Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: New Yorker Article Discusses Falsified WMD Intelligence
Outsports Discussion Board > Outsports > Politics & Religion
charliecstl
Those of us who have followed the arguments for and against war the past few months know that some of the "intelligence materials" used to prove the US's case turned out to be falsified. Most of the material was in relation to the nuclear weapons program in Iraq. The IAEA found no evidence the program was still in progress, but the Administration used this falsified information to say it was going full bore.

A New Yorker reporter filed this story in the current issue:

Who Lied to Whom?

The article details the trail of the documentation and intelligence information. Some of the information is not only startling, but continues to make me feel that the push to sell the world the whole bill of goods overrode the common sense of the people we must trust to lead us during this difficult time.

A couple of excerpts to give you a flavor of the findings:

QUOTE
Two days later, Secretary of State Colin Powell, appearing before a closed hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also cited Iraq’s attempt to obtain uranium from Niger as evidence of its persistent nuclear ambitions. The testimony from Tenet and Powell helped to mollify the Democrats, and two weeks later the resolution passed overwhelmingly, giving the President a congressional mandate for a military assault on Iraq.
and

QUOTE
Then the story fell apart. On March 7th, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents involving the Niger-Iraq uranium sale were fakes. “The I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents . . . are in fact not authentic,” ElBaradei said.

One senior I.A.E.A. official went further. He told me, “These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped. At the level it reached, I would have expected more checking.” ... It took Baute’s team only a few hours to determine that the documents were fake. The agency had been given about a half-dozen letters and other communications between officials in Niger and Iraq, many of them written on letterheads of the Niger government. The problems were glaring. One letter, dated October 10, 2000, was signed with the name of Allele Habibou, a Niger Minister of Foreign Affairs and Coöperation, who had been out of office since 1989. Another letter, allegedly from Tandja Mamadou, the President of Niger, had a signature that had obviously been faked and a text with inaccuracies so egregious, the senior I.A.E.A. official said, that “they could be spotted by someone using Google on the Internet.”
and

QUOTE
On March 14th, Senator Jay Rockefeller, of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, formally asked Robert Mueller, the F.B.I. director, to investigate the forged documents. Rockefeller had voted for the resolution authorizing force last fall. Now he wrote to Mueller, “There is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq.” He urged the F.B.I. to ascertain the source of the documents, the skill-level of the forgery, the motives of those responsible, and “why the intelligence community did not recognize the documents were fabricated.” A Rockefeller aide told me that the F.B.I. had promised to look into it.
At a time where we were being openly questioned by other world powers, we needed to be much more on the ball than we were. Clearly, the incredible political pressure to provide the White House with the information it needed to reach the desired conclusions was tremendous. However, as discussed today on NPR when this article was brought up, it is never okay for policy to dictate intelligence. The whole idea is for intelligence to dictate policy. We seem to have lost sight of this fundamental principle.
Bill W
Looks like "wagging the dog" to me. And virtually no one cares. They'll do it again and again.
ung
I don't know if you read any of the previous posts
in the discussion about this.

here's the link

forged documents used by Bush white house
twin58
UK minister hopes no WMD in Iraq but expects debate

QUOTE
05 Apr 2003 10:50:24 GMT

LONDON, April 5 (Reuters) - British Home Secretary David Blunkett said on Saturday he hoped no weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq but acknowledged their absence would lead to a \"very interesting debate\" about the war.

In an interview with BBC radio, Blunkett said that regardless of the presence of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, he would rejoice if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his regime were toppled. \"I hope we don't (find any WMD)... because the danger of finding them means there is a danger of them being used, not simply against our own forces but also against the Iraqi people, even by accident,\" Blunkett said.

\"We will obviously have a a very interesting debate if there are no biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear weapons or the facilities to produce them found anywhere in Iraq once Iraq is free.\"

The United States and Britain invaded Iraq on March 20, accusing Saddam of hiding chemical and other weapons of mass destruction and vowing to topple him. Their troops have so far found no firm evidence to back their accusations.
....
MIB
I rather like what Indiana Democratic Senator Evan Bayh said on ABC News recently: "I would bet my life that we will find weapons of mass destruction and other banned chemical weapons. I believe without a doubt that it exists."

Considering troops have now found some, I wonder if the same detractors here will come back and accept such facts.
Joe in Philly
First, you're jumping the gun by saying some WMD has been found. It isn't yet completely confirmed. There are reports of a site with warheads containing chemical weapons site being investigated. It's not confirmed yet. Another site that a US official claimed was a "smoking gun" had what turned out to be...pesticides.

