Tim Reid of The Times on America's weapons evidence flawed, say spies:
As the hunt continues for Iraq’s alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons — the main justification cited by President Bush for the war — carefully placed leaks revealed deep misgivings inside the CIA over intelligence used by the White House to make its case against Saddam.
Present and former CIA officials, quoted in The New York Times and The New Yorker magazine, claimed that a small number of powerful neo-conservative ideologues in the Pentagon were so determined to prove the existence of a banned weapons programme and links to al-Qaeda that they manipulated intelligence.
What the hell does the CIA know anyway? Oh wait, they're paid to know that kind of stuff. Now I'm really confused. I guess that means some folks on Pennsylvania Avenue have been, uh, stretching the truth? But, warbloggers and chickenhawks, true to form, will pretend not to hear it. Fingers in their ears and all…
This entry also posted at Stand Down.
It’s funny (not in a hah-hah fashion) to hear the CIA complaining about manufactured evidence.
Posted by Chris Andersen on May 7, 2003 01:44 PM
Chris:
As the name of your weblog indicates, we live in Interesting Times.
Posted by James Landrith on May 7, 2003 01:58 PM
From ScrappleFace.com;
Failure to Find Saddam Proves He Never Existed (2003-05-03)
— Six weeks after the invasion of Iraq, Pentagon officials are quietly beginning to acknowledge that their failure to find Saddam Hussein may be proof that the Iraqi leader never existed.
“We hate to admit it,” said one unnamed official, “One of our main reasons for going in there was regime change. You know…overthrow a brutal dictator who tortured his own people. But at this point, we’re not sure there ever was a Saddam Hussein. After all, if we don’t have him dead or alive…who’s to say?”
The military official said that the statues, murals and videos of Saddam Hussein are “circumstantial evidence which don’t prove anything.”
“I try to look on the bright side,” he added. “Maybe we’ll luck out and find a few chemical weapons so the war won’t have been a total waste.”
Experts agree that evidence of actual atrocities against Iraqis lacks the news value that potential atrocities against Westerners would have.
Posted by Schaeffer on May 7, 2003 02:04 PM
That’s cute Schaeffer. I’m not saying that Iraq didn’t possess chemical weapons. I was exposed to them in 1991 as a result of the Army blowing up the munitions dump at Khamisiyah like a bunch of frigging Keystone Kops. Were you there?
Clearly, in 1991 Iraq did possess the weapons. That’s not up for debate. But the Administration has handed us lies and faulty information that has proven wrong time after time. And used this as their justification for war. People died over this and we have a right to demand those responsible answer for it.
Over 80 sites that were supposed contain the smoking gun have been found free of NBC agents or paraphenalia so far. How many more will prove fruitless? Will we eventually find some stashed away? Perhaps. But it won’t be anywhere near the amount that the Administration would like us to believe they possess. In the end, we may find a very small amount of NBC agents that cost over 600American wounded and dead. Not to mention a new generation of veterans suffering from unexplained illnesses. Such a deal!
Posted by James Landrith on May 7, 2003 02:26 PM
My condolences on your exposure- I was in grade school at the time. Were you there? It’s a tough scene.
The administration may have used some faulty information, but that is the nature of intelligence. Do you have examples of the supposed lies?
You admit that Iraq had WMD, so where did they go, and why aren’t they accounted for? Do you think he destroyed them without documenting it because he secretly liked the sanctions? How else to explain the absence of WMD and the absence of documented destruction? I think we’ve hit upon it my man- Saddam actually liked being under UN sanctions! It explains everything!
Posted by Schaeffer on May 7, 2003 04:11 PM
Shaeffer writes: “You admit that Iraq had WMD, so where did they go, and why aren’t they accounted for?”
Most of them were destroyed / accounted for by UNSCOM. The small amount that wasn’t, doves like myself have argued, wasn’t enough to go to war over *given that Iraq had allowed UNMOVIC in and inspections were proceeding again.*
Posted by Jim on May 7, 2003 05:14 PM
Thanks to the doves, we finally see the light.
Saddam was in complete compliance with all UN sanctions. He innocently lost the documentation of how he rid the country of WMD. The cat and mouse game he played with inspectors was just that – a game he played to amuse himself. He had time and money to build his palaces and elaborate underground tunnels throughout baghdad, but he wasn’t sophisticated enough to devise clever hiding places for a few truckloads of WMD. Geez, the place is only about as big as Texas, where could he have hidden them?
Yes, I see now, he was always telling the truth. Always trustworthy.
