Iraq arms hunt in doubt in '02 (Bush knew WMD possible lie in 02)

[papau]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&ncid=676&e=1&u=/usatoday/20040213/ts_usatoday/iraqarmshuntindoubtin02

Iraq arms hunt in doubt in '02
Fri Feb 13, 6:21 AM ET By John Diamond, USA TODAY

A classified U.S. intelligence study done three months before the war in Iraq predicted a problem now confronting the Bush administration: the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction might never be found.

The study by a team of U.S. intelligence analysts, military officers and civilian Pentagon officials warned that U.S. military tactics, guerrilla warfare, looting and lying by Iraqi officials would undermine the search for banned Iraqi weapons. Portions of the study were made available to USA TODAY. Three high-ranking U.S. intelligence officials described its purpose and conclusions.<snip>

The study findings diverge from statements by U.S. officials that caches of banned weapons would be found.

In February 2003, two months after completion of the study, CIA Director George Tenet told lawmakers, "I think we will find caches of weapons of mass destruction, absolutely." Tenet was aware of the internal study, said a CIA official who advises him. But Tenet, who declined to comment, viewed its warnings as just one possible scenario among many.

Kay said he now believes that Iraq did not have banned weapons before the war and had probably destroyed them more than a decade ago.

The study looked at scenarios including Iraqi use of chemical or biological weapons and the possibility that no weapons would be found. The study considered but rejected the possibility that Iraq had no banned weapons.
<snip>

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. This is a MAJOR cut

in the president's position... look at all that fresh blood... shark fins in the distance... chomp... the churn is getting quite thick now and those sharks look hungry and do smell blood in water

[papau]

2. I hope other media does not ignore, or spin if's and but's

:-)

[Ian_walker]

3. The Office of Special plans

Hi all

First of all an apology.
My first post in this forum so I am probably posting in the wrong spot. I cant search as I have not donated and I cant post a question in the moderators section as to where to find the best point for this topic as I have not made enough posts. This is on the same topic area so it looks right and I hope it will move the thread along. Sorry If I am telling my granny how to suck eggs.

I draw your attention to this diagram of Intelligence flows under The Bush Administration (TBA)


TBA arranged for The Office of Special Plans, Rumsfeld's Amateur Private Secret Service to Doctor intelligence before it reached the presidents ear. It is called plausible deniability. And it would be plausible except for one thing; TBA set up The Office of Special Plans and staffed it with their people.

Who are the The Office of Special Plans?
Most of the people in The Office of Special Plans are political appointees without an intelligence background.

They are the people who assessed the intelligence. They are the people who wrote the reports that handed the US false intelligence.

They are the people who demanded the CIA produce every rumor, half truth and even proven lie they had heard.

They are the people who then passed this doctored intelligence on to TBA. Just the way that TBA wanted it.

There was no intelligence failure!
It was TBA deliberately polluting their own intelligence stream.

As evidence.
I place before you the report of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski:
http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html<--Read this Please note the article is three pages long, links to other parts are in the top and bottom of the pages.

She is a recently retired from the U.S. Air Force. Her final posting was as an analyst at the Pentagon. She was in The White House and saw it happening.

She witnessed TBA feeding itself the rumor, half truth and even proven lies that they used to take the coalition into a costly war. It is the Key to why there are now 644 coalition and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, and why that death toll continues to rise.

We owe it to those thousands of dead, the tens of thousands of wounded, and their families, to make sure everyone knows about this.

Kind Regards Ian Walker

[DUmbrella]

4. Huh?

I don't understand something. It says:

"The study considered but rejected the possibility that Iraq had no banned weapons."

Doesn't this mean that the study was saying he HAD them before the war? How does this show that Bush knew it was a lie? I'm confused.

And also:

"Kay said he now believes that Iraq did not have banned weapons before the war and had probably destroyed them more than a decade ago."

