Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[crazy canuck]

I ultimately think the Bush administration was genuinely surprised that WMD were not present. Prewar, the government was searching very hard for evidence of something they "knew" to be there.

I ultimately think that this untruth that "WMD were not present" will win out over the truth that, not only were they present, but US news media were full of the stories of the ill effects suffered by the troops who had to dispose of them.  I was just today showing my history class a History Channel video on Dubya, and it made the same claim that "no WMD were found."

That is a simplistic assessment.  Did Bush lie?  It depends on what he actually knew.  If he read the briefing reports then he knew what he was saying was cherry picking. It is misleading to suggest there were actual WMDs.  How is that exaggeration verging on lie continuing to be perpetuated?

From an in depth report in the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-wmds-an-intelligence-failure-or-white-house-spin/

In particular, administration officials leaked to the New York Times that Iraq had obtained large quantities of aluminum tubes for use in the uranium enrichment project — though the Energy Department experts were convinced that the tubes were poorly suited for such uses and instead were intended for artillery rockets.

Also, before the war, CIA Director George Tenet warned the White House not to use sketchy intelligence about Iraqi purchases of uranium in Africa. But the White House inserted it into a presidential speech anyway, much to its later embarrassment.

After the invasion, officials discovered Iraq had basically ended its nuclear weapon program in 1991.

The intelligence community consistently stated between the late 1990s and 2003 that Iraq retained biological warfare agents and the capability to produce more. However, there were intelligence gaps in Iraq's biological weapons programs, made explicit in the October 2002 NIE, which policymakers did not discuss.

After the war, officials discovered that Iraq had not conducted biological weapons production research since 1996. Iraq could have reestablished an elementary program within weeks, but no indications were found that Iraq intended to do so.

The October NIE said that Iraq retained between 100 and 500 metric tons of chemical weapons. The intelligence community assessed that Hussein wanted to have chemical weapons capability and that Iraq was seeking to hide its capability in its dual-use chemical industry. However, intelligence assessments clearly stated that analysts could not confirm that production was ongoing.

After the war, officials could find no caches of chemical weapons munitions and only a handful of pre-1991 chemical munitions. There was no credible evidence that Iraq resumed its chemical weapons program after 1991.

The Bottom Line
The intelligence community's assessments on Iraq's WMD stockpiles and programs turned out to be woefully wrong, largely because analysts believed that Iraq had kept on a path of building its programs rather than largely abandoning them after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Thus the stockpiles theoretically got larger as time went on.

But at the same time, the Senate report shows Bush administration officials often hyped the intelligence that supported their policy goals — while ignoring or playing down dissents or caveats from within the intelligence community. The intelligence was used for political purposes, to build public support for a war that might have been launched no matter what intelligence analysts had said about the prospect of finding WMDs in Iraq.

(We do not know whether Bush read the dissents in the NIE. His memoir just says the NIE was based on "much of the same intelligence the CIA had been showing to me for the past eighteen months." Then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice wrote in her memoir that "NSC Principals, all experienced people, read the NIE from cover to cover." The National Security Council is chaired by the president, and regular attendees include the vice president, secretary of state, defense secretary, treasury secretary and national security adviser.)

Fleischer says it is "a lie" that Bush lied. Regular readers know we generally do not use the word "lie." Fleischer is offering his opinion — one that conveniently ignores the Senate report that looked at this issue. His own deputy at the time certainly said the White House spun the intelligence for political purposes, while Fleischer still argues that White House was misled by the intelligence community.

Is there a fine line between hyping the evidence and lying about it? It's too fuzzy for the Pinocchio Test, as it also falls in the realm of opinion. But we will let our readers offer their own opinion below.

[viper37]

I ultimately think that this untruth that "WMD were not present" will win out over the truth that, not only were they present, but US news media were full of the stories of the ill effects suffered by the troops who had to dispose of them.  I was just today showing my history class a History Channel video on Dubya, and it made the same claim that "no WMD were found."

if the US government knew for real there were WMDs (that would have presumably been moved to Syria or elsewhere before the war began), really expected WMDs to be found, why were there so many soldiers suffering from ill effects from such weapons they had to dispose that US medias were full of them, why were those soldiers sent there without adequate equipment to detect and then dispose of safely of such material?  I mean, the US and other major world powers have created such weapons in the past, they would certainly know how to protect the people inspecting and dismantling the sites?

This I don't get.

But I understand your point, there were old stockpiles of weapons found in Iraq:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

It's a nasty shortcut lots of people use, that "no new WMD weapon programs" = "no WMD weapons were found".

Both you and CC are right on this one.

[grumbler]

if the US government knew for real there were WMDs (that would have presumably been moved to Syria or elsewhere before the war began), really expected WMDs to be found, why were there so many soldiers suffering from ill effects from such weapons they had to dispose that US medias were full of them, why were those soldiers sent there without adequate equipment to detect and then dispose of safely of such material?  I mean, the US and other major world powers have created such weapons in the past, they would certainly know how to protect the people inspecting and dismantling the sites?