Dubya on the other hand, is a lying bastard who was only after poor Saddam cause he thinks he tried to kill his daddy, and of course, he wants his oil. Not to mention the fringe benefits of advancing his evil plan with Sharon to kill all the arabs and make the entire region a vacation spot for jews and neocon oilmen. Then, he’ll appoint himself King of The United Empire of Amerabia, everyone who makes 1 million or more a year will get a new humvee and the rest of us poor schlubs will be arrested for posting to weblogs.
it’s all clear to me now. Dubya’s the evil one.
Saddam was only a good ol’ boy who was just misunderstood. He’s just like the kindly fella next door.
Mr Hussein , can Uday come out to play? tell him to bring his trucks! and his whores, and his torture kit, and see if he can find Baghdad Bob too, we need a good laugh.
Posted by rick on May 7, 2003 07:50 PM
Rick, No one said Hussein was completely trustworthy.
Most doves simply argued that with inspectors once again inside Iraq we could keep ourselves safe and secure without the risks of a war.
Posted by Jim on May 7, 2003 10:52 PM
Jim,
No one ever said Iraq was swimming in VX and anthrax spores. They argued that he retained WMD, that he continued programs for developing WMD, and that he intended to resume large scale production of WMD as soon as the crumbling sanctions were finally swept away. I’m sorry if that’s not enough for you, but it was for the administration and the American public.
Inspections were tried for a decade- they didn’t work-that’s how we got here-very simple really.
I don’t know if you are also the anonymous poster, but this is addressed to him-
Is that sheepherder thing you keep doing supposed to be insulting, amusing, or somehow revealing of your vast knowledge of German names? All of the above? Please, let me know how I am supposed to interpret it, because it just seems silly.
Oh, wait- was that self-depreciating sarcasm? Maybe that’s it. I would hate to think you are so childish as to think it stings, so dull as to think it witty, or so ignorant as to think it displays your exceptional worldliness.
But please, do tell me how I have misinterpreted the quote, my dear etymological master.
Posted by Schaeffer on May 8, 2003 12:06 AM
“I was in grade school at the time.”
That explains the sheepherder’s childish approach to things. Still just a little boy. Green behind the ears. Not much between them.
Read the quote again. Your interpretation is false. Stick to sheepherding.
Posted by Anonymous on May 7, 2003 07:35 PM
the memo from the Iraqi intelligence station chief in an African country described an offer by a “holy warrior” to sell uranium and other nuclear material. The bid was rejected, the memo states, because of the United Nations “sanctions situation.” But the station chief wrote that the source was eager to provide similar help at amore convenient time. In other words there is clear evidence that Iraq *was* complying with the UN requirements re: WMD.
It says that Iraq was waiting for a more convenient time to buy the uranium.
The sheep herder can’t read. It says no such thing.
The offer was REJECTED. Only the SOURCE is said to be eager. Of course. It would mean a lot of money for the source.
The sheep are not in good hands. The average wolf is more intelligent.
Posted by Anonymous on May 8, 2003 01:37 AM
Anonymous shit-for-brains,
The point is that Iraq was in contact with fundamentalist terrorrists who were trafficing in uranium, that they apparently told them they were interested for the future (otherwise they would have said “no-we don’t want any stinking uranium” instead of saying “right, well, we really can’t do anything right now.” That means, ipso facto, that they were otherwise interested and remained open to new offers in the future.
Are you really this big of a jackass, or do you just enjoy dishonestly parsing news reports to favor dead dictators?
Posted by Schaeffer on May 8, 2003 08:33 AM
Schaeffer,
they were interested for the future (otherwise they would have said “no- we don’t want any stinking uranium” instead of saying “right, well, we really can’t do anything right now.” That means, ipso facto, that they were otherwise interested and remained open to new offers in the future.
The sheep herder is spending too much time at the rear ends of sheep. Also thinks he heard things that he couldn’t have. Unless he has ears that hear all the way to Africa.
Teenage boys with immature brains know more than God himself.
Stick to sheep herding. It doesn’t take brains. The dogs do all the work.
Posted by Anonymous on May 8, 2003 03:17 PM
Anon,
Can you add and subtract?
Posted by Schaeffer on May 8, 2003 03:59 PM
The other interesting thing I read today (in an “oh, by the way sort of way”) in the Times:
“Of even greater interest to MET Alpha was a “top secret” intelligence memo found in a room on another floor. Written in Arabic and dated May 20, 2001, the memo from the Iraqi intelligence station chief in an African country described an offer by a “holy warrior” to sell uranium and other nuclear material. The bid was rejected, the memo states, because of the United Nations” sanctions situation.” But the station chief wrote that the source was eager to provide similar help at a more convenient time.”
