WMDs and dis/misinformation

At the risk of sounding like a Bush basher, it seems to me that the political issue is no longer whether we find WMDs in Iraq. As pressure on the administration and the intelligence gathering sources grows in a surprisingly non-partisan way, I think the political issue has shifted dramatically, and I wonder who will/should take the fall.

Whether there are WMDs seems to no longer be the question. The question isn't even why we haven't found them yet, but where along the line the failure of intelligence gathering and communication arose. The evidence is clear and fairly irrevocable, in the process of drumming up support for the war the administration made dramatic statements that have proven false, incorrect, misleading, or fictional. Not simply that Iraq possessed WMDs and chemical weapons, but inaccuracies about where they might be, what kinds they might be, in what quantities, and how quickly they could be used.

In particular, the remarks in Bush's State of the Union address about Iraq's purchase of materials to create a nuclear device, and how close Hussein might be to such a device, were not just exaggerated, but outright incorrect. More significantly, the information had long since been proven false, which begs the question: how did information that had long since been debunked find its way into the President's speech.

There are, as I see it (and you're welcome to draw more conclusions), 2 possiblities.

First is that the links of communication between the branches of intelligence in the system were broken. That key officials still had every valid reason to believe erroneous information, and that the administration was simply inept in building a solid factual support for its case. In this case Bush and high officials believed every inaccurate statement they made.

Second, the administration coerced intelligence officials to only provide data that supported their politcal agenda. In this case, clear evidence that refuted erroneous data was surpressed to appease an administration bent on war. In this case, officials would be making incorrect statements with plausible deniability, but almost certainly an awareness that they were telling neither the world, the American public, or congress the full story.

Third is, of course, that war mongering officials chose to ignore crucial data, to lie to everyone in their all out bid for war.

As the scope of this investigation, and whether sanctioned or not there is an investigation underwar, shifts from what we might find in Iraq, to what we might find in our intelligence gathering process, it seems to me that someone is and should be held accountable for the dramatic fissure between what we were told and what was accurate. I don't know if this was Bush, or Rumsfeld, or the CIA, or simply a system that failed, but politically speaking, I think someone will be put to task.

Unfortunately, my personal opinion is that someone will prove a patsy for those with much more power and influence.

Please note: I am not commenting on whether we should have invaded. I'm not even indicting Bush here. I'm simply pointing out how I see the situation, and suggesting that regardless of the ends, no administration or official should be pardoned from intentionally misleading both the world and Congress. It's kind of a founding principle.

Possibility 1: Intel was bad, but the agencies and the Administration didn''t know.

Outcome 1: George Tenet gets handed his walking papers. He''s had almost 2 years to get the Agency back on track after 9-11. The Bush Doctrine of Preemption requires good intel.

Possibility 2: Intel was bad, but the agencies and the Administration did know.

Outcome 2: George Tenet gets his walking papers, plus anybody else that the Administration can leave out to dry. President Bush gets insulated from the controversy like Reagan during Iran-Contra.

Possibility 3: The intel was intentionally exaggerated by either the agenices and the Administration.

Outcome 3: George Tenet and a bunch of the Administration get fired outright. Congressional probe goes after the big three: Rumsfeld, Cheney, and even Bush. Depending on how big the lie is, members of Congress will start flirting with the idea of impeachment. If the Republicans are willing to defend their own to the end, they''ll stonewall the idea until the bitter end. However, if the evidence is compelling, there''ll be plenty of crossovers from the moderate Republicans. It''ll be the biggest partisan mess in DC since the Civil War. How''ll it''ll affect the election (if it hasn''t already happened) depends on who the American people angrier at: the Administration for lying to them repeatedly, or the members of Congress trying to drag the Administration through the mud on trumped up charges.

I agree completely. The thing I find the most amusing is that despite the U.N. and the French basically being proven correct in their stance on the Iraq war, you still find people bashing both at every chance they get.

It doesn''t make sense for people to have lied. If they knew that there were no weapons or not a good idea that there were, it would have came out. I think the long run-up to war gave Saddam time to remove weapons or hide them well. Too many countries for and against the war thought that the weapons were there. So, the problem is with the CIA. Our CIA has major problems.

