• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Ex-Official: Evidence Distorted for War

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,878
0
76
I'm not surprised. I feel pretty silly for believing them when they said Iraq had WMD back in January. With each day that passes, we find the news to be quite the opposite. I think their should be an investigation on this. A lot of families who lost and continue to lose family members each day are probably feeling betrayed right now. I'm willing to be that the morale is low in Iraq for our brave servicemen and women. Imagine yourself in a country with total anarchy. You have no business even being there. Their are no WMD and you are being attacked everyday. Driving around cities trying to prevent looting and violence. Who knows if someone in that crowd has a grenade ready to toss it your way or that person at a checkpoint is going to blow himself up. What Bush did was shameful.
 

Zrom999

Banned
Apr 13, 2003
698
0
0
Evidence was lacking for both, despite claims by President Bush and others, Thielmann said in an interview this week. Suspicions were presented as fact, contrary arguments ignored, he said.
That says it all.
 

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,582
1
76
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I'm not surprised. I feel pretty silly for believing them when they said Iraq had WMD back in January. With each day that passes, we find the news to be quite the opposite. I think their should be an investigation on this. A lot of families who lost and continue to lose family members each day are probably feeling betrayed right now. I'm willing to be that the morale is low in Iraq for our brave servicemen and women. Imagine yourself in a country with total anarchy. You have no business even being there. Their are no WMD and you are being attacked everyday. Driving around cities trying to prevent looting and violence. Who knows if someone in that crowd has a grenade ready to toss it your way or that person at a checkpoint is going to blow himself up. What Bush did was shameful.

Yeah that's kind of how I feel, I had moderate support for the war on the assumption the leaders of the US had access to information that the rest of us didn't. I feel like I've been tricked or something.

 

Spyro

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2001
3,366
0
0
Originally posted by: OS
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I'm not surprised. I feel pretty silly for believing them when they said Iraq had WMD back in January. With each day that passes, we find the news to be quite the opposite. I think their should be an investigation on this. A lot of families who lost and continue to lose family members each day are probably feeling betrayed right now. I'm willing to be that the morale is low in Iraq for our brave servicemen and women. Imagine yourself in a country with total anarchy. You have no business even being there. Their are no WMD and you are being attacked everyday. Driving around cities trying to prevent looting and violence. Who knows if someone in that crowd has a grenade ready to toss it your way or that person at a checkpoint is going to blow himself up. What Bush did was shameful.

Yeah that's kind of how I feel, I had moderate support for the war on the assumption the leaders of the US had access to information that the rest of us didn't. I feel like I've been tricked or something.
Thats kinda how I feel too, herded like a cow. :/
 

AnImuS

Senior member
Sep 28, 2001
939
0
0
boohoo


I dont think anyone should be surprised... This is nothing new in governments...

Sucks things work like this though...

 

StormRider

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2000
8,325
2
0
Very disturbing. We should rethink our pre-emptive strike strategy (which I have always had problems with).
 

manly

Diamond Member
Jan 25, 2000
8,797
416
126
Since Thielmann was in the State Department, he'll probably be bashed as not credible by "neoconservatives" who strongly influence the DoD.

I'm surprised some of you guys feel duped though. Although the Bush Administration and DoD were most likely misleading us all, it was fairly obvious from the get-go that the intel just wasn't there. Sure, we simply aren't privy to classified information. But when the CIA itself, and all the major intelligence organizations WORLDWIDE publicly said there are no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda (i.e. the only serious links were completely disproven), then it's safe to say last Fall that the link wasn't there. Furthermore, the analysis of why that particular link didn't exist is because Bin Laden is a subversive force, and ideologically, he was opposed to secular Arab governments such as Saddam's anyway. He wages intifada for Islam, not for Middle East governments. He'd overthrow pro-U.S. Arab regimes if he could.

This is just one public example, but there were many others. For example, Secretary Colin Powell lobbying the U.N.S.C. on multiple occasions with empassioned but nondescript pleas to show solidarity against Iraq; which they would almost assuredly have done if the Administration had ever privately shared a "smoking gun" w/ the SC permanent members. James Carville had it right: what kinda of lame-brained diplomatic effort did Bush & Co. do to lose a "PR war" with Saddam Hussein? <tongue-in-cheek />That's like losing a morality test against Bill Clinton. ;)

Yet another example of the outright lying is when Bush flatly said on TV that Iraq had drones capable of striking the U.S. with WMD. Later, he had to back down and clarify that the drones could only fly around the Middle East (and not very far), and it wasn't at all clear they were equipped with WMD. Or how about the numerous reports at the beginning of the invasion that we (the armed forces and the nation) should imminently expect Saddam to unleash WMD on coalition troops? CNN reported today that someone in Defense Intelligence now admits that claim (in the just-aired September intel report) was most likely simply wrong.

