Report: Iraq War Rationale Based on CIA Error

[J-10]

Report: War Rationale Based on CIA Error

By KATHERINE PFLEGER SHRADER
Associated Press Writer
Published July 9, 2004, 6:12 PM CDT

WASHINGTON -- In a scathing indictment of the nation's intelligence services, a Senate report concluded Friday the CIA provided false and unfounded assessments of the threat posed by Iraq that the Bush administration relied on to justify going to war.

Following release of the findings of a yearlong inquiry by the Senate Intelligence Committee, the panel's Republican chairman said Congress might not have approved the Iraq war had lawmakers known the truth.

The committee's top Democrat said he had no doubt: There resolution authorizing war would not have gotten the sweeping approval, if the threat had been understood.

The report, which was highly critical of departing Director George Tenet, said the CIA kept key information from its own and other agencies' analysts, engaged in "group think" by failing to challenge the assumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and allowed President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell to make false statements.

"Most, if not all of these problems, stem from a broken corporate culture and poor management" -- which won't be fixed simply by giving the agency more money or people, the report said.

Although senators from both parties agreed in harshly criticizing the CIA, Democrats and Republicans clashed over whether Bush administration officials had pressured intelligence analysts to overplay the Iraq threat. Democrats said there was pressure; Republicans said there were tough questions but no inappropriate influence.

Democrats also said the investigation should have examined whether the White House had twisted the intelligence it received -- a second phase of the probe that probably won't be finished until after the November elections.

Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, said, "The fact is that when it comes to national security, the buck stops at the White House, not anywhere else."

The report follows more than two years of criticism of the intelligence community since the Sept. 11 attacks, including calls by people inside and outside the government for major changes in the structure of the intelligence community that was created after World War II.

Bush called the report a useful accounting of intelligence agencies' shortcomings. He defended the decision to go to war, however, as well as his prewar assertions about Saddam's government and weapons of mass destruction.

"We haven't found the stockpiles, but we knew he could make them," Bush said during a campaign stop Friday in Kutztown, Pa. "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power."

Tenet has resigned and leaves office Sunday. His temporary successor, deputy John McLaughlin, said Friday the agency is learning from its mistakes and has already made changes, including adding reviews from a "devil's advocate" perspective to all future national intelligence estimates.

"We get it," McLaughlin said at a rare news conference at CIA headquarters. "Although we think the judgments were not unreasonable when they were made nearly two years ago, we understand with all we have learned since then that we could have done better."

Bush has not yet named a permanent successor for Tenet. The report's across-the-board criticism of the CIA could indicate that any nominee from within the intelligence community would have a tough time winning confirmation by the Senate.

The report was yet another blow to the credibility of both the Bush administration and U.S. intelligence agencies. The committee concluded that key assertions used to justify the Iraq war -- that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was working to build nuclear weapons -- were either wrong or overblown.

"In short, we went to war in Iraq based on false claims," said the committee's top Democrat, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. He said the Senate would not have authorized that war with three-quarters of lawmakers approving "if we knew what we know now."

The panel's Republican chairman, Pat Roberts of Kansas, said he didn't know if Congress would have approved the war had it known the report's findings. He said that without the immediate weapons threat, military action against Iraq still could have been justified on humanitarian grounds but that the battle plan might have been different from a full-scale invasion.

The report left some questions unresolved, including differences between a classified 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and a version made public.

The public report, for example, said Saddam was trying to build unmanned aerial vehicles that could potentially attack the United States with biological weapons -- a contention that was not in the classified version of the national intelligence estimate.

The CIA could not provide an explanation for that change, said a Democratic committee staff member, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity.

As they scrutinized Iraq before the war, intelligence analysts either ignored or discounted conflicting information because of their assumptions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the report said. Intelligence collectors also worked from that assumption and set out to find the weapons, it said.

"This 'group think' dynamic led intelligence community analysts, collectors and managers to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programs," the report concluded.

For example, speculation that the presence of one specialized truck could mean an effort to transfer chemical weapons was puffed up into a conclusion that Iraq was actively making chemical weapons, the report said.

Analysts concluded that Iraq had a mobile biological weapons program based mainly on the since-discredited claims of one Iraqi defector code-named "Curveball." The report said American agents did not have direct access to Curveball or his debriefers, but the source's information was expanded into the conclusion that Iraq had an advanced and active biological weapons program.

According to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a CIA official wrote to a subordinate who had raised questions about the source: "Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn't say, and the Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he's talking about."

Roberts, Rockefeller and other lawmakers have called for changes in the intelligence community, and Bush said he looks forward to working with Congress on ideas. But McLaughlin urged caution against disruptions while the nation is in the middle of the anti-terror fight.

"Some sort of reordering of the boxes here will not bring you perfection in the intelligence business," he said.
Chicago tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ats-ap_top10jul09,1,1801941.story?coll=chi-news-hed)

[M1A2U2]

DAMN I GUESS BUSH DIDNT LIE!!!

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Bush made the case for war on the information
the intelligence community gave him.

He took this information very seriously and presented
it to the American people.

As McLaughlin said today, the committee took a whole year
to examine in minute detail an intelliegence estimate that
was prepared in a month.

It should also be noted that the committee did not find any
evidence of pressure from the White House, as some Democrats
have been alleging.

I personally think the Iraqi National Congress sold
the CIA a bill of goods.

Defectors' Reports on Iraq Arms Were Embellished, Exile Asserts
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/politics/09defe.html

[usa320]

I agree.

The president just acts on the intelligence given to him by advising agencies.

[chauncy republicans]

rofl

[M1A2U2]

Yeah it is funny how wrong u were about Bush lying. Im glad you find it just as funny as we do.

[Tane Angle]

If the advisors can't do their jobs well, get some new advisors. It's called accountability. :|

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Secret Squirrel]

Bush made the case for war on the information
the intelligence community gave him.

pretty much.


He took this information very seriously and presented
it to the American people.

yep


As McLaughlin said today, the committee took a whole year
to examine in minute detail an intelliegence estimate that
was prepared in a month.

Maybe Bush shouldnt have been so gun-ho then and actually allowed reasonable time to assess the intel?


It should also be noted that the committee did not find any
evidence of pressure from the White House, as some Democrats
have been alleging.

No evidence of pressuring on specific people, but that doesnt mean an organization didnt try to conform to exactly what Bush wanted. Bush wanted this war, he just needed a "just" reason, one that would start the war. After the invasion is started and the occupation begins, whether his intel was faulty or not is really a moot point because he can hold up humanitarian causes and try to make claims about fighting the war on terror. Essentially, he just needed something to put the wheels in motion and the rest would be history.

edit: should be interesting to see what conclusions are reached in the second report that deals with Bush (wont be ready until early next year i believe).

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Maybe Bush shouldnt have been so gun-ho then and actually allowed reasonable time to assess the intel?

The CIA had been studying Iraq for a very long time. They were asked
to produce a document and that's what they did.

There were many warnings and caveats in the body of the report. The
problem lies in how the summary was worded. McLaughlin said that the summary
of that report differed in that, at that time, it was a best guess.

In the future the summary will reflect the report as a whole.

And besides, how is a president, not exactly a civilian, but pretty close,
supposed to know whether to doubt the information his intelligence
advisors are giving him. He should ask tough questions, yes, but
he will have to operate off the assumption that he is getting accurate
intelligence information.



No evidence of pressuring on specific people, but that doesnt mean an organization didnt try to conform to exactly what Bush wanted. Bush wanted this war, he just needed a "just" reason, one that would start the war.
A statement like that is merely an allegation. For it ever to be any more than that, there needs to be something to substantiate it.




edit: should be interesting to see what conclusions are reached in the second report that deals with Bush (wont be ready until early next year i believe).
As a supporter of Mr. Bush, I also look forward to that report too.

[KB]

When we were in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the intelligence agencies and DoD advocated a military attack on Cuba to take out the missiles. President Kennedy, having been burned by the Bay of Pigs and knowing from his own WWII experience how things spin out of control once the shooting starts, kept seeking a non-military resolution to the problem, which he fortunately succeeded in doing.

