List of Alleged Deceptions

[Mickey]

From Washington Monthly, a purported list of intelligence manipulation by suppressing information that called into question the allegations supporting the case for war (List w/links):

 

 

1. The Claim: Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qaeda prisoner captured in 2001, was the source of intelligence that Saddam Hussein had trained al-Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons. This information was used extensively by Colin Powell in his February 2003 speech to the UN.

 

What We Know Now: As early as February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency circulated a report, labeled DITSUM No. 044-02, saying that it was "likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers." Link. This assessment was hidden from the public until after the war.

 

 

2. The Claim: An Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball" was the source of reporting that Saddam Hussein had built a fleet of mobile biowarfare labs. Curveball's claims of mobile bio labs were repeated by many administration figures during the runup to war.

 

What We Know Now: The German intelligence officials who handled Curveball told the CIA that he was not "psychologically stable" and that his allegations of mobile bio labs were second hand and unverified. Link. The only American agent to actually meet with Curveball before the war warned that he appeared to be an alcoholic and was unreliable. However, his superior in the CIA told him it was best to keep quiet about this: "Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn't say, and the powers that be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he's talking about." Link. This dissent was not made public until 2004, in a response to the SSCI report that was written by Senator Dianne Feinstein. Link.

 

 

3. The Claim: Iraq had purchased thousands of aluminum tubes to act as centrifuges for the creation of bomb grade uranium. Dick Cheney said they were "irrefutable evidence" of an Iraqi nuclear program and George Bush cited them in his 2003 State of the Union address.

 

What We Know Now: Centrifuge experts at the Oak Ridge Office of the Department of Energy had concluded long before the war that the tubes were unsuitable for centrifuge work and were probably meant for use in artillery rockets. The State Department concurred. Link. Both of these dissents were omitted from the CIA's declassified National Intelligence Estimate, released on October 4, 2002. Link. They were subsequently made public after the war, on July 18, 2003. Link.

 

 

4. The Claim: Saddam Hussein attempted to purchase uranium yellowcake from Africa as part of his attempt to reconstitute his nuclear program. President Bush cited this publicly in his 2003 State of the Union address.

 

What We Know Now: The primary piece of evidence for this claim was a document showing that Iraq had signed a contract to buy yellowcake from Niger. However, the CIA specifically told the White House in October 2002 that the "reporting was weak" and that they disagreed with the British about the reliability of this intelligence. Link. At the same time, the State Department wrote that the documents were "completely implausible." Link.

 

Three months later, in January 2003, Alan Foley, head of the CIA's counterproliferation effort, tried to persuade the White House not to include the claim in the SOTU because the information wasn't solid enough, but was overruled. Link. Five weeks later, the documents were conclusively shown to be forgeries. Link. In July 2003, after the war had ended, CIA Director George Tenet admitted publicly that that the claim should never have been made. Link.

 

 

5. The Claim: Saddam Hussein was developing long range aerial drones capable of attacking the continental United States with chemical or biological weapons. President Bush made this claim in a speech in October 2002 and Colin Powell repeated it during his speech to the UN in February 2003.

 

What We Know Now: The Iraqi drones had nowhere near the range to reach the United States, and Air Force experts also doubted that they were designed to deliver WMD. However, their dissent was left out of the October 2002 NIE and wasn't made public until July 2003. Link.

 

 

6. The Claim: Administration officials repeatedly suggested that Saddam Hussein had substantial connections to al-Qaeda. Even after the war, George Bush said, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." Dick Cheney said the evidence of a relationship was "overwhelming."

 

What We Know Now: As early as September 21, 2001, President Bush was told by the CIA that there was "scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda." In fact, according to Murray Waas, "Bush was told during the briefing that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime." Link.

 

 

7. The Claim: Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, an Iraqi defector, told the CIA that he had secretly helped Saddam Hussein's men bury tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. After this information was passed to the New York Times by Ahmed Chalabi, it was cited in "A Decade of Deception and Defiance" as evidence of Iraq's continued WMD programs.

 

What We Know Now: Al-Haideri told his story while strapped to a polygraph. He failed. The CIA knew from the start that he had made up the entire account, apparently in the hopes of securing a visa. Link.

[RkFast]

My copy of "Democrats pre-war quotes on Iraq 1996-2001" are in my office and Im home today.

 

Anyone else have them on hand?

[Alaska Darin]

Oh look, it's the CYA memo. Remember, now that someone else is in front of the Firing Squad, the CIA is completely competent and the intel from the field isn't sanitized by the litany of management mongoloids before it gets to the decision makers.

 

You people live in a pretty cool world. Can I get a buspass to come over?

[X. Benedict]

My copy of "Democrats pre-war quotes on Iraq 1996-2001" are in my office and Im home today.

 

Anyone else have them on hand?

511836[/snapback]

 

Complicity loves company.

[Mickey]

My copy of "Democrats pre-war quotes on Iraq 1996-2001" are in my office and Im home today.

 

Anyone else have them on hand?

511836[/snapback]

Is it in the folder marked "Blame Clinton" or in the one marked "Pretend that intel in 1996 justified war in 2003"?

[Mickey]

Oh look, it's the CYA memo.  Remember, now that someone else is in front of the Firing Squad, the CIA is completely competent and the intel from the field isn't sanitized by the litany of management mongoloids before it gets to the decision makers.

 

You people live in a pretty cool world.  Can I get a buspass to come over?

511875[/snapback]

I see, so if one has ever been critical of the CIA on one issue, then one can never believe them on any other issue ever again?