It doesn''t make sense for people to have lied. If they knew that there were no weapons or not a good idea that there were, it would have came out.

You''re pretty much ignoring the point that they simply could have tried to play the ""who cares afterwards?""-game again. Remember that nurse, who witnessed Iraqi soldiers killing babies in some hospital in Kuwait before the first Gulf War? The one that turned out to be the daughter of the ambassador of Kuwait in the US?

I think the long run-up to war gave Saddam time to remove weapons or hide them well. Too many countries for and against the war thought that the weapons were there.

Yeah, now it''s ''their'' fault again.

Ulairi, you are on record as saying that you don''t care about the WMDs and say that the war was justified solely on its humanitarian benefits to the Iraqis. Why didn''t the Administration just use this? Why did they push for the shaky WMD-angle? And why did Don Rumsfeld suggest that the US should attack Iraq as its response to 9-11 in a National Security Council meeting on September 12, 2001?

Stupid double post

I''ve got to agree with the viewpoint that it could not have been anywhere near a complete fabrication. While it would be neat if I could say it''s because I have complete trust in the administration, that''s just silly. What I find more swaying is the lack of evidence to the contrary presented by countries opposing the war.

What seems most likely to me is that Iraq posessed some things they shouldn''t have, the U.S. exagerated the situation, and Iraq quietly hid/exported the damning evidence in the many months leading up to the invasion. If Iraq had mobile facilities, I don''t see why they wouldn''t be able to dispose (hide, mail to their uncle, etc.) of them before the U.S. got there.

What has really surprised me is the U.S.''s inability to track at least something. If they had simply kept tabs on one alleged chemical weapons facility and pointed a camera at it in the opening days of the war, everything would be far more copacetic.

The point is though, whether or not Saddam had anything at all, we were still lied to about scope, locations, availability and readiness of such weapons. Repeatedly. The argument is not ""Did Saddam have WMDs"" but ""Our intelligence has been proven wrong, who is to blame?""

That said, I dont know who is to blame. I think the second Elysium scenario is most likely, because I doubt the Administration all out lied, but exaggerating and fabricating a few details is not past them, IMO. The CIA still deserves to pay though, because they are supposed to keep stuff like this from happening. When the President tells them to make something up and it has the effect of starting a war, it should be thier duty to say ""f*ck you"". Regardless of whether or not the Administration is to blame, the CIA certainly is.

Gentlemen, please give due consideration to the information provided at this link. You may not like the source, but the information is cited with authority:

http://www.drudgereport.com/kerry6.htm

In 1997 and 1998 Clinton and Kerry and many of the Senators who are raising the issues regarding WMD that members of these forums are so concerned about stated that Saddam Hussein was a threat because of the very reasons that George Bush used to justify the war against Iraq. They also voted for and recommended the use of military force against Iraq during the Clinton Administration. I, unlike other Republicans, do not believe the use of force against Iraq by Clinton was done to cover up a blow job.

I believe we are compelled to rely on the data of the UN inspectors, prior to their ouster in 1998, when they stated that Iraq had WMD.

Assuming arguendo that the UN data was accurate, this sets forth an interesting consideration:

Either:

1. In 1997 and 1998 Iraq did have WMD and destroyed all such weapons after the stolen 2000 election out of fear that George Bush, the son of the man Saddam tried to kill, (according to Bill Clinton) would wage war. This scenario is not inconceivable when you consider Iran''s reaction to the first Reagan inauguration.

or

2. That both Bush and the Clinton administrations, plus the Democrat Senators running for election in 2004 for the past five years have all lied to us. In that case, who can you trust?

The unfortunate reality is that this issue will not win the day for the Democrats in 2004. And we all know that is what this is about. This issue is as sexy as the Iran-Contra affair and is drawing a collective yawn from the voters. The Democrats were unsuccessful in pinning September 11 on Georgia Bush and they will fail at this. Their efforts make them look weak when American voters want strength in the White House. In short, no one misses Saddam Hussein, not even Osama Bin Laden. So it''s back to Social Security again, guys.

