More of the TRUTH slowly leaks out...Iraqi Scientists tell of obfuscation

Just to clarify, because, to be honest, MM, I have no idea where you stand on this issue, and may have jokingly lumped you in with others without cause...


Are you then saying, for future reference, that if the majority of Iraqis want us to leave we should leave? Or that the majority of Iraqis should be the determining force as to what form of government Iraq has, not our opinion? You are not in agreement with Mr. Clutch, johnheath et al that they aren't 'ready' to decide for themselves, but that we will give them their freedom when we feel they are ready for it? Serious question.

 

MacBeth:

You are aware that Iran is largely behind the anti-US Shiite movement there, are you not? Of course you are. You're the one with the big fancy brain, you know that perfectly well...

Let me ask you this: if the Al Badr brigades begin to actively oppose or attack the US presence inside Iraq, then what should we do? Serious question.

 

i don't know where i stand on that issue, macbeth...haven't given it much thought, to be honest. my gut reaction would be that if we left, it would be utter chaos right now...and then we'd be blamed by the rest of the world for not stabilizing it. i agree that the iraqis should play the most dominant role in the organization of their government, with our assistance.

i suppose the logistics of it concern me...yes, i want them to have their own choice as to their government...but how do they make that choice? somebody has to help set that "choice" up...who does it? i don't think throwing some money would solve it...and i think our presence keeps factions from starting a new war in a vacuum of power.

we'll see...but i have faith in the iraqi people. i am so sick of people saying, "democracy can't work there." like somehow we're so much better than these people that we can make it work but they can't. i believe man is naturally drawn to his own liberty...and iraq is a much more secular nation than it is a theocracy. i think it would be a real shame to end up with anything less than a stable democracy. if the iraqi people of today decide they want tyranny...they're making that decision for the generations to follow who will never have a chance to speak up and cry for liberty again. they have a great opportunity here. i'm praying it works out.

 

I'd rather Bush ask the US Congress to authorize full scale war based on freeing the people of Iraq instead of using exaggerrations and lies about protecting the US, using pre-emptive war as a measure of self-defense, and stopping the spread of WMD. I'm thinking the US Congress votes a lot differently on the matter in that case. Operation Desert Chameleon in full swing.

Originally posted by treeman
As for the airliner at Salman Pak, we know that it was there earlier in March because a civilian organization flew a satellite over the site and took pictures of it. It is gone now.

Any chance that the Iraqis scrambled to destroy evidence before the war? Nah, impossible...

Since there is no evidence, it's a better chance that it's just another lie in a series of them from this administration to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq.

 

Do you want to see the f*ing pictures Timing? I posted a link to them here several weeks ago.

Let's see, defectors say there's an airliner used for terrorism training there. Lots of defectors. DoD says it's true, they've got sat pictures to prove it. A civilian organization commissions a satimaging company to take pictures of the site, they do so, and a 707 fuselage is seen sitting in the middle of a field right where everyone said it was. And it is all, of course, an administration lie.

Whatever, Timing. It doesn't surprise me that photographic evidence and eyewitness testimony is inadmissable in the court of your small mind. In fact, I find that completely consistent.

 

As has been posted in other threads, the U.S. intel dossiers to the UN said that the IRaqis could get at their weapons of WMD in 45 minutes. That doesn't equate to them being buried so they will never be found.

As has also been argued, if the Iraqis had WMD only to bury them and destroy them at first sign of trouble, then what good were they to the Iraqis, or what kind of a threat were they to the U.S.

I'll agree that it's too early to tell 100%, but it's starting to look more and more like the American people have been lied to by their chosen leadership. It definitely should be looked into, and it makes me angry, not unpatriotic. Others may not really care that the govt. lied or at best exaggerated the need for a war, and then engaged in war costing the country lives, money, and the credibility of its word.

 

Occam's Razor: If you're destroying something, you have something to hide. Nobody could have "expected" simple bacteria to provide cause for the U.S. to invade. If "we" were to invade, we would, staphyloccocus or not. It is highly reasonable to expect that the U.S. would push for more stringent inspections, though, at that time.

What was Saddam so desparate to hide?

 

"trademarked" by TJ???

newbie

 

Of course he wouldn't have to have anything to hide if the invading country is going to use forged evidence anyway.

 

FB:

Forged evidence? Are we planting WMD now? Hell, why search for them if we know they're not there? Why go to the expense of maintaining a 1,000 person search force? Let's save some money and just say we did it...

You seem to forget that no one - no one - thought that the Iraqis did not have WMD. Even the French, Russians, and Germans apparently believed that they did. Every damn single analyst ever quoted on any news report or documentary seemed to believe that they did. Every damn former weapons inspector (Ritter excepted) was positive that they did. Why? Because there *was* a huge amount of WMD that we knew at some time existed, and that was never accounted for.

If it was destroyed, then why not call up UNMOVIC and say "Hey guys, we're burning some sarin today. You want to witness it's destruction?" Why not document it so that they could get the sanctions lifted and tell those pesky Americans to piss off?

