Deception and Democracy - The Selling of the Iraq War

[Bowfinger]

Here is a real interesting article from The New Republic. It is a long, detailed look at the information and misinformation used to sell the invasion of Iraq. It includes a wealth of examples, considers how and when specific intel was given to the Bush administraion, how and when it was refuted to the administration (i.e., when did Bush & Co. know they were repeating lies), and how the administration pressured the CIA to distort its analysis and make misleading public statements.

All in all, it's one of the best articles to date, more depth than most of the early pieces. Excerpts below, follow the link if you're interested in the whole article.

Deception and Democracy - The Selling of the Iraq War

Foreign policy is always difficult in a democracy. Democracy requires openness. Yet foreign policy requires a level of secrecy that frees it from oversight and exposes it to abuse. As a result, Republicans and Democrats have long held that the intelligence agencies--the most clandestine of foreign policy institutions--should be insulated from political interference in much the same way as the higher reaches of the judiciary. As the Tower Commission, established to investigate the Iran-Contra scandal, warned in November 1987, "The democratic processes ... are subverted when intelligence is manipulated to affect decisions by elected officials and the public."

If anything, this principle has grown even more important since September 11, 2001. The Iraq war presented the United States with a new defense paradigm: preemptive war, waged in response to a prediction of a forthcoming attack against the United States or its allies. This kind of security policy requires the public to base its support or opposition on expert intelligence to which it has no direct access. It is up to the president and his administration--with a deep interest in a given policy outcome--nonetheless to portray the intelligence community's findings honestly. If an administration represents the intelligence unfairly, it effectively forecloses an informed choice about the most important question a nation faces: whether or not to go to war. That is exactly what the Bush administration did when it sought to convince the public and Congress that the United States should go to war with Iraq.

From late August 2002 to mid-March of this year, the Bush administration made its case for war by focusing on the threat posed to the United States by Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and by his purported links to the Al Qaeda terrorist network. Officials conjured up images of Iraqi mushroom clouds over U.S. cities and of Saddam transferring to Osama bin Laden chemical and biological weapons that could be used to create new and more lethal September elevenths. In Nashville on August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney warned of a Saddam "armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror" who could "directly threaten America's friends throughout the region and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail." In Washington on September 26, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed he had "bulletproof" evidence of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. And, in Cincinnati on October 7, President George W. Bush warned, "The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons." Citing Saddam's association with Al Qaeda, the president added that this "alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

Yet there was no consensus within the American intelligence community that Saddam represented such a grave and imminent threat. Rather, interviews with current and former intelligence officials and other experts reveal that the Bush administration culled from U.S. intelligence those assessments that supported its position and omitted those that did not. The administration ignored, and even suppressed, disagreement within the intelligence agencies and pressured the CIA to reaffirm its preferred version of the Iraqi threat. Similarly, it stonewalled, and sought to discredit, international weapons inspectors when their findings threatened to undermine the case for war.

[ ... ]

The Bush administration decided to go to war with Iraq in the late fall of 2001. At Camp David on the weekend after the September 11 attacks, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz floated the idea that Iraq, with more than 20 years of inclusion on the State Department's terror-sponsor list, be held immediately accountable. In his memoir, speechwriter David Frum recounts that, in December, after the Afghanistan campaign against bin Laden and his Taliban sponsors, he was told to come up with a justification for war with Iraq to include in Bush's State of the Union address in January 2002. But, in selling the war to the American public during the next year, the Bush administration faced significant obstacles.

[ ... ]

Had the administration accurately depicted the consensus within the intelligence community in 2002--that Iraq's ties with Al Qaeda were inconsequential; that its nuclear weapons program was minimal at best; and that its chemical and biological weapons programs, which had yielded significant stocks of dangerous weapons in the past, may or may not have been ongoing--it would have had a very difficult time convincing Congress and the American public to support a war to disarm Saddam.