Every major politician plays the spin game, but this government and DoD really have elevated it to an extreme level with Iraq. Really, to me, it's fairly clear that Slick Willy wasn't trying to trick Americans when he said a BJ isn't "sexual relations" but simply to cover up his infedility; but presenting outright lies to justify a preemptive strike, and ruining nearly all our post 9/11 goodwill in the world, is not even close in comparison. Too bad over 50% of Americans fell for it (and still haven't gotten up), and that's really all that matters. At the end of the day, we comfortable Americans are happy with the fact that an "evil despot" was defeated so the tricky details of the "means" to reach that end are largely unimportant.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Interesting article, OS. The mountain of evidence continues to grow.

Here's a short excerpt to pique interest:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration distorted intelligence and presented conjecture as evidence to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a retired intelligence official who served during the months before the war.

"What disturbs me deeply is what I think are the disingenuous statements made from the very top about what the intelligence did say," said Greg Thielmann, who retired last September. "The area of distortion was greatest in the nuclear field."

Thielmann was director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. His office was privy to classified intelligence gathered by the CIA and other agencies about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.

[ ... ]
 

laFiera

Senior member
May 12, 2001
862
0
0
so what's new???
i remember a month ago or so people posting, "in due time the evidence of these weapons will come out"; looks like time is going and only the opposite is showing up---no WMD's to be found. If i remember correctly, the war was sold on this premise---imminent threat of these WMD's; of course, it wouldn't surprised me now if they find some type of evidence linking saddam to 9/11; something must justify the war.
 

manly

Diamond Member
Jan 25, 2000
8,797
416
126
Originally posted by: laFiera
so what's new???
i remember a month ago or so people posting, "in due time the evidence of these weapons will come out"; looks like time is going and only the opposite is showing up---no WMD's to be found. If i remember correctly, the war was sold on this premise---imminent threat of these WMD's; of course, it wouldn't surprised me now if they find some type of evidence linking saddam to 9/11; something must justify the war.
It would almost shock me if they found a real link between senior members of Saddam's Baath Party and Al Qaeda. Because every intelligence agency, including the CIA, in the world already disproved any reputed links that came up in the past. Idiologically, they just don't see things eye to eye.

The point is that the Administration told a bald-faced lie when they continued to vaguely link Saddam to 9/11 in selling the war; like I said, the funny thing is eventually, the majority of Americans bought this tasty untruth.

But I guess I agree with you; it wouldn't surprise me if they continued to sell a bill of false goods and revealed some tenuous "evidence" linking Saddam to 9/11.

And like I said previously, for the majority of Americans, they won't demand a serious justification for the war. To them, it's enough that Saddam was defeated and that the coalition won a swift, relatively clean, war.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: manly
Originally posted by: laFiera
so what's new???
i remember a month ago or so people posting, "in due time the evidence of these weapons will come out"; looks like time is going and only the opposite is showing up---no WMD's to be found. If i remember correctly, the war was sold on this premise---imminent threat of these WMD's; of course, it wouldn't surprised me now if they find some type of evidence linking saddam to 9/11; something must justify the war.
It would almost shock me if they found a real link between senior members of Saddam's Baath Party and Al Qaeda. Because every intelligence agency, including the CIA, in the world already disproved any reputed links that came up in the past. Idiologically, they just don't see things eye to eye.

The point is that the Administration told a bald-faced lie when they continued to vaguely link Saddam to 9/11 in selling the war; like I said, the funny thing is eventually, the majority of Americans bought this tasty untruth.

But I guess I agree with you; it wouldn't surprise me if they continued to sell a bill of false goods and revealed some tenuous "evidence" linking Saddam to 9/11.

And like I said previously, for the majority of Americans, they won't demand a serious justification for the war. To them, it's enough that Saddam was defeated and that the coalition won a swift, relatively clean, war.
You may be right about some Americans accepting the war no matter what the final reason is or isn't. But to characterize this as a "swift, relatively clean, war" isn't accurate IMO.