The only reason he can now say this with certainity was that we went in and found out for ourselves. If we hadn't, we'd still never know what was there.

[Ian_walker]

5. Ah but Blix was there and Sadam had let the UN inspectors in

Hi DUmbrella

TBA = The Bush Administration
TBA2 = The Blair Administration

You can not prove a negative. For the same reason you are presumed inocent in a court of law.

Bush can not prove he did not do drugs.
Kerry can not prove he has not got a misstres.
Sadam could never prove he did not have WMD
It is for the Accuser to Prove their case that x (has/did) y.

The proper process of veryfying the status of a banned activity is to inspect.
So the National Guard Medical Exam checks to see if a pilot is on drugs. It does not just say its the 60s you must be on drugs.
A news reporter is suposed to ask questions of the parties involved, take photos gather evidence and verifiable witness statements from reputable witnesses; before making wild accusations.
Whether Sadam had WMD was something the UN under Blix were assesing before the war and at the time they found evidence of none and asked for more time to check. That was the proper process.

You can argue that a real fear of an enemy having WMD made for a case to go to war but in such a case there must be very real consequnces for the agressor if they got it wrong.

We in the coalition went in and made war on Iraq. We decimated their civil society and corrupt as it was, it worked. Now it dont. Their police service is virtualy non existant hospitals dont have even basic drugs. They have 50% unemployment and electricity only if they can afford a private generator (if it dont get stolen)

Like a majority of people in the US and UK at the time I supported the war on what has since proved to be the false prospectus of TBA and TBA2.

That that prospectus has been proved false angers me as it does many others.

Now TBA and TBA2 wrigle and squirm to get themselves off the hook. Blaming those who risk their lives gathering the intelligence is sickening beyond words.

We know now that it was not an intelligence failure it was political failure. Where TBA and TBA2 conived to fool them selves into believing in a non existant threat.

And in all that time the true threat of Al Qaeda has been left to grow and in fact been fertilised by an unjust war.

Now they must bear the consequences.

TBA AND TBA2s FAILURE AT A TIME OF WAR
I wish to make an assertion: The Bush Administration (TBA) and The Blair Administration (TBA2) have failed the coalition at time of war. The most heinous crime any representative administration can make.

How the miserable failure George Bush has the effrontery to say this war was in the interest of anyone but his cronies in business is beyond me.

I think it would help if I state the current position:

(1)WMD and the threat of Saddam
The initial given reason for the War was a preemptive strike to defend the US and other countries allied to the US against the possibility of WMD being used either by his friends who were terrorists or by his own military using intercontinental rockets

(2)Regime change
A secondary reason for the war was to remove a tyrant, Saddam, and his powerbase, the Baath party, from power.

In the first these aims the coalition has failed.

(1a) Failure to find WMD and ICBMs
No WMD has been found. Not even factory parts other than the ones destroyed by the UN.
No inter continental rockets have been found. Not even factory parts other than the ones destroyed by the UN.

We knew the WMD existed in the past because the chemicals and plant to make them were sold to Saddam by the members of TBA and their companies. Donald Rumsfeld signed deals with Sadam at the time of the Iran Iraq War Donald Rumsfeld was disgusting enough as to shake Sadam's still bloody hand after his gassing the kurds at Halabjah so they could sell him some more WMD.

We know they had the rockets because the Russians gave them the medium range rockets and their very educated workforce (many of the worlds top scientists were educated in Iraq) were working on extending the range of these missiles. The UN found some and destroyed them.

Neither of these were found by David Kay so either:
The greatest fear of the worst failure of TBA and TBA2
They were given to terrorists; in which case attacking Saddam was a real big boo boo or they were given to Syria or Iran both nations could now in theory obliterate Israel with them, another big boo boo.

