<div>Tony et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>First, I agree the democrats exhibited a massive failure in their complicity with the Bush administration in "going along" with the Iraq invasion. Second, to say that the Bush administration's bending of intelligence to suit their goal of taking the US to war in Iraq was based on a "less than sterling intelligence apparatus" is not to recognize that Bush told out right falsehoods to the nation in the push for war, one of which was the claim that Iraq was obtaining yellow cake uranium coming from Niger for a nuclear weapons program, for example, a so called fact that was known at the time to be extremely doubtful when Bush announced this to the nation. Bush warned the US of a "mushroom cloud over America" but there was no evidence Iraq had this capability:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery</a></div>
<div>------------</div>
<div>Third, a good argument can be made that the invasion of Iraq is advocating for our enemies:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040809-121539-3204r.htm">http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040809-121539-3204r.htm</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Imperial Hubris" is a bitter condemnation of U.S. counterterrorism strategy. In it, Mr. Scheuer argues that the West is losing the war against al Qaeda and that an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has been a "Christmas present" for bin Laden.
<br>--------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Fourth, we did not all think that Saddam had any significant WMD threat in the months before the invasion of Iraq. I have already done research on this subject, and in fact I stated quite definitely in January 2003, on the Vision2020 list, that the WMD threat from Iraq was overblown. A significant source for this belief (Scott Ritter, Iraq weapons inspector), and my post from January 2003, can be read at these links:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2003-January/000218.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2003-January/000218.html
</a></div>
<div><br>But what, you might say, about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq <br>sponsored terrorism? I think any realistic analysis of these threats <br>exposes them as minor, blown way out of proportion to be used as moral
<br>justifications for what is nothing more than good old fashioned imperialism. <br> Numerous other states are more of a threat with weapons of mass <br>destruction and sponsoring terrorism.<br>------------</div>
<div>Info on Iraq Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter's warnings on Iraq WMD status before the invasion:<br> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2006-April/028827.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2006-April/028827.html</a>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>*Published on Friday, February 6, 2004 by the International Herald<br>Tribune <<a href="http://www.iht.com/">http://www.iht.com/</a>> *<br>*Not Everyone Got it Wrong on Iraq's Weapons *<br>*by Scott Ritter *<br>
<br><br>'We were all wrong," David Kay, the Bush administration's former top weapons<br>sleuth in Iraq, recently told members of Congress after acknowledging that<br>there were probably no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
<br><br>Kay insisted that the blame for the failure to find any such weapons lay<br>with the U.S. intelligence community, which, according to Kay, provided<br>inaccurate assessments.<br><br>The Kay remarks appear to be an attempt to spin potentially damaging data to
<br>the political advantage of President George W. Bush.<br><br>The president's decision to create an "independent commission" to<br>investigate this intelligence failure only reinforces this suspicion, since<br>
such a commission would only be given the mandate to examine intelligence<br>data, and not the policies and decision-making processes that made use of<br>that data. More disturbing, the commission's findings would be delayed until
<br>late fall, after the November presidential election.<br><br>The fact, independent of the findings of any commission, is that not<br>everyone was wrong.<br><br>I, for one, was not. I did my level best to demand facts from the Bush
<br>administration to back up their allegations regarding Iraq's WMD and,<br>failing that, spoke out and wrote in as many forums as possible in an effort<br>to educate the publics of the United States and the world about the danger
<br>of going to war based on a hyped-up threat.<br><br>In this I was not alone. Rolf Ekeus, the former head of the UN weapons<br>inspectors in Iraq, has declared that under his direction, Iraq was<br>"fundamentally disarmed" as early as 1996. Hans Blix, who headed UN weapons
<br>inspections in Iraq in the months before the invasion in March 2003, stated<br>that his inspectors had found no evidence of either WMD or WMD-related<br>programs in Iraq. And officials familiar with Iraq, like Ambassador Joseph
<br>Wilson and State Department intelligence analyst Greg Theilmann, both<br>exposed the unsustained nature of the Bush claims regarding Iraq's nuclear<br>capability.<br><br>The riddle surrounding Iraq's WMD was solvable without resorting to war. For
<br>all the layers of deceit and obfuscation, there existed enough basic<br>elements of truth and substantive fact about the disposition of Saddam<br>Hussein's secret weapons programs to permit the Gordian knot to be cleaved