As far as the failures of the intelligence establishment, which I believe I can speak with some authority as I have been in the employ of an intelligence agency in the past, they are overcautious and are reacting to the backlash of September 11, 2001. This was a clear failure of intelligence, but is not entirely their cross to bear. Neither George W. Bush nor Clinton took Osama Bin Laden seriously prior to September 11, 2001, despite Laden''s best efforts.

The WMD issue was an effort to bring in the UN onboard. Clinton was unsuccessful in obtaining UN support in 1998, but apparently Bush thought he could do better. He was wrong and criticism is justified.

The ""dirty little secret"" about this war and impending wars is that, subsequent to 9/11, this administration has made a determination that the Middle East can no longer exist in its present form. This administration is taking a page out of the Reagan Central America playbook. The Democrats pissed and whined during that process, and they missed an opportunity to take credit for it. It appears that history is repeating itself.

Bad intelligence is a fact of life. Pearl Harbor, Iranian hostage crisis, missed opportunities to prevent September 11, 2001 and the failure to locate and secure the WMD of Iraq are all examples of a failure of intelligence. To pin this on a conspiracy of the administration to wage unnecessary war to bolster poll numbers is disingenious, politically partisan, and/or naive. I can tell you from personal knowledge that one of the biggest frustrations of members of the intelligence agency is their successes are kept quiet, but their failures, for obvious reasons, are trumpeted. What resonates more with you, Honorable Members, the prevention of the destruction of airliners on January 1, 2000 or the toppling of the twin towers?

And Elysium, I love your site, and mean no disrespect. However, may I ask you to consider a little logic in your argument. If the administration had actual knowledge that there was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and bullied and coerced analysts to reach conclusions that could not be supported with the data available to them, how on Earth do you think this administration would believe they could get away with such a plot when they ended up with an empty bag at the end? They stuck their neck out and they are embarrassed. This scenario is giving their political adversaries something to crow about. Is this all part of their master plan?

The Democrat''s master plan is to ferment distrust of this administration and our intelligence agencies in an effort to win back the White House. The consquences of this to our national security is frankly, inconsequential to them. If they paid me enough I''d tell them how to get back into White House: Zell Miller. Now there''s an election even George Bush couldn''t steal.

And Elysium, I love your site, and mean no disrespect. However, may I ask you to consider a little logic in your argument.

No disrespect taken. One of the things we enjoy here is an understanding of respect even when we disagree. Mostly I was positing possibilities. And welcome to the discussion to both you and Maddy.

I want to give the rest of your posts more thought before/if I have something to contribute. But I did want to mention that there''s no concern of being disrespectful when proposing well considered responses.

The unfortunate reality is that this issue will not win the day for the Democrats in 2004. And we all know that is what this is about. This issue is as sexy as the Iran-Contra affair and is drawing a collective yawn from the voters. The Democrats were unsuccessful in pinning September 11 on Georgia Bush and they will fail at this. Their efforts make them look weak when American voters want strength in the White House.

Our resident conservative Yomm has a quote in his sig from me that basically agrees with what you''re saying here. As a liberal I''m very frustrated with the Democratic party, and hold little hope for 2004. I''m not sure, however, that this issue is quite the public yawn-fest you describe.

That said, I want to see this issue tackled not for a political agenda, but because it seems to me that a possibility exists that misleading information was intentionally used as factual. For me, this isn''t a Bush/Clinton - who should have or tried to do what when - issue, but a question of communication between branches of authority, and the accuracy of data presented when used as evidence for a war.

There is the presumption, I think, that since 1998 saw concern about Iraq, then by default Iraq possessed the weapons so described. I''m not even refuting that possibility. My concern is that it increasingly looks as though the administration used information which had already been proven inaccurate as a case for war. I think congressional hearings on the subject establish this as more than a naive conspiratory point.

