US Intelligence: Bush Administration Lied About Iraq

[Clancie]

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration distorted intelligence and presented conjecture as evidence to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq according to a retired intelligence official who served during the months before the war.

"What disturbs me deeply is what I think are the disingenuous statements made from the very top about what the intelligence did say," said Greg Thielmann, who retired last September. "The area of distortion was greatest in the nuclear field."

Thielmann was director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. His office was privy to classified intelligence gathered by the CIA and other agencies about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.

In Thielmann's view, Iraq could have presented an immediate threat to U.S. security in two areas: Either it was about to make a nuclear weapon, or it was forming close operational ties with al-Qaida terrorists.

Evidence was lacking for both, despite claims by President Bush
and others, Thielmann said in an interview this week.

Suspicions were presented as fact, contrary arguments ignored, he said.


The administration's prewar portrayal of Iraq's weapons capabilities has not been validated despite weeks of searching by military experts. Alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons have not turned up, nor has significant evidence of a nuclear weapons program or links to the al-Qaida network.

...CIA Director George Tenet, responding to similar criticism last week, said in a statement: "The integrity of our process was maintained throughout, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong." On Friday, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency acknowledged he had no hard evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons last fall but believed Iraq had a program in place to produce them.

...Thielmann suggested mistakes may have been made at points all along the chain from when intelligence is gathered, analyzed, presented to the president and then provided to the public.

The evidence of a renewed nuclear program in Iraq was far more limited than the administration contended, he said.

"When the administration did talk about specific evidence — it was basically declassified, sensitive information — it did it in a way that was also not entirely honest," Thielmann said.

In his State of the Union address, Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The Africa claim rested on a purported letter or letters between officials in Iraq and Niger held by European intelligence agencies. The communications are now accepted as forged, and Thielmann said he believed the information on Africa was discounted months before Bush mentioned it.

"I was very surprised to hear that be announced to the United States and the entire world," he said.

Thielmann said he had presumed Iraq had supplies of chemical and probably biological weapons. He particularly expected U.S. forces to find caches of mustard agent or other chemical weapons left over from Saddam's old stockpiles.

"We appear to have been wrong," he said. "I've been genuinely surprised at that."

One example where officials took too far a leap from the facts, according to Thielmann: On Feb. 11, CIA Director Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq "retains in violation of U.N. resolutions a small number of Scud missiles that it produced before the Gulf War."

...Although his office did not directly handle terrorism issues, Thielmann said he was similarly unconvinced of a strong link between al-Qaida and Saddam's government.

Yet, the implication from Bush on down was that Saddam supported Osama bin Laden network. Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks frequently were mentioned in the same sentence, even though officials have no good evidence of any link between the two.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030607/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_us_intelligence&cid=542&ncid=716

[corplinx]

"according to a retired intelligence official who served during the months before the war"

Can you taste those sour grapes? Right now there is a small group of sour grapes ex-intelligence people going around with this agenda. I forget their name. At first I gave them the benefit of the doubt but then I heard one speak and he propagated every anti-war meme there was.

These are simply activists. I for one do not assume that because they worked in "intelligence" means that they had all iraqi information available to them.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx
"according to a retired intelligence official who served during the months before the war"

Can you taste those sour grapes? Right now there is a small group of sour grapes ex-intelligence people going around with this agenda. I forget their name. At first I gave them the benefit of the doubt but then I heard one speak and he propagated every anti-war meme there was.

These are simply activists. I for one do not assume that because they worked in "intelligence" means that they had all iraqi information available to them.

I completely agree.

JK

[Malachi151]

LOL, people just looking for any reason to dismiss. You don't have to take this guy's word, there are dozens of intelligence expoerts who have said the same thing, and you don't even have to be an expert, the lies are easily provable. I have documented dozens. The only differnece is thT NOW, after its too late, these stories are allowed to come out. We al knew it before the war even started, those stories were not allowed to run in any mainstream press though.

The same people who so vigorously defended the president before and during the war are now going to simply say they don't care. The evidence is going to go straight from being contested to being accepted as self-evident and the position will become, "Well we always knew that was not right, but we just accepted it because we needed to go to war for other reasons, so its OKAY."

Demoracy is either dead, or running out of control in America, depends on how you want to see it. Either way, its not good and there is no turning back. This establishment has lost all credibility and it will never be restored. Nationalism and patriotism and apathy are the only things that can keep this country together now, cause its obvious to anyone who cares that all elements of the establishment are full of ********.

