[forkies]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3157246.stm

as an american, i feel so smarts

[moki]

Originally posted by forkies:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3157246.stm

as an american, i feel so smarts

Don't worry, Hans Blix felt there was a "strong presumption" that Iraq had these WMD back in April too, so you're not alone.

The biggest issue here, IMHO, is the poor performance of our intelligence agencies, if this ends up being true (I'll wait for the report).

This is very serious; no wars of pre-emption can be waged without a robust and effected intelligence network. Clearly there can be no pre-emptive wars until the intelligence agencies are significantly better than they are now.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by moki:
This is very serious; no wars of pre-emption can be waged without a robust and effected intelligence network. Clearly there can be no pre-emptive wars until the intelligence agencies are significantly better than they are now.

Agreed. Perhaps if the Clinton Admin had not slashed the agencies' budgets, and restricted inter-department communication, we'd have been more aware of what happened with the WMDs between Saddam's 1998 dismissal of UN Inspectors and now.

That isn't a super-bash of Clinton (well maybe). I'm just pointing out that as a nation, we didn't focus on the importance these agencies represent. In peacetime, all can seem fine and dandy.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Agreed. Perhaps if the Clinton Admin had not slashed the agencies' budgets, and restricted inter-department communication, we'd have been more aware of what happened with the WMDs between Saddam's 1998 dismissal of UN Inspectors and now.

That isn't a super-bash of Clinton (well maybe). I'm just pointing out that as a nation, we didn't focus on the importance these agencies represent. In peacetime, all can seem fine and dandy.

LMAO!

Bush went to war because of bad/lacking intelligence and it's Clinton's fault?

The 'intelligence' was bad/lacking alright - but I'm not talking about the CIA.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
This is very serious; no wars of pre-emption can be waged without a robust and effected intelligence network. Clearly there can be no pre-emptive wars until the intelligence agencies are significantly better than they are now.

too bad Bush didn't have your same coherent logic BEFORE the invasion.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Agreed. Perhaps if the Clinton Admin had not slashed the agencies' budgets, and restricted inter-department communication, we'd have been more aware of what happened with the WMDs between Saddam's 1998 dismissal of UN Inspectors and now.

That isn't a super-bash of Clinton (well maybe). I'm just pointing out that as a nation, we didn't focus on the importance these agencies represent. In peacetime, all can seem fine and dandy.

ROTFLMAO! do you bush apologists even realize what a self-parody you are?

omg -- Bush invades with no justification and its Clinton's fault there wasn't adequate justification?

man, just listen to yourself for once. And people call ME paranoid.

[clarkgoble]

Perhaps if the Clinton Admin had not slashed the agencies' budgets, and restricted inter-department communication, we'd have been more aware of what happened with the WMDs between Saddam's 1998 dismissal of UN Inspectors and now.

I believe the big problem with ground intelligence in Iraq was due to the attempted coup of Saddam that happened under Clinton and then the lack of weapons inspectors (many of whom did give information to the CIA).

I suppose one can critique Clinton for the failed coup, although it seems like a reasonable thing to have attempted. Sometimes you have to take risks. Risks by their nature entail the chance of failure.

While I think Clinton has blame to take on many things, this doesn't seem dramatically to be one of them.

The bigger issue, as others pointed out, was that Bush in the absence of evidence took very weak evidence as the truth. If he had little or no evidence as it now appears, then he should have done what France wanted and wait for more information from inspections. There was no compelling evidence of a clear and present danger.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying let Saddam get away with things, the way Clinton often did. However it seems like there were many choices between what was allowed in the late 90's and what Bush ultimately did.

[ZackS]

This is not entirely the fault of the CIA. The CIA handed over materials and reports that gave a resounding "maybe" or "we don't know for certain. The Bush administration worked and worked and worked at this information until it said yes. CIA says maybe, Bush (on his own private agenda) says yes, they have weapons, let's go get 'em!

Don't blast me for not having proof of this, I heard it early this summer on NPR. It is a fact I just can't find linkage this second. If anyone can help me out here that would be great. If I find it I'll be back.

[clarkgoble]

This is not entirely the fault of the CIA. The CIA handed over materials and reports that gave a resounding "maybe" or "we don't know for certain.

But surely it was the responsibility of the CIA to be able to say more than that! It was the continuation of the intelligence failures prior to 9/11.

