White House pushed Iraq bioweapons claim despite evidence to contrary

"A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12275328/

You can't write this off as "bad intelligence" anymore. In this case the findings were dead on regarding mobile weapons labs. The fact is, they simply didn't exist.

'They have ears, but they hear not'

Psalms, 115:6.

Well, I find myself in the undesirable position of defending in the administration's frequent missteps with regards to intelligence on Iraw. But from what I understand, in this particular case the report was not vetted or it's veracity confirmed so it was highly unlikely it found it's way into the White House at all, let alone across the President's desk. There's plenty of instances where the White House has bungled intelligence coming out of Iraq, but in this case, I think you guys may be jumping the gun a little.

Quote:

---

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

Report shelved while claim went forth
The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.

The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons -- who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12275328/

---

Those who reported these facts to Washington were thus working for the Pentagon and DIA, the same authorities Bush was relying on for his other statements about Iraq, and had been sent on a fact-finding mission specifically for this purpose. They were experts in their field and, apparently, were even allowed to examine the trailers (presumably by the Pentagon). But somehow this report got forgotten?

Now, I'm not saying that that it must have crossed the president's desk. But if it didn't, then at the very least it reached someone in the upper levels of the Pentagon or DIA, and they purposely shelved this information. One would think the president would want to know why. If it did reach the president, then he is the one to blame for announcing WMDs had been found when he knew his own intelligence agencies had debunked the report. You don't publically announce claims that have just been called into question, and you certainly don't keep making those claims for another year before you seriously look at the report that discredits them, and which your government itself commissioned.

As I prefaced in my last post, I am not about to play apologist for the administration's Iraq policy or the not-so-aptly named intelligence agencies. I would like to limit my particular line in the sand to the implication that the press is raising that President Bush received a report that these trailers in no way had anything to do with WMD's, then turned around 2 days later and gave a press conference claiming they did. My sole point in posting in this thread is to head that "conclusion" off at the pass.

You know, to all the folks out there on the left that believe Bush and Cheney cooked up this scheme in Iraq and had a master plan... in many ways I'd find that comforting. I'm afraid I live in the harsh reality that in fact, my country's intelligence agencies are deeply flawed and cannot produce credible evidence that Grant is buried in Grant's tomb, let alone whether Iraq was planning to test fire a nuclear missile in March 2003. Frankly, it scares me more that I believe they acted in good faith... they just got it terribly, horribly wrong.

At the end of the day though, baby-killing Saddam is gone. Being a bit more on the geopolitical isolationist side then most folks (home and abroad, though I am willing to do business gloablly), personally I don't think it's been worth it. But this business of "Haliburton's get-rich-quick" scheme and "Bush wanted to win one against Saddam for his daddy" overlooks the more likely scenario that our intelligence agencies 1) don't share information 2) frequently get it wrong 3) invent evidence to present to the White House to further their agendas. :stupido3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

As I prefaced in my last post, I am not about to play apologist for the administration's Iraq policy or the not-so-aptly named intelligence agencies. I would like to limit my particular line in the sand to the implication that the press is raising that President Bush received a report that these trailers in no way had anything to do with WMD's, then turned around 2 days later and gave a press conference claiming they did. My sole point in posting in this thread is to head that "conclusion" off at the pass.

---

Well, on that Don I think I have to disagree, respectfully. SOMEONE in the upper echelons of the Pentagon/DIA received this report that the trailers had nothing to do with WMDS, and then a few days later the President claimed they did. I'm not sure why or how you can categorically rule out the conclusion that the president was aware of this report. Certainly, senior officials within the Pentagon/DIA were aware of it. If they did not let the president know this for an entire year, as he and his officials repeatedly claimed the trailers were Iraq's WMDs, then these officials should be fired. But I don't see Bush even mentioning launching an investigation, do you?

Quote:

---

But this business of "Haliburton's get-rich-quick" scheme and "Bush wanted to win one against Saddam for his daddy" overlooks the more likely scenario that our intelligence agencies 1) don't share information 2) frequently get it wrong 3) invent evidence to present to the White House to further their agendas. :stupido3:

---

I'd probably agree there is considerable truth to 1, 2 and 3 there. And no, I don't think Bush toppled Saddam to get revenge for daddy. But the US clearly had strategic and economic goals for the Middle East long before Bush got into power, and neoconservatives had publically proclaimed their desire to invade Iraq, end US dependency on hostile countries for oil and reshape the Middle East to be a haven for democracies, open to US companies and more friendly to the US's strategic ally, Israel. This is not the stuff of tin foil hats: the Project for a New American Century, whose members include Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Perle, et al. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...erican_Century ], still states this quite openly and unabashedly:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm

The goal was to ensure America's continued dominance of the globe as the sole superpower by using military might aggressively to protect its interests. In 1998, three years before 9/11, the members of the organization signed a petition demanding then-president Clinton overthrow Saddam Hussein [ http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm ] [Note the signatures of Rumsfeld, Armitage, Bolton, Fukuyama, Perle, Bennett, Kristol and Wolfowitz]. Setting up a democracy sympathetic to western economic and political interests in the heart of Islam was their wet dream long before 9/11. Unfortunately for you, me and most of the people of the world, their dream has turned into a nightmare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Well, I find myself in the undesirable position of defending in the administration's frequent missteps with regards to intelligence on Iraw. But from what I understand, in this particular case the report was not vetted or it's veracity confirmed so it was highly unlikely it found it's way into the White House at all, let alone across the President's desk. There's plenty of instances where the White House has bungled intelligence coming out of Iraq, but in this case, I think you guys may be jumping the gun a little.

---

If the British public were sceptical of the evidence presented, and did not think a satisfactory case had been made for war, would it have been right for Britain not to go to war with Iraq?

Stream of Blair's Iraq interview, Thursday, 6 February, 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/pr...r_03/blair.ram

Transcript of Blair's Iraq interview, Thursday, 6 February, 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/2732979.stm

(Male 1) I don't think there's sufficient evidence at the moment, like when Mr Bush yesterday come out with this supposedly new evidence I don't think there was anything there.

(Male 1) So how come America has got spy satellites and they can't seem to pick anything up.

(Male 1) They don't seem to be picking any mass weapons up of anything other.

[...]

Female 2: Yes, I think we should be adopting a policy of contain and deter with the Iraq conflict.

Female: Yes, and I'm very concerned that we're following the US along a line of conflict and war and I don't understand why we're taking that line.

[...]

MALE: ¿which was that there is not likely to be a veto in the Security Council because when Bush (sic) comes to shove I think everybody will fall in line. But aside from that, on the point of the inspectors - isn't it strange, Mr. Vice President that with the information that was displayed to the world by Colin Powell yesterday, that the video evidence, the photographs taken from satellites, why is it then that if this information was available to the US way back in November, December, that it was not given to the UN inspection team to give them some pointers as to where to look at.

Because, one of the things that was said there was the topsoil was removed to take away all traces of chemical agents. So why wasn't that information given to Hans Blix and his team, to say go and look over there>

[...]

Davies: Since September 11, obviously the United States has sort of been aggressive towards Afghanistan and now Iraq. Where it's going to stop, who's going to be next?

Davies: But does that mean that we'll be tagging along on Mr. Bush's shirt-tails all the time?

[...]

FEMALE: Yes, I would like to ask do you believe that the people of your country are behind you at the moment?

FEMALE: Because I don't, I don't share any confidence that the people are behind you at the moment. Everybody that I've spoken to within my circle oppose what's happening at the moment.

APPLAUSE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Well, on that Don I think I have to disagree, respectfully. SOMEONE in the upper echelons of the Pentagon/DIA received this report that the trailers had nothing to do with WMDS, and then a few days later the President claimed they did. I'm not sure why or how you can categorically rule out the conclusion that the president was aware of this report. Certainly, senior officials within the Pentagon/DIA were aware of it. If they did not let the president know this for an entire year, as he and his officials repeatedly claimed the trailers were Iraq's WMDs, then these officials should be fired. But I don't see Bush even mentioning launching an investigation, do you?

---

It's pretty well known that the president does not like bad news. I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility that someone high up said, "Crap, he will not like this. Let's sit on it for a while." Not really defending the prez here, since instilling the culture of the yes-men is his fault. But it's quite possible that he never heard the report.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

It's pretty well known that the president does not like bad news. I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility that someone high up said, "Crap, he will not like this. Let's sit on it for a while." Not really defending the prez here, since instilling the culture of the yes-men is his fault. But it's quite possible that he never heard the report.

---

I was not by any means ruling out the possibility that the president didn't know; I was just saying you can't rule out the possibility that he did. And if he didn't, then he should be trying to find out WHY he wasn't made aware of it. As you note, he is responsible for those under him, and you would expect him to be hopping mad that he was allowed to keep making incorrect statements when his employees knew they were suspect. I just don't see Bush cleaning house over this though, do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

I just don't see Bush cleaning house over this though, do you?

---

Nope. Why should he start now?

One of the GOP's selling points of Bush during the 2000 election: he may not be the brightest, but he hires good people. :inquisitive: