POLITICS: How the White House Used Errant Iraqi Intelligence

The New York Times is reporting an interesting sequence of events that shows how the White House knew its Iraqi intelligence did not point to weapons of mass destruction, yet continued to claim before congress and the public that Saddam Hussein was attempting to build nuclear weapons. A long but excellent expose on how this administration fabricated the case for war against Iraq.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
A long but excellent expose on how this administration fabricated the case for war against Iraq.

Fabricated case for the war?..and this administration? only?...so i guess you, along with everyone else who thinks the same way, do not remember what the previous administration was saying about Iraq's wmd programme?

If you want to say that anyone has fabricated any case against Iraq, then you would have to say pretty much the whole world did. Starting with the previous administration.

What was the Clinton administration saying back in 1998? Do not tell me this is only the past, it is part of what is happening now, and why we were dragged, since the Clinton administration, into this war. The current administration was not the first one, neither was the US the only nation, to present the case of Iraq's wmd. To say otherwise is to ignore the past and the declarations most nations were making on Iraq's wmd. If you want to question the credibility of the US, you must question the credibility of the UN and those nations that were adamantly agreeing that Saddam's wmd posed a threat.

WASHINGTON (Feb. 18) -- In preparing the nation for a possible war with Iraq, President Bill Clinton faces a series of obstacles, including a skeptical Congress and less international backing than President George Bush enjoyed during 1991 Persian Gulf War.

So far, Clinton has the public's backing: two-thirds of the nation approves of how he is handling the crisis, according to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll.

But that can't obscure the fact that the United States appears ready to strike at Saddam Hussein's rogue state without any unanimity of opinion on what the goal of an attack should be.

Should the U.S. merely try to punish Hussein for his latest intransigence over U.N. weapons inspections? Should it try to seriously diminish his ability to develop weapons of mass destruction? Should it actually try to topple his regime?
..........
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear," Clinton said. "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors."

Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...

humm, i wonder what then is all the other information regarding Saddam's wmd..was all of this made up since the Clinton administration?...

What about the interviews with Iraqi scientists and what the other intelligence agencies around the world were saying about the wmd? how many countries were actually saying they all believed Saddam had wmd before the war? Was all of it made up?


[edit on 2-10-2004 by Muaddib]

Well stated Muaddib, although I'm not sure how I feel about you using the name of the galactic messiah lol.

It was quite obvious for a very long time, that Iraq had been at very least working on WMDs. For one, we sold them a few. The evidence may very well have been exaggerated to gain public approval for the war, but as you stated... it's not just the Bush administration or the U.S. that lies and uses propaganda. Most people see only what they wanna see, hear only what they wanna hear.

leading the world intel agencies scurring about and jumping out windows.
Brits overview report by lord byron praises the info of yellowcake from niger . two tons of secured fissure material removed from Iraq. Libyan claims to have had Iraqi weapons development teams. Many fingers were pointing at Iraq re:WMD. unfortunately only the US insisted upon action first proof later.

Originally posted by Muaddib .so i guess you, along with everyone else who thinks the same way, do not remember what the previous administration was saying about Iraq's wmd programme?

Just because I post a news story, referencing the New York Times, which is critical of this administration... means I'd be any less critical of the previous one. There's plenty of mess to go around for everyone.

Here is what I have to say about that, and I feel it can only be said in French:
Vous ne d�testez pas quand le fran�ais ont raison de notre gouvernement ?

I said it once, I'll say it again, The Bush Administration, knowingly or not, allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by men like Chalabi and Allawi. Both men are shady characters and a government with Allawi leading it, is surely a puppet government, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

I think this article is a classic example of "short sighted politics"

You see this very problem with alot of the younger members here at ATS.. young and full of vigor but ignorant to the past and previous admins.. so they blame all the problems on whoever is in office.. (no offfense meant)

Every 4 years some newspaper or news agency comes out with an article that bashes the current administration and blames them for all the governments problems.. regardless if the problem started before their term.

Short

Sighted

Politics

Originally posted by TheBigD
Here is what I have to say about that, and I feel it can only be said in French:
Vous ne d�testez pas quand le fran�ais ont raison de notre gouvernement ?

The French government was right?.....it's more likely the French government helped Iraq hide the wmd.... (joking...or is it?.. ;P)

There is still a question that must be raised, why the heck was Saddam not allowing inspectors in some of the factories? In some cases he would just let the weapons inspectors in some factories after a week or more of notice...

After the first Gulf War Saddam had agreed to let weapons inspectors in his factories, yet he kept playing cat and mouse with the US and the UN's weapons inspectors...

So what was he trying to hide? Why did he go against the agreement after the first Gulf War?



[edit on 3-10-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Just because I post a news story, referencing the New York Times, which is critical of this administration... means I'd be any less critical of the previous one.

There's plenty of mess to go around for everyone.

Well Skeptic, you did say the fabrication was done by this administration...you did not say anywhere that everyone made mistakes. Many nations in the world are now trying to point a finger at the US, when in the past have they not done this?.... Of course it is easy for them to forget they themselves, and their intelligence agencies, were saying that Saddam did have wmd. As always lets find a scapegoat, and why not blame the US again since it is always the US fault right?



[edit on 3-10-2004 by Muaddib]

Well, Hans Blix himself stated faults with the intelligence. And Russia claimed they told the US about Iraq WMDs in ~2002, but said this after the war already started. And, anyone has yet to find Russia's report on this to the US.