Bush Admits Iraq Intelligence Was Faulty, But Was It?
President Bush said on Wednesday that the responsibility for invading Iraq was based in part on faulty intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Bush said, “It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.”
But was the intelligence really faulty?
Bush went on to say that foreign intelligence agencies, including several governments who didn’t back his decision to invade Iraq, also believed that Saddam Hussein had possession of WMDs.
But did they really say that?
We do know that the Bush administration was quite wrong on Iraq’s supposed stockpile of WMDs. We know that Vice President Dick Cheney was wrong when he said on March 17th, 2002 that “We know they have biological and chemical weapons.” We know that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was wrong when he said on January 29th, 2003 that “[Saddam’s] regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” We know that former Secretary of State Colin Powell was wrong when he said on May 16th 2003 that “In fact, we have found a couple of items of equipment, some mobile vans, so that with each passing day the evidence is clearer to us that they were used for biological weapons purposes.” And we know that President George W. Bush was wrong when he said on May 1st, 2003 that, “The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda.”
But was the Bush administration simply wrong because our intelligence services had given them faulty information? Or did the Bush administration fix the intelligence to their pre-determined policy of going to war with Iraq?
Vice President Cheney had said that we know that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons, however the information the Vice President received from the intelligence community was an “estimate”. Former CIA Director George Tenet said, “it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof.” Furthermore, Cheney’s statement flew right in the face of the Defense Intelligence Agency, whose position on the subject prior to the war was that, “There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”
And while Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was claiming that Saddam’s regime had “the design for a nuclear weapon”, and “was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” the CIA was waving red flags about the claim. In two memos sent to the White House, one of which was addressed to National Security Advisor Condi Rice, the CIA was expressing serious doubts that such a claim was accurate. CIA Director George Tenet warned against using such a claim in the State of the Union Address, which Rice claims “we forget to take it out.”
But did she simply forget to take it out? On July 13th, 2003 Secretary Rice said that, “knowing that apparently there were concerns swirling around about this, had we known that at the time, we would not have put it in…And had there been even a peep that…George Tenet did not want that sentence in…it would have been gone.” One can only conclude that a personal memo sent to the White House, addressed to the National Security Advisor of the President of the United States simply does not count as “a peep.”
The CIA had expressed doubts on the Niger claim for good reason. More than a year before Bush declared the claim in his 2003 State of the Union address, French intelligence was warning the CIA that there was no evidence to support the allegation. After extensive on-the-ground investigations into Niger and other former French colonies, where uranium mines are controlled by French companies, French officials concluded that there was no evidence that Iraq had obtained yellowcake uranium from Niger.
Former French official Alain Chouet said the CIA had contacted French intelligence several times on the allegation, including a mid 2002 inquiry that Nigerian officials had agreed to sell 500 metric tons of uranium to Iraq. Chouet had dispatched a team to double-check any reports of a sale or an attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium. The team found none.
Furthermore, Niger Prime Minister Hama Hamadou told Britain’s Sunday Telegraph newspaper on July 28th, 2003 that “Niger had never had diplomatic or bilateral relations with Iraq.” Hamadou said that the US and British governments had been mistreating his country, which had sent 500 troops to support the 1991 Gulf War.
And while Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed that US forces had found “some mobile vans” that showed “evidence” that they were “used for biological weapons purposes”, the Defense Intelligence Agency had come to radically different conclusions. Engineers at the DIA who had examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.
And despite that on May 1st, 2003, when President Bush said, “We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda.”, Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies said that there were “no evidence of any Iraqi effort to transfer weapons of mass destruction or weapons to terrorists.” Additionally, Andrew Wilie, a former Australian defence analyst resigned his post as the Iraq war began, saying that the links between Saddam Hussein and terrorists were a “concoction.”
US intelligence was well aware that Iraq did not possess any weapons. Saddam’s own son-in-law, General Hussein Hamel had said under US detention that he personally oversaw the destruction of all of Iraq’s biological, chemical, and nuclear capabilities.
But the Bush administration didn’t have to rely on Saddam’s own son-in-law for the information. All they had to do was ask the US Army. Before the war began, Delta Force, Task Force 20, a covert specialized army unit, had scoured Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. They found “no working conventional munitions, long-range missiles or missile parts, [or] bulk store of chemical or biological warfare agents or enrichment technology for the core of a nuclear weapon.”
If the Bush administration was so wrong then, would it follow that they would be wrong now? This Wednesday, President Bush claimed that several foreign intelligence agencies, including several governments that didn’t back his decision to invade Iraq, believed Saddam had WMDs. However, on February 25th, 2003, a month before the war began, the Guardian reported that Russia, China, France, and Germany offered a “counter-proposal” to the US draft resolution before the UN to go to war. The memorandum offered by the four nations stated: “While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field.”
