Report Says Iraq Didn't Have WMD

[cumhail]

"Report says Iraq didn't have WMD"

Author: Political pressure influenced intelligence before war

Thursday, January 8, 2004 Posted: 12:52 PM EST (1752 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraq had ended its weapons of mass destruction programs by the mid-1990s and did not pose an immediate threat to the United States before the war, according to a report released Thursday.

Bush administration officials likely pushed U.S. intelligence assessors to conform with its view the country posed an impending danger, said one of the authors of the study.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- a nonpartisan, respected group that opposed the war in Iraq -- conducted the study.

It follows a nine-month search in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, biological and chemical -- the key reason the administration cited in its decision to invade Iraq....

Read the rest at http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/sprj.nirq.wmd.report/index.html

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Powell replies

CkG

 

[cumhail]

Good find on a related article... I hadn't seen that one yet. And I don't know much about the Carnegie group, so I'm looking up some info on them.

cumhail

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Powell replies

CkG

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Personally I could care less. I said it before and I'll say it again: People should be free from tyranny and oppression. Saddam was a brutal dictator who abused his power in more ways than we are likely to ever know and millions are dead who would not be because we listed to the UN in 1991 and didn't remove him from power.

The world is a better place without Saddam, and Iraq's people have a chance at liberty and prosperity now that he is gone. How can you possibly oppose that?

Jason

 

[dmcowen674]

So what were the Iraqi's going to launch in 45 minutes, sand?

 

[tallest1]

I like how "weapons of mass destruction" is now being called "destructive weapons". Give 'em 3 months and it'll be "weapons". 3 more months and it'll be "sharp pointy objects"

 

[jahawkin]

But look at the elaborate plans for long range missile that Iraq was cooking up.

 

[cumhail]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

The world is a better place without Saddam, and Iraq's people have a chance at liberty and prosperity now that he is gone. How can you possibly oppose that?

Jason

By all accounts I've read and heard, the world may well be a better place without the likes of Saddam... but the same can be said of a great many people and "world leaders," past and present. And so if the claims made in this report are, indeed true, and if the administration knew them to be true, then...

I can oppose an administration deliberately lying and/or releasing misleading information to the citizenry that they represent and to the world in order to curry favor and support for a cause based on false premises that the target country posed a clear, direct and imminent threat.

I can oppose the introduction of a policy of unilateral preemption based on disagreement with an opponent's policies.

I can oppose the way in which this "chance at liberty and prosperity," as you call, was "given to the Iraqi people."

I can oppose the expenditure of significant monetary, military, and human resources on a cause that is of apparent benefit to no one except for a select group that does not, as of yet, seem to include the Iraqi people.

I can oppose an apparent sense of inconsistency as to which oppressed peoples' governments are considered candidates for being removed from power, when, and how.

And finally, I can oppose the argument that this was done "for the sake of the poor oppressed Iraqi people" when that was not the case that was made for war in Iraq and has never been a good enough reason for the US to intervene in other conflicts.

cumhail

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

You're right on all your points; if Shrubbery and company knew their intelligence was bad, they should be held accountable (and with elections less than a year away, they very well could be). It's also fair to say they've likely done a fair bit of screwing up here and there. Personally, I never would have predicated the war on WMD to begin with. I'd have simply said, "Saddm's a brutal dictator who murders his people in the tens of thousands every single year. His sovereignty is NOT valid and we will stop him from oppressing the Iraqi people because it's the right thing to do." and that would have been it. What would the world say? "Oh, screw the Iraqis, let them be killed!" I doubt it (though that is their true feeling in many cases *cough* France, Germany, Russia, China*cough*.)

I think you are wrong, however, that the Iraqi people don't seem to be a major beneficiary. When you consider the number of people in Iraq who used to be murdered *every year* for political dissent and other such "crimes," it's easy to see that the obvious major benefit they have already derived is a far better chance at survival. As the process of rebuilding takes off, there will be jobs and industries and all kinds of ways for Iraqis to find prosperity, and I think that what our soldiers who fought and died to give these people was worth it. I further think that what those soldiers deserve is praise and honor and remembrance and thanks, not derision about the worthiness of their task.

