Senate: prewar al-quaida/saddam link bullshit

[tricky]

There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush's justification for going to war.
The declassified document being released Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.
The report comes at a time that Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections.
It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to excerpts of the 400-page report provided by Democrats.
Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.
White House press secretary Tony Snow played down the report as "nothing new."
"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," Snow said. That was "one of the reasons you had overwhelming majorities in the United States Senate and the House for taking action against Saddam Hussein," he said.
Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., a member of the committee, said the long-awaited report was "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts" to link Saddam to al-Qaida.
The administration, said Sen. John D. Rockefeller (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., top Democrat on the committee, "exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe — contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time — that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks."
The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., said it has long been known that prewar assessments of Iraq "were a tragic intelligence failure."
But he said the Democratic interpretations expressed in the report "are little more than a vehicle to advance election-year political charges." He said Democrats "continue to use the committee to try and rewrite history, insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."
The panel report is Phase II of an analysis of prewar intelligence on Iraq. The first phase, issued in July 2004, focused on the CIA's failings in its estimates of Iraq's weapons program.
The second phase has been delayed as Republicans and Democrats fought over what information should be declassified and how much the committee should delve into the question of how policymakers may have manipulated intelligence to make the case for war.
The committee is still considering three other issues as part of its Phase II analysis, including statements of policymakers in the run up to the war.

[Dionysos]

PDF of the unclassified version of the report:
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Other interesting notes:

1: The report says that all the activities that intelligence sources pointed to as signs of bioweapons R&D had dual uses in non-bio development, and that this should have been noted whenever people referenced these points.

2: The CIA hoarded 'Curveball' and rarely disseminated any of his info to other intelligence agencies, so the ability to verify his claims was severely limited. Also, there were even people within the CIA that cautioned against using his claims in their speeches. This was mentioned specifically in reference to Powell's UN speech. The European Division Chief of the CIA called Curveball a "fabricator" in the fall of 2002.

3: The report found that Saddam had done nothing to rebuild his nuclear program after 1991, save for retaining a few scientists on his payroll. Everything else that was mentioned had alternate uses and the Commission found no evidence that Iraq was working on their nuclear capabilities at any point after GW1. The 'tubes' so often mentioned by the WH were for a conventional rocket system, not a nuclear delivery vehicle.

4: Iraq had no intention of restarting it's WMD program until the sanctions were lifted. They even found a document from a Nigerian source offering to procure uranium for Iraq, but Iraq refused citing the sanctions in place. If the sanctions were lifted Iraq was prepared to resume research, but until that time they weren't going to actively pursue anything.

5: The Commission found that Iraq destroyed it's bioweapons stocks in 1991 & 1992, but Iraq lacked evidence documenting all of the destroyed stocks. They retained what the report calls "seed stock" as it pertains to point #4 I made(which consisted of anthrax, botulism, & aflatoxin), but beyond that there wasn't anything there.

I'll add more later as I keep reading.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

PDF of the unclassified version of the report:
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Other interesting notes:

1: The report says that all the activities that intelligence sources pointed to as signs of bioweapons R&D had dual uses in non-bio development, and that this should have been noted whenever people referenced these points.

Absolutely should have been noted but given the alternative of being wrong in concluding that Saddam was really just making fertilizer...

Originally Posted by Dionysos

2: The CIA hoarded 'Curveball' and rarely disseminated any of his info to other intelligence agencies, so the ability to verify his claims was severely limited. Also, there were even people within the CIA that cautioned against using his claims in their speeches. This was mentioned specifically in reference to Powell's UN speech. The European Division Chief of the CIA called Curveball a "fabricator" in the fall of 2002.

One of the huge problems with out intelligence communities.. territoriality and bureaucratic entrenchment to the detriment of their purpose... providing our leaders with the best intelligenec available.

Originally Posted by Dionysos

3: The report found that Saddam had done nothing to rebuild his nuclear program after 1991, save for retaining a few scientists on his payroll. Everything else that was mentioned had alternate uses and the Commission found no evidence that Iraq was working on their nuclear capabilities at any point after GW1. The 'tubes' so often mentioned by the WH were for a conventional rocket system, not a nuclear delivery vehicle.

If you've got the brain power and the puzzle pieces its a poor choice to disregard it and believe that they couldn't be assembled.

Originally Posted by Dionysos

4: Iraq had no intention of restarting it's WMD program until the sanctions were lifted. They even found a document from a Nigerian source offering to procure uranium for Iraq, but Iraq refused citing the sanctions in place. If the sanctions were lifted Iraq was prepared to resume research, but until that time they weren't going to actively pursue anything.

