Then you haven’t been paying attention.
Read the summary at this link, from the PBS Frontline special, Gunning For Saddam, aired in November 2001.
Between GW1, and when the inspectors were recalled in 1998, the IAEA and UNSCOM oversaw the destruction of more than 90% of the WMD known to exist.
Everything since was about the remnants, as well as any new materials the US/UK suspected were produced.
All this bickering over the “intelligence” is really beside the point.
The real issue is that this is exactly the sort of problem one can expect when one launches a war without a serious provocation. Preemptive war will always lead to gross mistakes.
Anyway, it’s all b.s. that “everyone” thought Iraq had WMDs. Bush & Co. desperately want to make it seem that way, but it wasn’t so.
Also, regardless of “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities,” many folks felt that there needed to be a real provocation before the country was justified in aggressively commencing a war. No, Sept. 11 doesn’t count as a provocation, no matter what Bush says.
There was NO connection between the events of Sept. 11 and the Iraqi regime.
It also was clear that, regardless “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities,” Iraq was in no position to threaten even its weakest neighbors. The CIA released a report stating this in August or so 2002. Doesn’t anybody remember? The report said something like it was “unlikely that Iraq would ever directly attack the United States or directly threaten its interests.”
THOSE are the serious problems with the Bush administration’s war policy. They remain regardless of the veracity of the “intelligence.”
To be honest, I think thats a completely different topic Knorf.
I don’t believe the WMD issue was the main reason why the war was fought. However, I do believe US government expected to find WMD in Iraq. I don’t think the they would have been ignorant of or indifferent to the huge political backlash (both internally and internationally) over the missing WMD. However, I think all those issues should be discussed in another thread.
Despite what you say, the faulty intelligence is a very important problem. It has huge implications for the “war on terror”, and has greatly damaged the credibility of the US and UK.
For example, if the US has intelligence on Al Qaeda operations, how much harder is it now going to be to secure international cooperation if their intelligence is seen as untrustworthy?
I don’t think so either. I think only George W. Bush knows the real reason. Could be anything from a desire to secure an oil supply to revenge on the man who tried to kill his father. I don’t think WMDs were the reason, but they were the justification.
Personally, I think “hoped” is a better word. It’s pretty obvious now that they never had any hard evidence. They gambled that they’d find something to retroactively justify the war, but they never did.
I don’t know that there was faulty intelligence. The CIA has maintained that the information they provided was never presented as conclusive proof. If you look at all the evidence, there’s a clear picture of an administration bent on invading Iraq, and just waiting for an excuse to do so, and to that end, doing everything they could to try to justify it, including presenting unreliable evidence as though it were conclusive proof.
This latest gambit of pretending to do an investigation into so-called “faulty” intelligence is just a smokescreen. The intelligence was only faulty to the extent that intelligence that was known to be unreliable was used to justify the war. This is patently obvious; Bush has announced that they will only investigate the intelligence itself, but not what was done with the intelligence. Why would he do that, unless he has something to hide?
Possibly the threat of WMDs were part of the reason, but it seemed obvious to me before the war started that they weren’t the main reason even before the war started. Just before the invasion, the UN inspectors were making more progress than ever before. True, it took the real threat of war to gain a semblance real cooperation from the Iraqis, but why was it imperative to launch an attack last year? Like you say, WMDs were the justification. If the UN were making real progress with the inspections, public support for a war might have collapsed.
You are probably right to say this, simple caution would have prevented the intelligence agencies presenting their reports as incontrovertible fact. However, I wonder what spin was put on these reports? Not to the public, but to the government. For the reasons in my original post, and in the wake of 9/11, I suspect the intelligence agencies would tend to exaggerate the threat posed by their incomplete information. They might have extrapolated dubious or single source information into a much more serious threat.
Politicians have a long history of avoiding accountability. In practise, they are very rarely legally or criminally liable for the decisions they take while in office. This is an incredible state of affairs when you think about it. Compare this to a professional occupation such as being a doctor. A doctor is professionally trained and accredited, and has to follow a code of ethics. If they violate this code, or are negligent, they are criminally liable and can be struck off. None of these restrictions apply to politicians, who can potentially do far more damage.
Well I have to disagree. I think you’re putting the cart before the horse. I don’t think the Bush Administration relied on exaggerated intelligence reports, but rather exaggerated the information themselves. Perhaps the agencies went along with the charade due to pressure from the administration, but I think it’s clear who was leading who.
The spin the government put on the reports for public consumption is another issue completely. Like I said earlier, I don’t think the they would have been ignorant of or indifferent to the huge political backlash over the missing WMD after the war. Which leads me to believe the government did expect to find some proof of their existence.
No, the administration didn’t carefully read the intelligence reports and somehow mistakenly but honestly come to the conclusion that Saddam had WMDs. They reached the conclusion first, then read the reports second. And as far as being “ignorant or indifferent to the huge political backlash”, well, they’ve demonstrated ingnorance and indifference toward everything else, why should this be any different? They fucked up so badly because they were so certain that Iraq had to be invaded that they never stopped to think anything through.
No it’s not. Either the CIA exaggerated the threat and presented it to Bush that way, or they presented an honest evaluation and Bush exaggerated it. If one is true, then the other is false (or both are partially true). Either way, it’s crucial to the issue.