[ ... ]

The Senate Intelligence Committee, in fact, was the greatest congressional obstacle to the administration's push for war. Under the lead of Graham and Illinois Senator Richard Durbin, the committee enjoyed respect and deference in the Senate and the House, and its members could speak authoritatively, based on their access to classified information, about whether Iraq was developing nuclear weapons or had ties to Al Qaeda. And, in this case, the classified information available to the committee did not support the public pronouncements being made by the CIA. ... And, with the GOP takeover of the Senate [after the mid-term elections ], the Intelligence Committee had passed into the hands of a docile Republican chairman, Pat Roberts of Kansas.

[ ... ]

But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes. According to one congressional staffer who read the document, it highlighted "extensive Iraqi chem-bio programs and nuclear programs and links to terrorism" but then included a footnote that read, "This information comes from a source known to fabricate in the past." The staffer concluded that "they didn't do analysis. What they did was they just amassed everything they could that said anything bad about Iraq and put it into a document."

[ ... ]

That's enough, there's way too much material to quote even the highlights. Worth a read.

 

[CaptnKirk]

In business operations, there sometimes occurs a policy of 'No Descention' and only one opinion allowed -
'Think the Corporate Thought" If you so not agree on all issues, you're gone.
When the Top Management makes a decision to go forward with an agenda, they have lower levels of
the company supply the selected information that justifys to the hierarchy that the acction was appropriate.
Middle Management, in their attempt to satisfy Upper Managements expectations, they effectively filter out
descention and provide the designated successful analisys that Management can congradulate themselves on.

It is a very common, but failure, of a buisness concept which is steeped in egocentric people the 'Good Old Boy'
notion of who you know - not what you know. We see it around every day. Just toss in a little Greed and you've
got Enron, or WorldCom. Substitute Power for Greed, and consider the possibilities for this Administration.

A lot of the indicators are in place if you notice, or accept what you see.
Generals that disagreed ? Who and where did they go ?
National Security Intelligence ? Iraq - Threat or Menace !
Environment - Strike Three ! You're Out !

You can't run a Government like it is a Business, unless the payoff IS to Business.

 

[Alistar7]

do you or anyone else have any evidence Bush lied or fabricated evidence? If not, it's getting old already.....

 

[CaptnKirk]

Comprehension problems, eh, a-7.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
do you or anyone else have any evidence Bush lied or fabricated evidence? If not, it's getting old already.....

You mean aside from the dozens of examples in this article, and documented over and over in various threads here?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Comprehension problems, eh, a-7.

I think it's more one of those denial problems. You know, when the brain simply blocks out anything that contradicts one's deeply-held beliefs. It's the same problem that caused Bush-lite to march on with his invasion, even when his experts kept trying to tell him he was wrong about Iraq.

 

[Alistar7]

none of that is evidence of anything, the final 2 UN inspections reports to the UN security council give Bush more credibility than anything that takes away from his claims....

 

[CaptnKirk]

Bush has NO credibility. He spent it on the wealthy, and wasted the faith of the piblic.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
do you or anyone else have any evidence Bush lied or fabricated evidence? If not, it's getting old already.....

Yes, I have solid evidence our president lied to us. Unfortunately, I can't tell you what that evidence is because then you'd know how I got it. And what's more important, knowing whether or not you've been deceived, or discovering my sources? But anyways, you'll just have to trust me, I have the evidence right here...hey! Where'd it go? Oh, it must be around here somewhere...it's a big house. Waitaminnit...it must be over at my friends house. Waitaminnit...maybe it got thrown out. Waitaminnit...it must've been thieves. Yeah, that's the ticket. Thieves.

Tell me again...what's getting old already?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
none of that is evidence of anything, the final 2 UN inspections reports to the UN security council give Bush more credibility than anything that takes away from his claims....

No, they don't. You need to read them again without your Bush-colored glasses.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Alistar7
do you or anyone else have any evidence Bush lied or fabricated evidence? If not, it's getting old already.....