While Bush looks bad in this, if anything the CIA looks worse each day.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
This is not entirely the fault of the CIA. The CIA handed over materials and reports that gave a resounding "maybe" or "we don't know for certain.

But surely it was the responsibility of the CIA to be able to say more than that! It was the continuation of the intelligence failures prior to 9/11.

While Bush looks bad in this, if anything the CIA looks worse each day.

Let's not drag 9/11 in to this lest the conspiracy theorists wander in here. It was the CIA's job to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction from within Iraq, but it was Bush's job not to attack first and find the weapons later! They were trying to find out if Saddam was guilty or not and could not manage to do it before Bush went to war (and they still haven't after the war). Therein lies the problem. It's the CIA's job to find out what's going on but it's Bush's job to use that information responsibly. That fact that they couldn't say yes or no was reason enough to hold off the war. He didn't.

[clarkgoble]

It was the CIA's job to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction from within Iraq, but it was Bush's job not to attack first and find the weapons later!

Well, I agree. Indeed I thought that was exactly what I said above. <grin>

I must admit though, that with the lack of evidence and Sadaam's actions, the presumption of guilt made sense. And, as others pointed out, the US intelligence service was hardly alone in their judgment. But I agree, given the paucity of evidence Bush should have pushed for inspections to continue. At the time I was opposed to that, but that was also because I believed Bush's portrayal of there being evidence.

[ZackS]

The problem is that presuming guilt is wrong and against basic American principles. Because Iraq is a foreign country Saddam didn't have this right protected by the constitution but it seems rather odd to entirely abandon your own country's basic principles, especially since Bush is such a religious man. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by moki:
The biggest issue here, IMHO, is the poor performance of our intelligence agencies, if this ends up being true (I'll wait for the report).

You seem to forget that the whole reason there is a scandal about the pre-war intelligence is because the Intelligence angencies started leaking to the press that they had provided the administration reasonable assessment that considered Iraq's WMD threat to be dubious at best. The administration simply chose to pick the stuff it liked, sell it to the public and ignore the rest.

Now that the full reports are coming to light, I can see that our Intelligence was actually mostly right. Its that you never heard the real case presented by the Bush administration.

Also, we shoudn't forget this:

Published on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 by the lndependent/UK
US Paid $1m for 'Useless Intelligence' from Chalabi
by Andrew Buncombe in Washington

Information from Iraqi defectors made available by Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress before the US invasion was of little or no use, a Pentagon intelligence review shows.

The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) said defectors introduced to US intelligence agents by the organization invented or exaggerated their claims to have personal knowledge of the regime and its alleged weapons of mass destruction. The US paid more than $1m for such information.

In 1998, Congress provided $97m to the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the London-based group that claimed to be an umbrella organization for Iraqi interests. Its chairman, Mr Chalabi, is president of Iraq's Governing Council.

The defectors were interviewed before the war in various European capitals and the Kurdish-controlled city of Arbil in northern Iraq. Defectors were also made available to newspapers and magazines which reported stories about the cruelty of Saddam's regime and his efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

But the DIA review, mentioned in a leaked letter to Stephen Cambone, the under secretary of Defense for intelligence, makes clear that no more than a third of the information was potentially useful, and efforts to explore even these leads were generally unproductive.

Opinion about the INC in the Bush administration was already divided. The Pentagon and those pushing for war against Iraq were quick to cite the information it provided and to promote the cause of Mr Chalabi, but the CIA and the State Department were much more cautious about the organization's reliability.

"The [INC's] intelligence isn't reliable at all," Vincent Cannistraro, a former senior CIA official and counter-terrorism expert, said before the war. "Much of it is propaganda. Much of it is telling the Defense Department what they want to hear. And much of it is used to support Chalabi's own presidential ambitions. They make no distinction between intelligence and propaganda, using alleged informants and defectors who say what Chalabi wants them to say, [creating] cooked information that goes right into presidential and vice-presidential speeches."

Information provided by Mr Chalabi was used extensively by the administration and US journalists. Sources said The New York Times reporter Judith Miller relied on the INC for many of her stories about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Most of the claims in those stories have since proved unfounded but in an e-mail to a colleague she wrote: "I've been covering Chalabi for about 10 years, and have done most of the stories about him for our paper. He has provided most of the front-page exclusives on WMD to our paper."