As for why they weren't used - think about what Saddam's apparent strategy was, and what would have happened had he used them. His strategy was to draw us into Baghdad and inflict enough casualties to bring us to the negotiating table. Who would have facilitated such mediation? In all likelihood a third party such as France or Russia. Now, let's say he uses WMD. Will France and Russia still mediate? Is there any possibility of a negotiated settlement after WMD use? No. After WMD use he A) loses all legitemacy with his allies France and Russia, and B) angers us so much that we will stop at nothing until his regime is ousted. What incentive does he have to use them? They are militarily insignificant against our MOPP-clad troops. So why use them when their use will make it impossible to achieve the negotiated settlement that he wants?

As for the 45-minute thing - I am a bit curious how it is that you know the contents of US intelligence analyses. Let me guess, you saw it on TV? I work at a chemical warfare facility, and I know that it takes alot longer than 45 minutes to deploy and use such weapons. Much longer.

 

The fact is still that part of the evidence presented to the UN was forged. I might ask if they were so certain that Iraq was working on nukes why use forged evidence, non-existent AIEA documents and stories about aluminum tubing? If they were so certain about the WMD why list things that aren't true in it?

It may be that the U.S. and GB believed that Saddam had WMD but didn't have the evidence to prove it, used the forged evidence and figured they show the WMD's when they found them. It could be that the U.S. and GB were wrong. However, I fully acknowledge that they still might find them and that it's too early to say for certain that they aren't there.

I also believed that Iraq has WMD. I was willing to have proof before war, and give the inspectors more time though.

The 45 minute thing comes from the BBC article linked in another thread.

 

Is that a fact? As far as I remember, it was faulty intelligence - not dishonesty - with relation to that "evidence". I'm guessing you're simply assuming the worst here, and engaging in conspiracy theory.

They did not use forged documents, they had bad intelligence. And the aluminum tubing deal was real - that was good intelligence. The excuse here was that the materials in question were dual use in nature, and therefore might not have been nuclear-related (a curious reversal of commonly accepted dual-use policy).

Nothing that was necessarily untrue was listed; they simply used information without confirming or supporting it. That is a no-no in investigative and intelligence work, working off a hunch (which is basically what happened). And anyway, there was enough documented, solid evidence to suggest that there are/were WMD programs. Why is it that the presence of bad intelligence negates that that is based on good intelligence with some people?

For example, what happened to all of those thousands of liters of anthrax that we know existed at one time, but have never been accounted for? We know from the UNSCOM period that it existed, so what happened to it? Is that bad intel too?

Anything is possible. But if you want to be right more often than you are wrong, you pick the most likely possibilities, not the least likely. It is far more likely that the Iraqis had WMD and simply buried them in order to hide them from the inspectors than it is that they never had them. I will say this: there is absolutely no evidence that they did not have them, or that they were destroyed. We *know* that they had them at some point, and we do *not know* that they were ever destroyed... And there is no evidence whatsoever aside from their word (which is worthless) to support that they did.

OK, as long as you acknowledge that, we won't have too much to disagree about. I just find it mindboggling how some people (here - Timing, Mulder, etc) simply jump to the conclusion that since they have not been found a mere two weeks after war's end, that they must not exist... But as long as you're reasonable about it, cool.

 

I'm refering to the document that claimed the Iraqis were trying to buy plutonium which turned out to be fake.

Condi Rice said something to the effect that tubing found really only had one use(nuclear). She at best was exaggerating. The commission that studied those tubes presented information that the tubing could possibly be used for nuclear purposes, but the Iraqis would have intentionally had to have bought the wrong kinds of tubing that would have been improper for the use the administration claimed. Meanwhile the 80MM tubes were perfect for use with the Iraqis 80MM conventional shells that the Iraqis claimed they were using them for.

The AIEA report that George W. Bush said existed that claimed that the Iraqis were 6 months away from a nuke was lie. Such a document never existed.


Like I said they might find a hidden stash, but once you've blown your crediblity it makes the wise observer skeptical, if not downright distrustful. It's ashame that the Bush administration is eroding trust with this whole issue.

 

Do you want me to post the satellite pictures depicting WMD factories? Decontamination trucks? Chem drones? Maybe Glynch can come again and post his photos of the WMD being hidden in Iowa. It must be true since he has photos.

Defectors have said all kinds of things. Shall we go through the list or do you just want to pick and choose which ones you believe? And really I've never seen anyone on this board go with the DOD says it's true, they've got pictures defense. This the same administration that had nuclear documents on Iraq? Well it must have been true cause they had documents but here we are with no nuclear materials, no training plane, and no Salman Pak terrorist playground.

It doesn't surprise me that in your consistent blood lust for war you believed every single thing you were ever read about Iraq and now you're in full circle the wagons defense mode trying to wade through the river of crap that you call evidence. You are basically supporting invasions and wars based on weak circumstantial evidence and apparently you're perfectly fine with the dangers of that position and the precedent it sets.

 

Don't blame the U.S. intel community.

Documents and reports filter through the N.S.A, C.I.A., etc without political notes attached. It is not until they reach the white house that they get rewritten and re-interpreted based on political needs of the moment.