Yes, I have solid evidence our president lied to us. Unfortunately, I can't tell you what that evidence is because then you'd know how I got it. And what's more important, knowing whether or not you've been deceived, or discovering my sources? But anyways, you'll just have to trust me, I have the evidence right here...hey! Where'd it go? Oh, it must be around here somewhere...it's a big house. Waitaminnit...it must be over at my friends house. Waitaminnit...maybe it got thrown out. Waitaminnit...it must've been thieves. Yeah, that's the ticket. Thieves.

Tell me again...what's getting old already?

rofl

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Alistar7
do you or anyone else have any evidence Bush lied or fabricated evidence? If not, it's getting old already.....

You mean aside from the dozens of examples in this article, and documented over and over in various threads here?

None of which constitutes even a molecule of evidence or proof, especially the "various threads here" part. What is that some kind of fscking joke?

You want proof or evidence? Then you need to get off your dead asses, get on the asses of your various Congress critters and get more than "inquiries" in motion. Until people start getting sworn in it's all nothing but the perpetual circle jerk that goes on around here and a whole lot of hot air.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Damn near fell out of my chair!



So true.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
None of which constitutes even a molecule of evidence or proof, especially the "various threads here" part. What is that some kind of fscking joke?

You want proof or evidence? Then you need to get off your dead asses, get on the asses of your various Congress critters and get more than "inquiries" in motion. Until people start getting sworn in it's all nothing but the perpetual circle jerk that goes on around here and a whole lot of hot air.

You and I had this discussion already. First of all, you are the only one using the word "proof". This is dishonest, a straw man that you can refute since you can't respond to the evidence.

Second, your droning claim that there is no "evidence" is absurd. Of course there is evidence, mountains of it. You either don't know what the word means, or you have joined Alistar7 in his state of hopeless denial. You undoubtedly don't like the evidence, you obviously won't agree with it, but to pretend it doesn't exist is delusional. Either discuss the evidence on its merits, or go play somewhere else.

In fact, I'll make it easy for you. Here are two everyday meanings of the word "evidence" from MS Bookshelf:

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.

You got it now, Bill., or do you still want to argue about what "is" is?

Re. "fscking joke", I'll withhold comment on who and what I think the jokes are.

 

[AnImuS]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
do you or anyone else have any evidence Bush lied or fabricated evidence? If not, it's getting old already.....

Unfortunately you probably gonna end up hearing these claims till 2008

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
None of which constitutes even a molecule of evidence or proof, especially the "various threads here" part. What is that some kind of fscking joke?

You want proof or evidence? Then you need to get off your dead asses, get on the asses of your various Congress critters and get more than "inquiries" in motion. Until people start getting sworn in it's all nothing but the perpetual circle jerk that goes on around here and a whole lot of hot air.

You and I had this discussion already. First of all, you are the only one using the word "proof". This is dishonest, a straw man that you can refute since you can't respond to the evidence.

Second, your droning claim that there is no "evidence" is absurd. Of course there is evidence, mountains of it. You either don't know what the word means, or you have joined Alistar7 in his state of hopeless denial. You undoubtedly don't like the evidence, you obviously won't agree with it, but to pretend it doesn't exist is delusional. Either discuss the evidence on its merits, or go play somewhere else.

In fact, I'll make it easy for you. Here are two everyday meanings of the word "evidence" from MS Bookshelf:

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.

You got it now, Bill., or do you still want to argue about what "is" is?

Re. "fscking joke", I'll withhold comment on who and what I think the jokes are.

So the call for proof is now a strawman. Now that's an interesting argument. So if I was standing in a court of law and produced a document that said, "so and so did such and such" and it was supposedly authored by a "senior official" and the judge said, "you need to prove that" you'd argue "strawman"? You need to prove what you are spewing or you need to go "play somewhere else" or better yet, just shut the fsck up. When these people who are supposedly saying these things to the press start saying them under oath then you'll have your proof and your evidence. Until then it is the aforementioned hot air.

