Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
New Intelligence agencies' record on Iraq weapons- Bush "Dead Wrong"
Shrubber
Member Posts: 219
Boston.com-
Intelligence agencies' record on Iraq weapons
(http://www.boston.com/dailynews/090/wash/Intelligence_agencies_record_o:.shtml)
By Associated Press, 3/31/2005 14:33
Before the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration asserted that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons and was developing nuclear weapons. Officials also alleged Iraq was working on prohibited long-range missiles and drones that could disperse biological agents.
The presidential intelligence commission examined each of the U.S. intelligence community's prewar assertions on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and reached these conclusions:
Nuclear weapons: Wrong.
Analysts wrongly interpreted the purpose of some metal tubes Iraq tried to import, arguing they were for centrifuges to enrich uranium when they were for conventional artillery rockets. Other imports of materials with more than one potential use were also similarly misinterpreted.
Biological weapons: Wrong.
Agencies trusted several Iraqi defectors who were lying, ignoring inconsistencies in their statements and other warning signs that these defectors were providing false information.
Chemical weapons: Wrong.
The intelligence community drew its conclusions from satellite photos of trucks and buildings and other sources that were suspicious but ultimately ambiguous, and trusted human sources who made claims that Saddam had accomplished things that are technically impossible.
Long-range missiles: Correct.
Saddam was in fact working on missiles that exceeded range limitations imposed by the United Nations after the first Gulf War.
WMD-armed drones: Wrong.
Analysts concluded the drones were for WMD based on limited information; Iraq's drones turned out to be for reconnaissance.
Saddam's intentions: Wrong.
Intelligence agencies did not seriously consider Saddam could have given up his WMD ambitions and destroyed his stockpiles. Although several intelligence sources asserted before the war that Iraq did not have any WMD, U.S. analysts regarded this as disinformation.
Spy Agencies Were `Dead Wrong' on Iraq, Report Says (Update5)
(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=alX4iywMov2E&refer=top_world_news)
March 31 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. intelligence was ``dead wrong'' about the military threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq and knows ``disturbingly little'' about the ability of terrorists to mount biological, chemical or nuclear attacks, a presidential commission said.
The commission, which called for overhauling U.S. spy agencies, said a ``major intelligence failure'' by the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies misled President George W. Bush into believing Iraq had stockpiled chemical and biological weapons and planned to produce nuclear weapons. The U.S. invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003.
``We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction,'' the nine-member commission said in a letter to Bush at the front of the 600-page report released at the White House today.
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney cited Hussein's weapons capability to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq that toppled Hussein's dictatorship. Then-CIA Director George Tenet had told the president that evidence Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction was ``a slam-dunk case.'' The U.S. didn't find biological or chemical weapons.
Tenet, who resigned in June, was awarded the Medal of Freedom by Bush in December. In a statement, Tenet said the report should have documented ``how far the intelligence community had come in rebuilding American intelligence'' from when it was ``nearly in Chapter 11'' in the mid-1990s.
Fixing the Problem
Bush, after meeting with the commission at the White House today, said that ``to win the war on terror, we will correct what needs to be fixed.''
The new report recommended improved information sharing among the government's intelligence agencies and creation of a national security service within the Federal Bureau of Investigation to oversee the agency's efforts to combat terrorism. The FBI ``still has a long way to go'' to becoming an intelligence agency.
Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington questioned whether bureaucratic changes are the answer.
``It's nice to talk about that,'' he said. ``But it doesn't change anything unless you have better people.''
`Fundamental Change'
Bush, who appointed the commission, said the panel's recommendations were ``thoughtful'' and vowed to act quickly to address the need for ``fundamental change.'' The panel will present its findings to the House and Senate intelligence committees next week, said former Virginia Senator Charles Robb, a Democrat who's the panel's co-chairman.
Bush said he told his homeland-security adviser, Frances Townsend, ``to ensure that concrete action is taken'' on the report's findings.
