As others, I have experienced local governments and the federal government "puffing" the information to sale their agenda to us.
The other day one of the conservative radio talk show host (can't remember which one, I listen to so many) reminded a caller that the name of the war is Iraqi Freedom. To me, all of it does have a ring of a good car salesman.
I hope that the WMD information was correct.
Besides, if they were able to steal truckloads of money, into Syria, why not WMDs?
Evidence Distorted For War
Associated Press
June 7, 2003
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration distorted intelligence and presented conjecture as evidence to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a retired intelligence official who served during the months before the war.
"What disturbs me deeply is what I think are the disingenuous statements made from the very top about what the intelligence did say," said Greg Thielmann, who retired last September. "The area of distortion was greatest in the nuclear field."
Thielmann was director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. His office was privy to classified intelligence gathered by the CIA and other agencies about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.
In Thielmann's view, Iraq could have presented an immediate threat to U.S. security in two areas: Either it was about to make a nuclear weapon, or it was forming close operational ties with al-Qaida terrorists.
Evidence was lacking for both, despite claims by President Bush and others, Thielmann said in an interview this week. Suspicions were presented as fact, contrary arguments ignored, he said.
The administration's prewar portrayal of Iraq's weapons capabilities has not been validated despite weeks of searching by military experts. Alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons have not turned up, nor has significant evidence of a nuclear weapons program or links to the al-Qaida network.
Bush has said administration assertions on Iraq will be verified in time. The CIA and other agencies have vigorously defended their prewar performances.
CIA Director George Tenet, responding to similar criticism last week, said in a statement: "The integrity of our process was maintained throughout, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong." On Friday, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency acknowledged he had no hard evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons last fall but believed Iraq had a program in place to produce them.
Also Friday, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he was not prepared to place blame for any intelligence shortcomings until all information is in.
"There are always times when a single sentence or a single report evokes a lot of concern and some doubt," Warner told reporters after a closed hearing of his committee. "But thus far, in my own personal assessment of this situation, the intelligence community has diligently and forthrightly and with integrity produced intelligence and submitted it to this administration and to the Congress of the United States."
Thielmann suggested mistakes may have been made at points all along the chain from when intelligence is gathered, analyzed, presented to the president and then provided to the public.
The evidence of a renewed nuclear program in Iraq was far more limited than the administration contended, he said.
"When the administration did talk about specific evidence - it was basically declassified, sensitive information - it did it in a way that was also not entirely honest," Thielmann said.
In his State of the Union address, Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The Africa claim rested on a purported letter or letters between officials in Iraq and Niger held by European intelligence agencies. The communications are now accepted as forged, and Thielmann said he believed the information on Africa was discounted months before Bush mentioned it.
"I was very surprised to hear that be announced to the United States and the entire world," he said.
Thielmann said he had presumed Iraq had supplies of chemical and probably biological weapons. He particularly expected U.S. forces to find caches of mustard agent or other chemical weapons left over from Saddam's old stockpiles.
"We appear to have been wrong," he said. "I've been genuinely surprised at that."
One example where officials took too far a leap from the facts, according to Thielmann: On Feb. 11, CIA Director Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq "retains in violation of U.N. resolutions a small number of Scud missiles that it produced before the Gulf War."
Intelligence analysts supposed Iraq may have had some missiles because they couldn't account for all the Scuds it had before the first Gulf War, Thielmann said. They could have been destroyed, dismantled, miscounted or still somewhere in Saddam's inventory.
Some critics have suggested that the White House and Pentagon policy-makers pressured the CIA and military intelligence to come up with conclusions favorable to an attack-Iraq policy. The CIA and military have denied such charges. Thielmann said that generally he felt no such pressure.
Although his office did not directly handle terrorism issues, Thielmann said he was similarly unconvinced of a strong link between al-Qaida and Saddam's government.
