This remarkable CIA mea culpa, just declassified this summer and published here for the first time, describes the U.S. intelligence failure on Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction as the consequence of “analytic liabilities” and predispositions that kept analysts from seeing the issue “through an Iraqi prism.” The key findings presented in the first page-and-a-half (the only part most policymakers would read) are released almost in full, while the body of the document looks more like Swiss cheese from the many redactions of codewords, sources, and intelligence reports that remain classified even today, seven years after the Iraq Survey Group reported to the Director of Central Intelligence how wrong the prewar assessments had been. The key findings do not contain the most striking sentences; instead, these are tucked into the tail-end of the document. For example, on page 14, the assessment reports, “Given Iraq’s extensive history of deception and only small changes in outward behavior, analysts did not spend adequate time examining the premise that the Iraqis had undergone a change in their behavior, and that what Iraq was saying by the end of 1995 was, for the most part, accurate.” On page 16, going even further, the assessment says, “Analysts tended to focus on what was most important to us — the hunt for WMD — and less on what would be most important for a paranoid dictatorship to protect. Viewed through an Iraqi prism, their reputation, their security, their overall technological capabilities, and their status needed to be preserved. Deceptions were perpetrated and detected, but the reasons for those deceptions were misread.”
This report has politics written all over it. CIA hackery. This is all part of the current battle for public opinion of the hawks vs doves on both sides of the Atlantic and Mediterranean in regards to the coming war with Iran.
Whole point is to debase public opinion and call into question future intelligence released regarding Iranian nuke progress.
Much like the 2007 NIE to dissuade public opinion to force Bush’s hand to de-escalate by undermining true intelligence on the matter when those NIE hacks declared they found with “high confidence” that the Islamic republic [Iran] stopped an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003. Fast forward to 2012, the reality is Iran almost has the bomb.
Let’s go even further back to Albright’s Sunshine Policy when the Admin told the public that North Korea promised they wouldn’t build a nukes.
Politics in regards to intelligence matters is dangerous
Back to this CIA report. Ahem. BS.
House Intelligence Committee request to declassify chemical munitions recovered in Iraq
What WMDs, oh these – the ones the Brits are to help destroy at Al Muthanna Chemical Weapons Complex north of Baghdad
Politricks.
George W Bush stated, on at least three different occasions (including on his final “exit interview,” just before leaving office), that his prior claims that Saddam had WMD and/or active WMD “programs” were based on “bad intelligence” (direct quote).
Proponents of the Iraq War continued to claim that Saddam had those WMD after all, but that they were moved to Syria for “safe keeping,” prior to the invasion. The Iraqi general con artist, who collected a ton of money in speaking fees, backed up this claim, but neither Bush nor anyone in the US government has ever supported the claim, and it’s silly on its face.
Others claimed that the rusting canisters of early 1980s vintage mustard gas constituted the phantom WMD. But Bush himself never validated this claim. Instead, he admitted that no WMD were found and blamed it all on — direct quote — bad intelligence.
That seems consistent with the present report.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Allow me to rehash and point out my above link last post points to a House Intelligence Committee request to declassify chemical munitions recovered in Iraq. Was that info declassified?
No.
How do I know? WikiLeaks 2010.
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results
o – Hot Air Wikileaks documents show WMDs found in Iraq
o – Wired Chemical Weapons, Iranian Agents and Massive Death Tolls Exposed in WikiLeaks
o – Instapundit I SAID BEFORE THAT WIKILEAKS’ JULIAN ASSANGE WAS CLEARLY A TOOL… WMDs found in quantity
Bush wasn’t known as a great orator. He said what he said.
Fairly sure I grabbed these from FA a few years back. The FA version should have the links. I will argue rusting canisters of early 1980s vintage mustard gas is a generalization to dismiss the following.
UN Inspectors found 11 empty chemical warheads in EXCELLENT CONDITION prior to the invasion. They were illegal and supposed to be destroyed.
Marines Reported two missiles tipped with sarin and mustard, and fourteen barrels of chemical agent. I already cited USA Today but…
a cache of BM-21 missiles loaded with sarin were found and ready to fire.
