Iraq intelligence 'dead wrong'

[KipWellsFan]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31...t.ap/index.html

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a scathing report, a presidential commission said Thursday that America's spy agencies were "dead wrong" in most of their judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the war and that the United States knows "disturbingly little" about the threats posed by many of the nation's most dangerous adversaries.

 

:headshake

[Rex Hudler]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31...t.ap/index.html

:headshake

 

From what I understand, Iraq themselves went out of their way to mislead not only their own people, but also parts of their military. On occasion, even Saddam was lied to by his sons, telling him they had a level of preparedness that wasn't true. So if they don't know or lie to appear stonger, how are we supposed to be accurate?

 

This just doesn't come as a surprise to me.

[KipWellsFan]

From what I understand, Iraq themselves went out of their way to mislead not only their own people, but also parts of their military.  On occasion, even Saddam was lied to by his sons, telling him they had a level of preparedness that wasn't true.  So if they don't know or lie to appear stonger, how are we supposed to be accurate? 

 

This just doesn't come as a surprise to me.

 

Well Rex the report goes farther than saying they just had bad info

 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...pies050331.html

In their report U.S. spy agencies come across as fools; blinded by having too few agents in the field; made stupid because in seeing only what they wanted to they produced worthless conclusions; and immature because they obsessively indulged in inter-agency turf wars.

 

"They had very little evidence collected. What little evidence they had they pushed into assumptions based on the past behaviour of Saddam Hussein," said Silberman.

 

That's what concerns me.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Well Rex the report goes farther than saying they just had bad info

 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...pies050331.html

That's what concerns me.

 

 

I think we all can agree that the intel services need some work.

[YASNY]

"They had very little evidence collected. What little evidence they had they pushed into assumptions based on the past behaviour of Saddam Hussein," said Silberman.

 

Let's look at what would be said under a different scenario .... like Saddam just nuked Tele Viv.

 

"Even though there very little hard evidence collected, at the first inkling of the possiblilty something should have been done. Saddam Hussein has already shown the capability to both use WMD's and to target Isreal with missiles."

Edited April 1, 2005 by YASNY

[TheBigHurt35]

Despite the apparent flaws in our intelligence, the world is a much better place with Saddam behind bars and his sons out of the picture. Nobody deserves to live under a regime of terror like that.

Edited April 1, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[LowerCaseRepublican]

The US government used Ahmed Chalabi (just a guy wanted for extortion in Jordan & an Iranian spy) for one of its major intel sources because Perle and Co. wanted any information to justify their policy.

 

The point is not that the President and his senior aides were consciously lying. What was taking place was much more systematic—and potentially just as troublesome. Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, whose book “The Threatening Storm” generally supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, told me that what the Bush people did was “dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership. Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from them.

 

“They always had information to back up their public claims, but it was often very bad information,” Pollack continued. “They were forcing the intelligence community to defend its good information and good analysis so aggressively that the intelligence analysts didn’t have the time or the energy to go after the bad information.”

 

The Administration eventually got its way, a former C.I.A. official said. “The analysts at the C.I.A. were beaten down defending their assessments. And they blame George Tenet”—the C.I.A. director—“for not protecting them. I’ve never seen a government like this.”

 

from: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

[Rex Kickass]

Despite the apparent flaws in our intelligence, the world is a much better place with Saddam behind bars and his sons out of the picture.  Nobody deserves to live under a regime of terror like that.

 

This doesn't excuse the misinformation that was going on in our own government that led to our invasion of Iraq.

[TheBigHurt35]

This doesn't excuse the misinformation that was going on in our own government that led to our invasion of Iraq.

 

Perhaps not, but the regime change probably saved the lives of many of Iraqis, not to mention allowing them to live in the absence of terror. I'm not an "ends justify the means" type of person, but Saddam in prison is a better alternative than Saddam in power under the UN's corrupt and ineffective Oil-For-Food program.

Edited April 2, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[Rex Hudler]

Let's look at what would be said under a different scenario .... like Saddam just nuked Tele Viv.

 

"Even though there very little hard evidence collected, at the first inkling of the possiblilty something should have been done.  Saddam Hussein has already shown the capability to both use WMD's and to target Isreal with missiles."

 

It's pretty easy to criticize in hindsight isn't it Yas? lol

 

If I knew at 18 what I know now, I would be pretty damned dangerous. I might have even made some different decisions on a few things that at the time, made good sense based on the information/experience I had.