This I don't get.

But I understand your point, there were old stockpiles of weapons found in Iraq:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

It's a nasty shortcut lots of people use, that "no new WMD weapon programs" = "no WMD weapons were found".

Both you and CC are right on this one.

Exactly.  The fact that there was no ongoing program has morphed into the untruth (I'm not saying it is an outright lie, because "lie" implies that one is being deliberate about it) that "there were no WMDs."  The Bush administration was definitely lying when they implied that Iraqi WMDs were a threat to the US and that WMDs represented a causus belli.

[grumbler]

That is a simplistic assessment.  Did Bush lie?  It depends on what he actually knew.  If he read the briefing reports then he knew what he was saying was cherry picking. It is misleading to suggest there were actual WMDs.  How is that exaggeration verging on lie continuing to be perpetuated?

There were actual WMDs. That's my point.  The issue of whether "Bush Lied" is entirely external to the point I made.

[Valmy]

What sort of WMDs? I understand there were chemical weapons but they are bulky and difficult to use and not particularly effective, especially against the United States by Iraq. Conventional explosives would be more of a threat.

Were any others?

[crazy canuck]

What sort of WMDs? I understand there were chemical weapons but they are bulky and difficult to use and not particularly effective, especially against the United States by Iraq. Conventional explosives would be more of a threat.

Were any others?

If you go back to the Washington Post article, they examined that point.  I suspect what Grumbler is talking about, when he asserts without any qualification that WMDs existed, are weapons left over from earlier production.  Which is a complete obfuscation of the facts.   The US did no go to war because of a claim Iraq had weapons which were produced in 1991.  The threat which was claimed was that the weapons were being produced at the time and in the case of nuclear weapons, were actively being developed.  None of that was true.

[Razgovory]

Are talking about few gas shells forgotten in some bunker or warehouse?

[Berkut]

What sort of WMDs? I understand there were chemical weapons but they are bulky and difficult to use and not particularly effective, especially against the United States by Iraq. Conventional explosives would be more of a threat.

Were any others?

If you go back to the Washington Post article, they examined that point.  I suspect what Grumbler is talking about, when he asserts without any qualification that WMDs existed, are weapons left over from earlier production.  Which is a complete obfuscation of the facts.   The US did no go to war because of a claim Iraq had weapons which were produced in 1991.  The threat which was claimed was that the weapons were being produced at the time and in the case of nuclear weapons, were actively being developed.  None of that was true.

ANyone who watched the actual case for the war knew exactly what was being claimed - that Saddam had NOT given up his WMD programs (which included both existing and future weapons) and more importantly, had not cooperated in the manner the previous cease fire demanded and in the manner he agreed to cooperate.

There is much to find contemptible about the case made for that war, you don't need to fabricate new outrage based on claims nobody actually made, like "nuclear weapons, were actively being developed" with what that is implying. Nobody who voted for that war or supported the war on the grounds of Saddam violating his agreements around his WMD programs did so because they were concerned that Saddam was on the verge of being a nuclear power any time soon.

[crazy canuck]

What sort of WMDs? I understand there were chemical weapons but they are bulky and difficult to use and not particularly effective, especially against the United States by Iraq. Conventional explosives would be more of a threat.

Were any others?

If you go back to the Washington Post article, they examined that point.  I suspect what Grumbler is talking about, when he asserts without any qualification that WMDs existed, are weapons left over from earlier production.  Which is a complete obfuscation of the facts.   The US did no go to war because of a claim Iraq had weapons which were produced in 1991.  The threat which was claimed was that the weapons were being produced at the time and in the case of nuclear weapons, were actively being developed.  None of that was true.

ANyone who watched the actual case for the war knew exactly what was being claimed - that Saddam had NOT given up his WMD programs (which included both existing and future weapons) and more importantly, had not cooperated in the manner the previous cease fire demanded and in the manner he agreed to cooperate.

There is much to find contemptible about the case made for that war, you don't need to fabricate new outrage based on claims nobody actually made, like "nuclear weapons, were actively being developed" with what that is implying. Nobody who voted for that war or supported the war on the grounds of Saddam violating his agreements around his WMD programs did so because they were concerned that Saddam was on the verge of being a nuclear power any time soon.

Your recollection is interesting even if a bit hazy.  I prefer the analysis done by the Washington Post based on what was actually said and claimed.  Give it a read. You will find it interesting.

[Valmy]

It has been awhile and I haven't thought about this in over a decade so perhaps I am mistaken but wasn't there some claim that Iraq was getting Nuclear material from Africa? The yellow-cake thing? That was what the Brits said they had discovered right? Did we already know that wasn't true by the time we invaded?

