Bush was warned there were no WMD, says former CIA man

[Dinner]

Discuss.

The Central Intelligence Agency tried to warn the Bush administration on the eve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein did not appear to have weapons of mass destruction but the warning was dismissed because the US political leadership was not interested in what the intelligence showed, according to a retired senior CIA operative.

The revelation, by the CIA's former European chief Tyler Drumheller, was broadcast on CBS's news magazine Sixty Minutes last night and added to the body of evidence that US and British leaders saw the weapons of mass destruction issue only as a selling point for a war they had already decided to wage for other reasons.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article359755.ece

Is anyone really stupid enough to still believe Bush actually thought there were any WMDs in Iraq? Absolutely everything points to the fact that they knew there were no WMDs in Iraq and that the administration deliberately lied to trump up an excuse to enter a war they'd already decided upon. If anyone was obtuse enough to not follow the Downing Street Memos then having the CIA's former top man in Europe speak out about what really happened won't matter, but for the few who still aren't sure maybe this will make a difference.

[Pekka]

"The revelation, by the CIA's former European...

need I continue?

[DRoseDARs]

Pekka, that's like saying our US military personnel stationed in Germany or Japan aren't US citizens at all but actually Germans and Japanese. That doesn't make much sense now does it?

[Pekka]

you make no sense

[notyoueither]

Re: Bush was warned there were no WMD, says former CIA man

Originally posted by Oerdin
Is anyone really stupid enough to still believe Bush actually thought there were any WMDs in Iraq?

Britains expert on bio/chem weapons was.

If he was, who the hell are you?

[Pekka]

Right. I think there was always a possibility there was weapons. Because I can't possibly know, they had them at some point so I know they had them to begin with, but I'm not allowed to see the investigation material and evidence so how could I know?

[notyoueither]

The best explanation I have seen was on a BBC production about the Chem/Bio man who commited suicide.

He had been investigating Iraq and chem/bio weapons for years. He was convinced Saddam had them.

A source from Iraq came to see him one day. The Iraqi asked if he was stupid. Saddam couldn't admit to having dispossed of all of them, but also wouldn't have dared to have kept some of them. Couldn't he see?

If Saddam admitted disarming, he would open his regime to rebellion and external attack.

If Saddam didn't disarm, he would be attacked by the Yanks.

It was some madman's prisoner dilemma.

The UK's expert on the topic remained convinced Saddam had them.

[notyoueither]

But of course, Oerdin knows better, and always did.

[KrazyHorse]

It just proves what I've known all along: I'm smarter than any expert in any subject.

[notyoueither]

How high up on Saddam's payroll were you, Oerdin?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It just proves what I've known all along: I'm smarter than any expert in any subject.

With a bit of luck.

With worse luck they found gas stores near those arty shells that were in quite good condition. Arty shells they weren't supposed to have anymore.

And then no such luck.

[KrazyHorse]

You really should find and read my position on Saddam's CNB capabilities prior to the opening of the war.

It was that there would be some vague remnants of a long-expired chemical threat and very little else.

I also predicted that some people would point to these completely laughable scraps as evidence of the imminent danger Saddam posed.

Was he in violation of UN resolutions, and probably the ceasefire from 91? Yes. Was there any real CNB threat posed by the Iraqi government by 2003? Obviously not. The sanctions worked. They had completely degraded his capabilities. Chemical weapons don't just sit around for a decade waiting to be used. They leak, go bad and get lost, especially under the dual pressure of sanctions and inspections.

Saddam in 91 had some nasty stuff. Saddam in 03 was a joke. Anybody with a head for science, the willingness to be nonpartisan and the luxury of not being an "expert" could see this.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Was he in violation of UN resolutions, and probably the ceasefire from 91? Yes.

Thank you. That's all that is needed, at least you are honest about it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Was there any real CNB threat posed by the Iraqi government by 2003? Obviously not.

Evidently someone who knew a lot more about it than you didn't agree with you.

[KrazyHorse]

Errr...no.

That's not all that is "needed"

Legal technicalities should not be the basis for going to war.

Just because a leader has some sort of international cover for invading another country doesn't mean he should. I would think that most Americans would be interested in knowing whether Bush was interested in CNB threats as an excuse or a reason.