Did Bush manipulate Iraq data?

[Taem]

I searched back for the old Iraq debate thread and could not find it so I'm making a new topic with a new question I feel is pertinent to this particular situation:

I read an article in the LA times while at work which caught my attention, but I also found a free copy at the New York Times for you Lurkers to examine.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/11/...main/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The head of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee said Wednesday that his panel will hold closed-door hearings next week as part of its ongoing review of U.S. intelligence on Iraq.

The hearings won't be a formal joint inquiry sought by Democrats. The move comes amid questions about whether the Bush administration manipulated intelligence data to bolster its case for war in Iraq.

U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, made it clear he has seen no evidence any intelligence data was slanted or politicized, but he said allegations from anonymous officials saying they were under pressure to "skew their analysis" were serious and "must be cleared up." (Full story)

"I can tell you, however, that the committee has yet to hear from any intelligence official expressing such concerns," Roberts said. "If any officials believe, however, that they have been pressured to alter their assessment, they have an obligation, and I encourage them to contact the committee."

He said criticism of the intelligence agencies has been divisive and could hurt national security.

The Bush administration has come under fire from some Democrats and critics abroad because no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. U.S. and British statements before the war asserted that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was harboring and developing such banned weapons.

Roberts said his panel would work with the Senate Armed Service Committee. But a joint formal investigation, he said, would be premature.

He said his committee is reviewing intelligence documents supplied by CIA Director George Tenet.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Virginia, said his panel also is reviewing the CIA material.

"The evidence that I have examined does not rise to give the presumption that anyone in this administration has hyped or cooked or embellished such evidence to a particular purpose, and I regret that those allegations have been made," Warner said.

Meanwhile, CIA Director George Tenet appointed former U.N. weapons inspector David Kay to advise the agency on how to find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, CIA officials said.

Kay, 63, will be based in Iraq, the officials said. He will be in charge of "refining the overall approach for the search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," one official said.

The Pentagon's new Iraq Survey Group -- about 1,400 experts from the United States, Britain and Australia -- will "provide direct support" to Kay, according to the CIA announcement.

Kay worked for the International Atomic Energy Agency and for the United Nations Special Commission as a weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s.

My question is did President Bush knowingly 'taint' Iraq information, and if so, why? Obviously, this question will never be answered by us humble folk here at the LL, and even speculating about it may seem pointless in light of this possible controversy which 'professional' investigators are looking into, however I feel the importance of declaring how I feel on this subject and perhaps explore others opinions as well.

Personally, I never liked President Bush, and that might make my opinions of his actions jaded in comparison to a neutral party, as I tend to knit pick at details I dislike about his presidency. I will try to keep an open mind, however.

I find it hard to swallow the Bush Administrations claim that the CIA knew Sadam Hussein had WMD, when in fact the CIA never said anything like that. In fact, the article goes on to say that the CIA was not only pretty sure that Iraq had not WMD, but had destroyed their factories that could produce WMD.

NEWS | June 12, 2003    
CIA Rejects Blame for Bush's Iraq Uranium Claim
By REUTERS   (Reuters)   News  

[sorry, I couldn’t get the entire headlines, but I did read them yesterday]

IMO, someone is either lying or there is some serious misinformation that needs to be addressed. Was it misinformation or was there an ulterior motive to this war with Iraq? But why lie? As Occhidiangela is so fond of pointing out, there were more factors that WMD, and most people's fingers first point to oil if not WMD. I don't claim to know a lot about trade and commerce, the political atmosphere in Iraq, or even how oil factors into the mix of things, but IMO there does seem to be a lot of commonalities between oil, money, power, and Iraq lately. Who’s in charge of setting up the new Iraq, and wont let the UN help? America, of course. I just don't know. It all seems very... strange to me, but like I said before, I have a jaded attitude, so I'm open to other opinions. What am I trying to say? I’m not sure! I guess I’m trying to figure it out and something just doesn’t feel right to me.