Secondly, even if or when they do find something, that doesn't mean everything about what led to this war is totally valid. People seem to think it's a simple issue, and it's not, no matter what (fill in the name of whichever political leader and news source you prefer) would like you to believe.
PhillyFan
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-20031...3160243,00.html

Ask the Iraqi who spoke to the paper what he thinks......
PhillyFan
http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392_asp.htm?0cv=CA01

More and more reports of chemicals found in Iraq. We all know they have these weapons, and remember.. they are still fighting the war and the full inspections for weapons have not even started. It will take weeks to do proper tests on all of these weapons/drums.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/til/jsp/modu...?itemId=3919081

Please dont forget the SCUDS are banned weapons.. which sadaaaaaaam said he doesnt have...
charliecstl
Lets not forget that the entire world knew that Iraq possessed chemical and biological agents from previous wars. The issue is whether or not there were active programs in place to continue the development of these agents and the means to deliver them. In other words, was there an actual threat. (Lets also not forget that the U.S. has the largest stockpiles of such weapons. I don't see the administration offering to destroy them to make the rest of the world a safer place.)

To-date, the U.S. has taken over a major portion of Iraq. The most we have come up with are some pesticides and suspicious white powders. If the WMD programs existed to the scope the White House claimed, we should have come across this stuff all over the place. Especially given the WH's claim that Iraqi military commanders were given the orders to use them as necessary.

I also point out that there has been a continual barrage of reporting about soldiers in chemical suits, and the leadership keeps everyone alert to the probability of chemical/biological weapon usage. We are in the middle of Baghdad and there have been no attacks on any of our troops with these sorts of weapons. Given the level of nastiness Saddam demonstrates to his own people, do any of us honestly believe he would not use all weapons available to defend his turf?

I still believe that in the end, we will always be left wondering if the level of threat was really worth fighting this war over. Even a senior British government official said today that he expected a "very interesting debate" about the rationale of the war given how little evidence was being found regarding WMD.

We will probably find some residual things left over from previous wars. I am sure the administration will hammer these findings home in an effort to obfuscate the other motivations for this conflict. However, I am still waiting to see the big caches uncovered. I may be surprised, and that may happen. However, I think that the Iraqi reluctance to use any WMD in this war demonstrates the lack of validity the administration had in using the "alleged" weapons as the pry bar to take over Iraq. If Iraq cannot or will not use them to defend itself, would they really launch pre-emptive attacks on other countries? Doubtful.
PhillyFan
Wow you change all the time... first it was... they havent found any weapons... now it's well do they have a weapons program... I guess once they find these... you'll point out... well they dont have a nuclear bomb, we shouldnt have gone in... please, make up your mind. Or admit no matter what they find, you are not in support at the war at all, instead of just raising the bar each time.
Joe in Philly
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
Wow you change all the time... first it was... they havent found any weapons... now it's well do they have a weapons program...
Why are you incapable of having a discussion without completely twisting around someone's words? He didn't say anything remotely like what you write above.
PhillyFan
Well OK mr... Iraq agreed to fully disarm after the first gulf war... they did not do it and if you all admit they had chemical weapons, they are already in material breech of their original agreement. Scud missles are a material breech.. if you agree they contiued to hold old chemical weapons.. they are in material breech. Name one UN resolution, and they did not comply. Now you say they have to have a current program?

When i see people argue on here that Iraq has WMD's... NOW that some ARE being discovered it has changed to a "program"...
thersis
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
you'll point out... well they dont have a nuclear bomb, we shouldnt have gone in....
but weren't we told, starting about a year ago, that along with hoards of weapons of mass destruction, that saddam was within 3 to 6 months of having nuclear weapons?

so did someone misspeak?
was the evidence made up?
did someone lie?
did the intelligence come from some old magazine article (the enquirer, perhaps?)?

can't even you understand why so many look with a jaundiced eye at every administration pronouncement? it has nothing to do with a hatred of gwb, and everything to do with a love of democracy, open government, and the truth!
PhillyFan
Washington’s case that the Iraqi regime had failed to meet its obligation to give up weapons of mass destruction was, of course, based on much more than a few documents of questionable provenance from a small African nation.

Directly from the first article

Story from the NY Times in 1997...

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/iraq-bomb.html

more from that site

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/index.html

Anyway we know how well the atomic agency does... N Korea...