Next target: Kim Jong Il.

Jason

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Personally I could care less. I said it before and I'll say it again: People should be free from tyranny and oppression. Saddam was a brutal dictator who abused his power in more ways than we are likely to ever know and millions are dead who would not be because we listed to the UN in 1991 and didn't remove him from power.

The world is a better place without Saddam, and Iraq's people have a chance at liberty and prosperity now that he is gone. How can you possibly oppose that?

Jason

The 9000 wounded AMerican Soldiers
The 500 DEAD American Soldiers
The American FAMILIES of the Dead and Injured
The American Taxpayer who was hoodwinked into shelling out $100,000,000,000 for some foreign country :disgust:

^^ I think those people might have an opposing viewpoint ^^

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Personally I could care less. I said it before and I'll say it again: People should be free from tyranny and oppression. Saddam was a brutal dictator who abused his power in more ways than we are likely to ever know and millions are dead who would not be because we listed to the UN in 1991 and didn't remove him from power.

Jason
Although you may not care where the war is concerned, the fact that Iraq did or didn't have WMD is extremely important for other reasons. If in fact Iraq didn't have WMD, either our intel was very, very bad (to the point where thousands of innocents died because it was so bad) or our president purposely lied/mislead this nation and the entire planet.

Now you can argue that those who died did so for a just cause, Saddam and his regime were removed making their and our country safer, if not the whole world. But the fact remains, were it not for the threat of existing WMD we wouldn't have gone to war.

So yes, you should care whether Iraq had WMD or not. If you feel WMD wasn't needed to justify this war, that's cool. But you should care for other reasons. (Unless you, like other members, don't care if our president lied to us)

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Oh, I certainly care whether the president lied to us, I just don't know if he did, any more than any of the rest of us here do. I'm sure it's possible, but I don't know if we'll ever know enough of the truth to say for sure. For one thing, the specific intel and the means by which it was gathered would have to come out publicly, and that will never happen, at least not during our generation.

For those who lost loved ones in the war I remain truly sorrowful for their loss, and yet at the same time joyful that those men and women who did give their lives did so as members of an army they volunteered for, knowing full well the risks involved in doing so. These are honorable people who provided a great service to the world, the Shrub administration be damned.

As for the loss of lives in the cause of Liberty being worth it, yes, I think that it's ALWAYS worth it. Someone (I can't recall the name) once said, "May the seas run red with blood and mountains be built of bodies, but let Justice be done." Rough paraphrase And I think it's true. Liberty is worth any price, and as people who have been born and raised under the flag of the most free nation on earth, we *cannot* have a proper perspective on the matter in the way that the man who lives in fear of speaking his own mind within earshot ofa neighbor does.

Jason

 

[Gaard]

Jason
Although your feelings are noble, and for most, admirable as well, I think even you would admit that this administration, along with those in recent memory, don't share your mindset. Or they just feel that the consequences of such noble actions would be too great. Either way, it's nondebatable that the Iraqis would still be under Saddams control if the threat of WMD (real or not) were not there.

 

[Bitdog]

jahawkin Quote:
But look at the elaborate plans for long range missile that Iraq was cooking up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The human mind is a strange one. Eternal hope is one of those things.
Although there were some plans found,
one must remember not to jump to any conclusions.
Such as: there was intent to build what was on the plans.

In a dictatorship such as Sadam had going, there may have only been two kinds of people.
Usefull people, & dead people. In other words: when the weapons program was smashed,
the people working in it became un_usefull people unless they had some plans, that would
keep eternal hope in Sadams mind that he could rise back up at any time with those plans.
The person with those plans may not have wanted Sadam to have any weapons at all,
and if forced to build the weapon for him, he would have drug his feet for years,
and not really come up with anything much more than Sadam already had.
(Which seems to be the case.)
Also, having some plans for weapons, could insure income, safty, a future in short.

So one could view the PLANS REPORT and say, see I told you so, WMD was on the table.
Where another might say, poop in one hand, wish in the other and see which fill up first.
Plans don't harm anyone.

