The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction presented its report to George W. Bush on Thursday, noting that the administration was "dead wrong" in its assessment of WMD stockpiles in Iraq. (The Commission on Commission Names countered that the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction's name is entirely too long. But that commission's findings didn't make the news, so I shall mention them just this once and only parenthetically.) "This was a major intelligence failure," the presidential commission wrote. Ya think? Sure, other nations, and the preceding administration, had the same intelligence failure. But their intelligence failures didn't result in hundreds of billions of dollars looted from the treasury, 1,533 dead Americans, and the loss of American credibility in much of the world. The report asserts that we know "disturbingly little" about the weaponry programs of various rogue states. But even if we knew of destructive capability and evil intent right now, wouldn't the Iraq blunders make it all the more difficult to generate support for military action to remove such a threat?

Worthless report. 600 pages and not one mention of the Office of Special Plans.

Perhaps finally we are getting past the "Bush lied" diatribes of the left and we can figure out what went wrong here. Maybe Saddam did not have WMD or maybe he moved them to Syria or elsewhere in the run up to the war. We need to find out. I suppose the option to not removing Saddam would have been to have him continuing to run roughshod over us. Via UN oil-for-food Saddam had pretty much beaten the system of sanctions. I believe leaving Saddam in power would have eventually resulted in a WMD attack on American soil. Of course I don't know for certain but I'm not willing to take that chance. Of course we have lost credibility. The nations who are the most upset were on the take from via oil-for-food.

Think of it this way - you've been busted for growing the ganja, and given probation. And for a couple of years things are cool. Then, suddenly, when the feds come by, they find locked closets and rooms you won't let them into. You start taking potshots at patrolling cop cars. Even though you've been warned, suddenly you're seen entertaining Ricky Williams and Snoop Dogg. Finally the feds call you and say, "Hi, we're narcs, we're raiding your house in six months!"

Now, do you think they'd find anything when they got there?

Nightfly, amusing but bad ana1ogy: Saddam had nothing to gain by having a "clean house" when we "raided." This wasn't a search. This was a war. He had every reason use whatever weapons he had in the defense of his regime, and every reason to believe that ultimately losing this war would result in his permanent loss of power and probably his death or lifetime imprisonment. Why hide weapons?

Good point, short, but it cuts both ways - he also had every reason to put us off with actual cooperation with inspections and a quick change of heart viz-a-viz Musharraf in Pakistan. My an@alogy was meant only to show why we plausibly couldn't find anything. Given Hussein's own known positions, it's likely that he liked the idea of the huge credibility hit to result from not finding anything once we got there.

Or, he was just as deceived about his weapons capability as the rest of the world - if one is in the habit of killing scientists who fail to make progress, they will naturally hide any lack of it from you.

In any case, given his obfuscations and evasions, taking him down may have been the only way to prove that we did have faulty intel. And it should go without saying that better intel is mandatory so we can pick our targets better.

If he was planning on behaving at the last minute ... ok ... how last minute? Seriously. He had like 12 hours left in the deadline we gave him.

As you suggest, Nightfly, I believe he was lied to. That he and us and everyone had bad intell on his weaponry. And, sure, learning that our intell agencies are crap is a benefit of the war. But you don't really believe this benefit to is in any way in proportional to the blunder of the war itself?

The acquiring of Nuclear and Chemical weapons was a top priority of the Hussein regime, according to the comprehensive post-war CIA report released on september 30th 2004:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

Also, many-a-dismantled chemical development facility was discovered by US troops, some still containing their stockpiles of Anthrax and Smallpox.

So, either Saddam took the oppurtunity to get rid the evidence, or progress was simply extremely bad, we might never know. Either way it was CLEAR that he was in direct violation of UN security resoluton 1441. The ultimatum we gave him was: Comply with 1441 or face retribution. He chose the latter.

I haven't read the report in its entirety, but the suggestion that it was all the result of "bad information" isn't going to wash. Thanks to the August 1995 defection of Lt Gen Hussein Kamel we had an intelligence goldmine and Mr Kamel was clear about the "unaccounted" for weapons: nothing remained. In other words, we had accurate information and chose to ignore it. From the "defector" Curveball we received bogus information and chose to propagate it. The errors didn't reside in how we collect or anlyze intelligence; the problem lies in the fact we chose to deliberately ignore accurate information and spread false information. Perhaps this doesn't technically fall under the strict definition of "lie" but it is wrong, immoral and disgraceful.

Eric Wilds: "The errors didn't reside in how we collect or anlyze intelligence; the problem lies in the fact we chose to deliberately ignore accurate information and spread false information."

When you really believe something, you don't have to "deliberately ignore" contrary information: it just gets sifted out by wishful thinking. Conspiracy theorist operate this way. No evidence counts against the theory, but finds a way to play into it. That's what I suspect happened, anyway.