The ""dirty little secret"" about this war and impending wars is that, subsequent to 9/11, this administration has made a determination that the Middle East can no longer exist in its present form. This administration is taking a page out of the Reagan Central America playbook. The Democrats pissed and whined during that process, and they missed an opportunity to take credit for it. It appears that history is repeating itself.

Which would have been fine (or at least more defensible) if the administration had delivered that as policy and hadn''t danced back and forth between reasons to invade Iraq. It simply isn''t enough for me to have the administration make a case for war, and after the fact simply say, ''who cares if we weren''t entirely forthright, as long as we got rid of Saddam''. When an administration delivers a case to the American people and to Congress, I expect it to be delivered in good faith. (which is not to say that it must be 100% accurate, but it must be believed to be accurate)

Bad intelligence is a fact of life. Pearl Harbor, Iranian hostage crisis, missed opportunities to prevent September 11, 2001 and the failure to locate and secure the WMD of Iraq are all examples of a failure of intelligence. To pin this on a conspiracy of the administration to wage unnecessary war to bolster poll numbers is disingenious, politically partisan, and/or naive.

While I agree that bad intelligence (or even intelligence that changes over time) is a fact of life, I''m not so quick to completely decry this a partisan rangling. The investigations that are moving forward are not only being brought by the Democratic party.

I can tell you from personal knowledge that one of the biggest frustrations of members of the intelligence agency is their successes are kept quiet, but their failures, for obvious reasons, are trumpeted. What resonates more with you, Honorable Members, the prevention of the destruction of airliners on January 1, 2000 or the toppling of the twin towers?

Actually, I hold great respect for the intelligence community, and thought the persecution thereof after 9/11 was a case of hindsight being 20/20.

If the administration had actual knowledge that there was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and bullied and coerced analysts to reach conclusions that could not be supported with the data available to them, how on Earth do you think this administration would believe they could get away with such a plot when they ended up with an empty bag at the end?

Ah, down to the crux of it. I believe that the administration genuinely expected to easily find WMDs once in Iraq. They had a variety of reasons to believe this, but lacked a smoking gun, so, I think, there were exaggerations to buy the politcal support for an invasion, an invasion which they believed would exonerate their claims. I think it was a gamble, but one they thought they could win, and/or weather the backlash if proved false, after all many people are just happy that Saddam is gone either way. I do believe there was some evidence of Saddam rebuilding his arsenal, but nothing concrete, or at least no smoking gun which they were searching desperately for.

Now, I certainly don''t claim to have the kind of inside knowledge that might prove my statements entirely naive and uninformed. But, it is my impression as an American citizen, as a liberal not inclined to trust Mr. Bush, as a consumer of mass media (for all those elements cloud and shape my judgement) that the war was somewhat fabricated, and its real justification had more to do with middle-eastern reform than weapons of mass destruction or humanitarian aid. Whether that''s a laudible goal is not the debate at hand for me. What I find questionable is the confidence which the administration placed on inaccurate claims.

Elysium said something rational and logical! Someone better remove his lefty kook credentials.

Don''t worry Ulairi, it''ll pass and soon enough I''ll say something that will make this brief foray into rationality seem an all too distant dream.

I think everyone here knows what my opinion of Bush is, so this won''t come as big surprise. I would like to state that I would say the same thing if anyone else were in power.

I think anyone and everyone who was responsible for this mess should be gone and soon, not only that but punished and be held responsible. That means Bush and everyone beneath him directly involved in selling this war to the american public and the world.

When you hold a position of power that allows you to decide to send people off to die you had better be positive that the reasons you give are solid. There is no excuse for being wrong. You are not playing games, at this point you are condeming people to death when you start a war, not only the enemy but also those on your side as well.

In my opinion, it doesn''t matter if they were telling what they thought was the truth, or if they were flat out lying. Bottom line is people died, for reasons the government can''t prove true. There is no excuse!

I agree with Elysium and Gaald. So I will not repeat it but try to summarize

Those in a position of authority who presented information that they weren''t completely sure was accurate as a case for war should be punished, regardless of why they presented that information.

Also, maddy and Lawyeron, welcome! Both of your posts make me glad I go to these forums.