I don't remember that being part of Powell's UN presentation though.

Edit: Ok ok CC I will read that Washington Post article

[Berkut]

What sort of WMDs? I understand there were chemical weapons but they are bulky and difficult to use and not particularly effective, especially against the United States by Iraq. Conventional explosives would be more of a threat.

Were any others?

If you go back to the Washington Post article, they examined that point.  I suspect what Grumbler is talking about, when he asserts without any qualification that WMDs existed, are weapons left over from earlier production.  Which is a complete obfuscation of the facts.   The US did no go to war because of a claim Iraq had weapons which were produced in 1991.  The threat which was claimed was that the weapons were being produced at the time and in the case of nuclear weapons, were actively being developed.  None of that was true.

ANyone who watched the actual case for the war knew exactly what was being claimed - that Saddam had NOT given up his WMD programs (which included both existing and future weapons) and more importantly, had not cooperated in the manner the previous cease fire demanded and in the manner he agreed to cooperate.

There is much to find contemptible about the case made for that war, you don't need to fabricate new outrage based on claims nobody actually made, like "nuclear weapons, were actively being developed" with what that is implying. Nobody who voted for that war or supported the war on the grounds of Saddam violating his agreements around his WMD programs did so because they were concerned that Saddam was on the verge of being a nuclear power any time soon.

Your recollection is interesting even if a bit hazy.  I prefer the analysis done by the Washington Post based on what was actually said and claimed.  Give it a read. You will find it interesting.

I read the article, and it doesn't say what you are claiming - that nuclear weapons were actively being developed.

You are intentionally exaggerating the claims made and the context they were made in in order to further the tired anti-American screed. Yawn.

I am pretty comfortable, as someone who actually supported the war (although not for these reasons) with my recollection of what was presented. There was never any claim that Iraq had some kind of active nuclear program, the claim was that Saddam had not given up his programs completely, and was just biding his time until everyone quit paying attention. That wasn't actually very true, or at least involved a rather impressive spinning of very thin data.

Nobody watching Powell came away thinking "OMG Saddam will have a nuke in a few years if we don't do something!" That was never the claim, and it will never become the claim, even if people like you desperately wish to ret-con history to make it so.

Like I said, there is plenty of reason to find what the Bush admin did contemptible to sell that war. You dont need to just make up new stuff, although I understand why you love to do so anyway.

[Valmy]

Ok that article makes it pretty clear that Iraq had no WMD industry since 1996. And frankly the only one that ever was any concern was the nukes and that turned out to be total BS. That doesn't mean the administration lied, they just only saw what would help their case...not an unusual failure by executive leadership. But maybe grumbler knows something the Washington Post does not.

But, as I stated at the time, the reasons to end the sanctions and Saddam's regime were not just about the WMD. I just hoped that we had some kind of plan of what to do if we were going to do that...and we didn't...at least not a good one. That is the main failure of the Bush Presidency, if you are going to topple a government you need to have a good plan ready to go. Still amazing that the guy who constantly attacked Clinton for all his nation building and aggressive foreign policy would be several times more aggressive and build multiple nations (badly...) during his tenure.

[crazy canuck]

Ok that article makes it pretty clear that Iraq had no WMD industry since 1996. And frankly the only one that ever was any concern was the nukes and that turned out to be total BS. That doesn't mean the administration lied, they just only saw what would help their case...not an unusual failure by executive leadership. But maybe grumbler knows something the Washington Post does not.

But, as I stated at the time, the reasons to end the sanctions and Saddam's regime were not just about the WMD. I just hoped that we had some kind of plan of what to do if we were going to do that...and we didn't...at least not a good one. That is the main failure of the Bush Presidency, if you are going to topple a government you need to have a good plan ready to go. Still amazing that the guy who constantly attacked Clinton for all his nation building and aggressive foreign policy would be several times more aggressive and build multiple nations (badly...) during his tenure.

If you read it a bit more carefully, the question of who was lying is dependent on who you are talking about.  If lying includes hiding the uncertainties about what you are saying and portraying what you are saying as accurate then what they did was lie.

Bush himself was probably not lying because he did not know the details.  But others, not so much.

[Valmy]

The problem clearly was that the WMD was not the actual reason they wanted to invade Iraq, it was just the casus belli pretext so the Vice-President and company were not too motivated to dwell on details like maybe what they were saying was not as solidly supported as they implied.

[crazy canuck]

The problem clearly was that the WMD was not the actual reason they wanted to invade Iraq, it was just the casus belli pretext so the Vice-President and company were not too motivated to dwell on details like maybe what they were saying was not as solidly supported as they implied.

Yes, exactly.  Therein lies the deceit.  They wanted to invade for other reasons but they needed to get others, both domestic and international, to support their cause and so the WMD story was created.