Yet, the implication from Bush on down was that Saddam supported Osama bin Laden's network. Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks frequently were mentioned in the same sentence, even though officials have no good evidence of any link between the two.
posted on June 7, 2003 03:07:29 PM new
here is somthing from the "what really happened " website, and i think you americans should check this site out.....
ARE YOU ANGRY YET?
You should be! You've been lied to. Your tax money has been taken from you and spent under false pretenses. Your children have been sent off to kill and be killed in an illegal war launched without Congressional approval. You who fought in the war and think you came back home healthy, well, you've been lied to as well. Your health is all downhill from here (ask any Vet from Desert Storm), and your children will have a higher incidence of birth defects because that depleted uranium isn't as harmless as you were told it was. And those VA medical benefits you were promised? That was a lie too. Are you angry yet?
And those of you who sold your better judgment for a free hot-dog and a flag at a Clear Channel sponsored pro-Bush rally, well, you were lied to as well, and worse, made to look totally stupid before the rest of the world. The media which walked right past peace demonstrations to video tape the Clear Channel party plastered your face across the TV sets of the planet, waving your flag and shouting "Sig WMD! Sig WMD" and singing "Dubya Dubya Uber Alles" or something to that effect. And here you stand now, with egg on your collective faces, finally facing up to what your more intelligent neighbors knew all along; There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush made a total fool of you. The whole world is laughing at you. Those lacking the courage to admit they were wrong will no doubt descend into the ranks of fanatical "true believers", ready to drink the Kool-Aid for his highnessness der Dubyer. For the rest of you brave enough to admit you were fooled, are you angry yet?
And for you Congressional types reading this web site (and I know that many of you do), Bush made total jackasses out of you as well. Under the Constitution, which you are sworn to uphold, only Congress can declare war. Changing the name to "police action" or "battle" does not get you off of the hook. When our army marches into another nation to take it over, that's a war by any meaningful definition of the word. So, you passed a bill that authorized the President to send in the military to Iraq, but ONLY if the President could prove that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction in defiance of UN Resolution 1441. The President said he had proof, and you did not check him on it. And now that the world knows that the President did not actually have any such proof, the world knows that the US Congress failed in their job. You were had, used, swindled, conned, etc. Bush bypassed you. He got his illegal war right past you. The President has made the entire Congress look like weak and impotent idiots and fools before the rest of the world for not exercising due diligence over a serious matter like war. Are you angry yet?
Our media has tried to teach us all that hate and anger are bad. Anger must be "managed". Hate of any and all kinds must be suppressed. Well, I am here to tell you that certain hates and angers are not only justified, they are essential. I hate drug dealers, don't you? I hate liars, don't you? You're a sucker if you don't. I hate spies who use deception to trick our nation into doing things it ought not to be doing. Hate and anger helped drive the British out of the colonies 1776. Hate and anger fueled the victory of WW2, which is why Bush, with his lies, tried to trick us all (or at least the gullible ones) into hating and being angry at a designated target for invasion.
I am very angry. #$%^#%$ anger management, I am pissed off! And if you carry any of the blood of those who made this nation what it is today you have to be angry too. You should be angry. You must be angry. Because right now there is a battle about to start over whether this nation will continue to be ruled by those who lie, or whether the liars will be kicked out. Whether we will have honest government or not. Whether we will be slaves to liars, or free citizens with honorable and respectful and fair government.
Be angry. Be very angry. Hate liars. Focus your anger on them Drive them from office and from the media. There is no other choice but permanent servitude.
posted on June 7, 2003 04:23:11 PM new
No....I don't think we were lied to.
Even the Clinton administration stated how good they [Iraqi's] were at hiding and moving these weapons around while the UN inspectors were there during his administration. Easy to move, easy to hide and I think Bush deserves more time. 200 people looking for weapons in a country the size of California will require some time. Patience. They will either find them OR find out where they've been moved to.
How many times has Bush been accused of doing something by the leftists and as of today nothing has ever been proved. Just more of the same, imho.
posted on June 7, 2003 05:19:26 PM new
Linda, do you think we should be more patient? And for how long?