It appears to be the consensus of this forum that because one of the justifications, albeit the primary justification, for going to war has not been proven true, that this was a just war. Children in Iraq that were held in prison for five years for refusing to join the Baath party were set free by American soldiers. Everyone loves children, right? Their our most precious resource.
The administration can''t be forthright about its plan for the Middle East because it doesn''t want to embarrass its totalitarian allies, ie. Saudi Arabia.

Elysium said:

""Ah, down to the crux of it. I believe that the administration genuinely expected to easily find WMDs once in Iraq. They had a variety of reasons to believe this, but lacked a smoking gun, so, I think, there were exaggerations to buy the politcal support for an invasion, an invasion which they believed would exonerate their claims. I think it was a gamble, but one they thought they could win, and/or weather the backlash if proved false, after all many people are just happy that Saddam is gone either way. I do believe there was some evidence of Saddam rebuilding his arsenal, but nothing concrete, or at least no smoking gun which they were searching desperately for.""

Ahhh...but you contradict yourself. If the ""war mongering"" administration generally expected to find WMD, than could it not be said they were acting in the best interests of the nation rather than just trying to kill people for a political agenda?

If you want to punish those that misjudge the case for war, as Pyro suggests, than John F. Kennedy should be posthumously impeached for secretly building up a military force in vietnam and intentionally misleading the public and Lyndon B. Johnson should receive similar punishment for fabricating the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Don''t get me started about Nixon. Now those were ""misjudgments"" that resulted in the death of 50,000 Americans and a million vietnamese. Makes Iraq seem like small potatoes. Did I spell that right? Oh, but that is old news, as will this subject be shortly.

Just when I thought I was so clever, my argument has become moot as Democrats are already backing away from this losing battle. The following is from Reuters:

''Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, said there was ""nothing that changes the bottom line"" of prewar assessments that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the capacity to create ""voluminous quantities"" of such weapons. He and other Democrats who attended the hearing said either they could not make judgments about whether the Republican administration hyped the intelligence or they did not believe outright deceit had occurred.''

One thing I learned from being a lawyer, when the other side stipulates to your argument, you stop talking and sit down.

...

Lawyeron, I know Elysium can defend himself just fine, but Id like to point out, he never said warmonger in the entirety of this argument. So he can''t contradict something he didn''t say. I just wanted to point that out, because I didn''t say warmonger either, and I didn''t want anyone to think I did because I agreed with Elysium.

And yes, I think Presidents that lie to the public should pay, I don''t care if they''re Jesus Christ himself. If they didn''t pay, that doesn''t mean we should let people off the hook for it now. It means we screwed up back then.

Pyro: What happens if they didn''t lie but misspoke. IE: They believed the info they had was correct.

What would you do if Bush was impeached and kicked out of office and then they found all of these WMD?

"Ulairi" wrote:

Pyro: What happens if they didn''t lie but misspoke. IE: They believed the info they had was correct.

What would you do if Bush was impeached and kicked out of office and then they found all of these WMD?

In the first case, then we need to punish those who knowingly misrepresented the information. Don''t get me wrong, Im not going after Bush here. I just want those responsible to pay, thats it.

And if Bush finds all of these WMDs, then hooray for him. Someone still needs to pay for the misrepresentation of the situation before the war, however. That doesn''t get anyone off the hook, unless they can somehow prove magically that they had all that info before the war, and were just pulling our leg the whole time.

Ahhh...but you contradict yourself. If the ""war mongering"" administration generally expected to find WMD, than could it not be said they were acting in the best interests of the nation rather than just trying to kill people for a political agenda?

Quite possibly they could have said that. Actually, they did say that a few times, but the problem is that when that didn''t prove to be weighty enough to drum up support, they pushed on. No question the administration pushed through a variety of justifications for war - whether they were all legitimate or whether they were ''testing'' justification til they found one that stuck I''ll leave to later discussion - but the one they settled on, the one they propped up in the State of the Union, the one that is being investigated now is that strong evidence proved their case. Now, of course, alot of people asked to see that proof, and were summarily rebuffed for national security. To the best of my knowledge we still haven''t gotten a good look at the supposed proof, and yet here we are with many claims made looking increasingly false.