Anyone who's served in the military in the last 25 years knows the US intelligence capabilities in the Middle East are limited, to put it mildly (check out Bob Baer's first book). The CIA certainly is culpable, but in the run up to the war no one in Congress or the Executive Branch seemed to have played "devils advocate" in confirming we believed the Iraqis really had. Colin Powell came the closest. We'll have to wait till next fall to get the rest of the story, when Phase II of this report is issued.

[BlueShark]

Hi,J-10
nice to meet you !
I am from China too.
Are there other chinese on this web site?
Would you plese tell me some good forums in USA?
THX!

[OB Kenobi]

DAMN I GUESS BUSH DIDNT LIE!!!

You guess wrong. Just one example:


The report left some questions unresolved, including differences between a classified 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and a version made public.

The public report, for example, said Saddam was trying to build unmanned aerial vehicles that could potentially attack the United States with biological weapons -- a contention that was not in the classified version of the national intelligence estimate.

The CIA could not provide an explanation for that change, said a Democratic committee staff member, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity.


You know where those changes came from? That's right! Cheney and Rumsfeld!

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

The public report, for example, said Saddam was trying to build unmanned aerial vehicles that could potentially attack the United States with biological weapons -- a contention that was not in the classified version of the national intelligence estimate.



You know where those changes came from? That's right! Cheney and Rumsfeld!
I'll quote myself on this one:


A statement like that is merely an allegation. For it ever to be any more than that, there needs to be something to substantiate it.

It is very easy to make allegations, much harder to prove them:


The CIA could not provide an explanation for that change, said a Democratic committee staff member, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity.

In one fell swoop, it is possible to imply untruthfulness, and simultaneously
ascribe a political motive to the remark. All without a shred of evidence.

[Nizark]

CIA always gets blamed whenever anything goes wrong.
No WMD, CIA f'ed up
Beatings at Abu Gharib, CIA 'contractor'
Still can't find WMD, CIA still f'ed up
The military can't find Bin Ladin, CIA not doing its job right.

No one ever accounts for the good that CIA does, and the closest thing to credit they ever get is a star on the wall

[martinexsquaddie]

it was'nt like saddam was massing tank armys in mexico or anything so there was no rush for dealing with just georges desire to take him out :(

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

When we were in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the intelligence agencies and DoD advocated a military attack on Cuba to take out the missiles. President Kennedy, having been burned by the Bay of Pigs...

I think you make a very interesting point. You could call Afghanistan our "Bay of Pigs". However, we were successful. Further bolstering the credibiltiy of the CIA and increasing confidence in their estimates.



Anyone who's served in the military in the last 25 years knows the US intelligence capabilities in the Middle East are limited, to put it mildly (check out Bob Baer's first book).


Agreed. As other, more experienced members, such as Mr. Tane, have previously pointed out, our HUMINT resources have been deteriorating for decades.



The CIA certainly is culpable, but in the run up to the war no one in Congress or the Executive Branch seemed to have played "devils advocate" in confirming we believed the Iraqis really had. Colin Powell came the closest. We'll have to wait till next fall to get the rest of the story, when Phase II of this report is issued.

In his remarks, Mr. McLaughlin said that an internal "devil's advocate" and an external "devil's advocate" have been set up to review future intelligence statements. I only hope he is more successful than his predecessor.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

No one ever accounts for the good that CIA does, and the closest thing to credit they ever get is a star on the wall
An excellent point. Again, I'll point to Mr. McLaughlin's remarks: the CIA broke up the AQ Kahn in Pakistan and was able to confront Libya with specific information about it's nuclear program, which they ultimately abandoned.

It is indeed a thankless job where you seldom get credit for your successes and accused of being incompetent for your failures.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

it was'nt like saddam was massing tank armys in mexico or anything so there was no rush for dealing with just georges desire to take him out :(

I disagree. If you accept President Putin's remarks, Hussein was in the early stages of planning attacks against the US. I, for one, do not believe we were under any obligation to wait until we had been hit.