OR

A more likely probability is that they were destroyed by the UN; as has been said by the Saddam regime when it was in power and most world intelligence services including the CIA believed and as George Tennet has reiterated. This is the conclusion that both, Kay and Charles Duelfer new head of the US team searching for banned weapons in Iraq, have come to.
The above has now more or less been proven even members of TBA admit it

Political Consequences of Coalition Failure to find WMD
WMD was the primary pretext for War and the subject of TBA and TBA2s false prospectus for war (with it Saddam and Iraq was seen as dangerous to the coalition countries)

As the US and UK administrations have not come up with the proof of WMD.
It does not matter if the administrations lied about WMD (straight criminal behavior)
Or were stupid and fooled themselves into falsly believing it existed(criminal negligence)

Both are resignation matters in a true democracy.

If they don't resign then a true democracy must remove them
by Vote of No Confidence for the UK and Impeachment for the US. In the end we have elections in the UK and who knows the next US election may not be fixed. It is the ability of the people to remove failed leaders that is the sole distinction between an elected administration and a totalitarian regime. Otherwise they are no different than Saddam's Regime.

(2a)The coalition with the help of Kurdish intelligence found Saddam
We knew he existed because there were pictures and film of him shaking hands with members of the current US administration after he gassed the Kurds in Halabjah. After securing a deal to sell him more WMD.

In the secondary aim of removing Saddam and perhaps the Baath Party the coalition had been successful but it has failed to replace it with an Iraqi elected administration. Instead we have an unelected interim government with increasing ties to big business that looks set to form a puppet regime like that of SLORC in Mandalay. (Halliburton's other great dictatorship that they shake hands with and that makes Saddam's regime look like pussies.)

Political Consequences of Coalition failure to capitalize on its Success in finding Saddam.
In finding Saddam the coalition had removed a continuous focus of resistance and threat to any future democratic government in Iraq. The coalition could have regained some of the initiative but allowed it self to slip into congratulatory backsliding. Now once again coalition casualties are at 50 a month and rising with our alies the kurds and Iraqi police taking casulties in the hundreds per month.

The 750,000 dollars in the suitcase was Saddam's daily bribe money where is the rest? It belongs to the Iraqi people and can be used to help reconstruct the country. Estimates put it at up to 40 billion dollars. With their old business acquaintances with Saddam surely TBA can trace some of the accounts they had dealings with.

Failing to address the economic, social and political needs of Iraqis would mean a former Evil Tyrant, Saddam will begin to be seen as a Robin Hood.

Failing to rebuild a country after you smashed it apart in a war makes the people who live there resent you.

If you can not even find the WMD, for which you fought the war, they resent you more.

If while you are failing to find the WMD you smash up the wrong peoples houses or shoot their innocent family members, friendly fire happens accepted but it don't alter how people feel, they will resent you more.

SOME HISTORY
Before GW2 Saddam was not involved in funding the training or attacks of any Terrorist organizations. He was singularly hated by Al Qaeda as he was the head of a secular state founded around the communist ideals of Baath party. Al Qaeda was initially grown by the CIA as a conduit and control system for anti communist activity in Afghanistan but it went rogue in the 90s.

After GW2 Saddam got out with LOTS of money much in offshore numbered accounts and at least 3 container loads of Dollars were seen leaving the Iraq National Bank in the days before the US secured Baghdad Saddam's pocket change.

US intelligence has found evidence to believe that the former enemies Al Qaeda and Saddam's surviving Baath party cronies have now found common cause in attacking the coalition.

Saddam's money is unaccounted for; it may have already been transfered to Al Qaeda (let us pray it has not)
Al Qaeda after the fall of Afghanistan could afford to do one attack somewhere in the world every 6 months. With economic backing of Saddam's wealth it was managing 1 or 2 a month if that money has been stopped all well and good; if it has not then the long term threat of up to 40 Billion dollars in Bin Laden's hand does not bear thinking about.

Saddam had perhaps a few thousand fanatical supporters in his own country via his money he had access to the Al Qaeda and a Muslim world that is increasingly fractured by blind lashing out conducted by a Bush Administration that has still failed to find Bin Laden.