[gekko]

When asked about my feelings on the war in Iraq, I would inform the questioner that I "reluctantly supported" it. Let's face it -- Saddam was a brutal, violent dictator, and taking him out of power was the right thing to do. However, I disaprove of the way the US handled the situation; bullying the UN and essentially the entire world into this "with us or with the terrorists" war. Essentially, the public had better be aware of just what's going on. We'd better be aware who's getting rich, and who's getting dead. The latter seems to be the Iraqi people; the former is almost certainly Bush and his buddies. Is it really a surprise that in a war to destroy the huge supply of chemical weapons (that seem to have simply evaporated into thin air) the end result is the US getting a fairly firm grip on the Iraqi oil supply?

It seems a few things are obvious. In the very least, speculation and possibilities about chemical and biological weapons was presented as fact; the danger to US and other western nations was grossly exagerated; and, in the end, the US is going to get rich through the blood of the Iraqi people.

gekko

[WarLocke]

I really have to agree with gekko. The "war" (such as it was) needed to be done, but the execution was extremely lacking.

I mean, we (the US) supposedly invaded Iraq because "we knew they had weapons of mass destruction" even though there was virtually no evidence of them. And then afterwards--oops, now we invaded to free them from Saddam! Yay!

Uh... WTF? Am I the only one seeing the government grasping at straws for an excuse for the invasion?

- WL

(Note: I don't make it a point to keep up on crap like this, so I may have some facts wrong and/or missing.)

[RogueMage]

Here's a link to an article written by the CIA in Oct. 2002: "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs". This article was previously available at www.cia.gov, but has since been removed from publicly accessible areas of their website.

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs

In retrospect, most of the claims in this document appear contentious rather than informative, as no evidence of WMD's has been found in the aftermath of the US-led invasion of Iraq. However, some interesting conclusions can be sifted from the compiled data:

1) Nuclear weapons capability: As of 10/02, Iraq had no nuclear weapons. To produce any such weapons in the near term, it would have had to acquire fissionable material from foreign sources.

2) Chemical weapons capability: Iraq's last documented use of CW was in 1988. These weapons were used exclusively against Iranians and Kurds in the Iran/Iraq War. Since the Gulf War, UN inspectors have destroyed over 2 million liters of CW agents and precursors. As of 10/02, there was no evidence of non-civilian chemical production facilities in Iraq.

3) Biological weapons capability: There is no evidence that Iraq has ever deployed BW. The last time Iraq tested biological weapons was in 1991. As of 10/02, there was no evidence of BW production facilities in Iraq.

4) Ballistic missle capability: After the Gulf War, Iraq was permitted by the UN to maintain short-range ballistic missiles with a range no greater than 150 km. The longest range missles Iraq has possessed had a maximum range of 900 km, and these were last tested in 1991. As of 10/02 there was no evidence of anything but short-range ballistic missiles in Iraq.

In short, the CIA never claimed to have conclusive evidence of WMD's in Iraq.

[WarBlade]

In the very least, speculation and possibilities about chemical and biological weapons was presented as fact; the danger to US and other western nations was grossly exagerated; and, in the end, the US is going to get rich through the blood of the Iraqi people.

Agree, agree and disagree.

To the first two points, this is the reason I think of Bush as being a liar. *shrugs* Consistant claims of "proof of existence" when the truth was always "sketchy evidence of possible existence". Colin Powel's address made that pretty clear.
To the third point? No. I very much doubt Bush, the Republicans or America in general is making anything out of it.

[Haider]

How the words regarding WMD changed over time - from "We know for a fact that there are WMD there" to "surely they had a WMD-program"

http://lunaville.org/WMD/billmon.aspx

It was mostly lies, from the Niger-documents (poorly forged) over the WMD-drone (the duct tape model plane) to the Blair-dossier (both of them forged and copied from older documents without knowledge of the original author).

[Feryar]

If you ask me what I think, I think this war was a war for oil and not "freedom for the iraqi people".
I agree that Saddam was a dictator and needed to be removed, but there are tons of people like him around the world. Why aren't these removed?
Why is it that shortly after Iraq comes under "US control" they announce that they will break with the OPEC and sell more oil than agreed earlier. Who needs all this oil?