The report warned that many of its proposals are not new and that the spy agencies have ``an almost perfect record of resisting external recommendations.''
The report also said it ``might have chosen a different solution'' than the one Congress adopted last year to create a new director of national intelligence to coordinate the nation's 15 spy agencies.
Still, Robb told reporters the post's creation provides ``a much better chance now to enact those reforms than we have had previously.''
Negroponte's Role
John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq who was nominated to the new post, will have ``broad responsibilities but only ambiguous authorities'' over intelligence, the panel said.
The FBI's relationship to the intelligence community is ``especially murky'' under the law that created Negroponte's post, the panel said. The commission urged Bush to make clear that the FBI's intelligence activities should be coordinated with the intelligence director.
The commission is headed by Robb and Laurence H. Silberman, a senior U.S. appellate judge and Republican appointee.
The panel also recommended that the government reorganize an existing center that tracks weapons proliferation to focus more on biological warfare.
``We are concerned that terrorist groups may be developing biological weapons and may be willing to use them,'' the report said. ``Even more worrisome'' is the prospect that developments in biotechnology will make ``even more potent and sophisticated'' weapons available to terrorists, the report said.
Collection Techniques
``The bad news is that we still know disturbingly little about the weapons programs and even less about the intentions of many of our most dangerous adversaries,'' the commission said. ``The good news is that we have had some solid intelligence successes -- thanks largely to innovative and multi-agency collection techniques.''
After the U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, intelligence agencies determined that al-Qaeda had greater capability to produce biological weapons than previously thought, the report said.
The commission credited U.S. intelligence agencies for exposing the nuclear-proliferation network of A.Q. Khan, former head of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, and for persuading Libya to renounce weapons of mass destruction. Still, the report found that the intelligence agencies overestimated the amount of chemical weapons Libya had stockpiled.
Encouraging Competition
It also said intelligence agencies should encourage competition and ``independent analysis'' to help government officials and decision-makers challenge misperceptions.
The nine-member commission, including Republican Arizona Senator John McCain and former appeals-court judge Patricia Wald, a Democrat, recommended creation of a national security division within the Justice Department to coordinate the agency's counterterrorism efforts.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told reporters he has already been considering the idea, which would have to be approved by Congress.
The report also described continued turf battles between intelligence agencies despite changes ordered in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. More information sharing is needed between agencies, the report said.
``The biggest single threat to the United States at present comes from the use or the potential use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists,'' Silberman said. Countering that threat requires cooperation between the CIA and the FBI, he said.
Scathing Criticism
The commission saved its most scathing criticism of the CIA and other agencies for their erroneous conclusions in October 2002 about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
The spy agencies ``collected precious little intelligence'' and what they did gather ``was either worthless or misleading,'' the commission said. The agencies failed to explain that their conclusions were based on fragmentary intelligence, the report said.
In August 2002, Cheney said, ``We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.'' On Sept. 8, 2002, on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' Cheney said the Bush administration knew ``with absolute certainty'' that Hussein was trying to procure equipment to ``enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.''
Three days before U.S. forces invaded Iraq, Cheney said on ``Meet the Press'' that ``we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.''
Using the Intelligence
The commission said it was ``not authorized to investigate how policy makers used the intelligence assessments.''
``It is essential that we hold both the intelligence agencies and senior policy makers accountable for their actions,'' Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said in a statement.
Robb told reporters the commission found ``absolutely no instance'' of political pressure by Bush administration officials on intelligence officials to change their analysis about Iraq.
During a Feb. 5, 2003, presentation to the United Nations Security Council, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell cited evidence that Hussein had dispersed biological warheads to western Iraq and was hiding illegal weapons in cars, homes and trains. With Tenet seated behind him, Powell cited evidence that Iraq had ``sanitized'' chemical arms bunkers to thwart detection by UN arms inspectors.