Consequences for the War on terror and foreign policy consequences of the TBA's and TBA2's private intelligence departments failure to correctly assess the Iraq threat.
Before GW2 Al Qaeda was significantly weakened by the attacks in Afghanistan. Afghanistan had a sufficient force of Coalition troops there to prevent the reemergence of the Taliban. Effort was being made to rebuild the country and remove it as an Al Qaeda recruiting base. Since GW2 the number and quality of these troops has been reduced to feed in to the increasing demand on troop numbers in Iraq. The drain on US and UK troops is now so bad that Dick Cheney has had to go cap in hand to the Europeans and Canadians to beg for their help by putting their troops in harms way too. This after trying to fool these countries into going to war on a false or criminally negligent prospectus and then having the gall to accuse those same countries of all manner of crimes good luck with that one Dick.

The mistake of fighting a war on two fronts
Any one with a brain can see that the adventure-ism in Iraq of TBA and TBA2 has left them fighting a war on two fronts always costly and considered a strategic error.

As a result the US and the Coalition members and probably the rest of the world are in more danger of terrorism than before GW2 or are the higher number of attacks my imagination? It may even include a WMD threat. Let us just pray the WMD was not there in Iraq in the first place.

The Boy Who Cried “Wolf!” effect
It is a fable we are all familiar with. TBA and TBA2 Cried “Wolf!” and there was no WMD. I ask, the next time when a real wolf is there will their armed services, citizens and society believe TBA and TBA2? They either fooled their people or were fooled themselves by their own private intelligence departments designed to manufacture evidence of a threat that never existed. Such fools can not be allowed control of atom bombs.

TBA2 Tied up in investigations
Already the UK government has had to spend months of administration time and money explaining its actions with regard to the whistle blower Dr David Kelly and its PR department has wasted more doing a hatchet job on the reporter Andrew Gilligan. All for what to say it did not lie when it said the Iraqis had WMD that could be fired in 45 minutes (it was referring to WW1 style Gas shells that it could fire maybe 25 miles) but it left everyone with the impression this was WMD that could be fired on UK bases in Cyprus Even Tony Blair Believed it! Though most in his cabinet and his defence secretary new it was just battlefield weapons.

TBA Tied up in investigations
In the US the investigation into which White House official revealed the identity of the CIA agent in charge of finding illegal nuclear weapons materials (thus risking the lives of tens of CIA assets and ruining ongoing anti proliferation investigations) has started. The investigation into failures of US intelligence in the run up to GW2 is due to start but TBA have fixed it so it wont report till after the election. The CIA has already made it clear they blame TBA's private intelligence firm The Office of Special Plans. Why TBA employed that bunch of amateurs is beyond me.

Legal consequences for TBA and TBA2 of not finding WMD
It maybe that Iraqi citizens will be within their rights to make claims for compensation for loss of life property and earnings in pursuit of a wrongful war if no WMD is found. Their first port of call should be the personal fortunes of the members of the administrations not US and UK tax payers. As a tax payer in one the countries involved I would prefer that the members of an administration that fails to come up with proof of WMD have their personal fortunes so reduced as to cause them to live in a council / housing project before I pay for it.

War Crimes
We then come to the matter of investigating a possible war crime this would be for the future Elected Iraqi administration or better a referendum of the Iraqis to decide. It may well be that such a government decides that the removal of Saddam was a worth while venture.

Still we live in democracies we can get rid of lame duck administrations. I do not feel our democracies both the UK and US will have any legitimacy if they attempt to remain in power without finding the WMD. So we will have to lose these lame duck administrations in that case.

TBA and TBA2s Failure in a time of war
So both TBA and TBA2 have failed us at a time of war by increasing the number of enemies the coalition faces and by failing to deal with those dangerous enemies. Where is Bin Laden? Maybe Kurdish intelligence can help the Coalition find Him.