While I don’t doubt that they hoped to find WMDs, it’s obvious that they were by no means certain. And I’m sorry to say, I’m now convinced that Bush doesn’t give a fig about backlash over his aggressive foreign policy. He seems to believe that since 9/11, he can do whatever he wants, and backpedal and put ludicrous spin on any issue, and the American people will buy it hook, line, and sinker.
Besides, wouldn’t your argument apply to the CIA, etc. as well? The intelligence agencies would rightly be just as concerned with public backlash as Bush, so by your argument, why would they provide him with exaggerated reports?
No, they are seperate - both, either or neither could be true.
They may appear indifferent, but this is all part of the spin on the presentation of the war. Politicians don’t often admit to mistakes. This isn’t simply a problem caused by politician’s attitudes, but also by the press, public and party political system. Mistakes are seized upon as abominable acts of incompetance and negligence. Well, sometimes this is true, and sometimes they are understandable errors, but it makes rational public discussion of government blunders very difficult.
I find it slightly naive to think that governments are indifferent to issues that damage their credibility, and potentially lose them a lot of votes. They might not lose any sleep over it, it strikes me that most politicians don’t have a highly developed sense of guilt, but that doesn’t make them indifferent.
The sad fact is, politicians have more to gain by routinely using spin than they have by honestly admitting mistakes.
I’ve covered what I think about this in previous posts. Natural caution vs internal and external politics of the intelligence agencies.
No, “spin” is not irrelevant, as you seem to think. You want to automatically blame the intelligence agencies, and ask “what went wrong with the intelligence gathering?”, without considering the possibility that Bush just misused the intelligence, or even outright lied. Far from irrelevant, it is in fact crucial to the question.
Hmmm… I find it naive of you to think that that the average voter is intelligent enough to discern things like credibility, and doesn’t just vote for whoever looks like a Regular Joe that they could drink a beer with, or delivers the most catch-phrases like “lower taxes”, “God bless America”, and “I’m gonna get the evil-doers”. I don’t think Bush is indifferent to public opinion, he’s just able to get away with a lot without suffering the ill-effects that he rightly should.
Exactly - and that’s why it’s a crucial issue.
I find your logic wanting. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the CIA et al exaggerated intelligence reports because of internal and external politics which overcame their propensity to avoid a hit on credibility, but that for some mysterious reason, it’s not possible that the Bush Administration did so. Sorry, not convincing.
Please read my posts. I never said it was irrelevant, I just said it was a seperate (and important) topic.
You are putting words in my mouth. Like I said earlier, politicians gain more than they lose by using spin. A major reason for this is voter apathy and ignorance about these issues. Yes, they can get away with a lot, but I think they are wary of the possible consequences of presenting blatantly false information (either deliberately or unintentionally).
Crucial, yes, but its not what I was asking in my original post (which was just a hypothesis). I’d be happy to discuss this in a seperate thread.
Again, you are misrepresenting my arguments. I’ve tried to avoid passing judgement on what I think about the actions of the US & UK governments in this thread (in fact, I am very critical of them) as that is a seperate discussion.
Oh, bullshit. Your whole thread is the intellectual equivalent of “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
“Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
“You’re assuming I beat my wife, and refusing to consider the possibility that I have never beat my wife.”
“Well that’s another subject altogether.”
When I call you on it, you claim I’m “putting words in your mouth”. You make ridiculous arguments like saying it’s impossible for Bush to have exaggerated the threat because he would be aware of possible backlash, then you furiously backpedal on it. Whatever.:rolleyes: You can play the “I never said that” game, but it’s all right there in the thread.
There is some concern that there were attempts to influence votes at the UN to get backing for the war, and even more concern that there was interferance in an attempt to come up with a more peaceful way of dealing with Iraq.
Well, despite what seems to be a massive intelligence failure, it still seems that those who supported us (the US) still do, and those who didn’t still don’t. In other words, things haven’t seemed to have changed too much. For example, I haven’t heard of any of our allies with troops in Iraq saying something like “Hey, there’s no weapons, the US lied to us!” and then pulling their troops out. But then again, I only get my news from the US press, and I don’t watch or listen to it as often as I use to, so there might be things going on to contradict what I just said, and I’m unaware of it.
While I don’t believe that Bush lied, and won’t until there’s substantial evidence, I do concede that it’s possible that could have exaggerated some or all of it However, as for putting pressure on the agencies, I tend to believe David Kay when he says that there was none.
Wow, that is one of the most arrogant, and condescending remarks that I’ve heard in a long time. If this isn’t an example of elitism, I don’t know what is.
I’d venture to guess there’s a lot you’re unaware of. Try something besides Fox News.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard under fire on Iraq
And since you haven’t seen the news lately, Bush’s approval rating is at a record low.
As for “pulling troops out” - the damage is done; they have to see it through now. You can’t just invade a country, kill 10,000 people, topple the government, destroy the infrastructure, and then say, “Oops, sorry, guess we shouldn’t have done that - see ya later.”
Truth hurts.
Total and utter nonsense. Where did I say its impossible Bush exaggerated? For the record, I believe the US & UK governments did exaggerate the threat. That wasn’t the question I asked in my original post.
Have you considered the possiblity that intelligence services may have exaggerated the threat, and that then the governments exaggerated it further to the public in roder to justify the war?
Where have I backpedaled in this thread? My assesement may well be incorrect, thats why I raised it as a hypothesis, but I haven’t significantly altered my postion anywhere. You simply didn’t understand my position.
If you are incapable of reading my posts, why bother to reply to them?