[Secret Squirrel]

it was'nt like saddam was massing tank armys in mexico or anything so there was no rush for dealing with just georges desire to take him out :(

I disagree. If you accept President Putin's remarks, Hussein was in the early stages of planning attacks against the US. I, for one, do not believe we were under any obligation to wait until we had been hit.

If you're refering to the intel from Russia, well funny thing, the last i heard, the U.S said they received no such intel. Saddam lacked the situational ability to attack Kuwait, so trying to argue that he was going to attack the U.S is really pointless. The war itself was rushed. There wasnt even a decent post war plan as evidenced by the assumption that 40,000 troops would be all that was needed for the occupation (i might be off on that number) as well as sending troops home and then having to deploy more troops and extend the TOD of troops already there. It's no secret that Bush wanted this war. And I dont know if he honestly thought that Saddam was an immediate threat or maybe he was a product of his own paranoia.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

it was'nt like saddam was massing tank armys in mexico or anything so there was no rush for dealing with just georges desire to take him out :(

I disagree. If you accept President Putin's remarks, Hussein was in the early stages of planning attacks against the US. I, for one, do not believe we were under any obligation to wait until we had been hit.

If you're refering to the intel from Russia, well funny thing, the last i heard, the U.S said they received no such intel.

Link? What I saw reported was that Russian intelligence provided intelligence that Hussein was planning attacks in the US and that Bush had thanked the agents personally.



Saddam lacked the situational ability to attack Kuwait, so trying to argue that he was going to attack the U.S is really pointless.


It doesn't take a lot of resources to conduct terrorist operations. I seem to remember hearing that the 9-11 attacks required less than $1million.



There wasnt even a decent post war plan ....

I'm somewhat inclined to agree with this statement. Shinseki (sp?) testified before Congress that he thought 150,000 might be requited to occupy Iraq. But he was contradicted by Wolfowitz's testimony. He's not my favorite person at the moment.

In hindsight, it obvious that when you throw a country's entire police force and army out of work in one fell swoop, you will have a heavy security burden.



It's no secret that Bush wanted this war.

I believe regime change in Iraq was originally advocated by the Clinton administration.

[Tane Angle]

Despite not always agreeing with him in the past, I'd take Eric Shinseki's word over Wolfowitz's, though I'm not an overly trusting person. Shinseki was right.

I don't know if I'd equate Afghanistan with the Bay of Pigs, especially since the Bay of Pigs failed miserably.

All in all, CIA is a good agency, as are the others. Good folks with them. But as already noted, we focus on the bad, because that's how things get fixed for the next time. Personally, I think it is a good idea to really take note of the mistakes.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[OB Kenobi]

Despite not always agreeing with him in the past, I'd take Eric Shinseki's word over Wolfowitz's, though I'm not an overly trusting person. Shinseki was right.

Shinseki was right and Rumsfeld fired him for it.

Tenet was right when he said "there is no conclusive evidence that Iraq still has WMD," look at him now. Have to give him credit for taking the fall for this... or maybe not, maybe he should turn these bastards in.

[Secret Squirrel]

it was'nt like saddam was massing tank armys in mexico or anything so there was no rush for dealing with just georges desire to take him out :(

I disagree. If you accept President Putin's remarks, Hussein was in the early stages of planning attacks against the US. I, for one, do not believe we were under any obligation to wait until we had been hit.

If you're refering to the intel from Russia, well funny thing, the last i heard, the U.S said they received no such intel.

Link? What I saw reported was that Russian intelligence provided intelligence that Hussein was planning attacks in the US and that Bush had thanked the agents personally.

Has anyone questioned or confirmed the validity of this intel?




Saddam lacked the situational ability to attack Kuwait, so trying to argue that he was going to attack the U.S is really pointless.


It doesn't take a lot of resources to conduct terrorist operations. I seem to remember hearing that the 9-11 attacks required less than $1million.

How long did 911 take? And do you really think Saddam was planning this kind of attack? Or if this kind of attack would ever be possible again? What exactly are you refering to? And what intel do you have to back up the idea that Saddam was planning a terrorist attack against the U.S.




There wasnt even a decent post war plan ....

I'm somewhat inclined to agree with this statement. Shinseki (sp?) testified before Congress that he thought 150,000 might be requited to occupy Iraq. But he was contradicted by Wolfowitz's testimony. He's not my favorite person at the moment.

In hindsight, it obvious that when you throw a country's entire police force and army out of work in one fell swoop, you will have a heavy security burden.

In hindsight? It doesnt take hindsight to realize that a large force was necessary for the occupation of Iraq. It was obvious that the statements "all the iraqis will smile and wave and love us" was just another facet of b.s to sell the war. Only sheer stupidity led some to believe that anything less than 120,000 to 130,000 would have been necessary. At least with a good size force already there, should you need more troops, the ones already deployed can contain falre-ups.




It's no secret that Bush wanted this war.

I believe regime change in Iraq was originally advocated by the Clinton administration.

Your point? Was that a policy trying to scare Saddam, a political or diplomatic move or was Clinton chomping at the bit, like Bush was, to sink his teeth into Iraq?

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Has anyone questioned or confirmed the validity of this intel?
Putin said he provided the intelligence, but that it wasn't anything we didn't already know.

You're free to accept or reject anything. But I believe many will reject it merely because they cannot accept that Saddam Hussein was real threat to the US.



And do you really think Saddam was planning this kind of attack? Or if this kind of attack would ever be possible again? What exactly are you refering to? And what intel do you have to back up the idea that Saddam was planning a terrorist attack against the U.S.

Putin: Russia Gave Bush Iraq Intelligence

Jun 18, 8:26 AM (ET)

By BAGILA BUKHARBAYEVA

ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AP) - Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence after the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was preparing attacks in the United States, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.

Putin said he couldn't comment on how critical the Russians' information was in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. He said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts.

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.

He said the United States had thanked Russia for the information. There was no immediate comment from U.S. officials.

"It's one thing to have information that Saddam's regime is preparing terrorist attacks, (but) we didn't have information that it was involved in any known terrorist attacks," Putin said in the Kazakh capital Astana after regional economic and security summits.

Putin said the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the war.

"Despite that information about terrorist attacks being prepared by Saddam's regime, Russia's position on Iraq remains unchanged," Putin said.

Putin didn't elaborate on any details of the terror plots or mention whether they were tied to the al-Qaida terror network.

from http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040618/D839DV0O1.html

and

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.


from http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/



In hindsight? It doesnt take hindsight to realize that a large force was necessary for the occupation of Iraq. It was obvious that the statements "all the iraqis will smile and wave and love us" was just another facet of b.s to sell the war. Only sheer stupidity led some to believe that anything less than 120,000 to 130,000 would have been necessary. At least with a good size force already there, should you need more troops, the ones already deployed can contain falre-ups.
I believe the Iraqi National Congress was responsible for convincing members of the administration that Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. Which, if you recall, is exactly what happened. We all saw when, with the help of the help of a US tank recovery vehicle, I believe, the statue of Saddam standing in Firdos Square was dragged down. Iraqis were carrying US flags. Anybody here believe we pointed guns at them and told them they had to carry our flags and dance in the street or we would shoot them?

Our mistake was not knowing the true state of Iraqi infrastructure. Our inability to restore basic services quickly cost us a lot of good will.



Your point? Was that a policy trying to scare Saddam, a political or diplomatic move or was Clinton chomping at the bit, like Bush was, to sink his teeth into Iraq?
My point is that it was US policy that we favored a new government in Iraq long before George W Bush came into office.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

*double post*

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

*triple post*

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

I don't know if I'd equate Afghanistan with the Bay of Pigs, especially since the Bay of Pigs failed miserably.

I'm sorry, sir. Not a good way to make a point. I was seizing upon remarks made by another forum member.

The point I was trying to make was that where the Bay of Pigs gave the US president a reason to be cautious, Afghanistan probably gave the US president a reason to be be bold.

[Tane Angle]

Ok, I can see the cause and effect there. Both Presidents acting on their experiences, though not necessarily correclty. What works for situation A might be disastrous for situation B. By the way, no "sir" necessary. ;)

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

I believe obeisance is more than appropriate given your stature, sir (sorry, force of habit :D )

[Tane Angle]

I'm not that tall. ;) Thanks bud.