But if France, Germany, China, Russia, Australia, Niger, the CIA, the DIA, George Tenet, and Saddam Hussein’s own son-in-law could not convince the Bush administration of the obvious, then you would think that the Bush administration would at least pay attention to their own National Security Advisor and Secretary of State.
Long before the events of 9/11 took place, in February 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell said, “[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” In July of 2001, National Security Advisor Condi Rice said, “We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
So was the pre-war intelligence on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction faulty? Or did the Bush administration simply manipulate it and cherry pick it for their own benefit? Surprisingly, our very own Secretary of Defense can quite possibly shed the most light on this quandary.
“There are a lot of people who lie and get away with it. And that’s just a fact.” - Donald Rumsfeld.
But was the intelligence really faulty?
Bush went on to say that foreign intelligence agencies, including several governments who didn’t back his decision to invade Iraq, also believed that Saddam Hussein had possession of WMDs.
But did they really say that?
We do know that the Bush administration was quite wrong on Iraq’s supposed stockpile of WMDs. We know that Vice President Dick Cheney was wrong when he said on March 17th, 2002 that “We know they have biological and chemical weapons.” We know that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was wrong when he said on January 29th, 2003 that “[Saddam’s] regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” We know that former Secretary of State Colin Powell was wrong when he said on May 16th 2003 that “In fact, we have found a couple of items of equipment, some mobile vans, so that with each passing day the evidence is clearer to us that they were used for biological weapons purposes.” And we know that President George W. Bush was wrong when he said on May 1st, 2003 that, “The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda.”
But was the Bush administration simply wrong because our intelligence services had given them faulty information? Or did the Bush administration fix the intelligence to their pre-determined policy of going to war with Iraq?
Vice President Cheney had said that we know that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons, however the information the Vice President received from the intelligence community was an “estimate”. Former CIA Director George Tenet said, “it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof.” Furthermore, Cheney’s statement flew right in the face of the Defense Intelligence Agency, whose position on the subject prior to the war was that, “There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”
And while Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was claiming that Saddam’s regime had “the design for a nuclear weapon”, and “was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” the CIA was waving red flags about the claim. In two memos sent to the White House, one of which was addressed to National Security Advisor Condi Rice, the CIA was expressing serious doubts that such a claim was accurate. CIA Director George Tenet warned against using such a claim in the State of the Union Address, which Rice claims “we forget to take it out.”
But did she simply forget to take it out? On July 13th, 2003 Secretary Rice said that, “knowing that apparently there were concerns swirling around about this, had we known that at the time, we would not have put it in…And had there been even a peep that…George Tenet did not want that sentence in…it would have been gone.” One can only conclude that a personal memo sent to the White House, addressed to the National Security Advisor of the President of the United States simply does not count as “a peep.”
The CIA had expressed doubts on the Niger claim for good reason. More than a year before Bush declared the claim in his 2003 State of the Union address, French intelligence was warning the CIA that there was no evidence to support the allegation. After extensive on-the-ground investigations into Niger and other former French colonies, where uranium mines are controlled by French companies, French officials concluded that there was no evidence that Iraq had obtained yellowcake uranium from Niger.
Former French official Alain Chouet said the CIA had contacted French intelligence several times on the allegation, including a mid 2002 inquiry that Nigerian officials had agreed to sell 500 metric tons of uranium to Iraq. Chouet had dispatched a team to double-check any reports of a sale or an attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium. The team found none.
Furthermore, Niger Prime Minister Hama Hamadou told Britain’s Sunday Telegraph newspaper on July 28th, 2003 that “Niger had never had diplomatic or bilateral relations with Iraq.” Hamadou said that the US and British governments had been mistreating his country, which had sent 500 troops to support the 1991 Gulf War.
And while Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed that US forces had found “some mobile vans” that showed “evidence” that they were “used for biological weapons purposes”, the Defense Intelligence Agency had come to radically different conclusions. Engineers at the DIA who had examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.
And despite that on May 1st, 2003, when President Bush said, “We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda.”, Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies said that there were “no evidence of any Iraqi effort to transfer weapons of mass destruction or weapons to terrorists.” Additionally, Andrew Wilie, a former Australian defence analyst resigned his post as the Iraq war began, saying that the links between Saddam Hussein and terrorists were a “concoction.”
US intelligence was well aware that Iraq did not possess any weapons. Saddam’s own son-in-law, General Hussein Hamel had said under US detention that he personally oversaw the destruction of all of Iraq’s biological, chemical, and nuclear capabilities.