And the sanctions had crumbled de facto and were about to de jure with only the US and UK willing to support them a Security Council with France and Russia would not have voted to continue the sanction regime.

Originally Posted by Dionysos

5: The Commission found that Iraq destroyed it's bioweapons stocks in 1991 & 1992, but Iraq lacked evidence documenting all of the destroyed stocks. They retained what the report calls "seed stock" as it pertains to point #4 I made(which consisted of anthrax, botulism, & aflatoxin), but beyond that there wasn't anything there.

In the mountains of recorded meetings there were meetings with his bio weapons developer (a woman interestingly enough) who said that gearing up and beginning production wasn't going to present a challenge. Wish I could find the article but a quick search turned up nothing. Anyway, it supports the facts of your #5 very much but it also says that while #5 is true it wouldn't be (or needn't be) for long after lifting sanctions.


Not sure what help any of this is though? We already know our intelligence was fucked and that we went in on a premis that the facts didn't support once there.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

Not sure what help any of this is though? We already know our intelligence was fucked and that we went in on a premis that the facts didn't support once there.

It's another step towards some fucking accountability for the half-trillion dollar clusterfuck we're in right now. A full committee bipartisan Senate report is now out there saying "we were wrong". Now the WH needs to step up and take accountability for their role in making such a colossal fucking mistake.

As for your "I'd rather err on the side of caution" argument, you should see that there are several notes in here of intelligence organizations that were less than convinced of the 'evidence' even before the invasion. These people were ignored by the CiC. This is *another* mistake that needs to be remedied. Of course with the accountability-disabled WH staff we have now, chances are this won't get fixed until January 2009.

Christian, read the whole report yourself. It becomes very apparent very early on that there were a multitude of mistakes made, and they need to be remedied before this happens again.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

It's another step towards some fucking accountability for the half-trillion dollar clusterfuck we're in right now.

We were unaware that it was an expensive cluster-fuck prior?

I can appreciate the clarity that the report can provide in helping us improve our intelligenec agencies. I lament the re-arguing of points that will inevitably follow and for no greater purpose than politics.

Originally Posted by Dionysos

As for your "I'd rather err on the side of caution" argument, you should see that there are several notes in here of intelligence organizations that were less than convinced of the 'evidence' even before the invasion. These people were ignored by the CiC. This is *another* mistake that needs to be remedied. Of course with the accountability-disabled WH staff we have now, chances are this won't get fixed until January 2009.

Christian, read the whole report yourself. It becomes very apparent very early on that there were a multitude of mistakes made, and they need to be remedied before this happens again.

I have no doubt that plenty of errors were made. The facts relied upon for the justification were WRONG. That's been conceded a long time ago. And, as you note and I agree - the goal should be improving our intelligenec so we don't make such a horrible mistake again.

Back to the err on the side of caution. That is a judgment call. GW made it and was wrong. I know you're telling me that the report suggests that the choice was complicated and compounded in error in a way that should have suggested a different choice. I'll believe that without reading it. One of the things that is so very important about GW is his decisiveness. It is helpful in some circumstances and very much not in others. Clearly withregard to Iraq wev'e no debate which way that attribute fell.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

I have no doubt that plenty of errors were made. The facts relied upon for the justification were WRONG. That's been conceded a long time ago.

By you and I, sure. By the WH? Not so much.

Originally Posted by xian

Back to the err on the side of caution. That is a judgment call. GW made it and was wrong. I know you're telling me that the report suggests that the choice was complicated and compounded in error in a way that should have suggested a different choice. I'll believe that without reading it. One of the things that is so very important about GW is his decisiveness. It is helpful in some circumstances and very much not in others. Clearly withregard to Iraq wev'e no debate which way that attribute fell.

I really think you should read it, if for no other reason than to see just how many things the intelligence was wrong on. About the only thing they got right(that I've read, I'm about 40% through it) was that Saddam was developing long-range (conventional) missiles. Anyway, you should see the names signed on this report from both sides of the aisle. I don't have a clue how the WH is going to spin their way out of it.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

By you and I, sure. By the WH? Not so much.

But GW did acknowledge that there were no WMD and that the intelligence relied upon was wrong. Now, I'm also sure that the degree of admission or depth of pardon begged will never be sufficient to all, it is at least, in some measure, still, an admission that he was wrong.