Re. "fscking joke", I'll withhold comment on who and what I think the jokes are.

Like anyone really gives a flying fsck. Using what you define as evidence and proof, Batboy must be real.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
So the call for proof is now a strawman. Now that's an interesting argument.

No, your characterizaion of the evidence as "proof", just so you can refute it, is a straw man. This is, of course, what I said the first time.

So if I was standing in a court of law and produced a document that said, "so and so did such and such" and it was supposedly authored by a "senior official" and the judge said, "you need to prove that" you'd argue "strawman"?

Here's a news flash -- this isn't a court of law. This is a discussion forum. I'm not offering evidence for a court proceeding. I'm offering evidence for information, for discussion, to provoke thought, even to entertain.

You need to prove what you are spewing or you need to go "play somewhere else" or better yet, just shut the fsck up. When these people who are supposedly saying these things to the press start saying them under oath then you'll have your proof and your evidence. Until then it is the aforementioned hot air.

I don't need to "prove" anything. You're the one who keeps harping about proof. If this evidence upsets you so badly, I suggest you avoid any threads related to Bush and honesty and selling the war. Telling me to "shut the fsck up" just because you don't like the message is pretty childish. Last time I checked, these aren't the Ultra Quiet Forums. I have as much right to talk as anyone else.

In short, stop thread-crapping. Address the evidence and refute it if you can, or ignore the thread so people who have something constructive to say can do so.

Re. "fscking joke", I'll withhold comment on who and what I think the jokes are.

Like anyone really gives a flying fsck.

You're a class act.

 

[UltraQuiet]

No, your characterizaion of the evidence as "proof", just so you can refute it, is a straw man. This is, of course, what I said the first time.

And your offering of newspaper articles as evidence is what? A joke that's what.

Here's a news flash -- this isn't a court of law. This is a discussion forum. I'm not offering evidence for a court proceeding. I'm offering evidence for information, for discussion, to provoke thought, even to entertain.

Your offering nothing. Unless you can prove it's authenticity it's not evidence, it's hot air. Do you get it yet?

I don't need to "prove" anything. You're the one who keeps harping about proof. If this evidence upsets you so badly, I suggest you avoid any threads related to Bush and honesty and selling the war. Telling me to "shut the fsck up" just because you don't like the message is pretty childish. Last time I checked, these aren't the Ultra Quiet Forums. I have as much right to talk as anyone else.

In short, stop thread-crapping. Address the evidence and refute it if you can, or ignore the thread so people who have something constructive to say can do so.

Yes you do need to prove it. You're saying the admin. lied. Where's your proof? I don't need to refute anything because I'm not saying he told the truth. All I want is for you and everyone else who says he lied to prove it. Telling me to go play elsewhere or to quit thread crapping because you can't prove what you are accusing someone of doing is the very definition of childish. Last time I checked the burden of proof was placed upon those making the accusation. I'm sorry that demand doesn't meet your definition of something constructive. Maybe you'd prefer the usual circle jerk where you and those of your ilk can rotate through the pivot position and eating the Ritz.

You're a class act.

Thank you.

 

[Bowfinger]

Here's a related article from the Sydney Morning Herald:

The garbage intelligence that helped to unleash a war

Western intelligence agencies knew that some of the evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction was false, reports Marian Wilkinson.

A forged document was used to support claims by George Bush, John Howard and Tony Blair about Iraq's nuclear weapons program - even though the CIA and the State Department in the United States had dismissed it months earlier as "garbage", as one analyst said.

A defector managed by Iraq's leading opposition group supported the most extravagant claims by the same Western leaders about biological weapons even though United Nations inspectors could not corroborate his allegations.

Before the war, Mr Howard repeated the claims of Mr Blair and Mr Bush that "Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons and that Iraq wants to develop nuclear weapons". He cited "the published detailed dossiers of British and American intelligence" as "compelling evidence".