We have no democracy, our leaders (public and private) have no intergrety, life in America is a big series of lies.

[demon]

"These are simply activists. I for one do not assume that because they worked in "intelligence" means that they had all iraqi information available to them."

Apologists for the war...don`t you just love `em?
They get sillier day by day as they have to try harder and harder to cover up and explain away their beloved warmongering administration`s imperial agenda.
Silliest thing of all is that the real warmongers are getting rich over this while their sycophantic patsies get nothing but a false sense of security.
From the sublime to the ridiculous.
Is there any internet shorthand for "laughing my f..king socks off"?
It`s really needed around this place, that`s for sure.

[Captain_Snort]

your just getting to think he lied?

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by corplinx
"according to a retired intelligence official who served during the months before the war"

Can you taste those sour grapes? Right now there is a small group of sour grapes ex-intelligence people going around with this agenda. I forget their name. At first I gave them the benefit of the doubt but then I heard one speak and he propagated every anti-war meme there was.

These are simply activists. I for one do not assume that because they worked in "intelligence" means that they had all iraqi information available to them.

So... if anyone says anything that goes against the official story, he/she should be dismissed? Should we ignore everything that doesn't match? I don't personally think it's wise.

[Jedi Knight]

Why hasn't France publicly railed: "Where is the WMD?"

JK

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Why hasn't France publicly railed: "Where is the WMD?"

JK
Because they don't show it on American news, especially not the right wing rags that you read. Have you read any French newspapers lately? (Also, most newspapers have editors that check subject-verb agreement.)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tricky

Because they don't show it on American news, especially not the right wing rags that you read. Have you read any French newspapers lately?

Sure. They all show Bush with a smiling Chirac. No mention of WMD.

JK

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Sure. They all show Bush with a smiling Chirac. No mention of WMD.

JK
How about this one? (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2003/05/31/100435-ap.html)

And the leading French newspaper Le Monde called the weapons of mass destruction claim "the greatest lie told by statesmen in recent years."

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tricky

Which French newspaper was that?

Every one?

Check this out too. CIA holds position on mobile biological weapons labs (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/07/cia.mobile.labs/index.html).

There is WMD proof that the world has known about for weeks. I think it is deceptive to call the president a liar when the CIA has positive control over Iraqi manufactured WMD apparatus.

To criticize the president is so...leftist...especially when the man is the greatest president this country has seen since Abraham Lincoln.

The left is simply shamed that Bush's brilliance took out Iraq, an enemy nation-state that had its way with the previous administration and the entire UN, making a mockery of the global body.

JK

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Check this out too. CIA holds position on mobile biological weapons labs (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/07/cia.mobile.labs/index.html).
Did this little snippet escape your review?
"It is what we think it is, to the best of our knowledge," said the official, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified by name.
I would hardly call this an official CIA position.

[Clancie]

posted by corplinx

These are simply activists. I for one do not assume that because they worked in "intelligence" means that they had all iraqi information available to them.

Did you miss this?
From Associated Press

Thielmann was director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

His office was privy to classified intelligence gathered by the CIA and other agencies about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.

I notice none of the Bush apologists--either here or in the government--are offering anything to contradict any of Thielman's statements about this administrations blatant lies to the public:

1. The Bush administration distorted intelligence

2. The Bush administration presented conjecture as evidence to justify a U.S. invasion

3. The area of distortion was greatest in the nuclear field.

4. Bush claimed Iraq was a threat because it was about to make a nuclear weapon. There was no evidence of this.

5. Bush claimed Iraq was forming close operational ties with al-Qaida terrorists. There was no evidence of this either.

6. The decision making process about the war was flawed. Suspicions were presented as fact, contrary arguments were ignored.

7. Mistakes (and misstatements) may have been made at all points--from the gathering and analysis of intelligence, to its presentation to the President, to his (and others) presentation of it to the public.

8. When the Bush administration did talk about specific evidence...it did it in a way that was dishonest.

9. Bush quoted information on Iraq that came from a document the government knew to be forged and discounted months earlier.

10. The Bush administration also lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee when CIA Director Tenet said that Iraq "retains in violation of U.N. resolutions a small number of Scud missiles that it produced before the Gulf War." They had no Scuds.

11. The implication from Bush on down was that Saddam supported Osama bin Laden network...even though officials have no good evidence of any link between the two.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Clancy

...
I notice none of the Bush apologists--either here or in the government--are offering anything to contradict any of Thielman's statements about this administrations blatant lies to the public:

I also notice this same thing.