Originally Posted by Dionysos

I really think you should read it, if for no other reason than to see just how many things the intelligence was wrong on. About the only thing they got right(that I've read, I'm about 40% through it) was that Saddam was developing long-range (conventional) missiles. Anyway, you should see the names signed on this report from both sides of the aisle. I don't have a clue how the WH is going to spin their way out of it.

The names would be interesting to be sure. Most of the things you've pointed out I've read elsewhere before (you have too) and had little reason to doubt.

Part of the problem (or rather another) is the GW is quite probably the worst politician in our life time. He was wrong on the facts. But frankly, the presence of WMD wasn't the key issue to many and certainly not me. It was the potential for harm at the elimination of the sanctions... not an "if" question but a "when" question and the answer was "not long."

That being said, it was the capacity for Saddam to be able to do harm coupled with the great good that could be done by removing a tyrrant like Saddam and helping to establish a free state that I thought made the effort worth while.

Now, quite probably the biggest and most important mistake wasn't the error regarding WMD... nor do I think many would doubt the assertion that if sanctions were lifted that Saddam would have reconstituted his programs.... the biggest mistake (and I've come round to Krash's way of thinking on this point) is that the people of Iraq were not ready nor willing nor capable of taking the opportunity handed to them and making it work. It is not a simple, "they suck they're not worthy" but it is a, "they were not able." We misjudged that crucial element. Had everything else alledged been true and that Iraqi element remained the same... the Iraq war would still have been mostly a failure. (mostly, a Saddam controlled Iraq redeveloping his military is probably worse than the cluster fuck we have now... probably...)

[kalamu]

Originally Posted by xian

But GW did acknowledge that there were no WMD and that the intelligence relied upon was wrong.

wha? when did he do this? link to video please, i have to see this.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by kalamu

wha? when did he do this? link to video please, i have to see this.

quote will have to do - from december 2005

Originally Posted by GWB

When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As President, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq

President Discusses Iraqi Elections, Victory in the War on Terror




..........

Originally Posted by xian

But GW did acknowledge that there were no WMD and that the intelligence relied upon was wrong. Now, I'm also sure that the degree of admission or depth of pardon begged will never be sufficient to all, it is at least, in some measure, still, an admission that he was wrong.

[kalamu]

I want him to do a prime time speech like Clinton had to do where he admits he was wrong and that there were no WMD's, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and that going into Iraq was a horrible decision.

then i want someone to slap a pie in his face and then serve him with notice that he is being impeached. then i want his ranch to go up in flames.

ahhhhh to dream

[PETA]

Originally Posted by kalamu

I want him to do a prime time speech like Clinton had to do where he admits he was wrong and that there were no WMD's, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and that going into Iraq was a horrible decision.

then i want someone to slap a pie in his face and then serve him with notice that he is being impeached. then i want his ranch to go up in flames.

ahhhhh to dream

go to the link provided it has link to the video of the speech...

that you didn't watch it or ever hear about it can hardly be blamed on Bush.... sure, he's a terrible politician but he did exactly what you asked for and it got little air time

here it is again.... President Discusses Iraqi Elections, Victory in the War on Terror


and a point of mine again

Originally Posted by xian

But GW did acknowledge that there were no WMD and that the intelligence relied upon was wrong. Now, I'm also sure that the degree of admission or depth of pardon begged will never be sufficient to all, it is at least, in some measure, still, an admission that he was wrong.

you would not be satisfied if he crawled up the captial steps nakend while being scourged and begging forgiveness....

[kalamu]

you're too damn serious xian. go have a beer and lighten up.

[HarveytheRabbit]

Originally Posted by kalamu

then i want someone to slap a pie in his face and then serve him with notice that he is being impeached. then i want his ranch to go up in flames.

ahhhhh to dream

They admitted mistakes were made but didn't really hold anyone accountable. They also won't concede that the current strategy is a failure.

[Krash]

I'm afraid I don't accept his apology, the guy (and Blair, and our respecitve governments) have fucked up on the grandest scale of them all.

Only in government would such a travesty allow the perpetrators to keep their jobs.

His apology is hollow, a shame the body bags aren't.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by Krash

I'm afraid I don't accept his apology, the guy (and Blair, and our respecitve governments) have fucked up on the grandest scale of them all.

Only in government would such a travesty allow the perpetrators to keep their jobs.

His apology is hollow, a shame the body bags aren't.

I've heard them admit mistakes, but I have yet to hear any apologies...at least from our side of the pond.