I'ld like to see the USA plans to kill every prisioner in jail if an invasion of USA occurs.
Now there's some dangerous plans.

(So I agree with jahawkin sarcasm, & isn't there a Jay Hawkers society or something in our past USA history ?)
(Is there a web site called "CommonSence" like there was a paper in 1775 for radical freedom fighters ? )

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Personally I could care less. I said it before and I'll say it again: People should be free from tyranny and oppression. Saddam was a brutal dictator who abused his power in more ways than we are likely to ever know and millions are dead who would not be because we listed to the UN in 1991 and didn't remove him from power.

The world is a better place without Saddam, and Iraq's people have a chance at liberty and prosperity now that he is gone. How can you possibly oppose that?

Jason

The 9000 wounded AMerican Soldiers
The 500 DEAD American Soldiers
The American FAMILIES of the Dead and Injured
The American Taxpayer who was hoodwinked into shelling out $100,000,000,000 for some foreign country :disgust:

^^ I think those people might have an opposing viewpoint ^^

go and ask the soldiers and their families what their viewpoint is. all the soldiers [and their families] i know all agree with the President.
the American taxpayer on the other hand, their viewpoint changes with the tide of the war. at the beginning they supported it, in the middle [now] it looks as if we may be there for a while, so they oppose it. we catch Saddam, approval soars. all that is reported is bad news about death and ambushes, approval plunges.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

go and ask the soldiers and their families what their viewpoint is. all the soldiers [and their families] i know all agree with the President.

let's hear it for selective surveys (excerpts . . . some of which are out of context)

After spending 2.5 hours with a few carefully screened members of the armed forces at Iraq International Airport Bush stated "I'm pleased to report back from the front lines that our troops are strong, morale is high and our military is confident we will prevail," he said.

He may have missed the reports last month in the Stars and Stripes based on polls of US soldiers serving in Iraq. The trip and the spin that has been fed to the American Public since the trip are disingenuous.

The paper, which is independently edited, though partially funded by the Pentagon, was given unparalleled access to US troops. Its reporters visited nearly 50 camps, ranging from major bases to relatively isolated outposts.

In response to the question, ?How worthwhile do you think fighting this war was for America?,?
. . . Only 28 percent responded that it was ?very worthwhile? and another 20 percent that it was ?worthwhile.?

Thirty-five percent answered that they were either ?mostly unclear? or ?not clear at all? about why they were in Iraq.

With the White House claiming that the US has liberated Iraq and that things are going well, only 16 percent of troops rated their unit?s morale as ?very high? or ?high.? Forty-nine percent rated it as ?low? or ?very low.?
Soldiers consistently ranked their personal morale as higher than the ranking they chose for their unit.

Overall, 49 percent of the respondents in Iraq indicated they intended to leave the military as soon as possible. Only 18 percent said it was ?very likely? they would remain.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Genesys


go and ask the soldiers and their families what their viewpoint is. all the soldiers [and their families] i know all agree with the President.
the American taxpayer on the other hand, their viewpoint changes with the tide of the war. at the beginning they supported it, in the middle [now] it looks as if we may be there for a while, so they oppose it. we catch Saddam, approval soars. all that is reported is bad news about death and ambushes, approval plunges.

I think you may be wrong.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

go and ask the soldiers and their families what their viewpoint is. all the soldiers [and their families] i know all agree with the President.

let's hear it for selective surveys (excerpts . . . some of which are out of context)

After spending 2.5 hours with a few carefully screened members of the armed forces at Iraq International Airport Bush stated "I'm pleased to report back from the front lines that our troops are strong, morale is high and our military is confident we will prevail," he said.

He may have missed the reports last month in the Stars and Stripes based on polls of US soldiers serving in Iraq. The trip and the spin that has been fed to the American Public since the trip are disingenuous.

The paper, which is independently edited, though partially funded by the Pentagon, was given unparalleled access to US troops. Its reporters visited nearly 50 camps, ranging from major bases to relatively isolated outposts.