When it comes to provide hard data, the Bush's apologists switch to the sentimental instead:

'liberation', disgruntled worker.

[Malachi151]

Vive la revolution

;)

[Baker]

How many of these ant-war threads do we need can't we finish the other 50 threads from last week first?:rolleyes:

[DavidJames]

"How many of these ant-war threads do we need can't we finish the other 50 threads from last week first?"

There are an awful lot of redundant threads. I'm guessing they would stop if WMD. were found. But as long as we keep reading about proof being offered, real soon now, or when every piece of suspicious equipment is trumpeted as the next smoking gun only to be dismissed (or as mostly happens, forgotten about), we'll keep hearing from the skeptics.

[Baker]

I when did I ask for a ant-war speech we are going over the same arguments in every thread I would suggest ingnoring any new thread that ask question already answered

[corplinx]

How is one supposed to prove a "retired intelligence worker" wrong when all the information that possibly does is classified?

Furthermore, I have seen no retired intelligence worker turned activist presesnt any compelling evidence that Saddam's anthrax stocks were destroyed after 1999.

Why is the burden of proof on people like me and not on them who make these claims?

Try to remember that this _is_ a skeptic board and stop letting the lynch-bush/lynch-blair mentality take over.

Most of these people quoted in this sort of articles are part of the same group, something like "intelligence officials for foreign policy sanity" or something like that.

[Ion]

This one is easy:
Originally posted by corplinx

...
Why is the burden of proof on people like me and not on them who make these claims?
...

Because Bush attacked Iraq which "...must disarm." its WMDs, but gee, Iraq is not armed with WMDs, so Bush lied.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Ion
This one is easy:

Because Bush attacked Iraq which "...must disarm." its WMDs, but gee, Iraq is not armed with WMDs, so Bush lied.

Your right, and by that logic the US doesn't really have nuclear weapons since we didn't use any in the Iraqi invasion.

[Ion]

Originally posted by corplinx

...by that logic the US doesn't really have nuclear weapons since we didn't use any in the Iraqi invasion.
The trivial logic that escapes you so far is that when U.S. is attacked by a country that has nuclear weapons -whether that country uses or does not use its nuclear weapons- and U.S. does not use nuclear weapons for its defense, nor it is found any trace of them after the U.S. is invaded and overturned by the attacking country, then U.S. didn't represent a threat from the perspective of its nuclear weapons.

Now, replace in this statement 'U.S.' with 'Iraq'.

It works too.

Therefore, the attacked Iraq did not represent a threat regarding the Iraqi nuclear and bio-chemical weapons.

That's not what Bush said.

He said that Iraq represented an immediate threat with its nuclear and bio-chemical program, and attacked Iraq.

So, Bush lied.

Got it?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Ion

He said that Iraq represents an immediate threat with its nuclear and bio-chemical program.

So, Bush lied.

Got it?

I'm getting something clear and loud alright. Its saying "put Ion on ignore, he has nothing of value to add and is very unreasonable".

[Ion]

Sure,

put me on ignore as long as you are wrong about starting wars based on lies.

Don't ignore me, in case you seek to improve your stance.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx


Your right, and by that logic the US doesn't really have nuclear weapons since we didn't use any in the Iraqi invasion.

haha

JK

[Ion]

So, where are the 'imminent' WMDs in Iraq that made Bush to start a war?

Without them, Bush lied.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Ion
So, where are the 'imminent' WMDs in Iraq that made Bush to start a war?

Without them, Bush lied.

Could you at least wait until we're done looking?

Your frustrations in the lack of WMD may be justified but I for one would think that frustration was more genuine if you at least would wait for a thorough search to be completed.

[Clancie]

For the Bush Apologists....

I'm curious. Why do you think Bush is so adamantly against having U.N. inspectors return to help the U.S. look for WMD in Iraq? Our sloppy handling of the search hasn't produced anything. You'd think we would welcome the help.

So...Why do you think our military is so resistant to having the most experienced and knowledgable experts on this topic go back into Iraq?

[Ion]

Originally posted by corplinx


Could you at least wait until we're done looking?
...

No, it's too little and too late now:

the U.N. inspections were "...looking...", but Bush cut them because there were 'imminent' WMDs in Iraq.

The facts show that there are no 'imminent' WMDs in Iraq, but there is 'imminent' oil in Iraq.