In other words there is clear evidence that Iraq *was* complying with the UN requirements re: WMD, but of course the Pentagon is not making a big deal of this.
I have no doubt as well, that somewhere there are caches of chemical weapons, perhaps even biological weapons. The question is whether these were a potential major threat to the US (e.g. via handoff to terrorists). The consensus of neutral reports before the war was that Iraq presented no such threat. The post-war evidence seems to indicate the same. Finding a barrel of chem weapons somewhere will not be adequate support for Bush & Cos massive attack.
Posted by aronst on May 7, 2003 03:48 PM
But the station chief wrote that the source was eager to provide similar help at a more convenient time.”
In other words there is clear evidence that Iraq *was* complying with the UN requirements re: WMD, but of course the Pentagon is not making a big deal of this.
Aronst,
Are you daft or soemthing? Re-read that quote. It says that Iraq was waiting for a more convenient time to buy the uranium, which means they weren’t “complying” because they still had a WMD program that was making decisions such as “Gee, we have inspectors up our ass and Bush at our front door- maybe we should hold off on that uranium purchase.” Do you get it? It is precisely because Iraq was retaining programs that they could restart immediately after the sanctions fell that we had to eliminate the regime. All that is needed to reconstitute the bioweapons program is a few liters of an agent and the right equipment- all that is needed for chem. is the right dual use equipment, which they had.
So “Finding a barrel of chem weapons somewhere” is more than enough, and the same especially goes for bioWMD. Are you that fucking dense not to see that? Or was that just sarcasm, that Iraq was complying?
Posted by Schaeffer on May 7, 2003 04:19 PM
I really want to know why the US is not doing anything about North Korea.
Pyongyang has recently came out in the open and admitted that they will be happy to export nuclear weopons if they so desire.
Is the US going after buyers only, as opposed to sellers as well?
Read it here >>
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID;=2695956&src;=eDialog/GetContent
Posted by Helmy on May 8, 2003 08:51 AM
Helmy, there’s an article in last week’s Economist discussing USpolicy towards North Korea:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1748566
According to the article, the official US line is that the US will only sit down and talk with North Korea in the context of multilateral talks. Hard-liners in the US administration are pushing for isolation and containment of North Korea (presumably with the NK government eventually collapsing); they argue that a deal with NK would be useless, since NK has no intention of keeping its word.
Posted by Russil Wvong on May 8, 2003 01:21 PM
Thanks for the link Russil.
So basically, the US is hoping multilateral talks will either:
1. Force neighbouring countries to take an offensive stance on its behalf in regards to North Korea, hopefully allowing in troops if the need every arises
or
2. Hope North Korea respects its word simply because its being done in front of a larger regional audience.
I know this is oversimplified, but is it on the right track?
Posted by Helmy on May 8, 2003 04:43 PM
Helmy,
I think you are close. One, they aren’t looking for NK neighbors to bring in troops on their behalf, rather just pointing out that it is in the neighbors best interests that Kim doens’t have nukes.
You have to remember, China is pretty much the only country that trades with NK. If we can get them to put pressure on them, it’ll do a lot more good than stacking more troops on the DMZ, and threatening them with invasion.
Not to mention, they have a several million man standing army AND(so they say) working nukes. This wouldn’t be a 3 week war. Bush might be a war monger, but he’s not stupid.
I think the strategy is really more like the cold war with the USSR than anything. Will it work? Dunno. I’m open to suggestions.
Posted by rick on May 9, 2003 01:06 AM
You’re welcome, Helmy. I don’t think (1) is an issue–the US already has military bases in South Korea and Japan. It’s more (2).Specifically, the US government is trying to get China to put pressure on North Korea to disarm. It’s certainly in China’s interests to do so, as the Economist article points out.
As I understand it, this is the “realist” (State Department) line. The “neoconservative” line would be to stop talking to NK, period, and to step up the pressure and the threats (IIRC, before the war with Iraq there were leaks about plans for a war with NK), the objective beingto get the NK regime to collapse. In particular, the neoconservatives don’t like dealing with China; they see it as a future threat. (This is one reason why the neoconservatives hated Kissinger so much.)
Rick, for a detailed discussion of the crisis, see the following Laney/Shaplen essay:
http://tinyurl.com/7krc
Posted by Russil Wvong on May 9, 2003 01:23 PM