Frankly, I didn't vote for Bush. I didn't care for him until 9/11. His leadership has been very commanding, IMO. I don't agree with him on other issues, though.
So my vote hinges on the outcome of this war. If they mislead us, my vote may go elsewhere. It all depends on who is the Democrat. Truthfully, from my perspective, between Gore and Bush, it was the lesser of the two evils. Edwards is the only one that if we voted tomorrow I would vote for, if I was not to vote for Bush.
Elections is only 2 years away. That is a short time away. So if the WMD aren't proven and there isn't any valid explaination, I may not vote for Bush. If it gets right down to it, I may not vote for the presidency.
Do I trust Bush as much as I do anyone else in government, Demo or GOP. When we went into Iraq I figured that they knew things that we didn't. I had faith. Do I still have faith? Yes. But I am keeping an open mind.
posted on June 7, 2003 05:35:50 PM new
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." --Albert Gore, 23 September 2001, admitting the existence of Iraqi WMD while criticizing the Bush administration's adamancy in going after Saddam Hussein.
posted on June 7, 2003 05:54:53 PM newLinda, do you think we should be more patient? And for how long?
Yes, I think it's WAY too soon to be expecting results. I'd like to be sarcastic and say for the same 12-13 years we gave the UN inspectors following the first gulf war...and exactly what the anti-war folks said....for as long as it takes...but that wouldn't be how I really feel.
Honestly I don't know what a fair time frame would be, but I do believe it's way too soon right now. I've read they're sending in another 100 inspectors, bringing the total to 300. It's going to be months or maybe a year. That's a lot of sand, buildings, area to search, especially since they're finding many underground places. Look now how they keep coming across all these mass grave sights with large numbers of people. The general population didn't seen to know they were there. Look where some of that loot $$ was found...dog kennels etc. Who'd have thunk to look in dog kennels for millions of US dollars?
Frankly, I didn't vote for Bush. I didn't either. LOL That surprises many people. But he's our president and I have come to find that I've supported most of what he has done. I find him to be more honest a man than most politicians, and he's very strong on his convictions....not wishy-washy [changing his view according to what the latest poll says].
So my vote hinges on the outcome of this war. If they mislead us, my vote may go elsewhere. I believe a lot of people will join you on that. But I'm really waiting to hear what the Iraqi scientists are going to say on the WoMD issue. Haven't read a word about what they are aware of. I will, most likely, support Bush in this next election as things stand today. I think most of this comes from judging the demo don't offer much , they just spend most of their time complaining about the way bush is handling these issue....no offers of an alternative way that might work better....just critizism. If something changes I'll have to reconsider that thought. The biggest reason, for me, is having a President who's willing to take action, willing to do his job of protecting our nation. Willing to go against world opinion and do what's right for our country. He hasn't appeared as willing to put our nations interests aside....like in this 'one-world' way.
The biggest complaint I've had about Bush is his administrations unwillingness to lock up our boarders. Neither did clinton though. So...can't win no matter which side it is. And I strongly feel we need to get a much better handle on those boarders.
But share with me please how you think Bush might have misled us? You've read my posts....Clinton/gore said the same thing about the Iraqi weapons and Saddam's actions and about how they felt a regime change was necessary. How is that different to you that what Bush has told us?
Edwards is the only one that if we voted tomorrow I would vote for, if I was not to vote for Bush. I'd pretty much agree with you there. From the little I've read about all those hoping to win the party nomination he'd have my vote from the democratic side.
So if the WMD aren't proven and there isn't any valid explaination, I may not vote for Bush. I can understand that, but I think there will be.
posted on June 7, 2003 05:58:13 PM new
bear - Thanks for another quote from the previous administration. There are hundreds on google searches where they have said exactly the same thing that bush has said. And yet they question if they are being lied to by bush ONLY? Doesn't make any sense to me.
posted on June 7, 2003 06:01:03 PM new
No I don't, I think that all the hand tieing the UN and other peaceniks caused they slipped quietly across the border to safer confines....