In response to the question, ?How worthwhile do you think fighting this war was for America?,?
. . . Only 28 percent responded that it was ?very worthwhile? and another 20 percent that it was ?worthwhile.?

Thirty-five percent answered that they were either ?mostly unclear? or ?not clear at all? about why they were in Iraq.

With the White House claiming that the US has liberated Iraq and that things are going well, only 16 percent of troops rated their unit?s morale as ?very high? or ?high.? Forty-nine percent rated it as ?low? or ?very low.?
Soldiers consistently ranked their personal morale as higher than the ranking they chose for their unit.

Overall, 49 percent of the respondents in Iraq indicated they intended to leave the military as soon as possible. Only 18 percent said it was ?very likely? they would remain.

Kudos, BBD. Another case of wishful thinking refuted with facts.

And kudos to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace for their efforts. It's one thing for us to try to get the truth out one piece at a time based on our part-time research. It's another when a respected organization with dedicated resources can pull together everything we've been saying and present it with solid supporting documentation. Perhaps this will open a few more eyes.

 

[Bowfinger]

By the way, the full report is available on the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace home page. There is also a short summary of their findings (below), as well as other information and resources on various topics. Their server(s) seem a little overloaded at the moment, so be gentle.

Here is the summary:

WMD IN IRAQ - Evidence and Implications

WMD in IRAQ: Evidence and Implications, a new study from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, details what the U.S. and international intelligence communities understood about Iraq's weapons programs before the war and outlines policy reforms to improve threat assessments, deter transfer of WMD to terrorists, strengthen the UN weapons inspection process, and avoid politicization of the intelligence process.

The report distills a massive amount of data into side-by-side comparisons of pre-war intelligence, the official presentation of that intelligence, and what is now known about Iraq's programs.

The authors of the report are: Jessica T. Mathews, president; George Perkovich, vice president for studies, and Joseph Cirincione, senior associate and non-proliferation project director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.


SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Changes to U.S. Policy

• Revise the National Security Strategy to eliminate a U.S. policy of unilateral preventive war, i.e., preemptive war in absence of imminent threat.
• Create a nonpartisan, independent commission to establish a clearer picture of what the intelligence community knew and believed it knew about Iraq's weapons program.
• Consider changing the post of Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) from a political appointment to a career appointment, based on the outcomes of the independent commission.
• Make the security of poorly protected nuclear weapons and stockpiles of plutonium and highly enriched uranium a much higher priority for national security policy.

International Action

• The United States and United Nations should together produce a complete history and inventory of Iraq's WMD and missile programs.
• The UN Secretary General should commission a high-level analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the WMD inspection processes in Iraq, and how inspections could be strengthened in the future.
• The UN Security Council should consider creating a permanent, international, nonproliferation inspection capability.
• Make the transfer of WMD a violation of international law.

Changes to Threat Assessments

• Recognize distinctions in the degree of threat posed by the different forms of "weapons of mass destruction" - chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons pose vastly different risks and cost-benefit calculations of actions to combat them.
• Recognize red flags indicating that sound intelligence practices are not being followed.
• Examine and debate the assertion that the combined threat of evil states and terrorism calls for acting on the basis of worst-case reasoning.
• Examine assumption that states will likely transfer WMD to terrorists.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Iraq WMD Was Not An Immediate Threat

• Iraq's nuclear program had been suspended for many years; Iraq focused on preserving a latent, dual-use chemical and probably biological weapons capability, not weapons production.
• Iraqi nerve agents had lost most of their lethality as early as 1991.
• Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, and UN inspections and sanctions effectively destroyed Iraq's large-scale chemical weapon production capabilities.

Inspections Were Working

• Post-war searches suggest the UN inspections were on track to find what was there.
• International constraints, sanctions, procurement, investigations, and the export/import control mechanism appear to have been considerably more effective than was thought.

Intelligence Failed and Was Misrepresented

• Intelligence community overestimated the chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.
• Intelligence community appears to have been unduly influenced by policymakers' views.
• Officials misrepresented threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missiles programs over and above intelligence findings.