[Secret Squirrel]

[quote=Secret Squirrel]
Has anyone questioned or confirmed the validity of this intel?
Putin said he provided the intelligence, but that it wasn't anything we didn't already know.

You're free to accept or reject anything. But I believe many will reject it merely because they cannot accept that Saddam Hussein was real threat to the US.

Well i'm just wondering, if the Russian intel was good, as it suggests plans by Iraq to use terrorism against U.S targets, why wasnt is presented (or maybe i missed it?) while Bush was trying to make a case for war?




And do you really think Saddam was planning this kind of attack? Or if this kind of attack would ever be possible again? What exactly are you refering to? And what intel do you have to back up the idea that Saddam was planning a terrorist attack against the U.S.

Putin: Russia Gave Bush Iraq Intelligence

Jun 18, 8:26 AM (ET)

By BAGILA BUKHARBAYEVA

ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AP) - Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence after the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was preparing attacks in the United States, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.

Putin said he couldn't comment on how critical the Russians' information was in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. He said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts.

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.

He said the United States had thanked Russia for the information. There was no immediate comment from U.S. officials.

"It's one thing to have information that Saddam's regime is preparing terrorist attacks, (but) we didn't have information that it was involved in any known terrorist attacks," Putin said in the Kazakh capital Astana after regional economic and security summits.

Putin said the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the war.

"Despite that information about terrorist attacks being prepared by Saddam's regime, Russia's position on Iraq remains unchanged," Putin said.

Putin didn't elaborate on any details of the terror plots or mention whether they were tied to the al-Qaida terror network.

from http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040618/D839DV0O1.html

and

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.


from http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/

I'm sorry, i think i missed your point when you posted two articles which states that Iraq was involved in planning terrorist attacks but wasnt involved in them? Wouldnt the preparation stage mean Saddam was involved in terrorism? Again, this intel, had it been presented and validated, would have made a "stronger" case for war (which is also why i question it).




In hindsight? It doesnt take hindsight to realize that a large force was necessary for the occupation of Iraq. It was obvious that the statements "all the iraqis will smile and wave and love us" was just another facet of b.s to sell the war. Only sheer stupidity led some to believe that anything less than 120,000 to 130,000 would have been necessary. At least with a good size force already there, should you need more troops, the ones already deployed can contain falre-ups.
I believe the Iraqi National Congress was responsible for convincing members of the administration that Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. Which, if you recall, is exactly what happened. We all saw when, with the help of the help of a US tank recovery vehicle, I believe, the statue of Saddam standing in Firdos Square was dragged down. Iraqis were carrying US flags. Anybody here believe we pointed guns at them and told them they had to carry our flags and dance in the street or we would shoot them?

Our mistake was not knowing the true state of Iraqi infrastructure. Our inability to restore basic services quickly cost us a lot of good will.

What happened was some Iraqis welcomed the invasion with open arms. The incident involving pulling down the Saddam statue and the crowd around it was a psy-ops job(there was a recent thread about this incident). Iraqis, during that incident, were a little put off that someone put an American flag on the statue.
The state of Iraqi infrastructure was also well known before the war began. It seems like you're trying to make excuses when you mention a lot of the things that you suggest we should have known in hindsight but in fact they were known. However, it's hard to sell a war to your population, so you have to cut corners where ever you can. Once the war begins, you can then praise your military and population, and make them feel good, for bringing "democracy" to a country and liberating the population of that country. And by doing this, you can try to ignore the original reasons you made for starting a war.




Your point? Was that a policy trying to scare Saddam, a political or diplomatic move or was Clinton chomping at the bit, like Bush was, to sink his teeth into Iraq?
My point is that it was US policy that we favored a new government in Iraq long before George W Bush came into office.

You missed the point again. Did Clinton make it policy to send Saddam a message (ie. he made a political/diplomatic play)? Bush wanted this war, he pushed through with it regardless of who supported him or not.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Well i'm just wondering, if the Russian intel was good, as it suggests plans by Iraq to use terrorism against U.S targets, why wasnt is presented (or maybe i missed it?) while Bush was trying to make a case for war?