 

They wanted to got to war with Iraq and they did all they could to make the best case for war. That would be fair enough as long as they threw all the cards on the table, not just their aces. Our national credibility has taken a huge hit and the next time we cry wolf, I'm not sure we will get anyone to listen.

[EC-Bills]

Oh look, it's the CYA memo.  Remember, now that someone else is in front of the Firing Squad, the CIA is completely competent and the intel from the field isn't sanitized by the litany of management mongoloids before it gets to the decision makers.

 

You people live in a pretty cool world.  Can I get a buspass to come over?

511875[/snapback]

 

Okay, but it'll be on the short bus

[SilverNRed]

My copy of "Democrats pre-war quotes on Iraq 1996-2001" are in my office and Im home today.

 

Anyone else have them on hand?

511836[/snapback]

The logic behind "Bush lied to get us into a war" is about on par with that behind the "plastic turkey" story.

 

If Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq and was therefore lying about them to get the war started, isn't that a lie that would be exposed instantly once Saddam's government was deposed? In other words, supposedly he lied so that he could be put into a position where it would be clear he was lying? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

 

Whatever. It's not like conspiracy theories have to make sense to entertain people.

[Alaska Darin]

I see, so if one has ever been critical of the CIA on one issue, then one can never believe them on any other issue ever again? 

No, it's called "opportunistic piling on." Politics as usual.

 

Our national credibility has taken a huge hit and the next time we cry wolf, I'm not sure we will get anyone to listen.

511985[/snapback]

Bullcrap. The international community has about the same attention span as everyone else. They'll play along when it's fiscally feasible to do so. Just like they always have.

 

But we can pretend it's different because it fits your ridiculous partisan politics.

[Mickey]

The logic behind "Bush lied to get us into a war" is about on par with that behind the "plastic turkey" story.

 

If Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq and was therefore lying about them to get the war started, isn't that a lie that would be exposed instantly once Saddam's government was deposed?  In other words, supposedly he lied so that he could be put into a position where it would be clear he was lying?  Yeah, that makes perfect sense. 

 

Whatever.  It's not like conspiracy theories have to make sense to entertain people.

512071[/snapback]

Or he might have figured that his most loyal supporters wouldn't care and besides, by then it wouldn't matter because we would already be there and he could always just rely on the other umpteen reasons we had for invading Iraq.

[SilverNRed]

Or he might have figured that his most loyal supporters wouldn't care and besides, by then it wouldn't matter because we would already be there and he could always just rely on the other umpteen reasons we had for invading Iraq.

512127[/snapback]

If he could rely on the other "umpteen reasons" then why make one up and make that the focus?

[ExiledInIllinois]

If he could rely on the other "umpteen reasons" then why make one up and make that the focus?

512138[/snapback]

 

Because that is what all pathological liars do. They will embellish to the bitter end, destroying what credible truths they possess.

[SilverNRed]

Because that is what all pathological liars do. They will embellish to the bitter end, destroying what credible truths they possess.

 

512182[/snapback]

 

Even if Bush was a "pathological liar", I really doubt he would have been able to convince every other person in the administration to help him "embellish" just because he felt like he had to. Especially when their lies would necessarily put them in a position where everyone would find out they were lying. About a war.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I know this is off topic, sorry. SilverNRed, got to looking at sig... Interesting... The title (similarity in name) got me thinking about another book. For anybody who is interested.

 

 

The Last Fine Time

 

One reviewer put it so eloquently:

 

It has become almost cliche to say that modern writers make a character of the settings of their novels. But in this book, the author truly vitalizes Buffalo, N.Y. Through the novelized true story of his wife's Polish immigrant parents and details plucked from two centuries of municipal history, he weaves a story about a place that is arguably the most American of cities. Situated on a Great Lake, with the belching prosperity of smokestacks and a miraculous curtain of snow as backdrops, he tells the story of a family that finds a home in industrial America. Gritty urban scenes give way to a confrontation between the races which ends in a flight to the suburbs. In "The Last Fine Time" we find the story of a family, and of a once-great city, that is a fable about American life. He answers the question of how, in 100 years, puritanical farmers became the empowered factory workers that became alienated, shell-shocked suburbanites on the edge of the 21st century.

 

Sorry for the tangent... Somehow how I tied it into the Dodgers moving west.

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

Even if Bush was a "pathological liar", I really doubt he would have been able to convince every other person in the administration to help him "embellish" just because he felt like he had to.  Especially when their lies would necessarily put them in a position where everyone would find out they were lying.  About a war.

512188[/snapback]

 

Strange how government works, aye.

[Wacka]

I think the pathological part is your hatred for Bush.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I think the pathological part is your hatred for Bush.

512202[/snapback]

 

I don't hate the man. I actually respect him for his conviction, even if he is "white knuckling" it to avoid his next drink... Gotta respect that!

 

But, again in all seriousness, I don't hate him.

 

As some may see Clinton as transparent... I see "hokiness" in GWB. That doesn't take away from his conviction. His convictions are wrong though.

[IowaBill]

No, it's called "opportunistic piling on."  Politics as usual.

Bullcrap.  The international community has about the same attention span as everyone else.  They'll play along when it's fiscally feasible to do so.  Just like they always have.

 

But we can pretend it's different because it fits your ridiculous partisan politics.

512110[/snapback]

 

As opposed to fitting your ridiculous partisan politics!

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

As opposed to fitting your ridiculous partisan politics!

512320[/snapback]

 

Darin doesn't have partisan leanings. He hates everyone equally.

[IowaBill]

Darin doesn't have partisan leanings.  He hates everyone equally.

512365[/snapback]

 

Touche, no argument there