Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: When Truth Tried to Stop War [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)76. The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistant Myth of 'Intelligence Failure'
Some light...
The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistant Myth of 'Intelligence Failure'
Jeremy Hammond
Foreign Policy Journal, September, 2012
The George Washington University National Security Archive recently published a newly released CIA document from January 2006 titled Misreading Intentions: Iraqs Reaction to Inspection Created Picture of Deception. The document, the Archive notes, blames analyst liabilities such as neglecting to examine Iraqs deceptive behavior through an Iraqi prism, for the failure to correctly assess the countrys virtually non-existent WMD capabilities. Foreign Policy magazine describes it as a remarkable CIA mea culpa. But nothing could be further from the truth. Far from acknowledging the CIAs true role, the document does not present any kind of serious analysis, but only politicized statements rehashing well-worn official claims designed to further the myth that there was an intelligence failure leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March of 2003.
There was no such intelligence failure. On the contrary, there was an extremely successful disinformation campaign coordinated by the CIA in furtherance of the governments policy of seeking regime change in Iraq. The language of the document itself reveals a persistent dishonesty. It speaks of deepened suspicions that Iraq had ongoing WMD programs and suspicions that Iraq continued to hide WMD. Needless to say, however, the Iraq war was not sold to the public on the grounds that government officials and intelligence agencies had suspicions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It was sold to the public with declarations that it was a known fact that Iraq had ongoing programs and stockpiles of WMD. The tacit acknowledgment that the actual evidence only supported suspicions that this was so by itself is proof of that the narrative of an intelligence failure is a fiction.
The report relies heavily upon the 1995 defection of Saddam Husseins son-in-law, Hussein Kamal (respectively spelled Saddam Husayn and Husayn Kamil in the document), arguing that the information he revealed bolstered suspicions that Iraq was concealing ongoing WMD programs and continued to possess stockpiles of WMD. It argues further that the regimes behavior indicated he was hiding such weapons. Kamal, who returned to Iraq and was killed there in 1996, was the same individual Vice President Dick Cheney referred to in selling the administrations case for war on August 26, 2002, when he said that we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, weve gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectorsincluding Saddams own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddams direction. But the fact is that Cheney was lying, and the CIAs persistent adherence to essentially the same false narrative renders ridiculous the suggestion that this document is some kind of mea culpa.
The document states, Analysts interpreted Iraqs intransigence and ongoing deceptive practices as indicators of continued WMD programs or an intent to preserve WMD capabilities, reinforcing intelligence we were receiving at the time that Saddam Husayn continued to pursue WMD. Yet the examples it lists of Iraqs intransigence and deception do not support the CIAs earlier judgments that Iraq had ongoing programs and WMD stockpiles. In April 1991, for example, the document says, Iraq declared that it had neither a nuclear weapons program nor an enrichment program. Inspections in June and September 1991 proved that Iraq had lied on both counts, had explored multiple enrichment paths, and had a well-developed nuclear weapons program. This is true. However, the document makes no mention of the fact that it was public knowledge that Iraqs nuclear program was subsequently completely dismantled. As former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohammed ElBaradei, pointed out, the Agency had destroyed, removed or rendered harmless all Iraqi facilities and equipment component of Iraqs nuclear programme by 1992. The IAEA reported in 1998 that it was confident that we had not missed any significant component of Iraqs nuclear programme.
The document states that in March 1992, Iraq decided to declare the unilateral destruction of certain prohibited items to the Security Council, while continuing to conceal its biological warfare (BW) program and important aspects of the nuclear, chemical, and missile programs. As worded, this implies that Iraq in 1992 was continuing these programs. This is disingenuous, because in fact Iraq was at that time trying conceal past programs that it had ended following the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq did not continue these programs, but dismantled them and unilaterally destroyed its WMD in order to hide the fact that it had had such programs in the past. As the document acknowledges in its Key Findings section, in 1991, Iraq secretly destroyed or dismantled most undeclared items and records. Yet the very next paragraph contradictorily and disingenuously states, We now judge that the 1995 defection of Saddams son-in-law Husayn Kamila critical figure in Iraqs WMD and denial and deception (D&D) activitiespromoted Iraq to change strategic direction and cease efforts to retain WMD programs. This again implies that Iraq had ongoing WMD programs at least until 1995, which is false, as the CIA knew perfectly well at the time this report was written.