Polish troops find 17 shells of sarin and mustard gas
500 tons of uranium(enough for 142 bombs) found at an Iraqi nuclear facility. 1.8 tons were enriched, they found centrifuges (for enrichment) at the site, all was illegal.
two separate attacks with ieds show one was filled with sarin, the other mustard. Both shells were tied to a cache Saddam supposedly destroyed.
Dozens of soldiers, a CNN cameraman, a Knight Ridder reporter, and two Iraqi pow’s were all treated for exposure to nerve agents after finding a mobile labratory containing several chemical weapons including sarin, tabun and lewisite.
we learn that 500 sarin and mustard gas shells were discovered in Iraq. They are not new, but very deadly and useful as wmds according to the US Report on the weapons.
The fourth Infantry found a stockpile of .55 gal drums of cyclosarin…a nerve agent. Nearby were missiles, lab and chemical gear.
It’s reported the Saddam government contacts Finnish government with regard to anthrax decontamination. Why would they need to know about anthrax decontamination? We certainly weren’t going to be using bioweapons.
I’ve always said that I’d be willing to reassess the accepted official conclusion that Saddam had neither WMD or WMD “programs” whenever George W Bush asserts that this is the case. But, even as he was leaving office, he reaffirmed that WMD and/or WMD “programs” had not existed and that initial impressions to the contrary were the result of “bad intelligence.”
In the absence of a statement by Bush, I’ll wait for some sort of authoritative study, which is acknowledged as being accurate by relevant qualified experts. There’s been a truly enormous amount of amateur sleuthing on this matter, but no confirmation whatsoever. So now we have yet another conspiracy theory. Interesting, if true, as they say.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Maybe Bush doesn’t blab TS intel for political gain like your buddy Larry!
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
In the words of Bill Clinton
(Courtesy CNN):
(Courtesy wordpress.com):
How about the word of other Democrats:
Here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq’s own admissions:
* That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.
* That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.
* That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax.
* That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.
* That Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.
* That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.
* That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.
* That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).
Sarin is hot these days. Rebuilt in a capsule structure that will fragment be heat, wind or motion. Comes in a micro- crystalline structure that look like clear pellets. The capsule is designed for a specific type of fragmentation. This is new and improved sarin..sorry connery and cage,sticking a needle in your heart is not going to save you from this one. Grenade or attached to a subway exhaust fan with dispersion into the air with a specific fragmentation design. :).
@Randy: Careful what you say. Besides, the anti-war when Bush was President, pro-war when Obama was President crowd won’t believe what you say anyway.
@MOS 8541: Therein lies part of the problem. People seem to think it requires huge quantities of these substances to inflict mass casualties when only a small amount can do great damage. Artillery shells and the like are effective delivery means but do not constitute the most deadly form of dispersion because the heat from the blast destroys some of the compounds.
A two kg bag will do more destruction than any artillery shell. This release is high concentration urban population release. The thermal release is the ambient temperature design into the crystalline release. Connery and cage, recall the movie, have no options.
Mossomo
and SADDAM KILL THE KURDS IN A MASSIVE SPREAD USING THOSE CHIMICALS,
YES, I remember looking at the picture taken during the war, that is one big proof is in it?
bye
Hi Ditto (#6): I’ve seen the entire litany of quotations before. It’s a straw man. No one ever disputed that Saddam had previously been a bad actor. No one ever disputed that Saddam was a potential future threat. Both were true for the Soviet Union. The issue was the most effective way to deal with the potential threat.
In the March of 2003, prior to the invasion, I predicted (on the Usenet group alt.politics.usa.republican) that no WMD would be found. At the time, I was making the same argument for which Clinton continues to criticize Bush: there was absolutely no urgency to invade. The UN weapons inspectors were on the ground. They were doing their job effectively. Sure, there were suspicions that Saddam was playing a little cat and mouse. But the inspectors could have been kept on the ground indefinitely. They wanted to continue their mission. Saddam could have been easily contained.