 

Not so hard a concept to understand is it? One can criticize almost anything in hindsight, whether they have a preconceived notion to do so or not.

[Rex Kickass]

Perhaps not, but the regime change probably saved the lives of many of Iraqis, not to mention allowing them to live in the absence of terror.  I'm not an "ends justify the means" type of person, but Saddam in prison is a better alternative than Saddam in power under the UN's corrupt and ineffective Oil-For-Food program.

 

You're acting like OFP kept Saddam Hussein in power. It didn't.

[Texsox]

From what I understand, Iraq themselves went out of their way to mislead not only their own people, but also parts of their military.  On occasion, even Saddam was lied to by his sons, telling him they had a level of preparedness that wasn't true.  So if they don't know or lie to appear stonger, how are we supposed to be accurate? 

 

This just doesn't come as a surprise to me.

 

Did we not expect him to lie? I believe our intelligence agencies are suppose to verify and look past the public statements.

 

 

Despite the apparent flaws in our intelligence, the world is a much better place with Saddam behind bars and his sons out of the picture.  Nobody deserves to live under a regime of terror like that.

 

Would you have given your life to make that happen? How many American lives is a fair price to make that happen? 10? 100? 1,000? 100,000?

[TheBigHurt35]

Would you have given your life to make that happen? How many American lives is a fair price to make that happen? 10? 100? 1,000? 100,000?

 

That's an interesting comment coming from someone who spends so much time here defending the rights of Mexicans. What about all of the Iraqis that Saddam slaughtered over the years? What about the Kurds and Shiites that he gassed? What about all of the people who were arrested, tortured, and murdered by Saddam's secret police? What about all of the brutality and murders committed by his sons?

 

Are you suggesting that American lives are worth more than Iraqi lives? Surely you don't believe that they're "just brown people" who don't have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that we do?

Edited April 3, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[Texsox]

That's an interesting comment coming from someone who spends so much time here defending the rights of Mexicans.  What about all of the Iraqis that Saddam slaughtered over the years?  What about the Kurds and Shiites that he gassed?  What about all of the people who were arrested, tortured, and murdered by Saddam's secret police?  What about all of the brutality and murders committed by his sons?

 

Are you suggesting that American lives are worth more than Iraqi lives?  Surely you don't believe that they're "just brown people" who don't have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that we do?

 

I didn't expect an answer.

 

And BTW, read closely. I am defending the rights of Mexican AMERICANS to not be harassed by other Americans.

Edited April 3, 2005 by Texsox

[Rex Kickass]

That's an interesting comment coming from someone who spends so much time here defending the rights of Mexicans.  What about all of the Iraqis that Saddam slaughtered over the years?  What about the Kurds and Shiites that he gassed?  What about all of the people who were arrested, tortured, and murdered by Saddam's secret police?  What about all of the brutality and murders committed by his sons?

 

Are you suggesting that American lives are worth more than Iraqi lives?  Surely you don't believe that they're "just brown people" who don't have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that we do?

 

If American lives aren't worth more than other people's lives in the eyes of our government, why aren't we sending folks to liberate Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, DR Congo, Sudan, North Korea, Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, Cuba, et al?

[TheBigHurt35]

If American lives aren't worth more than other people's lives in the eyes of our government, why aren't we sending folks to liberate Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, DR Congo, Sudan, North Korea, Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, Cuba, et al?

 

Perhaps because regime changes in 14 countries at the same time would result in the implementation of massive tax hikes and a draft of unprecedented magnitude. In other words, it would be completely unfeasible. :rolly

 

Keep in mind that we've gone to war to free oppressed people in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan without receiving a single drop of oil in return.

 

A better question might be: Why is the UN doing absolutely nothing about the mass murder in the DR Congo and Sudan?

Edited April 3, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[TheBigHurt35]

I didn't expect an answer.

 

Sorry, I can't read your mind.

 

And BTW, read closely. I am defending the rights of Mexican AMERICANS to not be harassed by other Americans.

 

Point taken. I seem to remember you complaining that the American policy towards Mexican "visitors" is discriminatory because Mexicans typically can't afford to apply for visas, but perhaps I took that out of context.

[KipWellsFan]

Keep in mind that we've gone to war to free oppressed people in ... Vietnam

 

 

Hahaha. Instead of insulting my intelligence you should stick to the penis jokes.