So far no weapons of mass destruction has been discovered, so that removes the #1 official reason for the UK and US to attack Iraq.
I really hope some of these weapons turn up.

[WarBlade]

I really hope some of these weapons turn up.

I don't. :huh:

I feel that if someone is going to sign of an order that eventually costs thousands of lives (and I've heard current estimates in the 5000 area), then they'd better make damn sure that their evidence is concrete to the point of being irrefutable. The WMD story has thus far proven to be false and for that the people sticking to it deserve to wear the egg on their face IMO.

Bush and Blair invaded under the WMD soundbite, not to mention drove a wedge into the UN among other things, and as far as I see basically now have to face up to the reality that it was a poor judgement call and pay for it.

[whereagles]

Well..

1. Paul Wolfowitz acknowledged that WMD were a purely political motivation for starting the war. There was no certainty that Iraq had them, and in fact apparently they DIDN'T.

2. The UN weapons inspectors were not allowed in just after the war ended. Any weapon found now could very well have been planted by the US military and it will be very hard to prove otherwise.

3. And even if Iraq did have WMD, the US have no moral right to invade on those grounds because the US have FAR MORE WMD than any other country in the world (and even used them, like in Hiroshima). You can invade on whatever reason you want, except that one. That's just calling everyone else an imbecille.

4. So.. you can keep thinking the war was a "Crusade on Evil", or you can realize the strategic position of Iraq and note that today the US are in control of the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, that the Iraqi oil ministery was the only ministery the US guarded after Baghdad was taken, that the US now have a huge military base for operating in the middle-east outside Saudi Arabia, that $75 billion from US tax payers were spent on bombing a country which 60%+ of the those tax payers can't even point in the map, that the whole region is on fire and loathsome of the US and pretty willing to repeat 9/11 if that's the only way they have to strike back.

[Moldran]

Well, I am pretty sure that Iraq had a WMD program. It is confirmed that when UNSCOM left, Iraq had remaining illegal weapons. It is nonsense to believe that these were destroyed in the absence of the inspectors. If you plan to destroy the weapons anyway, you don´t risk war by kicking the inspectors out of the country.
I do not think however that the US ever had any proof for these weapons. Let´s face it: It is not very difficult to effectively hide certain C/B weapons in a country like Iraq, and Saddam had several months of time for it. That the coalition countries have no proof for it does not mean that the weapons were not there.
I see it the other way: The fact that Iraq could not bring up proof for the destruction of the weapons means that they certainly still had a part of them. Maybe they will never be found. Maybe they were destroyed shorty before or during the war. In any case, Bush and especially Blair now obviously have a legitimation problem.

Moldran

[Dragonmaster]

Iraq may well have had a WMD program, but no evidence of one has been found, which is the point. After members of intellegence agencies had suspicions about the Niger report, somehow it still made it into Bush's speeches. There is no doubt that it is a good thing Saddam is gone, but the question is did Bush know his statements were untrue? I think he must have, and that if he is willing to decieve us all simply to get the oil needed to break OPEC, there is quite a problem :( . Maybe they did blow up their weapons, but the "proof" Bush spoke of before the war suddenly turned vague after they haven't found anything.

By the way, this is my first post, hi all :)

[Jester]

"It is nonsense to believe that these were destroyed in the absence of the inspectors."

Perhaps. But it means nothing to claim that something is nonsense unless you can demonstrate that it is untrue.

Jester

[Jester]

"...then they'd better make damn sure that their evidence is concrete to the point of being irrefutable."

It is not yet certain that irrefutable evidence will not come out of Iraq, although it is becoming less likely as the days roll by.

What is now certain is that what they did know for certain was far, far less than they claimed to know for certain.

They were bluffing.

Jester

[kandrathe]

Remember the Maine!!!

Edit: Added a more meaty historical hyperlink to clarify my hyperbole -- seeing that this thread refuses to die.

[Moldran]

Perhaps. But it means nothing to claim that something is nonsense unless you can demonstrate that it is untrue.