"I haven't read the report in its entirety, but the suggestion that it was all the result of "bad information" isn't going to wash. Thanks to the August 1995 defection of Lt Gen Hussein Kamel we had an intelligence goldmine and Mr Kamel was clear about the "unaccounted" for weapons: nothing remained. In other words, we had accurate information and chose to ignore it. From the "defector" Curveball we received bogus information and chose to propagate it. The errors didn't reside in how we collect or anlyze intelligence; the problem lies in the fact we chose to deliberately ignore accurate information and spread false information. Perhaps this doesn't technically fall under the strict definition of "lie" but it is wrong, immoral and disgraceful."

French, British, Russian, and American intelligence services all came to the conclusion that there were active WMD programs in Iraq. In Security Resolution 1441 the United Nations made it clear that Saddam had not satisfied them he had no WMD progrmas.

At the time, the Central Intelligence Agency believed, and they still believe today, that the acquiring of WMDs was one of Saddam Hussein's top priorities. Massive truck convoys were seen exiting Iraq into Syria on the eve of the Iraq war, and many hastily dismantled chemical weapons labs have been found in Iraq, many of them had not even had all the anthrax and smallpox removed from their stockpiles.

So, when Saddam refused to comply with United Nations Security Resolution 1441, a security resolution which clearly stated it was unsastisfied that Saddam lacked a serious WMD program, and that would, if not complied with, result in "serious consequences." we acted. We told Saddam that, because of his failure to comply with 1441, he had forty eight hours to step down. He refused to step down. So, to review:

-French, British, American, and Russian intelligence all agreed: WMDs were there
-It had been Political Lingua Franca throughout the Bush I and Clinton years that WMD programs were there.
-The UN felt Saddam had failed to prove to them that they werent there.
-Hastily dismantled chemical weapons facilities have been found
-Massive truck convoys were seen exiting Iraq into Syria (another state controlled by Saddam's Baath party.) on the eve of the Iraq war.
-The Central Intelligence Agency still believes that it was a top priority of Saddam to acquire WMDs
-After being faced with yet another UN resolution concerning his WMD programs, 1441, Saddam refused to comply
-After refusing to comply with the United Nations on his WMD program, he refused to step down from power

Were we wrong about Iraq? Most likely. Was it a massive intelligence failure? Most likely. Did Bush "lie" or otherwise connive or mislead? Absolutely not.

The notion that everyone thought Iraq had WMD is not exactly accurate, if that means all these separate nations or corporate bodies independently verified Iraq had WMD programs. UNSCR 1441 did put the onus of responsibillity on Iraq to show it had done away with its unaccounted WMD and did not possess any WMD, but other nations agreed to this because we assured them we had "intelligence" that Iraq did have these weapons and weapons programs. Therefore trying to blame everyone who innocently repeats erroneous U.S. intel doesn't make much sense. When other newspapers repeated the fabricated stories of New York Times reporter Jayson Blair, it's not fair to say those other newspapers were equally culpable.

While in Iraq Hans Blix was acting on U.S. intelligence and came to the conclusion there was no evidence of any WMD programs by the time he left.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7777.doc.htm
UN INSPECTORS FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF PROHIBITED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES

AS OF 18 MARCH WITHDRAWAL, HANS BLIX TELLS SECURITY COUNCIL

Also, reports show the French intelligence, DGSE, cast doubt on the claims that Iraq had WMD and prior to the war Mr Putin also said he'd seen no evidence to substantiate the claim that Iraq was in possession of WMD.

"Fears are one thing, hard facts are another. Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress." Putin

So the idea that "everyone" said Iraq had those weapons is just as false as the idea that Iraq had weapons. Bush tries to avoid responsibility by claimimg "everyone said Iraq had those weapons," invoking the theological notion that if everyone is guilty no one is guilty.

But there is guilt. We had no evidence of any WMD programs in Iraq and we knew our intelligence regarding these weapons was wrong before we went to war. We had accurate information and chose to ignore it. We had unreliable information and chose to spread it. We had no evidence of any WMD programs in Iraq and yet Bush told us the "intelligence left no doubt Iraq continued to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Thus, the moral of the Iraqi debacle doesn't show the need for intelligence reform, but that we just need to stop making things up. Newflash: when you make up information more than likely you'll be wrong. The outcome of the Iraqi war is no exception.

"Were we wrong about Iraq? Most likely. Was it a massive intelligence failure?"

If we had accurate information that those weapons did not exist -- and we did -- how can that be an intelligence failure?

"When you really believe something, you don't have to 'deliberately ignore' contrary information: it just gets sifted out by wishful thinking"

Whether you chose to refer to it as "wishful thinking" or deliberately ignoring accurate information, the problem still does not lie in the workings of the intelligence agencies or how much we fund such agencies, but in political agendas corrupting objective intelligent assessments.

We had intelligence indicating it was there, we had intelligence indicating it was not there. Given the same intelligence, French, British, Russian, and American intelligence services all came to the same conclusion: WMDs were there.

NOTE: On the British part, not sure if you were indicating Blair also mislead people. What could he have to gain by doing this? Blair could only lose political capital by supporting the war.

