Iraq 'shelved nuclear plans' (in 1991) (BBC)

[UpInArms]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3216397.stm

New evidence acquired by the Washington Post newspaper suggests that Iraq made no attempt to restart its nuclear programme following the first Gulf War in 1991.

It follows the report presented by the weapons inspector David Kay earlier this month who admitted they had not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The information obtained by the newspaper suggests there is no evidence of any renewed nuclear programme in Iraq in the last 12 years.

Perhaps even more seriously, the evidence suggests that the Bush administration did not take its own warnings very seriously either. (emphasis mine)

...more...

hmmmmm....

fingerprints at the scene of the crime, perhaps?

[rooboy]

1. Isn't it interesting...

that Iraq and Iran held off on WMD production throughout the whole Clinton presidency? And that Al Qaeda felt it SAFER to attempt 9/11 once Bush was in office?

Vote Republican for national security :eyes:

[Dr Fate]

2. "New evidence" perhaps, but not unknown to Bush/media...

...yet they LIED to us all anyway...shame, shame...

[dArKeR]

3. In my opinion Saddam had no bio/chem weapons either. Because if he did

they would be shooting them into the hotels and US bases right now.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. Right You Are!

I still think Saddam played a huge shell game, pretending to bait and switch the inspectors so his enemies wouldn't know he was a toothless tiger.

So, we went to war because our "leadership" was too stupid to know it was being fooled. Perfect!
The Professor

[tlb]

4. Bill Clinton ordered airstrikes in 1998 on Iraqi Nuclear targets

"Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes and its military capacity to threaten its neighbours. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/texts_and_transcripts/236858.stm




Every senior democratic memebr of congress and the administration relied on information about Iraqi nuclear and chemical WMD programs to justify the ongoing economic snactions and the weekly USAF bombings of Iraq. Either this new story is correct, or it isn't.

I am inclined to think the US/British intelligence estimates on Iraqi WMD programs were offered in good faith. If they were incorrect for the last 12 years, we have a larger problem then simple republican bashing will address.

[salin]

5. question of "good faith"

from leaks within the intel community from last September (2002) there were complaints of "cooking the books on intel". That is cherry picking and disregarding contradictory evidence. This claim appears to be well documented (now) - as Hersch shows dramatically in his Stovepipe article.

I am not sure how "good faith" it was to start averting the NIE process as we now know was the case through the press coverage of the intel Senate Committee. There were no NIE reports (very unstandard process) - until the dems on the committee pushed to see it before voting - and a rush process (refered to as "cut and paste") occurred. By the CIA's own admission the NIE process (standard in previous administrations) was not used/followed by this administration.

What is consistent across the administrations (Clinton and then Bush) is that there continued to be mixed/contradictory information. It is also clear, now in hindsight, that some of the contradictory information was intentional from Saddam Hussein's own directives (to keep us confused.) All this points to is the importance of following standard intel protocal of carefully vetting intel, verifying intel, and creating the NIE that very carefully documents the vetted intelligence (vetted across intel agencies). That process was no longer followed by this administration. It is nigh impossible to claim that this was "good faith".

The problem with perpetuating that line, is that there is a real problem when blind ideology is used to guide the process rather than careful analysis. Ideology is one thing (expecting to find something, and viewing information according to that perspective) IF one is still using a very analytical process to review data (sort of like hypothesis testing - where the premises of the ideology are either confirmed or required to be rethought through - depending on the data). But ideology used to sift through and only chose desirable data is dangerous. It gets even more dangerous when contradictory information (some very serious) that demonstrates the cherry picked data is incorrect. It gets to an even more critically dangerous point when those who would be either a) objective; or b) likely to hae a contradictory view - are locked out of the entire process so there is no one offering alternative explanations for reading the data. Any policy person worth their salt KNOWS that alternative explanations are needed to check the grounding of the policies - and to allow for contingency planning (eg if our premises are wrong).

If we say "it was good faith" - we create a pass and are unable to identify and correct the problem. And there IS a big problem. And it doesn't transcend all administrations.

Yes there were honest people doing work along the way. Yes there was contradictory information - and people doing honest work to try to address those things. BUT the problem goes up the process to those handling the information - those selectively choosing and ignoring information. Those who ultimately locked out conflicting information. As such our planning was inadequate. And the results that we are seeing were inevitable. Please spare us from this in the future - from either the right or the left. Blind ideology that leads to using intel to shape a political argument and to fit a preconceived scenario is very, very dangerous.