The US Congress gave Bush advance approval for invasion essentially as a leverage chip. They trusted that Bush would use the leverage chip wisely. Instead, he took advantage of the situation. I won’t go into motives. I’m sure that he was motivated only by what he believed were the best interests of the USA. I’ve long since gotten over whatever anger I felt towards him. He was just doing the best job that he could, in very difficult times. But he made some truly bad decisions. The invasion itself was a bad decision, at the time. It could have been handled another way (containment, no fly zones, cruise missiles, eventual coup, polonium — a la Alexander Litvinenko, later drones, whatever). What this led to was premature abandonment of the Afghanistan mission. I won’t detail the costs in human lives and human treasure, which will be ongoing for decades.
In my opinion, it was a bad decision, but what’s done is done. I do think that it’s important for the history books to get it right, which I’m sure they will.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim
you know that it is so easy to analyze an event when you are not the one to decide,
it was said that both party where asking for that, the democrats where even pressing for that to begin,
GEORGE BUSH WAS FACING A GREAT DISASTER, HE HAD TO ANSWER WITH A GREATER ANSWER, TO
PRESENT THE CERTAINTY THAT YOU DON’T ATTACK THE USA AND GET AWAY WITH IT,
HE HAD THE OPTION TO PULVERYZE THE IRAK TOTALY, AND WIPE IT OUT OF THE FACE OF THIS EARTH,
HE CHOOSE THE LESS RADICAL OPTION SO TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF THAT COUNTRY,
THEY SHOULD BE FOREVER INDEBTED TO THE USA FOR THE COST ON THE BRAVES LIVES AND DISABILITIES, LET’S SAY THEY ARE LUCKY TO STILL CALL THEIR COUNTRY IRAK
FOX IS SHOWING 9/11 AGAIN,
THERE WON’T BE NO WAY WE CAN FORGIVE THE MUSLIMS TERRORISTS AND THOSE WHO SYMPATIZE WITH THEM,
THEY HAVEN’T PAID YET AND THE PRICE IS NEVER TOO HIGH NO MATTER WHAT, THERE WILL BE NEVER ENOUGH MONEY TO MAKE THE PEOPLE FORGET,
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Gee Larry, since you know everything without being in the chain of command, Maybe you should run for Congress in CA.
Pointing out@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Quoting what others (Democrats in this case,) said regarding Saddam having WMD’s is not a “strawman argument, ” it is pointing out that some higher-up Democratic leaders also knew (as did some Republican leaders,) that Saddam indeed did have WMD’s. Bill Clinton tried to tell the “No We know he had WMD’s because he used them against his own people, and as heavily as he pursued them it is highly unlikely that he didn’t order more WMD’s made. Our military, (as has been pointed out, but ignored by the MSM and the “Bush lied, people died” fanatics,) did find WMD’s, but failed to find the stockpiles that they knew he had. It is believed that at least some of the WMD’s that Assad has, forerly belonged to Saddam. And as we know full well that Syria was sending “insurgent” operatives into Iraq, it would not be hard to suspect that some of these Syrians were engaged in stealing Iraqi weapon systems and stores and taking them back to Syria.
“Iraq’s WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says”
Saddam moved, hid and even buried many of his weapon systems in hopes of digging them out later
Bush clearly caved to the relentless and massive MSM assault on both “Global Warming” and “No WMD’s found in Iraq” issues. I don’t have the ability to delve into his mind and discern why Bush gave in, nor do I care. Frankly I didn’t like either presidents Bush any more than Clinton or Obama. The fact that any WMDs were found proves that; Yes Virginia, Saddam had WMD’s.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry,
Need you be reminded that the belief that Saddam still had an active wmd program was only one part of the larger case for removing Saddam from power? And that these two points you bring up were a part of that? Confirmed by the Duelfer Report in regards to posing a future threat (ie, being able to reconstitute wmd programs soon after sanctions were lifted)?
And one of the things said by the former president Bush is “We don’t know- and THAT’S THE POINT!” when pressed for confirmation about Saddam’s wmd status.
What did you base your belief upon? A number of the players who opposed our invasion did so believing that Saddam did pose a wmd threat; they just weren’t willing to go to war over it.