The question here is: should an American administration be able to unjustly fabricate evidence to engage in a just war?

You''re probably right that this will blow over quickly.

One thing I learned from being a lawyer, when the other side stipulates to your argument, you stop talking and sit down.

I''ve said it before, I''ll say it again. I''ve no faith in the Democratic party.

Pyroman, the following is taken from Elysium''s initial post, which is the third of his ""2 possibilities"":

""Third is, of course, that war mongering officials chose to ignore crucial data, to lie to everyone in their all out bid for war. ""

This was a ""possibility"" suggested in his argument, which is why I included it in my retort. The wording ""of course"" suggests that this is a natural conclusion that one would draw. Your point is taken, however, that it is not a possibility that you consider to be viable.

"Lawyeron" wrote:

Pyroman, the following is taken from Elysium''s initial post, which is the third of his ""2 possibilities"":

""Third is, of course, that war mongering officials chose to ignore crucial data, to lie to everyone in their all out bid for war. ""

This was a ""possibility"" suggested in his argument, which is why I included it in my retort. The wording ""of course"" suggests that this is a natural conclusion that one would draw. Your point is taken, however, that it is not a possibility that you consider to be viable.

Youre right, my text search didn''t bring that up. Wierd, my bad. At any rate, as long as what I was saying is clear. I don''t consider the warmongering bit to be very likely, I think they had thier own reasons for wanting a war with Iraq.

To be clear, the ''of course'' was because the order was progressing to a logical conclusion. 1) nobody knew, 2) somebody knew, 3) everybody knew. In an order of 3 following that progression, an of course seemed appropriate.

I think, Lawyeron, that you have the impression that given the same choices I would lean toward number 3. That''s not necessarily true.

I''ve said it before, I''ll say it again. I''ve no faith in the Democratic party.

What do you want from the Democratic Party? I want the party of JFK back. Kick out the 60''s radical leftist.

""Kick out the 60''s radical leftist.""

Ridiculous, try living in a country where the ''radical leftists'' actually held office for a good portion of recent history before referring to the US democratic party as even remotely leftist.

"Koesj" wrote:

""Kick out the 60''s radical leftist.""

Ridiculous, try living in a country where the ''radical leftists'' actually held office for a good portion of recent history before referring to the US democratic party as even remotely leftist.

The hardcore base of the Democratic party is radical leftist. They can never win an election when they run on that plank. If the Democrats moved back to a JFK plank, they would win.

Sheesh, political theory surrenders.

Sheesh, political theory surrenders.

That''s exactly how I feel.

In many ways I''d rather have a party that sticks to its ideology than is worried about how many elections it wins. Seriously, what''s the point of having two parties if everyone''s just going to crowd the middle.

I think one of the reasons the Democratic party is so weak right now is precisely because it is casting off it''s liberalness for the sake of moderates. I''m not saying we have to be radical, but a distinctive left is not a bad thing in my book.

Screw the fat, lazy, SUV driving whores stuck in the convenient middle and their narrow-minded self-centered convictionless apathy.

I think one of the reasons the Democratic party is so weak right now is precisely because it is casting off it''s liberalness for the sake of moderates. I''m not saying we have to be radical, but a distinctive left is not a bad thing in my book.

The Democratic party doesn''t believe in anything now, other than Bush is evil. What do the Democrats want to do on taxes? Health care? Security? Social Security Reform? If they go with what the ""left"" wants, they will be laughed out of the country. The American Public isn''t liberal like the base of the democratic party is. We don''t want socialism. JFK is where the party needs to go.

Again: What do you want out of the Democratic party. What do you believe in?

Screw the fat, lazy, SUV driving whores stuck in the convenient middle and their narrow-minded self-centered convictionless apathy

Oh, you''re so sweet. I thought Democrats were suppose to be the ""people party"" and the Republicans thought people weres tupid.

"Ulairi" wrote:

JFK is where the party needs to go.

Wait a minute, I thought that was Clinton?