincing. His “evidence” was shockingly weak. If I and a million other ordinary Joes could tell the case was weak-ass, anyone could. Yeah, I have some military intel background, but I was years removed from any first-hand association with it by 2003 and this sort of thing wasn’t my specialty. But I know a shit intel presentation when I see one. Anyone who could read, for that matter, could see the lies falling apart. Now, the issue of whether Bush, Cheney and friends knew it was all nonsense, or to what extent groupthink took over and they were convincing themselves, and forcing the CIA, NSA et al. to mold their reports to fit what was expected of them, might be an interesting thing to look at if the principals would ever fess up to the inside conversations, which they won’t. But that it was a deception is beyond any sort of rational argument. And that it was a deception a reasonably intelligent person should have been able to at least strongly suspect is equally beyond rational argument. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535/80 "2013-03-25T14:31:18Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Well, _my_ key point is what I said it was. Bush wasn’t just one of the hoi polloi in 2002, reduced to guessing whether the NIE was believable based on some vague general notion of how credible an organization the CIA is. He had access to the actual intelligence that went into the report, and knew (or should’ve known) that much of it was flawed. Many people without access to Bush’s information and resources were able to do so. > > **Little Nemo** is overstating his case in so much as there wasn’t any way of absolutely ruling out that SH has WMDs. But I’m pretty sure _his_ key point was the one he started out with, that Bush wasn’t merely mistaken in thinking the WMD’s existed. Bush didn’t say we needed to go to war based on some epistemological point about how we can never know for absolute certain that Iraq doesn’t have weapons, he said “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” and “it has aided, trained and harboured terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.” > > Those reasons for going to war were false, and Bush and Powell should’ve known that the reasons for thinking they were true didn’t hold up. That they still presented to the public that there was “no doubt” that they were true wasn’t a mistake, it was a lie. I don’t know. It wasn’t just Bush, remember. It was Bush plus Blaire plus dozens of members of Congress, including prominent Democrats in the senate like Kerry and Clinton. They’d have to all be in on the “lie” for it to work. Rather, I think “hubris” is a better word. I think they were so confident in their own assessment, so sure of what they knew based on either past experience with SH or whatever, that they ignored all the warning signs and just plowed ahead. If “everyone” was so certain, even those opposed to the war, why was there such a strong push to continue weapons inspections. Why did Russ Feingold, a prominent anti-war Democrat say: > [@](#): > > And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community – whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time. > > And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy. It doesn’t all add to so simple an explanation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-colin-powell-have-stopped-the-iraq-war/653535.md?page=5)