"Nonsense" is, by my understanding, simply "something that does not make sense". And exactly that is the case here. To assume that Iraq kicked out the Inspectors first and then voluntarily destroyed its remaining illegal weapons does not make any sense. No need to demonstrate any truth here. It´s just a question of logics.

Moldran

[Jester]

"It´s just a question of logics."

No, it isn't.

And my point stands. "Sense" is not a substitute for "evidence". You can't convict a criminal in a court of law on the basis that their having done it makes sense.

If it were a question of logic, you'd be right, there would be no need to (further) demonstrate the truth. But it isn't.

Jester

[kandrathe]

Ah, but if a suspect dyes his hair, grows a beard and mustache, borrows thousands of dollars in cash from friends, and updates his passport... the authorities might think he was ready to flee the country...

If you read the detailed admissions by Iraq to UNSCOM prior to their departure, you would understand that there was evidence of much unexplained chemical, and biological warfare materials. Now, after UNSCOM was stone walled ending their mission, the Iraqi's might have destroyed the materials, or they might have hidden the materials. Based on the track record of the regime, and Saddam's prior motivations, what is the logical conclusion?

BTW, it is not just the US intelligence that is being questioned here, Mr. Blair also stood behind the findings of MI6 and their reports on Iraq. The answer is IMO, either British and US intelligence is crap, or the Iraqi's security was very good. I think it is a combination of both of those. Someday the truth might be revealed, but for now the answers will be clouded by national security concerns and executive privaledges. I suspect that Bush listens to his advisors, who listen to their respective IA's - DIA, CIA, NSA, FBI and a few others.

If the prevailing mood was that Saddam was covetly rebuilding his WMD arsenal underground this time, then I could see how they might get edgy. Again, we have hashed this over on this board a ton, but I don't think many people really believed that WMD was a prime motivator for regime change in Iraq. It was on the list of evils, but the list was long.
In the US, it seems that if a nation is demonstratably evil, we as a people have little hesitency in doing something about it.

There have always been a cadre of isolationists who feel protected by the oceans, but exceptional events keep reminding us we are not safe. There is another cadre of people who would do even more, advocating more direct intervention in world trouble spots like Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, or Mozambique. Personally, I feel that is a bit of a slippery slope, as you begin to allow a national morality to drive incredible military power.

My preference is that we should primarily focus on our defense, and then to support our commitments to our allies. I am not opposed to preventive defensive measures, but I am a bit skeptical of the "Wolfowitz" doctrine as it seems idealistic and morally motivated. My view is that the American people should determine through motivating their legislators on what expeditionary missions we might undertake. I feel the focus of the current administration should be to guide the nation toward what is most beneficial for the nation first, our friends second, and the world, third. So if that means, for example, that "The Kyoto Protocol" won't work for the US, then we need to address that before it gets to treaty signing time and figure out what will work for us.

[Obi2Kenobi]

But if we focus on our defense primarily, then we are hated for not using our "wealth" to support the needy. (But helping the needy would slightly reduce the hate against us, thus meaning less need of defense...)

[Albion Child]

I'm quite sick of debating this, but I feel compelled to point out one thing that seems incredibly apparent to me.

The war in Iraq was not about oil, and to say it was seems rather naive to me. It makes no sense as the economy (AKA "oil economy) from the perspective of America would not be (and hasn't been) affected in any positive way. The fact that mere days after the start of the war, the prices of nearly all petroleum products (most notably gasoline) has rizen considerably more than "normal" fluctuation. (+- $1.20 to $1.65 or more in my area) I realize that an increase in cost doesn't always mean a negative change. (For example recovery from a depression almost always requires inflation.) However, because of the percentage of oil imported is so much greater that that produced domestically, there is no way that such a change in prices could reflect a positive change for the US.

[kandrathe]

You might think it is a chicken and egg thing. I think that it is best when you are very clear that no one messes with a 500 lb chicken. You need to have your own house in order, before you criticize and send off the family to fix the neighbors house.