One day later, Bush said Hussein had ``never accounted for a vast arsenal of deadly biological and chemical weapons.'' Bush said Hussein's government had ``actively and secretly attempted to obtain equipment'' for producing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Mobile Labs
Bush cited evidence from witnesses that Iraq had at least seven mobile labs to produce hundreds of pounds of biological agents within months. The president also cited intelligence evidence that Iraq had developed devices to spray biological agents from an unmanned aerial vehicle that -- if launched from a ship off the U.S. coast -- could travel hundreds of miles inland.
The president said there was a danger Hussein could give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists bent on attacking the U.S.
After no major stockpiles were found in Iraq, U.S. chief weapons inspector David Kay concluded that intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs was ``all wrong.'' Kay told Congress last year there wasn't any evidence that the deposed Iraqi dictator had chemical or biological weapons stockpiles before the U.S. invasion.
Kay theorized that Hussein destroyed his arsenal in the mid- 1990s and bluffed the world to preserve an aura of military power by refusing to tell the UN inspector he no longer had the stockpiles.
Other commission members are Yale University President Richard C. Levin, former Defense Department officials Walter B. Slocombe and Henry S. Rowen, retired Admiral William O. Studeman, a former director of the National Security Agency, and Charles M. Vest, a former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lloyd Cutler, a former White House lawyer for two Democratic presidents, served as ``of counsel'' to the commission.
Comments
Yes, I'm quoting the New York Times..one of the MOST liberal papers ever known to man! But unfortunately even you guys admitted to being wrong. I quote YOUR paper.
The New York Times has written in a report that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
In a stunning about-face, the New York Times reported Sunday that when the U.S. attacked Iraq in March 2003, Saddam Hussein possessed "stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials," as well as sophisticated equipment to manufacture nuclear and biological weapons, which was removed to "a neighboring state" before the U.S. could secure the weapons sites.
The U.N.'s Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission [UNMOVIC] "has filed regular reports to the Security Council since last May," the paper said, "about the dismantlement of important weapons installations and the export of dangerous materials to foreign states."
What's this? WMDs moved to a neighboring state before US forces could secure them? Isn't that what Republicans have been saying all along? That they were moved to Syria? I seem to remember seeing a video on tv of some weapons sites that had been wiped clean where they believed nuclear materials to be stored, and another report of finding one of the mobile weapons lab and it was also wiped clean. I think it's pretty obvious what happened.
Now, this paragraph was a little infuriating.
"The United Nations, worried that the nuclear material and equipment could be used in clandestine bomb production, has been hunting for it throughout the Middle East, largely unsuccessfully, the Times said."
The. U.N. couldn't find WMDs in Iraq before the war for years and now we are going to depend on them to find the WMDs in a larger surface area? Of course their search will be largely unsuccessful. The terrorists have a mole in the U.N. most likely. No way do I expect U.N. searchers to find Hussein's WMDs. That wouldn't suit their anti-American purpose.
Oh, and the U.N. is afraid of 'clandestine' bomb making. Rather than being afraid of secretive bomb making, they should be afraid of secretive bomb blowing! They won't find what Hussein had because, IMO, they aren't really looking.
Like one of my good friends says, "GET THE UN OUT OF THE US!"
N.Y. Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/13/101911.shtml
http://www.facebook.com/murtb
Im not sure you understand. This has nothing to with the UN, Bush has already admitted there was none. In fact, he made this commission to find out(made of republicans, not UN).
President Bush today welcomed the "unvarnished" look at intelligence failures leading up to the Iraq war produced by a special panel he appointed, asserting that "the central conclusion is one that I share: America's intelligence community needs fundamental change."
The panel, chaired by senior U.S. Appeals Court Judge Laurence H. Silberman and former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.), was direct and unsparing in its conclusions, saying the intelligence community was not a community at all but a fragmented collection of rival bureaucracies that were consistently and unfailingly "wrong" on almost every point with regard to Iraq.
The article that murt posted is very misleading. NY Times never ran a article "Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003". The bias news site took a ny article out of context.
