Saturday, April 07, 2007

Eat Your Words, Big Dick

How's this for a Big Dick smackdown?

April 7, 2007
Interrogations of Saddam Hussein and seized documents confirmed the former Iraqi regime had no links with al-Qaeda, a Pentagon report said today, contradicting the US case for the 2003 invasion.

A two-page resume of the report was published in February, but today the Pentagon declassified the whole 120-page document.

According to the inspector general of the US Defence Department, information obtained after Saddam's fall confirmed the pre-war position of the Central Intelligence Agency and Pentagon intelligence . . .

This position was shored up by interrogations of Saddam, the former Iraqi president, and other top officials captured by the US-led coalition forces in Iraq, the report said.

I'm starting to love Robert Gates. Not completely. Not like I love Richard Clarke. But there is that special little thrill again. Snuffed out quickly by Gates' helping Bubble Boy to deploy thousands more National Guard troops. Oh well. Come on, Robert. Do the right thing. Get us OUT of there.


Swan said...

Re: the Iraq war in general

(also see this post)

Ever since the months prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there have been a few reports in the newspapers that the Central Intelligence Agency was casting aspersions on the intelligence the White House was relying on to justify the war. The CIA has never given a position on whether the war is needed or justified or said that Bush is wrong to go to war. But doesn't it seem much more likely that the CIA is an extremely right wing organization than a left wing one? After all, even if the people working for them and at least a lot of the leadership really wanted a war for their own reasons, there are a lot of reasons for them to not want to tie their credibility to what they know is faulty information. They and their personnel, present and former, could use other means of promoting the Iraq war, and still be motivated to make the statements in the media. If the CIA got behind faulty information, they would have to make a choice between whether they would be involved in scamming the American people and the world once the military had invaded Iraq and no weapons were found- so: 1) Imagine the incredible difficulties involved in pulling off a hoax that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Imagine all the people you would have to be able to show the weapons to- the inspectors from the UN / the international community, the American press, statesmen, etc. Then imagine the difficulties of substantiating that story to people who would examine it- the lack of witnesses to a production plant that made the weapons or to transportation operations or storage of the weapons during Hussein's regime of them. 2) If the story fell apart upon inspection or the CIA tried not to hoax it at all, imagine the loss of credibility they would suffer. The CIA, it is safe to bet, does not want to be known to the American people as a group that lies to them to send them to war. Even within the CIA there could be disagreement among people about how involved they should be in promoting the war or the neo-con agenda more broadly, so the CIA would have to worry about lying to and managing its own people after trying so hard to get them to trust their superiors in the agency, and perhaps there simply might be too many people in the agency who knew enough about what was going on in Iraq to know if someone was deceiving people to promote this war.

So there is a lot of reason to be cautious against being seen as endorsing what they knew was false intelligence even if they were very strong supporters of going to war.

Granted, it’s certainly possible the CIA could have changed their minds about the war, as a lot of people have, and could now be trying to move the nation closer to withdrawal.

Anonymous said...

I like to believe there is a Good CIA, a secret, good CIA, doing good things. I like to believe in fairies and magic, too. But I suppose I know better . . .