This is the major problem with "nice wars" and hopefully the next will go back to WWII carpet bombing and forget about kissing any a$$...
posted on June 7, 2003 06:08:25 PM new
I agree, twelvepole. Many reports were saying 18wheel trucks were moving from Iraq to Syria long before we finally started our strikes. Some reports were questioning whether Saddam or his family might be being transported to Syran in these trucks.
Even clinton mentioned, in 1998, that was the reason he felt he needed to take immediate action [surprise]....before they had a chance to move these weapons. Saddam had 13 years to get VERY good at moving and hiding these weapons from the UN inspectors.
posted on June 7, 2003 08:05:03 PM new
Yes, we have been mislead. The best arguement the right has to offer is the end justifies the means or might makes right. That is untrue however, might can sometimes dominate in the short haul.
posted on June 8, 2003 06:12:30 AM new"It really doesn't matter."
Yes, It does matter if our government lies to us.
................................................................................................................................................................................
(CBS/AP) The United States, Britain and Australia are all facing calls for probes of the intelligence behind their claim that Iraq possessed illegal weapons of mass destruction. In Washington, two Senate committees will soon hold joint hearings on the prewar intelligence. Opposition politicians in Australia want a similar inquiry. British Prime Minister Tony Blair faces accusations from anti-war lawmakers in his own party that he hyped the threat from Iraq's weapons to justify war.
Iraq's alleged illegal arsenal was a leading reason quoted by the three governments for invading the country, along with Saddam Hussein's alleged
http://tomrue.tripod.com/pub/starr/
--------------------------------
Clinton's an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that?" Bob Kerrey [D-Neb.], Esquire, 1/96) Senator and Chairman of Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
While many presidents have lied, none has been so repeatedly and pathologically dishonest as Clinton. My personal experience covering presidential politics goes back over 40 years and eight presidents. I have also closely followed corrupt politics in three cities. No one has ever accused me of not being cynical enough about politics. Yet when Clinton came along, I was impressed.
WHY ARE LIBERALS so willing to condone Clinton's lies?
After the president admitted that he repeatedly lied to the American people, why are they saying it's time to forgive and forget, when they should be screaming for his resignation?
From the liberalism of Harry S. Truman and Hubert H. Humphrey -- both of whom understood the meaning of honor -- we have descended to the liberalism of Geraldo Rivera, who blames Kenneth Starr for uncovering the truth, instead of blaming Clinton for denying the truth.
If Clinton were a great leader, the story might be tragic. But Clinton is a pathetic sociopath, and the story is a farce -- though not a very funny one.
posted on June 8, 2003 09:29:49 AM new
If Bush was dishonest, he would've just planted the damn WOMD's. They were probably buried before the war. Saddam's top people know where they are, but they aren't talking. What they need to do is offer a reward of a few million dollars and amnesty for info that helps us find them.
posted on June 8, 2003 09:37:22 AM new
Keeping in mind the Presidential "misleading" allegations are not new and existed with each man.
Recently I watched a special on the infamous bombing on Japan in 1945.
There is a theory that we didn't need to bomb the two cities and that the US said the areas were military, which apparently wasn't true. The pictures of the aftermath did shock the US.
The reason some think the bombing was not necessary was that some think Japan was going to voluntarly surrender anyways, because they wanted to avoid fighting Russia who was looking at Japan after they/we conquered Germany.
However, if this information is true, in my minds eye is that there was no guarantee that Japan would voluntarly surrender and if this thought is true then I wonder how far they would have gone.
posted on June 8, 2003 09:40:45 AM new
ebayauctionguy
What they need to do is offer a reward of a few million dollars and amnesty for info that helps us find them.
The $25 million hasn't helped to capture Bin Laden, so what makes you think your strategy of a bounty, would help find the alleged WMDs?
ebayauctionguy
If Bush was dishonest, he would've just planted the damn WOMD's.