Ben,

French and Russian intelligence said they had no evidence any WMD was in Iraq. Other nations signed on to UNSCR 1441 because we assured them we had intelligence Iraq was developing and concealing illicit weapons. False intelligence is like false money, counterfeited by guilty men and then circulated by unwitting people who perpetuate the crime without knowing what they are doing. U.S. intelligence was counterfeiting intelligence while the others were inadvertantly circulating it.

"I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed" Hussein Kamel

So I'll say again: we had accurate information and chose to ignore it. We had inaccurate information and chose to propagate it. If we want our intelligence to be accurate then the solution is simple: present the accurate information and ignore the inaccurate information. I bet it will work like a charm.

Eric and Ben

We also relied on their intellegence to formulate the ana-lysis that Saddam had WMD. So it is not just a matter of us being the only ones with bad information, if in fact we had bad information. The weapons may have been moved. We still don't know for certain what was transferred to Syria before the war. The information flows both ways. We share with them and they share with us. We propagate their information and they propagate our information. It goes both ways. I haven't read the report yet. John Mcain and others who participated in formulatng this report have cited our reliance on the intellegence of others, to formulate our ana-lysis.

Our real enemy may not be a band of Islamic terrorists. Russia is the major benefactor of Iran and Syria. Iran and Syria are right now the major benefactors of the terrorists. Our real enemy may be Russia and not a band of Islamic terrorists. The American foreign policy establishment appears to me to tend to view events such as Russia's sale of missles to Syria, Russia's sale of weapons to the Palestinian Authority, Russia's assistance in Iran's nuclear ambitions, Saudi Arabia's military arragnements with China, and Russia's military sales to China as separate and distinct events. I would suggest we view them as though they are inter related much in the same way we viewed the Pacific and European fronts as part of the same war, as opposed to separate and distinct events, during WWII. The ana-lysis may be wrong, but if it is correct, we have a much bigger problem than a band of Islamic terrorists.

B.Poster

"Whether you chose to refer to it as "wishful thinking" or deliberately ignoring accurate information, the problem still does not lie in the workings of the intelligence agencies or how much we fund such agencies, but in political agendas corrupting objective intelligent assessments."

Simple non sequitor, based on misunderstanding my point. What political agenda corrupted the intelligence ana1ysis, considering that the Clinton and Bush admins agreed here? You have presented evidence that they were wrong and that they should have known better. You have not given any evidence that it was a desire for war that caused the bad ana1ysis. Your political-agenda hypothesis cannot explain why the prior admin, as well as several anti-war foreign governments agreed with the WMD conclusions.

I think my ana1ysis does: in these communities they try to describe a puzzle-picture with only a small fraction of the whole to work with. They start with certain heavy probabilities about the likely places of one or two peices. This skews what later can be considered as a possible picture. They thus read all the evidence through an assumption which makes too much sense to question. That assumption is probably something like this: If Saddam had gotten rid of the WMD to fulfill the treaty, he would have done it in front of us. Liberals are doing this themselves by assuming that Bush lied about WMD.

Nice job, Short.

To B Poster, I would say that Iran is our main enemy in the Middle East, and has been since 1979. Russia, however, is a dangerous benefactor, and most likely a covert ally, of Iran. Putin has not given up on the dream of a world dominated by the Bear, and he is to be watched with great caution. It is pure speculation, but I would not be particuarly surprised to learn that Russia was funding Iran as a proxy attack against the United States. The Mullahs, having their own anti-American agenda in the Mideast, would gladly accept.

Ben

Thank you for your comments. Your right the situation concerning Russia is somewhat speculative and hopefully I am wrong, however, it is something we will need to keep an eye on.

B.Poster

Oh, on an additonal note:

Iran has been purchasing tanks and helicopters from Russia, as well as anti-naval missiles and other rocket-based artillery from China.

Also...The President of Venezuala has used 5 billion dollars worth of oil money to purchase over 100,000 AK-47s, AT weapons, Armored vehicles and 50 MiG-29s and he has ties to Castro. Me-thinks we need to keep an eye on this slick one.

In response to Venezuela's massive weapons purchase from Russia that James mentioned, Donald Rumsfeld's response was (paraphrase) "I don't understand why Venezuela needs over 100,000 AK-47s." Either Mr. Rumsfeld is being sarcastic or he does not get it. I hope it is the former. As stated previously, it seems America's foreign policy establishment tends to view events such as this one, the situation with Syria, the situation with Iran, the war in Iraq, and the Israeli/Arab conflict as separate unrelated events. I think it is high time we begin viewing them as all part of the same thing.

I really can't say I see Chavez as a threat on the same scale of the Mullahs. The ideological rise of to power of Iran in the mideast is directly corrolational to the ideological rise of greatest mideast Islamism and Terrorism. Iran has created the modern Islamist terror we see in the contemporary Middle East.

greater mideast Islamism and Terrorism*