<br>by anyone willing to try. Sadly, it seems that there was no predisposition<br>on the part of those assigned the task of solving the riddle to do so.<br><br>Bush's decision to limit the scope of any inquiry to intelligence matters,
<br>effectively blocking any critique of his administration's use - or abuse -<br>of such intelligence, is absurd, especially when one considers that the Bush<br>administration was already talking of war with Iraq in 2002, prior to the
<br>preparation of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) - the defining<br>document on a particular area of the world or specified threat - by the<br>director of Central Intelligence.<br><br>According to a Department of Defense after-action report on Iraq titled
<br>"Operation Iraqi Freedom: Strategic Lessons Learned," a copy of which was<br>obtained by The Washington Times in September 2003, "President Bush approved<br>the overall war strategy for Iraq in August last year." The specific date
<br>cited was Aug. 29, 2002 - eight months before the first bomb was dropped.<br><br>The CIA did eventually produce a National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq,<br>but only in October 2002, after Bush had already decided on war. The title
<br>of the NIE, "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction," is<br>reflective of a predisposition that was not supported either by the facts<br>available at the time, or by the passage of time.<br>
<br>Stu Cohen, a 28-year veteran of the CIA, wrote in a statement published on<br>the CIA Web site on Nov. 28, 2003, that the Oct. 2002 National Intelligence<br>Estimate "judged with high confidence that Iraq had chemical and biological
<br>weapons as well as missiles in excess of the 150-kilometer limit imposed by<br>the UN Security Council. … These judgments were essentially the same<br>conclusions reached by the United Nations and a wide array of intelligence
<br>services - friendly and unfriendly alike."<br><br>Cohen said the October NIE was "policy neutral" - meaning it did not propose<br>a policy that argued either for or against going to war. He also stated that
<br>no one who worked on the NIE had been pressured by the Bush White House.<br><br>Cohen is wrong in his assertions. The fact that a major policy decision like<br>war with Iraq was made without the benefit of an NIE is, in and of itself,
<br>policy manipulation.<br><br>I worked with Cohen on numerous occasions during this time, and consider him<br>a reasonable man. So I had to wonder when this intelligence professional,<br>confronted with the totality of the failure of the CIA to accurately assess
<br>the WMD threat, wrote that he was "convinced that no reasonable person could<br>have viewed the totality of the information that the intelligence community<br>had at its disposal - literally millions of pages - and reached any
<br>conclusions or alternative views that were profoundly different from those<br>that we reached."<br><br>I consider myself also to be a reasonable person. Like Cohen and the<br>intelligence professionals who prepared the October 2002 NIE, I was
<br>intimately familiar with vast quantities of intelligence data collected from<br>around the world by numerous foreign intelligence services (including the<br>CIA) and on the ground in Iraq by UN weapons inspectors, at least until the
<br>time of my resignation from Unscom in August 1998. Based on this experience,<br>I was asked by Arms Control Today, the journal of the Arms Control<br>Association, to write an article on the status of disarmament regarding
<br>Iraq's WMD.<br><br>The article, "The Case for Iraq's Qualitative Disarmament," was published in<br>June 2000 and received broad coverage. Its conclusions were dismissed by the<br>intelligence communities of the United States and Britain. But my finding -
<br>that "because of the work carried out by Unscom, it can be fairly stated<br>that Iraq was qualitatively disarmed at the time inspectors were withdrawn<br>[in December 1998]" - was an accurate assessment of the disarming of Iraq's
<br>WMD capabilities, much more so than the CIA's October NIE or any<br>corresponding analysis carried out by British intelligence services.<br><br>I am not alone in my analysis. Ray McGovern, who heads a group called<br>
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or VIPS, also takes umbrage<br>at Cohen's "no reasonable person" assertion. "Had he taken the trouble to<br>read the op-eds and other issuances of VIPs members over the past two
<br>years," McGovern told me, he would have found that "our writings<br>consistently contained conclusions and alternative views that were indeed<br>profoundly different - even without having had access to what Stu calls the
<br>'totality of the information.' And Stu never indicated he thought us not<br>'reasonable' - at least back when many of us worked with him at CIA."<br><br>The fact is that McGovern and I, together with scores of intelligence
<br>professionals, retired or still in service, who studied Iraq and its WMD<br>capabilities, are reasonable men. We got it right.<br><br>The Bush administration, in its rush to war, ignored our advice and the body<br>of factual data we used, and instead relied on rumor, speculation,
<br>exaggeration and falsification to mislead the American people and their<br>elected representatives into supporting a war that is rapidly turning into a<br>quagmire. We knew the truth about Iraq's WMD. Sadly, no one listened.