As per usual Newsmax lies. Here is the NYT's story they so eggregiously misrepresent as to straight out lie:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html? ex=1111294800&en=2908f890e8beb814&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY
Why? Because they like deluding themselves. Newsmax is quite funny. The headline is so completely misleading as to be a lie. Then the assertion that the Times is "reversing" itself is just a flat out untruth. They count on the fact that none of the idiots reading their crap will read too closely.
It is par for the course. I get their "news alerts" by email three or four times a day. They would be hilarious if it were not for the fact that they have millions of readers.
Murt, you know how this is going to turn out if you start conversing with the liberals. If I were you I would stay outa this one
http://www.facebook.com/murtb
God knows, anyone who questions authority must be one of those "liberal types"
I think the issue is quite simple. After 9/11 everyone was angry and perfectly willing to do something about it immediately. Some highly interpretive intelligence material was generated and they went for it.
They were wrong.
Now, we know this... But what makes you think that the recent crop of reports and new coverage isn't the exact same thing. It's posturing to deflect blame from the president or other officials onto the intelligence community.
I think its so funny how willingly you'll except political motivation for one activity but not the very next.
Consider the shift in the way the president has been speaking lately, more jokes ( I just attended his speech in cedar rapids iowa yesterday) and apparently trying to give the image of "one of the boys."
This if course has NOTHING to do with the social security agenda and passing the privatization of it... It's rather obvious to me he is trying to build up trust and credibility as fast as he can in order to give this radical new idea the highest chance of success.
"it wasn't my fault, its the cia..." Give me a break, politicians routinely make demands on the intelligence community to provide a specific interpretation or evidence, and that's exactly what I think happened. America was mad, we needed a reason to fight and we got one.
ok anyone who says bush and them generated evidence is right now a total idiot. the report itself stipulates, that "no intelligence was altered or genreated by any political forces" or something to that effect. read the damn thing i bought it at my local bookstore.
what actually happened was they had ONE informant who told the head of the intel in that area that there were weapons of mass destruction and he told his boss, and he told his boss, so the whole affair was more of faulty intelligence, and people who would rather be safe then sorry. and there were no reports to deny this, so it was better to stay safe and disarm and make 100 percent sure. because its not hard to believe that a man who suppoprts suicide bombers in israel ON ARAB TELEVISION, and encourages islamic militants to attack america. and is more then likely funding terrorists, and supports them politically. if he would not launch the weapon himself he would at least give it to someone who would. so i support them for acting on the side of caution.
also i feel that iraq was a huge human rights violation and there was more then enough grounds for invasion there. the torture especially of wives to make husbands talk to me makes them more then a target.
moreever i personally feel that this report is a cover up of something much much much scarier.
lets pretend for a second that saddam had the weapons and knew he was going to get invaded. pretend this is proven fact for one second.
what if he passed the weapons to Osama Bin Ladden, or any terrorist or terrorist nation for that matter. and now we have no clue in hell where enough weapons to kill every being in the united states with biological weapons is unaccounted for.
this is what i think is the truth behind the lies.
98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.
Personally, I think it was a very good idea to invade Iraq to not only destroy "weapons of mass destruction", but to also obtain hussein. With a man like that and as much hatred as he has for the U.S., I wouldn't let anything past him.
If there were/are weapons of mass destruction that hussein possesed, I believe that they were passesd on to osama or some other terrorist organization no matter how big or small or location. Because finding long range missiles and nothing else seems a little too fishy for me, or too "simple". Then again, this could also be a government cover up, but who knows.
I saw this on the news last night, i was laughing, I dont like Bush that much anyways.. But I dont feel like getting into a political fight with someone
-Hyper
No flames guys
These kind of posts usually have a shelf life of 2.5 days
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
Senator John Edwards (D-NC), October 10, 2002
"While the distance between the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam Hussein's ability to use his chemical and biological weapons against us is not constrained by geography - it can be accomplished in a number of different ways - which is what makes this threat so real and persuasive."
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), October 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
The point of the article is that american intelligence failed- not that bush made it up. Either way, Bush decided to act on it.