The single biggest sin a democratic administration can make is failure in war. It is considered a terminal error.

Kind Regards Walker

[DUmbrella]

6. Nice reply

Nice reply. Unfortunately I don't have the time to respond line by line but I'll just tell you how I look at this whole thing. I think that TBA did the right thing by going into Iraq but screwed up in the selling it part. And yeah, I'm pissed. But the thing is, everyone, including Kay, Blix, Clinton, and all the anti-war countries were surprised themselves that nothing was found. I don't believe anyone deliberately lied - just that they screwed up in using it as the sole selling point for the war. Like you said, there were countless reasons to go in. They picked the one which they thought was sure-fire to sell to the public. So far it seems to have been a mistake.

I'm sure TBA was presented info saying there were no weapons. He was also presneted info and intel stating the oppisite. Part of the job of the president is to take all of the opinions into account and make a decision - A very hard decision which will change people's lives either way.

As far as the war itself goes... There's no doubt that if everything goes smoothly, Iraq will be a better place in the future. I'm not talking tomorrow or next year. I'm talking 10-20 years! That's how long it takes for free countries to develop. Not overnight. Our country went through over a century of turbulant times as did every other. Iraq won't be any exception. In the world today, people expect things to unfold before their eyes like in a movie. That is just unrealistic. I think we have to take a step back and realize that we did the right thing no matter what is found there. We got rid of a mad man, deposed a horrifingly brutal regime, and gave millions of people the prospect of peace and freedom. To judge the success of these actions based on some hospitals not having enough medicine is shortsighted and naive.

You can posture all you want about legal technicalities and motives - but in the long run - none of that will matter.

[Ian_walker]

7. TBA and TBA2 must bear the consequences

Hi DUmbrella

When TBA and TBA2 made a decision to go to war, a decision that has now needlessly cost thousands of lives, there were inherent consequences to that decision.

If they made the decision to go to war on the threat of WMD and no WMD was found then TBA and TBA2 must bear the consequences. I placed some of the ramifications of such a decision in my previous post.

It is simple and the jury of history, hindsight and fact have decided there was no WMD and consequently TBA and TBA2 are guilty.

I repeat from my previous post
It does not matter if the administrations lied about WMD (straight criminal behavior)
Or as they have argued were stupid and fooled themselves into falsely believing it existed (criminal negligence)

The consequences to that decision remain the same.

Because of the nature of democracy, the sentence is simple and terminal; removal from office.

Kind Regards Walker

[DUmbrella]

8. Correct

When you say removal from office, you mean through elections and voting, right?

[Ian_walker]

9. Methods of Removing TBA and TBA2

Hi DUmbrella

I declaired methods in previous posts but I will repeat it for clarification.

As the US and UK administrations have not come up with the proof of WMD.
It does not matter if the administrations lied about WMD (straight criminal behavior)
Or were stupid and fooled themselves into falsely believing it existed(criminal negligence)

Both are resignation matters in a true democracy.

If TBA and TBA2 don't resign then a true democracy must remove them:

Either by Vote of No Confidence for the UK and Impeachment for the US.

OR

If those legal methods fail in the end we have elections in the UK and who knows the next US election may not be fixed.

It is the ability of the people to remove failed leaders that is the sole distinction between an elected administration and a totalitarian regime. Otherwise our administration's are no different than Saddam's Regime.

Kind regards Walker

[DUmbrella]

10. Thats what makes our country great

When we don't agree with our leaders we can get rid of them with a vote. Hopefully the Iraqi people will get to experience this freedom as well.

[Ian_walker]

12. Iraq is not a nice place to live under occupation

Hi DUmbrella

I think this explains why Iraq under Coalition occupation is not a nice place to live.
http://www.bushflash.com/occupied.html

It also points out why with the Coalitions way of teaching people about it they may come to hate the word freedom.

