Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jan 28, 2004.
a day late and a dollar short. where were these calls for double-checking intelligence before the war? the media dropped the ball on this, and continues to do so in other areas eg) outing of cia spy, cheney's energy task force.
Im glad Saddam has been caught, im not glad that we are loosing American and coalition lives everyday. The Bush administration wanted him gone before he was in office and this is becoming clear. we went to war for the wrong Reason. they didnt have these weapons of mass Destruction as George led us to think. How many lives? how much money?
according to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/, between 8059 and 9896 iraqi civilian deaths reported.
add to that, according to Coalition Casualty Count, 615 coalition soldiers killed, 2946 wounded.
add to that how many iraqi soldiers and insurgents have been killed. i can't get a good figure on that.
according to http://www.costofwar.com/, over $98 billion.
according to nancy pelosi, in the democrats' response to the SOTU, over $120 billion.
About mid-day, today, a radio newscast had some of Kay's testimony before Congress. He commented that he, too, had originally been wrong about WMDs in Iraq. He blamed faulty intelligence, and went further to state there had not been pressure from the Administration on the CIA to "paint a WMD picture".
Overall, this makes sense. We shifted away from HumInt in the Carter era, going more and more to Elint via overflights and satellites. Our primary HumInt source, then, pretty much was Israel--and I've no clue as to how well they had infiltrated Iraq with people on the ground.
The UN was right and the US was wrong.
Why is the WH still still so indignant towards our [former, I fear] allies?
I keep hearing about this lack of "human intelligence," but it seems to me that we've also been hearing about how much the CIA depended on the word of Iraqi defectors, who it turns out were telling the agency what they wanted to hear. I get the idea that human intelligence is a bit like having an eye witness to crime. It might turn out that the forensic evidence is more reliable.
Kay is apparently being very careful to say that he wasn't pressured to come to any particular conclusions. Fine -- but it isn't the post-invasion intelligence that we're particularly concerned with at this point, it was the intelligence used to justify the invasion. What we do know is that when the CIA provided the White House with ambiguous evidence (at best) of a reconstituted Iraqi nuclear program, the administration went opinion shopping. They liked what British intelligence was saying better, so that's the information they chose to believe, and to use to make their case to the public. Kay didn't have anything to do with that episode.
Kay was sent in to look for WMDs, and he didn't find them, and what's more, doesn't expect them to be found by his successor. What Kay might have believed before he started his search isn't very material to the question of whether the administration was in procession of the information it needed to justify the case they were making for an imminent Iraqi threat to the US.
there are numerous accounts that point that pressure to select intelligence that supported the move to war did indeed occur. I know you have posted in the past articles by the now retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, so I would refer you to her three part series in The American Conservative. In Part 3 of the series she states:
She worked along side of the operation throughout the run up to war from 2002 to 2003 so her insights are interesting. They hardly come from my political perspective, so I would present them as a conservative critique of neoconservative actions.
In addition, this jibes with the estimate of Greg Thielmann, a former State Dept. intelligence analyst who said in an interview for the Fontline documentary, Truth, War, and Consequences that:
Lastly, I would point you to the very informative article by Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist Seymour Hersh in his article for the New Yorker entitled The Stovepipe he confirms this analysis.
I don't think this was just a error of the intelligence community and the President made a "good faith" mistake in following that faulty intelligence. In that regard David Kay is dead wrong.
Didn't Bush make statements about iraq, in that state of the union speech, that his own intelligence community knew to be false or unreliable?
Either they were knowingly lying, or simply incredibly incompetent. And they all seem to highly educated and to adept at making money and gaining power, to be making those kind of mistakes.
I think they're just to used to getting their own way and have no real respect for the law, or your average citizen.
The law, and especially jail, is something that only happens to other people. While the public are just the people you lie to, to gain power.
The group who wrote that PNAC document, you know, the document that recommends invading Iraq regardless of whether Saddam is in power. Are now themselves, in power.
After 9/11 they immediately began connecting the event with Iraq, without ANY proof. They then make claims which are known to be false, in the state of the union speech. They start up their own intelligence unit (because they didn't like the info coming from CIA or whoever), allowing them to write their own intelligence, most of whose claims turned out to be false.
I don't have any doubt that they were all knowingly lying, or at least knew there was no proof and were just hoping that WOMD would turn up somewhere, to justify their actions.
There evidence against Bush and cohorts, lying to the public and planing invasion regardless, is far stronger than the evidence linking Saddam with Al Queda, or 9/11 or WOMD ever was. But the media seem disinterested in connecting all the dots.