Too many witnesses, the soldiers, media etc. Look what happened to the PFC Lynch story that was "puffed" and then was revealed, leaving IMO egg in some faces.
posted on June 8, 2003 09:58:03 AM new
"If Bush was dishonest, he would've just planted the damn WOMD's. They were probably buried before the war. Saddam's top people know where they are, but they aren't talking. What they need to do is offer a reward of a few million dollars and amnesty for info that helps us find them."
Bush's track record is one of dishonesty and self gain before the welfare of others. I refer to his business dealings prior to entering public life (Harken, insider trading). I realize that this is the American business model but prefer the Government not to line the pockets of it's cronies at the taxpayer expense. You may be willing to suspend disbelief in the statements of this administration but I find the stories they have spun to be thin.
I assume planting was discussed but that past attempts to manufacture or suppress have not worked well as in the case of Watergate, Iran Contra, etc.
I have assiduously searched the links you so magnanimously provided concerning the former President, Clinton, but nowhere can I find any statistics relating to the number of American servicemen and women who were killed, maimed, wounded or otherwise grievously injured or harmed as a direct consequence of the lies that Clinton uttered.
posted on June 8, 2003 03:16:43 PM new
Why would anyone, anywhere, deliberately bury weapons of any kind, thereby rendering them useless, when he or she knew their sovereign country would be invaded by a foreign country and they themselves would be hunted down, persecuted and, quite likely, killed by the invaders??
Is that what you would do in a similar situation? To what end?
United Nations Security Council members have called on the Bush Administration to allow UN weapons inspectors to return to Iraq to certify whether Baghdad possessed biological and chemical weapons before the war.
But their plea was shrugged off by President George Bush, who vowed to "reveal the truth" about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
The call for a resumption of UN inspections, which was endorsed on Thursday by an overwhelming majority of council members, including Britain, America's closest military ally, came as the Bush Administration faces charges by members of Congress and some intelligence analysts that it may have exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq to justify the invasion.
My fellow Americans, I am happy to announce that I burnt down my garage last night --
because phony intelligence reports suggested it might have weapons of mass destruction
in it. And while I haven't found any evidence that my garage did in fact have weapons of
mass destruction in it, I think I can say without fear of contradiction that no terrorist
network will gain weapons of mass destruction from my garage, because my garage is no
more.
posted on June 9, 2003 10:31:38 AM new
Linda_K STATED:
Many reports were saying 18wheel trucks were moving from Iraq to Syria long before we finally started our strikes. Some reports were questioning whether Saddam or his family might be being transported to Syran in these trucks.
As you all are soooooo proud to spout....
SHOW US THE LINKS!!!!
And not Op-Ed pieces, the simple truth will do.....
posted on June 9, 2003 11:48:11 AM new
LOL melcher - So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you believe Saddam when he said he has no WoMB as opposed to believing your own government, and the government intelligence of many other countries that Saddam was lying.
In my full quote of Clinton's speach in 1998 after he had deployed troops for ...let's see....no reason...according to you, because there are no WoMD, he said:
Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
In that same speach clinton also said: "If we had delayed for even a matter of days.....we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons. And this time we gave him months to do so.
Any reasonable person, who reads clinton's own words, can see that even clinton believed he had WoMD and if given time Saddam would 'protect this weapons'.
Choose to believe it or not....it's been stated by both sides of the aisle.
On the reports I heard and read...I'm not going to spend hours searching for links to them for you. You still wouldn't believe it anyway so what's the point..
posted on June 9, 2003 01:20:24 PM new
Linda, The fact that administrations prior to this one believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction cannot be cited as justification for lies about it today.
posted on June 9, 2003 01:42:15 PM new
"Interesting how the same Leftists who wanted us to give UN weapons inspectors decades in Iraq are now sure the Bush Administration must have lied about WMD because the military hasn't found them in six weeks."
---------------
"If the fact that the coalition forces haven't (yet) discovered WMD in Iraq means, as the Left insists, they never existed, does it follow that since Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have not been found, they never existed?"
The Federalist....
********************************
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mills