Larry….12 yrs of deceit and defiance, culminating with the 2nd invasion of Iraq. Had we enforced the original Cease-Fire Agreement the moment Saddam was in non-compliance, before there was “absolutely no urgency”, do you suppose that would have lessened the danger? So at what point does the danger become imminent? The moment Saddam for sure had wmd?
What do you base this upon? Because from what I’ve read, they had mixed success; and the 2nd incarnation, UNMOVIC, was weaker than its predecessor UNSCOM in what Saddam allowed for. In an endless cat-and-mouse, do you keep playing that game until we finally lose?
Was Saddam willing to keep inspectors “on the ground indefinitely”? C’mon, Larry….
How can you honestly believe this? Food-for-oil scam? Duelfer Report? France, Germany, UN officials working actively behind the scenes to lift sanctions as well as circumventing in order to do business with Saddam?
@Wordsmith: One of the Iraqis I worked with was amazed about the lefties like Larry continuing to harp on WMD. He said “Saddam was a WMD. What is wrong with the people in your ountry!” I guess he was talking about Greg, the Liberal1 etc, Rich and Larry.
Hi Wordsmith,
I’m sure that I’ve devoted several hundred hours of my life debating Iraq — back when it was more than a historical debate. I’m currently not of a mind to debate the history; I simply wanted to make a statement. I said what I wanted to say; I stand by what I said. Beyond that, I don’t have the time or energy for re-litigation.
I note that knowledgeable people are beginning to debate the history and to debate the issue of whether or not it was “worth it,” in terms of cost in lives (both American and Iraqi), money, and geopolitics.
Here’s one recent round table debate, from the Council on Foreign Relations:
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/iraq-war-worth-/p26820
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Larry,
Do you think President Obama should have renegotiated the SoFA to keep a stronger American presence in Iraq or not? Because the ball could have been dropped by him by reducing our influence and presence and paving the way for Iran….and of course the scapegoat may well be Bush for making the decision in the first place.
I believe that bad decisions can still have good endings and good decisions can end badly. There are many players involved, and nothing is guaranteed.
I believe Obama’s bad decision with Libya could still be salvaged by supporting the new government there and minimizing any destabilizing influence from extremists, including al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Hi Wordsmith: It’s my understanding that the Iraq SoFA was negotiated by the Bush administration and completed/signed before Obama took office. I’m not sure that it would have been the smartest thing for a brand new President to try to change things before he’d unpacked his belongings in the Oval Office and, anyway, Gates presumably had a big hand in the agreement which was signed.
You bring up Iran. That’s one of the unforeseen consequences of the Iraq invasion. As a result of the Iraq War, we have close to zero credibility, regarding a potential ground war with Iran, and therefore close to zero credibility as a threat to topple the Iranian regime. Our leverage in dealing with Iran’s real (as opposed to illusory) nuclear weapons program is much more limited than it would otherwise be, absent the Iraq War.
I also don’t have the time or energy to debate Libya. Since you bring it up, my personal opinion is that Obama played the Libyan situation about as perfectly as it could have been played, given the way the events unfolded.
I agree entirely with the following statement you made:
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Well, read these:
Then read this:
A critic:
Condi Rice
Wordsmith
thank you for taking the time to give us that page of HISTORY,
WHERE SO MANY BRAVES WENT TO LIBERATE THAT NATION AND MANY LEFT THEIR BLOOD THERE, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR ALL TO LEARN THAT WAR WAS NOT IN VAIN.
WE CAN SEE TODAY THE KILLING OF SO MANY PEOPLE BY THE TERRORIST GROUPS COMING BACK TO INCITE A REVOLT IN IRAQ, so to enlarge their advance for total control
of the MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES, WHICH WILL AND IS NOW GIVING US SIGNS OF GREAT DANGERS BECAUSE THIS LEADER STILL THINK THEY CAN BE TRUSTED, AND LEAVE THE DIPLOMATS THERE IN UNGUARD EMBASSY, THAT IS HOW HE TRUSTED THEM AND FAILED AS HE TRUSTED HIS OTHER DECISIONS TO CHANGE AMERICA FOREVER BY PREVENTING AMERICANS TO FIND JOBS
THOSE JOBS HE HAD DESTROYED HIMSELF,.