[ April 07, 2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]
charliecstl
It is interesting how multiple people can make distinct points using various sources of information, but you just keep shoving them aside without providing anything more than a statement that we must be wrong because we are not saying what you believe. Are you at all open to the possibility that people with different opinions just may have some validity to what they are saying? I only ask, because you have not demonstrated any sort of openness or interest in being better informed.

The administration's case was not that Saddam had not disarmed. It was that Saddam was continuing to develop WMD and that the world was on the brink of a catastrophe. They specifically tried to play the "WMD being given to terrorists" card, and were completely laughed at by most of the world (even the U.S. press). They talked about terrorist camps in Iraq where chemical weapons were being "churned" out at an alarming rate. The press proved that these camps were little more than shacks with no possible way of any weapons manufacturing. The administration talked about the nuclear weapons program, and then had every piece of evidence they presented to the UN proven to be made up. Every piece.

The point of this whole thread is that the WH played cards that were categorically proven to be a bunch of made up crap and unproven accusations. They were unable to prove that any new WMD programs were in progress, or that Iraq had not destroyed previous weapons.

My point has always been that Iraq may have some residual weapons (I have never stated they did not have anything), but they are nowhere near the levels the WH pressed us to believe so they could get into Iraq. Of course, now that they have bullied their way into the country, it will be far easier to sidestep any questions of how accurate their "intelligence" was to begin with.

I know that all of us on the board are bright and educated people. I don't mean to criticize, but it would be nice if there was more of an interest to be informed and to intake all information rather than only that which makes us feel better about our views. I can admit that Saddam was an evil man who needed to be dealt with, but it would be nice to see people recognize there were other avenues for doing just that.
PhillyFan
12 years, 15-20 UN resolutions, one gulf war, one invastion of Kuwait, One into Iran, Israel taking out the nuclear facility...

which new avenue are you wanting to take other than force? I'm sure he can be reasoned with.
charliecstl
Here is yet another good piece discussing this exact topic. It is from the International Herald Tribune.

The Mystery of Saddam's Banned Weapons

A couple of tidbits from the article:

QUOTE
The Bush administration has maintained that Iraq not only possesses chemical and biological weapons, but that those weapons posed an imminent threat to the United States. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency published a report in October stating that chemical and biological weapons production was under way in Iraq. This alleged threat was the public justification for short-circuiting the United Nations inspection process and launching the military campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

So far no weapons of mass destruction have been used against allied troops. Unfortunately for the Bush administration's case against Iraq, however, no such weapons have been discovered in any form.
and

QUOTE
Failure to discover chemical and biological weapons in Iraq will be used by many groups and countries to vilify the United States. It will also reinforce claims that such weapons were only a pretext for America to remove Saddam's regime for other political or geostrategic reasons. Any attempt by America to allege that Iraq destroyed its weapons at the last minute or shipped them out of country are likely to be viewed with great skepticism.

Most disturbingly, such a turn of events would all but eliminate U.S. credibility on weapons of mass destruction globally. Claims by Washington about weapons programs and intentions in North Korea and Iran would be viewed with suspicion while U.S. efforts to develop international responses to those serious nonproliferation challenges would be harder than ever.
You have a tremendous list of Iraqi flagrancies, but (yet again) you fail to do any real critical analysis on your own. The war with Iran was practically sponsored by the U.S. to try and disrupt the fundamentalist government there. You continue to ignore (or fail to intake) the fact that Presidents Reagan and Bush not only sponsored Saddam in that war, but handed him many of the weapons we are now fighting him over. Convenient for us -- give them to Iraq and then use them as an excuse for invading the country.

The Gulf War/Kuwaiti invasion are one and the same. Nice try, but it only counts once.

You also recite the same song and dance that was used leading up to the war. Saddam had 12 years and ignored all those resolutions. If you had been around several weeks ago, you would have noted a thread all about the UN. You may be surprised to find out (though probably not moved in any way) that the U.S. currently is supporting nations throughout the world (Morocco, Turkey, etc.) who are in long-term and ongoing violations of UN resolutions. (Gee, how can that be? Don't we take decisive action to make sure these are enforced?) It was convenient to point out Iraq's lack of cooperation, but we actively support the same behaviors from many other countries. They have something more to offer, so they are allowed to break the rules.

Saddam did have 12 years to disarm. In those 12 years, his country was under very strict economic sanctions, there were no-fly zones across 1/2 to 2/3 the country, and there were regular airstrikes constantly suppressing his military capacity. How in any way can any person with any kind of intelligence sit around and claim he had any capacity to be a threat to neighbors? I mean, his armed forces could not even mount a serious threat to our invasion. They certainly were not sitting around planning any kind of offensive tactics.

