Read the article Lessons in Crass Deception at the Signs-of-the-Times site for a brief summary of the intelligence events leading to the Iraq War. Here's a snippet:
Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq, the IAEA, you know, they guys who have spent their ENTIRE LIVES working in the field of WMDs and their proliferation, said that, after many months spent combing the entire surface of Iraq and digging deep into Saddam's weapon manufacturing facilities, there were probably no WMDs in Iraq. They told the world, "Iraq has no WMDs". Those words fell on deaf ears in Washington, mainly because without WMDs there could be no reason for an invasion of Iraq. As the weeks passed the job of convincing the world was getting more and more difficult. Finally, Rumsfeld hit on an ingenious approach:Rumsfeld: Lack of evidence could mean Iraq's hiding something
Yes indeedy, the greasy old codger was actually claiming that the IAEA's report stating that there were no WMDs in Iraq, was actually evidence in itself that Saddam really DID have WMDs. Rummy stated:"The fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of Iraq's WMD program could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation," we do know that Iraq has designed its programs in a way that they can proceed in an environment of inspections and that they are skilled at denial and deception."
Rumsfeld said the United States and the United Nations have no obligation to prove that Iraq has continued efforts to develop nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Instead, he said, Iraq must prove that it has abandoned them.
Imagine if we were to apply this logic in a criminal investigation. In such a case, anyone could accuse anyone else of a crime, using the fact that there is no evidence that they committed the crime as evidence that they did commit a crime, based on the idea that people are quite inventive and also often lie, so the person is probably lieing and has probably hidden the evidence that they committed the crime. Not only that, but the person themselves must prove to the court that they did not commit the crime. If they cannot prove this, then they are guilty of committing the crime.
Sounds a little unreasonable, does it not?
Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, got in on the act too with similarly bizarre logic when he stated in July 2003:"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."
Needless to say, the mangled thinking coming out of the White House was evidence that the Bush administration was getting "kinda antsy" at the whole "lack of WMDs" argument.
So what to do? Well, when in doubt, call in the CIA. Surely "the agency", possessing some of America's most fervent patriots, could be relied on to perform above and beyond the call of duty and come up with the goods? Just to make doubly sure, Dick Cheney stormed over to CIA headquarters, not once, not twice, but ten times to offer some "direction". Now that the evil IAEA had to some extent put the kabosh on the "Saddam has WMD" angle, Cheney decided that a Saddam Osama link was the next best thing.
Original Post
A CNN article today, Report: Iraq intelligence 'dead wrong', presents the results of a panel (Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction), a Bush-appointed group, to investigate the intelligence gathering failures which led to the now-unjustified invasion of Iraq. If I remember correctly, there were several reports of members of the intelligence community speaking out against the "proof" of WMD capabilities being repeatedly and vociferously spouted by the administration as justification for the removal of Saddam Hussein.
The panel reports...
"We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," said a letter from the commission to President Bush. "This was a major intelligence failure."
Wasn't everyone else saying the opposite? The UN, the international community, the previous weapons inspectors, etc. Seems as if the administration was using selective hearing to accept only those perspectives most supportive of their cause to go to war.
The desire to remove Saddam Hussein from power was there from day one of the Bush administration.
Another report from the Washington Post, WMD Commission Releases Scathing Report, provides additional information on the panel's report.
Yet while unstinting in its appraisal of intelligence agencies, the panel that Bush appointed under pressure in February 2004 said it was "not authorized" to explore the question of how the commander in chief used the faulty information to make perhaps the most critical decision of his presidency. As he accepted the report yesterday, Bush offered no thoughts about relying on flawed intelligence to launch a war and took no questions from reporters.
I see. The commission was "not authorized" to pursue how such a major decision, which impacts all Americans and America's allies, was made when there was no irrefutable, verifiable intelligence to be certain going to war was the right course of action.
It is clearly obvious the decision had been made long before it was announced, and was just waiting to have a sliver of something to hang the justification on. Well, it seems I'm not alone. From the article:
Some Democrats complained that the commission effectively ducked the central issue of how Bush decided to go to war in Iraq to eliminate weapons that were not there. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said the report "fails to review an equally important aspect of our national security policymaking process -- how policymakers use the intelligence they are provided."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was even sharper. "The president's decision to go to war in Iraq was also dead wrong," she said, adding, "The investigation will not be complete unless we know how the Bush administration may have used or misused intelligence to pursue its own agenda."
Now, there is a Director of National Intelligence who will have carte-blanche to do as he wishes after confirmation, via this report, of how important it is to improve the intelligence gathering capabilities.
The panel proposed empowering the new director of national intelligence, a position created by legislation last year, to better integrate the collection efforts of the government's 15 intelligence agencies at the CIA, Pentagon, State Department, Energy Department and FBI.
I can imagine how many intel personnel are steaming at the findings. They know all too well there was no definitive proof the weapons programs existed after the first Iraq war. Once again, the intelligence community takes the heat for an agenda driven by the administration.
Technorati Categories: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD
RSS
No comments:
Post a Comment