I don't think he used any of this information to make the case for action in Iraq. I honestly think it would have been a stronger rationale.

But it could be that just saying that you had this intelligence wouldn't have been convincing.

I think Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair thought they would find substantial WMD evidence so they went with that.


What happened was some Iraqis welcomed the invasion with open arms.
I believe the Americans and the British were welcomed by the majority of Iraqis. Especially by the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South. The Shiites were more tentative and given their experiences after the end of the first Gulf War and that's understandable.

The Sunnis, maybe less happy. Still, a lot of them turned out in Baghdad to see the statue go down.

The incident involving pulling down the Saddam statue and the crowd around it was a psy-ops job(there was a recent thread about this incident). Iraqis, during that incident, were a little put off that someone put an American flag on the statue.

I'd heard that the soldier who put the American flag around the statue was ordered to replace it with an Iraqi flag. I'll admit I don't know a lot about the flag incident.


The state of Iraqi infrastructure was also well known before the war began.
Link? We knew that sanctions had hurt their economy, but, before the war started, Iraqis still electricity, still pumped oil, and still had phone service.

Turns out all of it was quite decrpit and falling apart.

That said, we should have know more. When asked about, Rumsfeld, in effect, said that because resources were scarce we didn't know.

I'm not real comfortable with that explanation.


You missed the point again. Did Clinton make it policy to send Saddam a message (ie. he made a political/diplomatic play)?
I don't think Clinton was trying to send Saddam a message. I think it was just a policy stating that the US would be happy if someone besides Saddam Hussein were running Iraq.

I don't think Clinton made any specific threats of military action. I would have taken him more seriously if he had.

I might still be missing your point.



Bush wanted this war, he pushed through with it regardless of who supported him or not.
I don't necessarily agree, but I do think that Bush is a strong leader who will assert our right to act independently.

[el borracho]

As a member of the intelligence community I have a hard time believing that the mistakes were on our end. The qualifications and capabilities of the personnel and the equipment and techniques that we use are almost unbelieveable on how accurate of information that we can collect. My gut tells me that the intel community found (way back when) what we already know now...that there wasn't much of a threat...they passed this up the chain of command, until it got to the white house...where those close to the pres most likely doctored or discarded what was actually found.

Now after the truth comes to light, the buck gets passed back down the chain until it gets to us little guys on the bottom. Nice to see that they got our backs.

[Secret Squirrel]

I don't think he used any of this information to make the case for action in Iraq. I honestly think it would have been a stronger rationale.

But it could be that just saying that you had this intelligence wouldn't have been convincing.

I think Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair thought they would find substantial WMD evidence so they went with that.

Which is why i asked if it had been validated (ie. where exactly did the intel come from and was there anything substantial that supported it). Well just thinking you're going to find WMDs, as we know now without actual evidence, is a dangerous policy for conducting a war and it sends an extremely bad message.


I believe the Americans and the British were welcomed by the majority of Iraqis. Especially by the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South. The Shiites were more tentative and given their experiences after the end of the first Gulf War and that's understandable.

The Sunnis, maybe less happy. Still, a lot of them turned out in Baghdad to see the statue go down.

My point was that many welcomed the invasion , but what percentage welcomed the extended occupation?


I'd heard that the soldier who put the American flag around the statue was ordered to replace it with an Iraqi flag. I'll admit I don't know a lot about the flag incident.

Yes the American flag was replaced quickly with an Iraqi one. But the whole thing was kind of staged.


Link? We knew that sanctions had hurt their economy, but, before the war started, Iraqis still electricity, still pumped oil, and still had phone service.

Turns out all of it was quite decrpit and falling apart.

That said, we should have know more. When asked about, Rumsfeld, in effect, said that because resources were scarce we didn't know.

I'm not real comfortable with that explanation.

I'll get back to you on this one (i have to try and dig up the articles again)


I don't necessarily agree, but I do think that Bush is a strong leader who will assert our right to act independently.

And I guess only time will tell what long term damage acting independently has caused.