No one in their right mind ever though the armed forces of the USA wouldn't crush Iraq's forces, armed with 30 year old Russian equipment and suffering after 12 years of UN sanctions. The real job is just beginning and it wont be swift or clean. Iraq is in near total anarchy and our troops are being asked to be policeman. Not a job they are trained for although I'm sure they will give it their best effort. Still it isn't fair to ask the military to become cops. And it isn't fair to put them in harms way trying to police an entire nation. Our troops are in more danger now it seems than when the war was being waged. They are now facing guerilla warfare waged from within the Iraqi population they are trying to restore order to.

If all this has been done by the administration based on lies then it's time to appoint another independent prosecutor and get to the bottom of this.
 

adlep

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2001
5,286
6
81
I wonder is this:
Where are all the pro-war people.
They used to were thread crapping every against-the-war thread over here...
And now, they are just very quiet...
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: adlep
I wonder is this:
Where are all the pro-war people.
They used to were thread crapping every against-the-war thread over here...
And now, they are just very quiet...
Maybe they are waiting very quietly for the sound of the other shoe dropping.
 

manly

Diamond Member
Jan 25, 2000
8,797
416
126
Originally posted by: BOBDN

You may be right about some Americans accepting the war no matter what the final reason is or isn't. But to characterize this as a "swift, relatively clean, war" isn't accurate IMO.

No one in their right mind ever though the armed forces of the USA wouldn't crush Iraq's forces, armed with 30 year old Russian equipment and suffering after 12 years of UN sanctions. The real job is just beginning and it wont be swift or clean. Iraq is in near total anarchy and our troops are being asked to be policeman. Not a job they are trained for although I'm sure they will give it their best effort. Still it isn't fair to ask the military to become cops. And it isn't fair to put them in harms way trying to police an entire nation. Our troops are in more danger now it seems than when the war was being waged. They are now facing guerilla warfare waged from within the Iraqi population they are trying to restore order to.

If all this has been done by the administration based on lies then it's time to appoint another independent prosecutor and get to the bottom of this.
I am in total agreement with you, so here's the distinction. I'm referring to major war operations, which were indeed swift and relatively clean.

What's happening on the ground now is continued shadowy resistance, the anarchy you referred to, and an extremely intractable rebuilding problem exacerbated because the Administration didn't have a solid plan in place for post-war Iraq. On this point, we shouldn't be too surprised; although the Taliban was quickly driven out of power, it's been rather difficult eradicating resistance and installing a national government in Afghanistan that has influence outside of Kabul.

I think for many people, the whole WMD justifcation was a sham from the beginning so these new revelations aren't exactly ground-breaking to me. And so long as an American majority continues to support its "wartime president", then the chances of the outright deceit leading to a severe political price are relatively small. But I certainly can't predict the future, so we'll see how this plays out, and Election 2004 will be the ultimate judgment.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: adlep
I wonder is this:
Where are all the pro-war people.
They used to were thread crapping every against-the-war thread over here...
And now, they are just very quiet...
Maybe they are waiting very quietly for the sound of the other shoe dropping.
Shhhhhh! You'll wake them.
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: adlep
I wonder is this:
Where are all the pro-war people.
They used to were thread crapping every against-the-war thread over here...
And now, they are just very quiet...
Maybe they are waiting very quietly for the sound of the other shoe dropping.
Shhhhhh! You'll wake them.


They can't speak. The egg on their faces is covering their mouths. ;)
 

Brie

Member
May 27, 2003
137
0
0
Ill stand up and stay that i am still pro war...

I find it hard to believe that Saddam lacks ANY wmd at all. In addition i dont see why Saddam made a big huge deal by blocking UN inspectors from specific sites and at one point kicking them out of the country. He had the support of many people for getting UN embargos lifted! so why kick the inspectors out??

I do agree that Bush and many parts of the government exaggurated evidence for WMD...Dont all leaders do this?? The nature of these weapons themselves should prove to all that they do not pose an immedate threat. Almost everyone agrees that (lets say) if he does indeed have biological and chemical weapons that he LACKS the means to deliver them effectivly to a large number of people. I think the reason why a big stink was made about the immedate threat of these weapons was specifically because we dont really know the truth. Did anyone expect the Sarin gas attacks in Japan, or 9-11 or any other attacks were even possible??