So, once again, I encourage you to do a little more reading and research before throwing out the same talking points that you have heard the administration give for months. It does not take much effort to realize that there is a bit more to it than the White House wants people to believe. Go ahead -- give it a try -- read something other than reports put out by the White House.
fantomas
Look, Charlie, I'm with you, but get this: if the repetition of the talking points, no matter how mendacious or specious, has convinced about 70% of Americans (and few outside this country), then PhillyFan or anyone else who's spouting them might as well keep doing so with the hope and aim of eventually bowling us over too. The power (or bludgeon) of litany, I suppose.

I don't know why Americans refuse to press this president more; maybe the Right Wing's true genius lies in having totally exhausted our national capacity to bear the interrogation of yet a president's behavior by having hammered Clinton so relentlessly. The excess, which amounted in zilchilla except Kenneth Starr's pornographic transcript of Clinton's sex life, wore most folks out. Now many Americans appear to accept whatever lie or half-truth Bush throws out no matter how outrageous or incoherent. WMDs--no, nukes--no liberation--no WMDs--no, payback--no....

And they become belligerent when you mention this or challenge him. Remember how they flew hacks and thugs down to Florida to intimidate the chad-counters--this was Republicans, not the Demos, who have been caving like weak souffles since that 2000 loss. Plus the Right have the media on their side--and the media are doing everything they can to keep people riveted to the talking points and propaganda and WAR PORN (bombs! tanks! advances and thrusts! more bombs!), while pushing mention of anything else--such as the Right Wing Republicans' and White House's having conspired to put a rider in a recent bill to limit federal judges' leeway to sentence criminals--off the screen.

But it's working. We'll all pay in the end, but for now, it's working. We talk about the voodoo zombies of Haiti, but I swear...but then again, I seem to live in and travel to states (like Iowa, recently) where people aren't zombie-like and are protesting and acting defiant, or at least engaged in a debate if they are pro-war, so then where are these 70% who are so gung-ho about the war? In Georgia, Mississippi and Texas?
Herr Tiggee
Well, I suppose that Iran and the Kurds must've just invented the idea that Hussein tried to gas them to death. What's next, "the Holocaust was a hoax?"
fantomas
QUOTE
AU Tiger in LA:
Well, I suppose that Iran and the Kurds must've just invented the idea that Hussein tried to gas them to death. What's next, \"the Holocaust was a hoax?\"
What are you talking about? No one ever said the Kurds or Iranians weren't gassed...the US GAVE BIO AND CHEM WEAPONS to Iraq. So let's not be hyperbolic. But W. claimed that Saddam was an imminent threat...that there were massive storehouses of these bio and chems that were easily and readily weaponizable, or even WEAPONIZED. Also he claimed they had nukes. What on EARTH does this have to do with the Holocaust? Please don't make light of that enormity through flip comments!
PhillyFan
So last night they were discussing something on the news... said some 70% of america isnt concerned with finding WMD.... Based on Torture chambers, plastic shredders, women and children human shields, driving women and children in cars at check points, the past gassing of Kurds, and on and on with human rights violations... could it be that people are saying, this was a bad bad man and we did a good thing by going in there...

Your WMD, first off.. they are fighting a war right now, You expect the war to be over in 2 days, the inspectors to inspect right next to the fighting soldiers?
charliecstl
Fanto -- I have been going back and forth on your point for several days, so I am glad you bring it up. Part of me thinks -- what is the point in trying to inform and educate when people clearly do not have any interest in thinking critically. Any plane you look at this on (political, religious/spiritual, moral/ethical), what we have done here is completely wrong. We are responding to the fundamentalist mentality with our own fundamentalist approach. However, there is such polarity in how this whole thing is viewed, everyone seems to have made up their minds and there is no openness to anything else.

Then I keep realizing that everyone (literally everyone) I know, and most of the people I come into contact with are very upset by the way we have handled this whole thing. I keep scratching my head and wondering just where are the people who support the administration (other than the handful who are posting here). They are really not anywhere I can find them.

So, do we let the current course of action continue without question and get shouted down by a few? Or do we continue to speak up, knowing that it will become clear one day that we have spoken wisely all along?

These are questions that I cannot answer for myself. So, one day I try and point out new information, and the next I pray that we all see more clearly in the near future. Our world is a much worse place today than it was just over two years ago, and our country is playing an active hand in its demise.
twin58
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
...this was a bad bad man and we did a good thing by going in there...
I can at least give you partial credit.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2012 Invision Power Services, Inc.