 |
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...id=542&ncid=716
quote:
Ex-Official: Evidence Distorted for War
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration distorted intelligence and presented conjecture as evidence to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq (news - web sites), according to a retired intelligence official who served during the months before the war.
"What disturbs me deeply is what I think are the disingenuous statements made from the very top about what the intelligence did say," said Greg Thielmann, who retired last September. "The area of distortion was greatest in the nuclear field."
Thielmann was director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. His office was privy to classified intelligence gathered by the CIA (news - web sites) and other agencies about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.
In Thielmann's view, Iraq could have presented an immediate threat to U.S. security in two areas: Either it was about to make a nuclear weapon, or it was forming close operational ties with al-Qaida terrorists.
Evidence was lacking for both, despite claims by President Bush (news - web sites) and others, Thielmann said in an interview this week. Suspicions were presented as fact, contrary arguments ignored, he said.
The administration's prewar portrayal of Iraq's weapons capabilities has not been validated despite weeks of searching by military experts. Alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons have not turned up, nor has significant evidence of a nuclear weapons program or links to the al-Qaida network.
Bush has said administration assertions on Iraq will be verified in time. The CIA and other agencies have vigorously defended their prewar performances.
CIA Director George Tenet, responding to similar criticism last week, said in a statement: "The integrity of our process was maintained throughout, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong." On Friday, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency acknowledged he had no hard evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons last fall but believed Iraq had a program in place to produce them.
Also Friday, Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites), said he was not prepared to place blame for any intelligence shortcomings until all information is in.
"There are always times when a single sentence or a single report evokes a lot of concern and some doubt," Warner told reporters after a closed hearing of his committee. "But thus far, in my own personal assessment of this situation, the intelligence community has diligently and forthrightly and with integrity produced intelligence and submitted it to this administration and to the Congress of the United States."
Thielmann suggested mistakes may have been made at points all along the chain from when intelligence is gathered, analyzed, presented to the president and then provided to the public.
The evidence of a renewed nuclear program in Iraq was far more limited than the administration contended, he said.
"When the administration did talk about specific evidence — it was basically declassified, sensitive information — it did it in a way that was also not entirely honest," Thielmann said.
In his State of the Union address, Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The Africa claim rested on a purported letter or letters between officials in Iraq and Niger held by European intelligence agencies. The communications are now accepted as forged, and Thielmann said he believed the information on Africa was discounted months before Bush mentioned it.
"I was very surprised to hear that be announced to the United States and the entire world," he said.
Thielmann said he had presumed Iraq had supplies of chemical and probably biological weapons. He particularly expected U.S. forces to find caches of mustard agent or other chemical weapons left over from Saddam's old stockpiles.
"We appear to have been wrong," he said. "I've been genuinely surprised at that."
One example where officials took too far a leap from the facts, according to Thielmann: On Feb. 11, CIA Director Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq "retains in violation of U.N. resolutions a small number of Scud missiles that it produced before the Gulf War (news - web sites)."
Intelligence analysts supposed Iraq may have had some missiles because they couldn't account for all the Scuds it had before the first Gulf War, Thielmann said. They could have been destroyed, dismantled, miscounted or still somewhere in Saddam's inventory.
Some critics have suggested that the White House and Pentagon (news - web sites) policy-makers pressured the CIA and military intelligence to come up with conclusions favorable to an attack-Iraq policy. The CIA and military have denied such charges. Thielmann said that generally he felt no such pressure.
Although his office did not directly handle terrorism issues, Thielmann said he was similarly unconvinced of a strong link between al-Qaida and Saddam's government.
Yet, the implication from Bush on down was that Saddam supported Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s network. Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks frequently were mentioned in the same sentence, even though officials have no good evidence of any link between the two.
|
This is just one of many stories now emerging that the Coalition seriously overplayed the situation to get support for the war. Given Blair's woes with his faulty dossier, and his conflicting stance now with Bush (Bush: oh, we've already found the evidence; Blair: we will find some evidence), the truth has become readily apparent:
They lied to us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:28
|
|
No you can't. But yes, I am a utilitarian.
This "elected government lying to people" thing is a one of 3 things that I see as minuses to war. I'd much rather have the US government say " We're going to war, because we want to save a bunch of people", and actually believe it. Alas, there are things that prevent such a thing: The Government of the US not believing in it, Libertarians, International law, etc. etc. This is a compromise, which is relativly better to the "let's sit and do nothing" situation.
Another great minus is the "Carnage and Destruction" thing.
Also, remember that Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, so the actions taken would be weighed according to their results.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
If the result of the war is good, I wouldn't be too concerned. I never cared for WoMD, anyway. |
so i guess hitler was good because without him where would israel be today?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:28
|
|
quote:
That makes Utilitarianism utterly useless as a philosophy, as you don't (AFAIK) have the power of prescience.
So, should the end result of the Iraq war end up being a massive destabilization of the ME which results in the horrible deaths of millions, will it then suddenly and retroactively be a bad thing?
|
Since it only happened recently, we cannot yet fully judge the ethical value of this action. So far, this action, on itself, was good, But you can never judge an action based on itself, only. Because, then, murder would always be wrong ( even in self-defence), etc.. But if steps wouldn't be taken to stop any such escalation, then, indeed it would be a bad thing.
quote:
so i guess hitler was good because without him where would be today? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
i forgot to add israel in the original before the edit.
israel was created out of sympathy for what happened to the jews after the holocaust. if hitler had just gone to war and hadnt started extermination i doubt we would see an israel today.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Dino:
Like what? Even if Iraq had some of this stuff, it's obvious now that Bush and Blair knew jack **** about it, but spit up lies like "usable for atack within 45 minutes" and quantities and blah blah blah. The UN inspectors say their intelligence was crap, and now the US military can't find anything.
Anyway, what I still don't understand is why the Bushies wanted this stupid war so desperately and at any cost.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
why would israel have been created for any other reason than sympathy?
the point is if the end always justified the means then the holocaust was actually a good thing because it led to the creation of israel and i dont believe you think the creation of israel is bad. (unless youre arab or me)
so if the end result is good then it doesnt matter how it got there. which is bullshit
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
That only showed thay can't account for it. There can be many reasons for that. I would have assumed it's to a good part a cover-up... but it still leaves the Bush/Blair claims totally unfounded.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2003 17:49
|