That isn't bull****, that's ****ing concrete. Any spin or alteration of reports comes from the top, intel professionals could not care less about the politics of the information they present. Their jobs are secure no matter what administration is in the white house.

Remember that next election when the top players plead dumb to reports that present a different portrayal of events than the ones they provided to the press.

 

Jesus, this is getting stupid.

Treeman: "There is evidence that Saddam had WMD programs and terrorism links. For example, look at Salman Pak."

Timing: "No, that evidence is all fake. It was all made up by the Bush administration so we could steal Iraq's oil. There were never any WMD. You're a warmonger. You never met a war you didn't like, you want to blow up the world. You're bad. I hate you."

Stupid. If that's the way you want to argue, fine. You're talking to yourself. It is impossible to have a rational debate with someone who simply dismisses all evidence that contradicts their position as part of a government conspiracy to, what? Take over the friggen world? Or just kill lots of people? Eyewitness accounts? Lies. Photographic evidence? Computer generated forgeries. Covert intelligence methods? More lies.

Why bother?

Let me know when you A) grow up, and B) decide to join the rest of us in the real world, and not the dark TV-inspired one your mind is currently inhabiting.

BTW:

 

You're conducting little skits with yourself and you have the nerve suggest someone needs to grow up? LOL

What you have is incredibly circumstantial evidence from an administration that has lied to play up fears of a threat from Iraq. You want to believe whatever is fed to you so badly that you're defending everything they spew in the hopes that maybe you'll get some of it right. We've had defector testimonials on these boards both depicting WMD and no WMD. You're obviously predisposed to believe what you want while the "rest of us in the real world" want to be shown the evidence this government says it had. If this administration were a witness in a trial it would have little credibility left in this case but you're bending over backwards to continue giving them the benefit of the doubt again without any concrete evidence to support your position.

Also, I saved this little article about the CIA a while back because I suspected we were exaggerating information about Iraq. It basically says the CIA was being pressured to present reports in a certain light to give the appearance of connections where they didn't exist. What a huge surprise huh?


C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports

By JAMES RISEN (New York Times)
March 23, 2003


WASHINGTON, March 22 — The recent disclosure that reports claiming Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger were based partly on forged documents has renewed complaints among analysts at the C.I.A. about the way intelligence related to Iraq has been handled, several intelligence officials said.

Analysts at the agency said they had felt pressured to make their intelligence reports on Iraq conform to Bush administration policies.

For months, a few C.I.A. analysts have privately expressed concerns to colleagues and Congressional officials that they have faced pressure in writing intelligence reports to emphasize links between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda.

As the White House contended that links between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda justified military action against Iraq, these analysts complained that reports on Iraq have attracted unusually intense scrutiny from senior policy makers within the Bush administration.

"A lot of analysts have been upset about the way the Iraq-Al Qaeda case has been handled," said one intelligence official familiar with the debate.

That debate was renewed after the disclosure two weeks ago by Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that the claim that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger was based partly on forged documents. The claim had been cited publicly by President Bush.

"The forgery heightened people's feelings that they were being embarrassed by the way Iraqi intelligence has been handled," said one government official who has talked with C.I.A. analysts about the issue.

The forged documents were not created by the C.I.A. or any other United States government agency, and C.I.A. officials were always suspicious of the documents, American intelligence officials said.

But the information still ended up being used in public by Mr. Bush. Intelligence officials said there was other information, which was deemed to be credible, that raised concerns about a possible uranium connection between Niger and Iraq.

Several analysts have told colleagues they have become so frustrated that they have considered leaving the agency, according to government officials who have talked with the analysts.

"Several people have told me how distraught they have been about what has been going on," said one government official who said he had talked with several C.I.A. analysts. None of the analysts are willing to talk directly to news organizations, the official said.

A senior official of the agency said no analysts had told C.I.A. management that they were resigning in protest over the handling of Iraqi intelligence. At the State Department, by contrast, three foreign service officers have resigned in protest over Mr. Bush's policies.

The official said some analysts had been frustrated that they had frequently been asked the same questions by officials from throughout the government about their intelligence reports concerning Iraq. Many of these questions concern sourcing, the official said.

The official added that the analysts had not been pressured to change the substance of their reports.

"As we have become an integral component informing the debate for policy makers, we have been asked a lot of questions," the senior C.I.A. official said. "I'm sure it does come across as a pressured environment for analysts. I think there is a sense of being overworked, a sense among analysts that they have already answered the same questions. But if you talk to analysts, they understand why people are asking, and why policy makers aren't accepting a report at face value."

Another intelligence official said, however, that many veteran analysts were comparing the current climate at the agency to that of the early 1980's, when some C.I.A. analysts complained that they were under pressure from the Reagan administration to take a harder line on intelligence reports relating to the Soviet Union.

The official said the pressure had prompted the agency's analysts to become more circumspect in expressing their analytical views in the intelligence reports they produced.

"On topics of very intense concern to the administration of the day, you become less of an analyst and more of a reports officer," the official said.

The distinction between an analyst and a reports officer is an important one within the C.I.A. A reports officer generally pulls together information in response to questions and specific requests for information. An intelligence analyst analyzes the information in finished reports.