[Texsox]

Sorry, I can't read your mind.

Point taken.  I seem to remember you complaining that the American policy towards Mexican "visitors" is discriminatory because Mexicans typically can't afford to apply for visas, but perhaps I took that out of context.

 

The point about Mexican tourists was the ones that can afford the proper Mexican paperwork (which is the biggest expense, not what the US charges) are not looking for safe houses and places to hide. They own about 3 out of 4 businesses along the Texas-Mexico border so they do not need jobs.

 

There are so many legal to be here Mexicans on the border that are being harassed by vigilantes who do not have the training that our law enforcement agencies have. The Border Patrol is complaining about all these calls to check out legal citizens are taking away from their efforts to stop drugs and illegals from entering. Imagine a neighborhood watch in Chicago which calls in reports of every black person they see.

 

Yes, Iraq under Hussein used the death penalty. Interesting that among civilized countries we are in the minority using the death penalty. Most countries find us barbaric in that regard. We found someone even more extreme than us. So . . .

 

Any government which kills more people or for less of a reason is evil and anyone who uses the death penalty less than us or not at all, is a weak liberal country.

 

I do not believe any country has a moral obligation to bankrupt their nation to save another. The most absurd part of the Iraq War is that we are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Much of this money is coming from countries which refused to join us in Iraq. :headshake

 

We now know our intelligence was wrong about other things, could it be that Iraq was not executing or torturing as many people as our government claimed?

[TheBigHurt35]

Hahaha.  Instead of insulting my intelligence you should stick to the penis jokes.

 

I don't believe that there's any further need to point out your massive inferiority complex. Enjoy your maple syrup and high taxes.

 

Yes, Iraq under Hussein used the death penalty. Interesting that among civilized countries we are in the minority using the death penalty. Most countries find us barbaric in that regard. We found someone even more extreme than us. So . . .

 

Any government which kills more people or for less of a reason is evil and anyone who uses the death penalty less than us or not at all, is a weak liberal country.

 

I do not believe any country has a moral obligation to bankrupt their nation to save another. The most absurd part of the Iraq War is that we are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Much of this money is coming from countries which refused to join us in Iraq.  :headshake

 

We now know our intelligence was wrong about other things, could it be that Iraq was not executing or torturing as many people as our government claimed?

 

I don't see how Saddam's use of sarin to indiscriminately kill large groups of his own people is in any way remotely comparable to our use of the death penalty (which occurs after due process and is illegal in many states anyway). What do you suppose Iraq's criminal justice system is like? A Law & Order episode? :rolly

 

And, FWIW, I don't support the death penalty either.

 

I agree that we don't have a moral obligation to "bankrupt" our nation to save another, but I don't see that happening in this case. Did our nation go "bankrupt" after Korea, Vietnam, or the Persian Gulf War? Why would it happen now?

[KipWellsFan]

I don't believe that there's any further need to point out your massive inferiority complex. Enjoy your maple syrup and high taxes.

 

Zing!

[Texsox]

Did our nation go "bankrupt" after Korea, Vietnam, or the Persian Gulf War?  Why would it happen now?

 

Because our politicians no longer have the courage to raise taxes to pay for wars. Instead they continue to increase our national debt and stay in power. Republicans use to be for fiscal responsibility and painted Democrats as "tax and spend". Now the Republicans have become the "spend and don't tax" party. They keep telling us someone else will be paying for this stuff tomorrow that they are giving us today. Who can say no to a free lunch?

[TheBigHurt35]

Because our politicians no longer have the courage to raise taxes to pay for wars. Instead they continue to increase our national debt and stay in power. Republicans use to be for fiscal responsibility and painted Democrats as "tax and spend". Now the Republicans have become the "spend and don't tax" party. They keep telling us someone else will be paying for this stuff tomorrow that they are giving us today. Who can say no to a free lunch?

 

I agree that may become a problem if Iraq turns into Vietnam-esque (12-year) campaign. I'd like to see us begin to pull troops out within the next year. Hopefully the new Iraqi government and police/military will have begun to develop into effective units by that time.

[Texsox]

Vietnam was more costly in lives lost and changed forever, Iraq will be more costly in dollars. That is the changing face of war. High tech is replacing a soldier on the ground anywhere they can.

 

Another issue is the moral obligation we feel to re-build Iraq, something we did not have with Vietnam. It appears as if our leaders have voted an unlimited budget for these purposes.