I believe the idea that this is some elaborate plot on Bush's part to go to war on Iraq is not convincing enough. What does Bush have to gain by going to war. He knew that it would be unpoular and people would protest. He knew that many countries did not support him and had many chances to back down yet he still pushed...why??

My bet is that Sadaam is laughing his ass of now because he ordered the elimination of these weapons (whatever was remaining) right before the attacks. Think about it...Everyone hates the United State's policy including a significant portion of its own citizens directly due to the war!! Sadaam has won in the end. America look like an imperialist power while the Arab world in starting to unify against us. We have invaded Afganistan and Iraq. And now we are starting to have more problems with Iran, Syria and Saudia Arabia. Sounds like Sadaam has won a pretty big victory to me.
 

Zrom999

Banned
Apr 13, 2003
698
0
0
Originally posted by: Brie
Ill stand up and stay that i am still pro war...

I find it hard to believe that Saddam lacks ANY wmd at all. In addition i dont see why Saddam made a big huge deal by blocking UN inspectors from specific sites and at one point kicking them out of the country. He had the support of many people for getting UN embargos lifted! so why kick the inspectors out??

I do agree that Bush and many parts of the government exaggurated evidence for WMD...Dont all leaders do this?? The nature of these weapons themselves should prove to all that they do not pose an immedate threat. Almost everyone agrees that (lets say) if he does indeed have biological and chemical weapons that he LACKS the means to deliver them effectivly to a large number of people. I think the reason why a big stink was made about the immedate threat of these weapons was specifically because we dont really know the truth. Did anyone expect the Sarin gas attacks in Japan, or 9-11 or any other attacks were even possible??

I believe the idea that this is some elaborate plot on Bush's part to go to war on Iraq is not convincing enough. What does Bush have to gain by going to war. He knew that it would be unpoular and people would protest. He knew that many countries did not support him and had many chances to back down yet he still pushed...why??

My bet is that Sadaam is laughing his ass of now because he ordered the elimination of these weapons (whatever was remaining) right before the attacks. Think about it...Everyone hates the United State's policy including a significant portion of its own citizens directly due to the war!! Sadaam has won in the end. America look like an imperialist power while the Arab world in starting to unify against us. We have invaded Afganistan and Iraq. And now we are starting to have more problems with Iran, Syria and Saudia Arabia. Sounds like Sadaam has won a pretty big victory to me.
Lets hear it for Saddam!!! He won!
No, he didn't win (Even if he is laughing his arse off thinking that he did). The big losers in this conflict are the US, Iraq (including Saddam), the UN and the European powers. The big winner is Iran. The US lost credibility (Where are the weapons?). The UN looked foolish by being bypassed by one of its own members. The Europeans lost their interest and holdings in Iraq. Saddam lost control, and Iraq probably lost any hope of ever having another secular government in the future. Iran would gain a possible satellite state, due to the large Shi'ite majority in the southern Iraq and more importantly it gained time. While the US is playing policeman in Iraq, Iran has time to get its nuclear plant operational and the possibility of confronting a nuclear arsenal will keep the Americans away, leaving Iran to continue doing what it has been doing, except it will do it more bodly without any fear of the US.
 

prometheusxls

Senior member
Apr 27, 2003
830
0
0
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I'm not surprised. I feel pretty silly for believing them when they said Iraq had WMD back in January. With each day that passes, we find the news to be quite the opposite. I think their should be an investigation on this. A lot of families who lost and continue to lose family members each day are probably feeling betrayed right now. I'm willing to be that the morale is low in Iraq for our brave servicemen and women. Imagine yourself in a country with total anarchy. You have no business even being there. Their are no WMD and you are being attacked everyday. Driving around cities trying to prevent looting and violence. Who knows if someone in that crowd has a grenade ready to toss it your way or that person at a checkpoint is going to blow himself up. What Bush did was shameful.
I feel the same. Its a shame that this administration has shown such a cavalier attitude with their over use, of the military and the very dangerous policy of preemptive war. It is unclear what if any affect the Iraq war was to have on our strategic goals of anti-terrorism.
 

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,582
1
76
Originally posted by: prometheusxls

I feel the same. Its a shame that this administration has shown such a cavalier attitude with their over use, of the military and the very dangerous policy of preemptive war. It is unclear what if any affect the Iraq war was to have on our strategic goals of anti-terrorism.
It had little to none. I remember reading an article that some important people in anti-terror resigned over the war because it was basically hurting their cause.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY