Recently I voiced my opinion concerning Bush deception (lies) concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction. Several people thought that even if I were right that I should provide some evidence other than my opinions.  Well, today I found this news report and am happy to provide you with evidence of Bush misdirection.

Intelligence Agencies `Dead Wrong’ on Iraq Weapons, Report Says

March 31 (Bloomberg)—A presidential commission said U.S. intelligence was “dead wrong’’ about the military threat posed by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and recommended restructuring intelligence agencies to fight terrorism and weapons proliferation.
The commission said a “major intelligence failure’’ by the Central Intelligence Agency and other U.S. spy agencies misled President George W. Bush to believe Iraq had stockpiled chemical and biological weapons and planned to produce nuclear weapons.
“We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction,’’ the nine-member commission said in a letter to Bush at the front of the 600-page report released by the White House.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney cited Hussein’s weapons capability to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Then-CIA Director George Tenet had told the president that the evidence of Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction was “a slam- dunk case.’’ No major biological or nuclear weapons stockpiles were found.

The report recommended improved information sharing among the government’s intelligence agencies and creation of a new national security service within the Federal Bureau of Investigation. A national security division within the Justice Department should be created to oversee the agency’s efforts to combat terrorism.

To contact the reporter on this story:
James Rowley in Washington at jarowley@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Joe Winski at jwinski@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: March 31, 2005 08:45 EST

I hope this satisfies the requirement for evidence from Brock. It would be a shame to keep him in suspense! I hope this isn’t considered lecturing.

11 thoughts on “BUSH AND THOSE W.M.D.s

  1. I did not read the exchange you had with Brock but based on the extract your provide, it does not show that Bush deceived or lied.

    This is especially given this statement that “…spy agencies MISLED President…”

    So at least vased on the extract it would seem that Bush was in the dark about the situation and if fact one could even argue that the CIA too was in the dark qs the phrase use is “major intelligence failure” rather than deliberate deception or something along that line.

  2. PopTarts: Well, this story will never end. The commission was assigned only to find CIA intelligence failures and did nothing about what Bush did with the information. That’s the next story, but obviously it will not come in the next 3 years as long as Bush keeps his secrets. My point is that Bush did beat war drums for months, he did go to war hastily and discussed it as soon as he took office, and that he had Colin and Condi misdirect public information. It you followed the previous senate commission, it seemed like there were two separate wars being discussed. One in which all Republican senators lavishly praised Bush for his foresight, lavishly praised our brave troops, and completely avoided assigning one iota of blame to Bush for bringing death and destruction to Iraq.  The other was the Democratic senators trying to get Bush actions into the public record regarding the war, oil, EVIL, Millennium, etc. Do you remember that, or is your memory selective about those days?

  3. Seems Petey got you by the short hairs by “substantiating” prior postings with the extensive “evidence” contained in this post Brock.  I fully expect a written genuflection to the writing prowess of Petey. 


  4. Peter, this morning I read articles concerning the “Presidential Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction” reports and came away thinking the blame had been erroneously shifted from the administration entirely onto the intelligence organizations. And I knew this commission was formed by the administration. So I felt as you wanted me to feel, that this administration is busy misdirecting as usual, but through no efforts of yours. In fact, you have only confused me. Your post doesn’t argue what you apparently thought it did.

    I did not ask you to provide contact with the authors of the articles or the editors email. I challenged you to provide support for your accusations. But, as you seem to do so often, you’ve ignored what I said and turned it into a pointless endeavor.

    Again, it’s not that I disagree with the opinions you have but have hope you will try harder to justify them to others.

    I know you are being criticized a lot right now and I don’t enjoy adding to it, but you’ve invited most of it with your writing style and need for attention. It’s telling in that you need to sign your posts twice, as though you cannot chance not being credited for them and I’ve chided you in a friendly manner about this before. I bet you don’t like me very much these days.

    You might be a great writer some day, and I hope you will be, but I don’t see you there yet. And yes, I considered this post another lecture from you but this time you personalized it. How thoughtful of you.

  5. Brock: I don’t want to beat this to death, especially as there is no possibility that any Bush follower would ever admit any wrong-doing on the part of Saint George, but In case you believe that I didn’t hear or see what I saw or heard during the past 3 years, of Bush rattling sabers and beating war drums, of Colin Powell and Condi Rice PROVING that WMD’s existed, other people seem to have seen and heard the same events. 

    For your own satisfaction: try Google on : The WMD Blame Game.

    AlterNet: The WMD Blame Game

    From the article;

    Another Whitehouse Whitewash

    “It is now left to Congress to fully investigate this matter. Certainly, the Commission found massive intelligence failures and overstatements by the administration, now a Congress that was cognizant of its Constitutional authority would at least initiate an impeachment inquiry with full subpoena power, testimony under oath and in public so Americans can determine whether they were merely misled into war or whether they were plunged into an illegal war on a platform on fabrications, deceptions and manipulations. Nothing short of accountability of the Presidency is at stake.”

    I am not imagining the months of Bush and company insisting we go to war, subverting the U.N., fouling up our diplomacy, and leaving Osama bin Laden in favor of Saddam Hussein.

    I’m not able to use the Expression Engine for quotes or to make links. Sorry.

  6. Peter,

    I’m going to try this once.  Although I disagree with your premise, Brock does not. He is on your side.  What he is telling you is this:

    Set forth your premise, and support it with facts.

    Don’t rely on your memory being the collective memory of the readers of this site.  We all read hundreds of articles a week.  I’ve forgotten more than I know. Given that, it is important that you, the writer, provide us, the readers, with a clear premise, and well organized facts that support each point you need to make to establish your premise.

    It might be helpful if you were to create an outline for your future posts.  In the outline set forth each fact that you will need to build your case.  Then go find support for it. 

    Why must you do this?  Because, as readers, we are not responsible for digging up the facts or going to google.  You’re article is worthless if the reader must do your research for you. 

    Equally important, it is wrong to believe that we all work from the same knowledge base.  You must assume that everybody is as dumb as me.  When you do that, your article will both educate and convince the readers. You will also increase your credibility tremendously, and that is worth its weight in gold.  I can fault Les, Brock, and Co. for many things, but making it up is not one of them.  They have established their credibility with their prior posts.

    I don’t agree with the prevailing opinion on the site very often.  That said, I enjoy the site tremendously because most of the regulars, there are some exceptions, do not shoot from the hip.  When pushed they can cite studies, books, articles, surveys, and other evidence to support each of their positions.  If they can’t many will admit that as well.

    Although not true with me, you will find that almost all who have been critical of your writing want to jump on your bandwagon.  They want to be on your side.  They want to jump up and down and scream at Bush with you.  They want to jump up and down and scream about religion.  That is why they are here.  Make it hard for me, and easy for them.

  7. The difficulty I have with accepting the premise that Bush was simply given bad intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq is that he and his minions were begging for this fight long before 9/11.

    In 1998, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld et al proposed to Clinton that Iraq should be invaded and that Hussein should be removed due to the threat of WMD. They argued that this should occur with or without UN approval (see http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm).

    Clinton’s response to the effect that he was satisfied with UN progress on WMD was insufficient see: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm).

    Now, while it isn’t clear what intelligence Rumsfeld had at that time, it seems unlikely that he knew more about the situation than then president Clinton. But that didn’t keep him from harping on the WMD issue.

    What I find confusing here is how it is that Clinton’s intelligence lead him to believe that the UN inspectors had a handle on WMD, but Mr. Bush’s intelligence told him that Iraq was an immediate threat. And I just find it tooooo much of a coincidence that the WMD issue was the reason proposed for an invasion long before he could have had the intelligence on WMD.

    I have to admire the play though—it was a good strategy to set up an investigation on intelligence. Someone has to be the fall guy and most people won’t do their homework to remember what happened and when.

    See the following for an outstanding chronology of the Bush Doctrine:


    Actually, if I had to take a stab in the dark at all this (and that’s all this is), I’d say that Mr. Bush isn’t known as a great intellectual and I’d guess that he is likely most guilty of selecting and believing advisors with a well-known pre-existing agenda.

  8. What I thought was a school of minnows merrily nipping at my toes, and making me giggle, also contained several barracuda intent on biting off my hoo-hoo. To whomever proferred advice, thanks.
    Shelly: YOur post sums up much of my concern. I hope everyone uses the links you provided.

    To all of the literary critics: Live Long and Prosper!

  9. Can’t possibly comment on Bushes “lies” what do you expect when you elect a frat chimp as president.
    Many UK researchers are starting to expose the full machiavellian nonsense that went on with Blair.
    He lied someone actually died in very suspect circumstances because of the “sexed” up WMD dossier scandal.
    In a just world he would be prosecuted but like all politicos he has his get out of jail card stamped and up to date.

  10. I think I will get in on the act too now. This was one of my pet topics to read about over the last 12-18 months. Anything that I could find from reputable sources I read and it all seems to fit together fairly well.
      I believe that if you want to the truth concerning pre-war intelligence hype then you must begin with the office of vice president and the pentagon and understand a little of the history of of the’ neoconservative movement. Don’t ask me for footnotes I’m at work and I will be as accurate as possible based on memory. I firmly believe that as soon as GW won in 2000 that the powers that be in the VP’s office and at defence decided that if the opportunity arose that they were going to ‘engineer’ a war between us and the Iraqis. As Shelley indicated above the neocons did indeed send Pres. Clinton a letter recommending that the USA invade Iraq. They were so enthusiastic in their desire that they practically begged a DEMOCRATIC president on the record to invade another country on the flimsyest of pretexts! That was a little about the neocon agenda concerning Iraq. I want to focus now on the nuts and bolts operation that was used in order to start what is essentially an illegal war—this is patched together from many sources of the last 18 months. Let’s begin with Dick Cheney. When Pres. Bush took office in 2001 he, as far as the stories I have read go, was not fully on board the neocon train, afterall you don’t appoint moderates like Colin Powell and Paul O’Neil to high cabinet posts if you are a full-blown right wing idealouge. This is where Dick Cheney comes in as far as I can tell he was constantly harping on Iraq—even before 9-11—-
    I believe that he was even then trying to isolate Pres. Bush from any moderate voices in the administration—and frankly before 9-11 he was not getting much traction( I guess it’s hard to convince people to spend a ass load of cash and lives for no reason in a time of realative peace) After 9-11 VP Cheney’s stock in the administration was secure and split about 10 times and now they were ready to work their scam. They had previously placed prominant neoconservatives in key political positions in the government. Some of the most important to the story are: Doug Feith (head of office of Special Plans in the pentagon)Paul Wolfowitz ( deputy secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of defence, Richard Cheney VP, Richard Pearle (consultant for policy White House), George Tenant ( not a confirmed neocon but a definite facillitator), Acmed Challaby(sp)  (Iraqi expat and provider of vital ‘intelligence’) This is basically how it worked. Shortly after 9-11 the neocons decided that this is the golden oppurtunity that they had been looking for in order to justify a war and invasion of Iraq. VP Cheney’s office began pressuring the CIA and the DoD to provide any and all intelligence concerning possible Iraqi violations of the UN security consul resolutions concerning Iraqi possession and development of WMD. The CIA initially could not determine if WMD were actually possessed by Saddam and was unable to provide any quality vetted intelligence concerning Iraq and WMDs. This did not sit well with VP Cheney and it is alleged that he personally or through a representaive pressured intelligence analysts to ‘provide’ the ‘correct’ data—which is to say find anything you can no matter how dubuious its origin so that the administration could justify a invasion. The only problem is that most of the men and women that work at CIA are professionals who don’t pass corrupted or poorly sourced intelligence data to the office of the president. As a side note one of the primary functions of the CIA is to ‘vet’ raw intelligence from the field, which is to say they try and seperate the lies from the truth. They rarely passed on intelligence data of a suspicious nature with adding strongly worded caveats concerning its reliabilty. This infuriated VP Cheney he did not want Bush to start asking sticky questions about the case for war. Cheney basically wanted to completely control the flow and presentation of these data to the President so as to present a overwhelmingly convincing case for war. Enter Acmed Chalaby. Chalaby is a Iraqi ex-pat who for years has been a darling of the neocons because of his eager desire to see the US invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussien. His role in the lead up to war was to provide to the American intelligence organs other Iraqi ex-pats who claimed to have been working on various WMD programs in Iraq. Many of the ex-pats and their stories were well known by the CIA and had been dismissed as unrealiable and unverifiable and therefore basically useless as far a presenting a ACCURATE picture of Iraqi WMDs. Enter the office of special plans and Doug Feith. Because the rank and file at CIA would not play ball Cheney and the neocons at DoD decided that they would essentially bypass the CIA altogether. They did this by instructing the CIA to pass UNVETTED intelligence directly to the office of special plans where it would be packaged and then presented to the president. So all the yellow cake intelligence and the intelligence concerning the phantom meeting between Atta(a (9-11 hijacker) and a Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague and various other now discredited tidbits of data that no reasonable and self-respecting CIA analyst would have certified suddenly was taken to the most powerful man in the world as the truth incarnate! Who was providing these data—-you guessed it Chalaby. Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle helped to lubricate congress. Donald Rumsfeld was the head honcho at DoD and basically tried to keep the DoD intellience establishment and the military rank and file in line with the new neocon agenda( remember General Shinseki?) George Tenat was I believe unqualified to head CIA and was basically pressured to toe the party line and thus gave the CIA offical stamp of approval to the bullshit cooked up by Cheney and the Office for Special Plans crowd. So, there you have it in a basic nutshell, sure there are a myriad of other factors that contributed to our going to war on false pretenses but the actions of the characters above were, I believe, the chief culprits concerning pre-war intelligence. This ‘intelligence failure’ was nothing of the kind it was deliberate and until another branch of the government has real hearings into the actions of POLITITIANS involoved in this mind-fuck then we will never learn the real truth.

  11. An excellent summary, Rufus-Leroy. I’d say that this sounds exactly right.

    Unfortunately, we see the present adiministration extending and expanding the powers and influence of these people. Mr. Bush has now appointed Wolfowitz to the World Bank. Now we should really worry about another terrorist attack. http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=bondsNews&storyID=8066542

    Does anyone really believe that “debt relief for the poor” will be his number one priority???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.