Kind Regards Walker

[DUmbrella]

13. Oh my

I've never seen such propaganda before. I base my stance on books I've read on every possible perspective possible, and articles from soruces around the world. If you want to base your judgement on out of context photographs and quotes, that's fine. But you're only blinding yourself.

http://www.dgci.net/archives/000260.html
http://homepage.mac.com/evensen/PhotoAlbum17.html
http://chiefwiggles.blog-city.com/

[Ian_walker]

14. I need to know what statement you say is false.

Hi DUmbrella

I never dismiss any thing out of hand. I am a rock climber and long ago learned not to make assumptions.

I always support my arguments with facts and sources that can be verified. Usually from more than one reputable source.

If you would be so kind. Could you please tell me what part of the "Propaganda" is false?

I await your enlightening me with baited breath.

Kind Regards Walker

[DUmbrella]

15. Sure

This flash movie doesn't contain any facts in it for me to disprove or claim false.

All it is, is a series of disconnected photographs of hurt children, and specific quotes gathered from people to make a point. These photos can be from anywhere. I've seen many exactly like this that were of children and civilians killed and tortured by Saddams regime. Do I think that there are people in Iraq who don't want us there? Yeah - people who had life better when Saddam was there. Do I think innocents were hurt or killed during the war? Of course - but nobody ever said freedom was FREE. Interview the people the people who want us out, take pictures of people hurt, string them together and what you get is this movie. A pile of propaganda junk intended to do nothing but make you feel bad.

Right now the Iraqis are arguing over the best path to democracy. It's a MESS over there! But you know what? At least they now have a say in their futures. At least they can argue without the fear of being imprisoned. They have a hope that in the future they and/or their children could have a free and open society.

I don't understand why so many here at DU are so obstinate on this point. Isn't fighting for freedom and peace for people around the world a traditional plight of liberals? What's happening in Iraq right now is GOOD, will get even better, and hopefully in the end, serve as a model for the rest of the region.

That's how I look at this thing.

[Ian_walker]

11. Glad to hear you agree Bush must be removed

Hi DUmbrella

I am glad to hear you agree the Vietnam War Dodger President George Bush Jnr. must be removed from office.

I remind you of my earlier post. TBA arranged for The Office of Special Plans, Rumsfeld's Amateur Private Secret Service to Doctor intelligence before it reached the presidents ear. It is called plausible deniability. And it would be plausible except for one thing; TBA set up The Office of Special Plans and staffed it with their people.

So it is not just that they failed their nation at a time of war, a most heinous crime for any elected administration, it is that they conspired to cost the coalition hundreds of servicemen's and thousands of innocent iraqis their lives. For that they should have their personal fortunes so reduced as to cause them to live in a council / housing project before we the US and UK tax payers have to pay for the costly adventureism of Iraq.

I think you will agree when I say that your expected 70% tax rise on all US tax payers will have to pay for the war must first come from the fools who made the wrong decision before it comes out of your pocket.

Kind Regards Walker

[dArKeR]

16. Being right on WMD is no consolation to Iraqi scientist

By any measure Amer al-Saadi ought to feel vindicated. The dapper British-educated scientist who was the Iraqi government's main link to the United Nations inspectors before the United States invasion repeatedly insisted that Iraq had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction years earlier.

David Kay, the American inspector who headed the Iraq Survey Group and was sure he would find such weapons when he went to Iraq after the war, now accepts Dr Saadi was right. So does Hans Blix, the chief UN inspector, who up to a month before the war still thought Iraq might have had WMD.

Yet, astonishingly, Saadi does not know of their change of mind or of the political fallout their views have caused in western countries. He is like a lottery winner who is the last person to be told he has hit the jackpot.

http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.asp?ao=65836

[JWF505]

17. about time

Well its about time that Bush is caught in his own lie, too bad it has taken an entire year of his crud to catch him.

[rebellious woman]

18. Iraq was always number one.......

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq&iraq_themes=pre911Plans