But the Bush administration didn’t have to rely on Saddam’s own son-in-law for the information. All they had to do was ask the US Army. Before the war began, Delta Force, Task Force 20, a covert specialized army unit, had scoured Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. They found “no working conventional munitions, long-range missiles or missile parts, [or] bulk store of chemical or biological warfare agents or enrichment technology for the core of a nuclear weapon.”
If the Bush administration was so wrong then, would it follow that they would be wrong now? This Wednesday, President Bush claimed that several foreign intelligence agencies, including several governments that didn’t back his decision to invade Iraq, believed Saddam had WMDs. However, on February 25th, 2003, a month before the war began, the Guardian reported that Russia, China, France, and Germany offered a “counter-proposal” to the US draft resolution before the UN to go to war. The memorandum offered by the four nations stated: “While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field.”
But if France, Germany, China, Russia, Australia, Niger, the CIA, the DIA, George Tenet, and Saddam Hussein’s own son-in-law could not convince the Bush administration of the obvious, then you would think that the Bush administration would at least pay attention to their own National Security Advisor and Secretary of State.
Long before the events of 9/11 took place, in February 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell said, “[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” In July of 2001, National Security Advisor Condi Rice said, “We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
So was the pre-war intelligence on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction faulty? Or did the Bush administration simply manipulate it and cherry pick it for their own benefit? Surprisingly, our very own Secretary of Defense can quite possibly shed the most light on this quandary.
“There are a lot of people who lie and get away with it. And that’s just a fact.” - Donald Rumsfeld.
posted by Alva Goldbook at 9:52 AM
4 Comments:
Miami,
I am glad to say that I accurately predicted your reaction. I saved a nice little article for you. It came from that horrible liberal rag, The Washington Post.
Report: Bush Had More Prewar Intelligence Than Congress
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005; A23
A congressional report made public yesterday concluded that President Bush and his inner circle had access to more intelligence and reviewed more sensitive material than what was shared with Congress when it gave Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq.
Democrats said the 14-page report contradicts Bush's contention that lawmakers saw all the evidence before U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, stating that the president and a small number of advisers "have access to a far greater volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information."
The report does not cite examples of intelligence Bush reviewed that differed from what Congress saw. If such information is available, the report's authors do not have access to it. The Bush administration has routinely denied Congress access to documents, saying it would have a chilling effect on deliberations. The report, however, concludes that the Bush administration has been more restrictive than its predecessors in sharing intelligence with Congress.
The White House disputed both charges, noting that Congress often works directly with U.S. intelligence agencies and is privy to an enormous amount of classified information. "In 2004 alone, intelligence agencies provided over 1,000 personal briefings and more than 4,000 intelligence products to the Congress," an administration official said.
The report, done by the Congressional Research Service at the request of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), comes amid allegations by Democrats that administration officials exaggerated Iraq's weapons capabilities and terrorism ties and then resisted inquiries into the intelligence failures.
Bush has fiercely rejected those claims. "Some of the most irresponsible comments -- about manipulating intelligence -- have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence I saw and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein," he said this week.
Feinstein, who is on the Senate intelligence committee, disagreed. "The report demonstrates that Congress routinely is denied access to intelligence sources, intelligence collection and analysis," she said. The intelligence panel met yesterday to discuss the second phase of its investigation into the administration's handling of prewar assertions. In July 2004, the committee issued the first phase of its bipartisan report, which found the U.S. intelligence community had assembled a flawed and exaggerated assessment of Iraq's weapons capabilities.
The second phase, which examines the White House's role, was agreed to in February 2004 but remains incomplete. Last month, Democrats forced the Senate into a rare closed-door session to extract a promise from Republicans to speed up the inquiry. At the time, committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said the report was nearing completion. But yesterday, committee aides said it is unlikely the report will be done before spring.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a former member of the panel, said the report should not be rushed. But he urged the White House to release more documents to support its claims. "The only way to be is certain is to look at what they saw and what we saw side by side," he said.
Alva,
I enjoyed the manner which you approached the subject. I like the application of the words "wrong" and "faulty."
Of course there are always those Bush apologists that will try to validate Bush's decision to invade Iraq predicated upon something Bill Clinton and various other Democrats said 5 years earlier.
It really doesn't bode well for Bush when his apologists attempt to build up the justification for invading Iraq on statements that were wrong in 1998 and wrong in 2002-3.
And then of course the Bush apologists tout out the line about how "many Democrats who also saw the same intelligence and back then voted for the war."
OOPS!
This is another one of those fallacies that has been blown apart like a suicide bomber.
I suppose that they can always go back to what Dean said about not being able to win this war while they convienently forget that in 2004 Bush said of Iraq, "We can't win it."