A DIA spokesman, Ken Gerhart, said yesterday he "would not comment on classified information". Mr Cambone was unavailable for comment.

The INC angrily dismissed the suggestion that its information was of no use. A spokesman, Ahmed al-Chalabi (no relation) said: "That is bullshit. That means there was nothing of use from any of the Iraqi groups because we are an umbrella organization made up of seven or more groups. Any of the information going to the US was not just from Ahmed Chalabi."

The congressional intelligence committee concluded in a recent report that the CIA's information about Iraqi weapons was "outdated, circumstantial and fragmentary".

• The White House has denied that President George Bush's leading political adviser, Karl Rove, was behind a leak of secret information apparently aimed at discrediting a vocal critic of pre-war intelligence on Iraq, and has rebuffed Democratic calls for an investigation by a special counsel.

The controversy is pinned on the public disclosure that Valerie Plame, the wife of the former US ambassador Joseph Wilson, was an undercover CIA operative specialising in weapons of mass destruction.

[clarkgoble]

The problem is that presuming guilt is wrong and against basic American principles.

That's not entirely true, unless you mean in terms of the criminal system. But clearly what is appropriate in war and terrorist defense and what is appropriate for a criminal trial isn't the same.

When Saddam had WMP in the past, was refusing weapons inspectors in, and was continuing to act the way he did, I can understand a presumption of guilt. What I think was in question was how to respond to that. Were there compelling evidence of a present danger, then I could understand the war. Otherwise I think the UN Inspectors should have been sent in.

Realistically though there were many things at play. The historic desire of Europe and Russia to not punish Saddam was one. 9/11 was an other. I don't mean an Iraq/Al Queda link. Rather than the presumption that silence entailed safety was out the window.

While it appears Bush chose very unwisely I don't buy the assumption that the way we conduct international affairs should be conducted the way we conduct local criminal investigations.

[ZackS]

I see your point and I agree that Bush did have reason to suspect guilt but like you said, since there was nothing else to go on, we should have used the UN inspectors, perhaps with the UN military to guide them around and inspect wherever they pleased. That way everyone wins, except Iraq if they a.) had weapons and we found them or b.) someone opens fire on the UN troops guiding the inspectors around.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ZackS:
I see your point and I agree that Bush did have reason to suspect guilt but like you said, since there was nothing else to go on, we should have used the UN inspectors, perhaps with the UN military to guide them around and inspect wherever they pleased. That way everyone wins, except Iraq if they a.) had weapons and we found them or b.) someone opens fire on the UN troops guiding the inspectors around.

That is similar to the suggestion I'd made before the invasion, that since american troops were already there, simply make them an armed escort to the UN inspectors, form an unbroken line and sweep the country from top to bottom.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
It was the CIA's job to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction from within Iraq, but it was Bush's job not to attack first and find the weapons later!

Well, I agree. Indeed I thought that was exactly what I said above. <grin>

I must admit though, that with the lack of evidence and Sadaam's actions, the presumption of guilt made sense. And, as others pointed out, the US intelligence service was hardly alone in their judgment. But I agree, given the paucity of evidence Bush should have pushed for inspections to continue. At the time I was opposed to that, but that was also because I believed Bush's portrayal of there being evidence.

unfortunately, When Bush portrayed there being "ironclad" evidence, when pressed, we just had to trust him.
Why anyone would trust him from this point further without ACTUAL intelligence is beyond me.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
unfortunately, When Bush portrayed there being "ironclad" evidence, when pressed, we just had to trust him.
Why anyone would trust him from this point further without ACTUAL intelligence is beyond me.

Thank goodness there are people like you in the US, Lerkfish. Especially since you work in the media. You give me hope.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by gadster:
Thank goodness there are people like you in the US, Lerkfish. Especially since you work in the media. You give me hope.

I think one thing that the world doesn't see is that the US is filled with people like Lerk and me. About 50% of the US, in fact. Some of them my be easier to sway through propaganda but when you cut down to it, a lot of people are pissed at Bush for the way he lied to the American people, and furthermore, the world in order to have his war.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by gadster:
Thank goodness there are people like you in the US, Lerkfish. Especially since you work in the media. You give me hope.

there are many more like me than is apparently realized. I think come next presidential election, we'll find out just how many.