Ladies and gentlemen, I present LynnTheDem's bookmark thread: NO WMDs IN IRAQ

[oblivious]

To throw at the war apologists whining that no one could possibly have known that Iraq was WMD-free. I am seeing this in newspaper columns and editorials, letters to the editor in world papers, and even here on DU. Don't let these attempts to absolve the war criminals of blame pass unchallenged.

I encourage LynnTheDem to repost her thread in its entirety with links to replace this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=181739

From Lynn's OP: for links, go to Lynn's original thread.

A quick word regarding that "bad intell" that "fooled" bush & his allies...
US intell never fooled Canada. Or Mexico. Or over 85% of the entire planet. And not one "ally" had a majority population -not even the UK under tony the bLiar, not even America under george "idiot" bush- that supported invading Iraq. Less than 15% of the world were "fooled" by that "bad intelligence". Maybe that 15% are the stupidest MFers on the planet. Or the biggest MFing liars. Or both. You choose.

"WMD"?

SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS (about lack of "WMD") TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED

SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS

SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS (aluminum tubes for conventional rockets, NOT nukes)

While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence."

OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE

"The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa."
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/636209...

OCTOBER 2002 — STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES

The State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. "The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons."

INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium.

OCTOBER 2002 – AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE (against "drones")

"The government organization most knowledgeable about the United States' UAV program -- the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center -- had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons" – a WMD claim President Bush used in his October 7 speech on Iraqi WMD, just three days before the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force.

JANUARY, 2003 – STATE DEPT. INTEL BUREAU REITERATE WARNING TO POWELL

"The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the State Department's in-house analysis unit, and nuclear experts at the Department of Energy are understood to have explicitly warned Secretary of State Colin Powell during the preparation of his speech that the evidence was questionable. The Bureau reiterated to Mr. Powell during the preparation of his February speech that its analysts were not persuaded that the aluminum tubes the Administration was citing could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium."

FEBRUARY 14, 2003 – UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND

FEBRUARY 15, 2003 – IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE

FEBURARY 24, 2003 – CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ‘NO DIRECT EVIDENCE’ OF WMD

MARCH 7, 2003 – IAEA REITERATES TO WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES

Doubts, Dissent Stripped from Public Version of Iraq Assessment
The public version of the U.S. intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information and doubts about deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's intentions, a review of the document and its once-classified version shows.

As a result, the public was given a far more definitive assessment of Iraq's plans and capabilities than President Bush and other U.S. decision-makers received from their intelligence agencies.

CIA to Bush: 'No clear Evidence of WMD'

Why the CIA thinks Bush is wrong
The president says the US has to act now against Iraq. The trouble is, his own security services don't agree.

CIA in blow to Bush attack plans
The letter also comes at a time when the CIA is competing with the more hawkish Pentagon, which is also supplying the White House with intelligence on the Iraqi threat.

White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat'
Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence

"I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied - finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."
-Bush speaking at a news conference Sept. 7 with Tony Blair

There never was, never has been, any such report.

France & Russia knew;

'French intelligence was telling us that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD program That's why France wanted a longer extension on the weapons inspections. The French, the Germans and the Russians all knew there were no weapons there -- and so did Blair and Bush as that's what the French told them directly. Blair ignored what the French told us and instead listened to the Americans.'

The debate on Iraqi WMD continues. For example, Russia was not convinced by either the September 24, 2002 British dossier or the October 4, 2002 CIA report. Lacking sufficient evidence, Russia dismissed the claims as a part of a "propaganda furor."

The UK knew
"They also ignore the statements of Robin Cook, the former British foreign secretary who resigned on the eve of the war to protest Prime Minister Tony Blair’s war policy. Cook was quoted in the June 18, 2003 Guardian newspaper as saying: “I think it would be fair to say that there was a selection of evidence to support a conclusion. I fear we got into a position in which the intelligence was not being used to inform and shape policy, but to shape policy that was already settled.”

For links, go to Lynn's original thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=181739

[Hissyspit]

1. She has lots more threads like this from over the years. People should do an advanced Search

for her threads. A lot of good research.

I heard some Ohio Repub on NPR the other day who, while being interviewed about being a Repub, that knowing what he knows now, we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, but "we didn't know back then." !!!!! Incredible ignorance and/or disingenouous rationalization at this point in time.

And the fact that we are hearing George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's favorite talking point echoed here on DU of all places - "EVERYONE THOUGHT HE HAD WMD!" - is despicable.

[babylonsister]

2. Where did you see that talking point echoed? Sign me curious. nt

[Hissyspit]

4. Buried in several threads I have read over the past few months, babylonsister.

I really can't remember any specific examples, sorry. I realize links would be helpful. Mostly in posts in defense of candidates who voted for IWR. These posts certainly are in the minority.

[babylonsister]

5. I need to pay better attention! I hope their perceptions were corrected,

and imagine they were. :D :hi:

[G_j]

3. yes thank you

and thank you LynnTheDem


k&r

[KoKo]

6. Thanks for reposting all that info. Yes...folks knew and those of us

here who were scouring the foreign press and the back pages of WaPo and NYT's knew...and there were 136 members of Congress & Senate total who knew. Those who said they believed because of the intelligence from WH...either closed their eyes, weren't reading or their staffs were asleep.

Perhaps some wanted any excuse to go after Saddam because they were sympathetic to the Neo-Cons and the Think Tanks who had this all planned. Perhaps some shut their eyes to the fact that the Europeans were dragging their feet in joining a coalition (and France and Germany refused) but had dreams of being President and were fearful of looking weak.

Bush went with a Coalition of the Coerced and Bought Off.