Come to think of it, the DNC blew it. They should have attacked (like the Republicans attacked Dean) and said that Bush doesn't support the troops or believe in the mission.
Alva, thanks again for offering up a different perspective.
Miami,
You are yet another messianic follower of Bush. It is really hilarious to watch you put forth statements made by others that were wrong to validate the actions taken by Bush.
But in doing so, you also fail to remember that the governments of France, Germany, Russia and the majority of the UN did not advocate the invasion of Iraq.
No, the only person who is willing to say '"Knowing what I know now, I’d do the same thing" the day before admitting the intelligence you used to invade another country was faulty' is Bush. The guy you keeping making excuses for.
Ah, personal accountability is something Republicans talk alot about, imposing on others. While shirking their own. (And please spare me any reference to Clinton or any other Democrat as it is the Republican party, the Republican party that likes to talk about having personal accountability yet has none.)
Alva,
you are most corect, he certainly is predictable in his responses.
What’s wrong Miami? Rush was too hopped up on drugs to write this, so he gave it to his brother?
The “War on Terror” is a farce. A joke. It’s nothing more than an excuse for reducing YOUR liberty, and to keep sending your tax dollars to Halliburtion’s bank accounts. As for impeaching Bush, that would be the BEST first step to fighting terrorism, as it would remove from power the world’s LEADING TERRORIST.
What the Middle East needs, is what we provided to Egypt in the late 70’s. Low interest bank loans, foreign investment, hell, a Middle East Marshall Plan wouldn’t be a bad idea either.
Unfortunately, that will NEVER happen under any Reich Wing administration. Their purpose for being there is to STEAL their resources, not to create a democratic state. The neo-cons are trying to prove that laissez faire capitalism works, and we have all seen the results, both in Iraq, and here at home.
At the end of WWII Truman had a different idea, and that was to create GENUINE democratic nations in Europe. The result is that Europe, not the Middle East, are home to first world nations...many of whom are far better off than the United States.
There is nothing historic about the creation of another puppet regime in Iraq. Self-rule will happen when the Iraqis rule themselves, it’s as simple as that. It is no more profound than the US overthrow of multiple democratic nations in the past, starting from Iran (leading to the current situation today), to the Bush administration’s overthrow of the democratic Aristide government of Haiti.
Of course, the Reich wingers will not stop crowing about their undying love for their pet fascist in the White House, but the American People have long ago grown quite tired of it. They know that 9/11, Katrina, Rita, and the lies about WMDs have all happened on Bush’s watch, while continued terrorist attacks have occurred in Madrid, London, as well as in the Middle East, such as the terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia a year ago. Meanwhile, plane cargo holds are not checked for explosives, our ports remain completely vulnerable, our borders remain unguarded, and the only answer the Reich wing has for protecting our citizens against a future terrorist attack is to spy on us, including sneek and peeks into what books we check out of the library. Despite the Reich wing love of limiting Constitutional rights, they have yet to produce any evidence that it has prevented a single terrorist attack. One can’t blame them for such an omission, as the answer simply leaves the fascist in the White House out in the cold. The simple fact is that terrorism is not so dire a threat as they would like us to believe. Statistically speaking, you are more likely to die from suicide than terrorism, making yourself a bigger threat to your security than terrorists are.
Saddam, as wicked as he was, tended only to be wicked on our behalf. He gassed the Kurds with our gas. He invaded his neighbors with our weapons, on our behest, even if it did involve some diplomatic trickery in order to fool him. Since our puppet regime has been put in place, Iraq, just as was under Saddam, has killed and tortured their own people in the jails, while schools, hospitals, running water and electricity capabilities all continue to degrade day by day. Other than dropping high explosives upon their heads, the leading cause of death for Iraqi children are dysentery or severe malnutrition.
The Reich wing knows quite well what is at stake in this struggle. The future of Exxon’s oil profits. They know that the world is running out of oil, and that reality could harm the future existence of energy monopolies, like that of Enron. And a future where Exxon’s oil profits are threatened, also threatens the American People’s position of subservience to those very monopolies.
Despite that, an alternative energy economy is possible, from biomass sources of fuel, to the very water that falls from the sky, to solar and wind power that we all letting just go to waste. An economy that would put a new focus and investment to a dedicated goal of eco-friendly and renewable sources of energy would be far cheaper than our war in Iraq, and would result in an economic boom for the United States that would make the dot.com boom look like a recession. Such a move would not only save our nation from expensive wars, but would revitalize our economy, give new hope for our nation’s family farmer, would help reduce the global warming that lead the disasters of Katrina and Rita, but would act to remove the billions of US dollars that flow into the Middle East for oil, which is used as the primary source of funding for radical terrorists organizations.
Post a Comment
<< Home