Even more importantly, that the programs had been dismantled and the weapons destroyed is in fact precisely what Hussein Kamal actually told U.N. inspectors when he defected in 1995. The newly released document in fact points out, He said that Saddam destroyed all WMD in secret in 1991. Yet apart from that single buried admission, the document is full of statements implying that weapons programs continued. For example, it states that Iraqi officials did not admit to weaponized BW agent after the defection of Husayn Kamil, but fails to clarify that this was an admission of past and not ongoing activity. The document acknowledges that Kamals defection was the key turning point in Iraqs decision to cooperate more with inspections, but then adds that his debriefing with U.N. inspectors strengthened the Wests perception of Iraq as a successful and efficient deceiver. Following Kamals defection, the document states, the West, meaning the U.S., judged that Iraq was determined to retain WMD capabilities. In other words, the U.S. continued to claim that Iraq had ongoing WMD programs and stockpiles, and supposedly based that assessment on Kamals information, even though Kamal in fact had confirmed that Iraqs WMD had been destroyed and its programs dismantled in 1991.
CONTINUED...
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/09/08/the-lies-that-led-to-the-iraq-war-and-the-persistent-myth-of-intelligence-failure/
Truth is, these liars own and operate Washington.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
82 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Joe Wilson also provided information their reasons for invafing Itaq was false and his reward
Thinkingabout
Feb 2013
#1
It was Geirge W Bush with the final decision, the ones you listed authorized action
Thinkingabout
Feb 2013
#5
Well of course it was shrub, that's not the point. Without these traitors siding with
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#10
I read the names, the point I was trying to make to you it would have happened without the support
Thinkingabout
Feb 2013
#11
That's simply not true. Go look at the records, there were quite a few republicans that opposed
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#12
There was nothing wrong with the Democratic vote on IWR. As I explain in my post below. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#14
Yes, there was. Apparently revising history is not the sole purview of the republicans. n/t
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#17
Go ahead and explain away my response then because you have to revise history to be correct. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#19
And here's another republican strategy, accuse your opponent of doing what you're doing.
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#23
You just revised the Iraq War Resolution below. So I would say you just did the GOP tactic. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#24
Of course you would. It doesn't change the record. Without the votes of those DINOs the act
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#25
You keep trying to pretend facts away, it doesn't work. Deal with the facts or admit defeat.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#27
Every one of them shows that without the Senate vote the acts fails and the rest
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#34
It was a clear as day then what the IWR was about and no amount of obfuscation changes that.
Comrade Grumpy
Feb 2013
#45
I am in favor of the OP, and as I said, cite something that disagrees with me and the article.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#39
Go push your blog somewhere else. You're not the first, nor will you be the
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#40
OpEdNews is not my blog. Let's count how many times you have been wrong or ignored facts
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#41
Think about how illogical that statement is. The provisions in the IWR were not met.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#53
I stand on my previous call outs of your inaccuracies and bad faith efforts. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#54
Of course you do. But it still doesn't change the fact that Democratic Senators
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#64
The republicans were a foregone conclusion, only one of them voted against.
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#52
Fact matter, and they are not on your side. Here it is real easy and simple
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#18
Just as I thought, you are revising history to make your point. Exactly what you accused me of doing
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#22
Things were not clear to lots of folks including a majority of the UN Sec Council Nations
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#28
And as regards the bombing, there were many such escalations, like Operation Desert Fox and
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#58
It was clear at the time what the IWR was...a free ticket for Bush to go to war.
Comrade Grumpy
Feb 2013
#47
Political ambrition trumps the truth every time. Not to mention money.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2013
#31
The archive.org article did make a factual error. Prescott Bush was George H.W. daddy not....
LongTomH
Feb 2013
#80
The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistant Myth of 'Intelligence Failure'
Octafish
Feb 2013
#76