re: Source of the bad info for WMD in Iraq as told by CIA agent

So, as a reminder, Saddam's Iraq DEFINITELY HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

Most of it was acquired from the Soviets. They used chemical weapons, for real, about as much as anyone since World War I. In the Iran-Iraq War, as well as against their own citizens (notably the Kurds). There were extensive stocks (and many of them were admittedly inert/no longer functional) of these munitions found by coalition forces during and after OIF.

Now, the crux of the issue: Saddam's chemical weapons were only peripherally used to justify the invasion. Obviously, the bigger problem was the Iraqi nuclear program. Complicating this were several factors. Saddam had credibly pursued nuclear weapons since the 1970s. He had French-made reactor that was struck by Israelis (Operation Opera/Babylon).

The debate rages on well into the 21st Century. The Richter camp (along with LSU baws at STRATFOR) were confident that the plant (destroyed in 1981) could have produced weapons-grade material in relatively short order. The Wilson camp says it would have taken decades.

What does that have to do with OIF? Again, complications are that Saddam almost certainly thought he had a more robust program than Iraq actually had. He was likely being lied to. This caused him to be more evasive about it. Outward actions appeared to be concealing it.

Further, there was the source, Curveball (Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi). Now, having conducted source operations myself, I can tell you that this individual (CAVEAT: I HAVE NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE - I WAS NEVER HIGH UP ENOUGH TO WORK A SOURCE LIKE CURVEBALL) almost certainly found a *ahem* "gap" in the human intelligence process.

Without giving away trade secrets, he found a way to sell the same bad (at the very least exaggerated) info to multiple Western agencies and these agencies ended up "confirming" each other's bad/exaggerated intelligence. Even if smart folks in these agencies figured it out (and I'm reasonably certain this happened to a degree), it was too late to turn the ship around, once the drums of war started.

The fact there were also war profiteers chomping at the bit to go, the past history with trying to curb Saddam's bad behavior (recall that he was very aggressive with his neighbors and no one should lose sleep about what happened to him or his sons at the individual level) made war certain under those circumstances.

The bottom line is: The evidence about the nuclear program was shaky at best. It wasn't the sole reason, of course, but it was used to sell the war to the public. When it turned out to be a nothingburger (at least what we were able to find), it undermined trust across the Western allies. Their citizens felt duped and to a degree this sentiment was justified.

But this does not change the fact that Saddam was a bad actor, had and used WMDs, had at various times pursued nukes and ballistic missile technology.

quote:

---

John Kiriakou was 27 during the liberation of Kuwait and was recruited to the CIA while he was in grad school. 8 years of the start of his career was spent in the Middle East as an analyst specializing on Iraq.

It is plausible that what he's saying here is true

---

Analyst? That's like saying the engineer who specializes in sun visors at GM (yes, there really is such a person. Several, in fact) is an authority on engines, transmissions, and their corporate strategy for meeting CAFE standards while paying a dividend to shareholders. Yes, that person is a legitimate GM engineer. No, they don't know any more than 4th hand rumor and water cooler BS about the rest, along with a few snippets they retained from all hands meetings.

He is doing the same thing to the viewers that he says the Iraqi scam banker did - presenting a convincing facade and coming off as knowledgeable and competent. There doesn't have to be anything real about it.

quote:

---

Over 70% of congress and the senate were in favor. I'm not sure we have seen a bipartisan agreement of this magnitude since then. The vote in the House was 296-133 in favor, and in the Senate, it was 77-23. Hell the media seemed to be in favor of an invasion as well.

---

First and foremost. As a veteran myself… thank you sir for your service. I am in no way trying to invalidate the sacrifice of our brave servicemen in the Iraq war


Two responses

1. In the wake of 9/11 politicians didn’t want to be seen as “weak” or “anti American” which is what a NO vote was associated towards

2. Powell did his job which was to represent the views of the President. He begrudgingly presented information to the UN that we all knew was dubious at best.


Saddam was a nuisance but not a danger. IRAN was (and still is) the real danger to world security. IMO the sacrifice in lives and treasure would have been better served knocking their regime out.

Meh, no chance.

Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction to a certain degree in the ability to destabilize world oil supply

LINK

quote:

---

Small note: Obama stood out from the crowd in 2003 when he was the only Presidential hopeful to come out against the Iraq war.

---

I'd argue he was wrong then. The war wasn't the mistake. Rebuilding was the mistake.

You Know Why

quote:

---

Faux news was all in on the WMDS and people still watch that bullshite.

---

Americans were all in on WMDs even when we knew it wasn't true at the time because the experts were loud and vocal about it not being. As a nation we LOVE the idea of flexing...it is the reality associated with our doing so which we do not particularly like.

There was a small amount of dissent in the US at the time....we were called all manner of ill shite. Some of us also took offense at the idea that we would expand the power of government to allow naming criminals "enemy combatants" and limiting the rights of human beings when accused of terrorism and supporting terrorism....we now see where that expansion has lead us. Collectively as a nation we swapped a pile of liberty for the perception of some security which did not and does not exist because 3000+ people were murdered...and the vast majority of us were all on board. No one who wasn't on record as being onboard at the time will admit it but those of us who were alive at the time know it is true....

Saw a twitter thread where guys were saying the WMDs were moved to Syria right before America rolled in. It was a interesting "counter" conspiracy to the "Bush lied" narrative.

quote:

---

Yes we can all look back and second guess it and admit that is was a mistake, but don't pretend that with the information available and those of us who were adults at the time weren't in favor of the decision to invade then and given the similar circumstances wouldn't be in favor of again today.

---

Many of us, if not most, wanted justice for 911.

That wasn't the only thing Iraq was in violation under the ceasefire agreement that made invasion legitimate.

There's a difference between that and the political ability to get support for the war. The White House wasn't going to be able to get civilian support for an invasion based only on the rejection of inspectors and Iraq's targeting of no fly zone aircraft, etc.