<br><br>*The writer was chief UN inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 *<br><br>Copyright (c) 2004 the International Herald Tribune<br><br>###<br>----------------<br><br>*What Happened to Iraq's WMD<br>How politics corrupts intelligence *
<br>*by Scott Ritter; San Francisco<br>Chronicle<<a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/04/EDGQIF5U1L1.DTL">http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/04/EDGQIF5U1L1.DTL</a>>;<br>
December 06, 2005*<br><br>The recent exchange of vitriol between Republican and Democratic lawmakers<br>over the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and more specifically<br>the disconnect between the intelligence data cited by the Bush
<br>administration as justification for invading Iraq and the resultant<br>conclusion by the CIA that all Iraqi WMD had already been eliminated as<br>early as 1991, has once again thrust the issue of the use of intelligence
<br>for political purposes front and center.<br><br>Democrats accuse the president and his supporters of deliberately misleading<br>them and the American people about the nature of the Iraqi threat.<br>Republicans respond that the Democrats are rewriting history, that all
<br>parties involved had access to the same intelligence data and had drawn the<br>same conclusions. Typical of the Republican-led rebuttal are statements made<br>by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who noted that "every intelligence agency in
<br>the world, including the Russian, French, including the Israeli, all had<br>reached the same conclusion, and that was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of<br>mass destruction."<br><br>But this is disingenuous. The intelligence services of everyone else were
<br>not proclaiming Iraq to be in possession of WMD. Rather, the intelligence<br>services of France, Russia, Germany, Great Britain and Israel were noting<br>that Iraq had failed to properly account for the totality of its past
<br>proscribed weapons programs, and in doing so left open the possibility that<br>Iraq might retain an undetermined amount of WMD. There is a huge difference<br>in substance and nuance between such assessments and the hyped-up assertions
<br>by the Bush administration concerning active programs dedicated to the<br>reconstitution of WMD, as well as the existence of massive stockpiles of<br>forbidden weaponry.<br><br>The actions and rhetoric of the Bush administration were aided by the
<br>tendency by most involved to accept at face value any negative information<br>pertaining to Hussein and his regime, regardless of the source's<br>reliability. This trend was especially evident in Congress, responsible for
<br>oversight on matters pertaining to foreign policy, intelligence and national<br>security.<br><br>One might be inclined to excuse lesser members of the legislative branch for<br>such actions, given their lack of access to sensitive intelligence, but not
<br>so senior figures who sit on oversight committees, such as California<br>Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who occupied a seat on the Senate Select<br>Intelligence Committee. Today, Feinstein all-too conveniently "regrets" her
<br>vote in favor of war on Iraq, but defends her yes vote in 2002 by noting<br>that "the intelligence was very conclusive: Saddam possessed biological and<br>chemical weapons." This is a far different from the statement Feinstein made
<br>to me in the summer of 2002, when she acknowledged that the Bush<br>administration had not provided any convincing intelligence to back up its<br>claims about Iraqi WMD.<br><br>In contrast to Feinstein's actions, Sen. Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat who
<br>also sat on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, noted in September<br>2002 that the Bush administration's decisions regarding Iraq had been made<br>in the absence of a National Intelligence Estimate from the CIA. The CIA
<br>hastily rushed to produce such a document, but the resulting report appeared<br>as much to be an example of intelligence being fixed around policy, as<br>opposed to policy being derived from intelligence. Graham, his eyes opened
<br>by the seemingly baseless rush toward conflict in Iraq, voted no on the war.<br>Feinstein and others, their eyes wide shut, voted yes.<br><br>The crux of the problem of this Iraqi WMD intelligence "failure" lies in the
<br>fact that the U.S. intelligence community and the products it produces are<br>increasingly influenced by the corrupting influences of politics. The<br>politicization of the intelligence community allows the process of fixing
<br>intelligence around policy to become pervasive, and the increasingly<br>polarized political climate in America prevents any real checks and balances<br>through effective oversight, leaving Americans at the mercy of politicians
<br>who have placed partisan politics above the common good. The recent overhaul<br>of the U.S. intelligence community, which resulted in the creation of the<br>national intelligence chief, only reinforces this politicization, because
<br>the new director reports directly to the president and is beyond the reach<br>of congressional oversight.<br><br>The only true fix to the problems of intelligence that manifested themselves<br>in the Iraqi WMD debacle is to depoliticize the process. The position of
<br>national intelligence chief should be a 10-year appointment, like that of<br>the director of the FBI, and subject to the consent of Congress. Likewise,<br>all intelligence made available to the president to make national security
<br>policy should be shared with select members of Congress, from both parties,<br>so that America will never again find itself at war based upon politically<br>driven intelligence. Finally, and perhaps most important, the American
<br>people should start exercising effective accountability regarding their<br>elected officials, so that those who voted yes for a war based on false and<br>misleading information never again have the honor and privilege of serving
<br>in high office.<br><br>* *<br><br>*Scott Ritter is a former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq (1991-98) and *is<br>the author of *Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence<br>Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam
<br>Hussein*<<a href="http://www.nationbooks.org/book.mhtml?t=ritter">http://www.nationbooks.org/book.mhtml?t=ritter</a>>,<br>This article was published in the San Francisco Chronicle on Dec. 4, 2005.<br><br><span class="gmail_quote">
On 9/11/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Tony Simpson</b> <<a href="mailto:tonytime@clearwire.net">tonytime@clearwire.net</a>> wrote:</span></div></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Ted, remember that we ALL thought Saddam had those WMDs. He consistently thwarted the inspectors and flouted the U.N. mandates. BOTH democrats AND republicans voted in favor of authorizing the use of force. We were all victimized by a less than sterling intelligence apparatus, but mind you, it was DEMOCRATS, specifically FRANK CHURCH, who castrated our intelligence capabilities years ago. For you to place all the blame for the resulting intel problems at the feet of the Bush administration is either disingenuous or simply ignorant.
</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Won't you research a bit more thoroughly before advocating on behalf of America's enemies in the future?</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Peace out.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">--Tony</font></div>
<blockquote style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> </blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div>