But as three legislative bodies in the US, Britain and Australia review that intelligence, some of it is becoming shaky. In one instance it was manufactured. In others, the intelligence was hedged with qualifications that were somehow dumped once it appeared in political speeches or declassified reports.

[ ... ]

 

[Bowfinger]

Here's another from the Sydney Morning Herald:

Weapons claims fitted US plans, says Wilkie

The Australian and British governments grossly exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction to stay in step with the United States' plan to invade Iraq, a former senior Australian defence analyst has told a British parliamentary inquiry.

Andrew Wilkie, formerly with the Office of National Assessment, also accused John Howard of repeating false claims about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger so that he could be a player on the world stage.

Mr Wilkie said both governments had ignored warnings from their own intelligence agencies that the US was intent on deposing Saddam Hussein for "strategic and domestic reasons".

Deliberately distorted and doctored evidence about Iraq's weapons program had backed up a series of "ridiculous", "preposterous" and "fundamentally flawed" claims before the war.

"The British and Australian governments were deliberately intent on using WMD to exaggerate the Iraq threat so as to stay in step with the US . . .
[ ... ]

Interesting read, a little different perspective. I don't know if this string of articles means they've really turned up the heat in Australia or not. I don't know anything about Australian politics; the timing may be coincidental, Wilkie's statements may be politically motivated. Any Aussies here who can shed additional light on the matter?

 

[HappyGamer2]

again more Bush bashing, my lord, please give him a break, he take orders from everyone including his mommy. And then he gets blamed when it goes bad. when will it all end.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: HappyGamer2
again more Bush bashing, my lord, please give him a break, he take orders from everyone including his mommy. And then he gets blamed when it goes bad. when will it all end.

Well... UQ is quite right. We do have Duck Test evidence... in varying forms that is not beyond a preponderance level. We have no direct evidence yet.Until someone say's they said X or Y to one of the Big Players we have no nexus betwix the Admin and the alleged crime. The idea here is Americans (if enough yell and shout) act as the grand jury... forcing the bill of indictment to be issued and tried in congress so to speak (not impeachment). But, once it is, we will have to lay off and not push our agenda after the airing of the current assumed facts. New assumed facts can open the issue but, old alleged but unfounded facts (false facts) should be left alone to wither away. If Bush is not lying, and I really hope he's not, then let him get back to fixing the economy... if he's lying then he should resign and let Cheney finish the term... well maybe Hastert... To bad Strom is not the President Pro Temp of the Senate........ what!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I see an interesting trick here that is quite good, so I will make use of it too

The WTC incident never happened. I never saw it with my own eyes. It was in the papers, on TV, but those were news reports. Not proof. Even reports of what happened regarding criminal investigations is reported in papers. It is not proof.

Now the extreme example can be toned down a bit and applied here. In fact it is. Nothing short of a criminal conviction (which we are not going to get because of this level of support) will constitute evidence. It is up to those who opposed the war to prove that Bush lied, while the other side conveniently ignores the question of evidence in hand, weapons which we knew existed and where they were BEFORE the war. Now Bush claims looters stole that? Well aliens could have too, since I cannot prove that they did not. The argument from many of not most pro invasion people is that Iraq is so big it will take time. Red herring. No, not the problem. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE WAR THAT "EXISTED". So Bush cannot produce and you do not care. At least be honest, and say that the office of the President does not need integrity or honor or does not need to deserve trust. That is an answer I will accept but do not like.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Ok ok lied is a bad word, Bush more like "willingly-mislead-the-public-with-exaggerated-claims-of-possessions-of-WMDs" .

 

[sMiLeYz]

Bush did mislead the country about other things too... like the Al Qaeda and Saddam connection.

Heres yer evidence in BOLD lettering

According to a New York Times report in February 2002, the CIA found "no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups."

The New Republic

To continue further...

"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."