Terrorist Connection Missing

• No solid evidence of cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda.
• No evidence that Iraq would have transferred WMD to terrorists-and much evidence to counter it.
• No evidence to suggest that deterrence was no longer operable.

Post-War WMD Search Ignored Key Resources

• Past relationships with Iraqi scientists and officials, and credibility of UNMOVIC experts represent a vital resource that has been ignored when it should be being fully exploited.
• Data from the seven years of UNSCOM/IAEA inspections are absolutely essential. Direct involvement of those who compiled the more-than-30-million- page record is needed.

War Was Not the Best-Or Only-Option

• There were at least two options preferable to a war undertaken without international support: allowing the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspections to continue until obstructed or completed, or imposing a tougher program of "coercive inspections."

Download the report at www.ceip.org/WMD or contact Maura Keaney at 202-939-2372 or mkeaney@ceip.org.

Edit: formatting

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: tallest1
I like how "weapons of mass destruction" is now being called "destructive weapons". Give 'em 3 months and it'll be "weapons". 3 more months and it'll be "sharp pointy objects"

true tallest; also, time for the administration to stress the (pleading in the alternative) theories for why to war.

Of Carnegie's finding that Iraq posed no imminent threat, Powell said: "They did not say it wasn't there."

this sort of clumsily dodges the point - if it's just a threat and not an imminent threat to US security, then that sort of undercuts the argument for war...

 

[maluckey]

Carnegie report says no, David Kay's report says yes. Carnegie had very little access to the country when compared to Kay. Either way, it's still not what we expected is it?

 

[josphII]

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- a nonpartisan, respected group that opposed the war in Iraq -- conducted the study.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: josphII

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- a nonpartisan, respected group that opposed the war in Iraq -- conducted the study.

Wow.. that was enlightening???

Got some facts or links that say they are partisan and classless tools not worthy of respect?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Carnegie report says no, David Kay's report says yes. Carnegie had very little access to the country when compared to Kay. Either way, it's still not what we expected is it?

David Kay's report says yes to what?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

go and ask the soldiers and their families what their viewpoint is. all the soldiers [and their families] i know all agree with the President.

let's hear it for selective surveys (excerpts . . . some of which are out of context)

After spending 2.5 hours with a few carefully screened members of the armed forces at Iraq International Airport Bush stated "I'm pleased to report back from the front lines that our troops are strong, morale is high and our military is confident we will prevail," he said.

He may have missed the reports last month in the Stars and Stripes based on polls of US soldiers serving in Iraq. The trip and the spin that has been fed to the American Public since the trip are disingenuous.

The paper, which is independently edited, though partially funded by the Pentagon, was given unparalleled access to US troops. Its reporters visited nearly 50 camps, ranging from major bases to relatively isolated outposts.

In response to the question, ?How worthwhile do you think fighting this war was for America?,?
. . . Only 28 percent responded that it was ?very worthwhile? and another 20 percent that it was ?worthwhile.?

Thirty-five percent answered that they were either ?mostly unclear? or ?not clear at all? about why they were in Iraq.

With the White House claiming that the US has liberated Iraq and that things are going well, only 16 percent of troops rated their unit?s morale as ?very high? or ?high.? Forty-nine percent rated it as ?low? or ?very low.?
Soldiers consistently ranked their personal morale as higher than the ranking they chose for their unit.

Overall, 49 percent of the respondents in Iraq indicated they intended to leave the military as soon as possible. Only 18 percent said it was ?very likely? they would remain.

Kudos, BBD. Another case of wishful thinking refuted with facts.

And kudos to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace for their efforts. It's one thing for us to try to get the truth out one piece at a time based on our part-time research. It's another when a respected organization with dedicated resources can pull together everything we've been saying and present it with solid supporting documentation. Perhaps this will open a few more eyes.

The wishful thinking part is where you and BBD take what the World Socialist Website prints as fact. It's to be expected of bowfinger, he isn't very intelligent to begin with, but Doc, you should know better. Maybe a glance at the actual survey results would give you the real facts, all of them, instead of the ones that WSW wants to give you. BBD you're smart enough to figure it out yourself, bowfinger you'll need some help as usual.