Now we know: Bush didn’t lie about WMD in Iraq
As he reminds us, even Hans Blix, the chief United Nations arms inspector before the war, believed that Saddam Hussein had hidden weapons of mass destruction. David Kay, who led the postwar Iraq Survey Group that found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, went into his search expecting to find the opposite. In this sense, Bush and Blair were just along for the ride.
The myth of the super-weapons, once it gained currency, could not be dispelled. Saddam’s penchant for secrecy only made matters worse: “Every general knew he did not have the special weapons but thought his counterpart down the road did.” Even in the absence of a conspiracy, the widespread belief in Iraqi duplicity created a situation in which Saddam was unable to prove a negative: “The bar for intelligence that suggested there were no weapons was far higher than for any evidence of their existence.”
After the war, it turned out that British and U.S. spies had believed their own intelligence shaky, but thought the other’s conclusions were sufficient to bolster their analysis. Both agencies were undone partly by the sacred “control principle,” holding that if Country A gives information to Country B, Country B cannot share the details with Country C without the permission of Country A. …
Overall, Corera agrees with the conclusion of the British investigators: With a single exception, the intelligence wasn’t spun by the politicians. It was “simply wrong.” From the point of view of the spies, he points out, this realization is far more damaging. It means they didn’t do their jobs. And the political leaders, says Corera, “believed the intelligence they had been told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Buuuuuuuuuush!
tommy71 on February 4, 2013 at 9:05 PM
We always knew.
thebrokenrattle on February 4, 2013 at 9:06 PM
Hotair and its editorialized titles:
Bush admin: We’re going in, give us the intelligence that supports us going in. Ignore the rest.
Spies: That’s fine with us.
lester on February 4, 2013 at 9:09 PM
He didn’t lie, he was just dead wrong. Or didn’t care if he was right or wrong. Personally, I think it was more the latter.
This is an odd headline for what the article actually says.
segasagez on February 4, 2013 at 9:09 PM
Of course we knew he had them. We gave it to them.
Notorious GOP on February 4, 2013 at 9:11 PM
WTF?
When did the comments at HotAir become indistinguishable from DailyKos?
Crawford on February 4, 2013 at 9:15 PM
Where did Syria get its chemical weapons?
Just wondering…
steebo77 on February 4, 2013 at 9:16 PM
As much as I want to believe that there was chemical weapons in Iraq, there wasn’t. The only source was Curveball and that dude was shady. Personally I think he wanted to start war against Saddam so he would do anything he needed to, also he got free living, he didn’t care. He knew enough, and that was good enough. This whole WMD thing is taught to intelligence students as as either an intelligence failure on part of the CIA or the Bush Admin. fluffing it up. It is still not really clear. I think the war would have started either way.
Gatekeeper on February 4, 2013 at 9:17 PM
steebo77 on February 4, 2013 at 9:17 PM
You have 11 problems with your “logic”, namely the 11 other reasons cited in the 2002 Authorization that many of your Democrats, including the new and the past “Secretaries of State” both signed off on. WMDs were only 1/12 of the equation.
As for “spies”, I’m just curious, Kid-did you approve of American Leftist Phillip Agee and his groupies, who outed hundreds of CIA agents in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s?
Many of those agents ended up dead, unlike your wall poster Valerie Plame.
F-
Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2013 at 9:18 PM
What difference at this point does it make?
MikeA on February 4, 2013 at 9:18 PM
Seventeen UN resolutions …
OldEnglish on February 4, 2013 at 9:19 PM
What if a person told everyone that there was a huge lion in the next room. That person insisted that that we barge into that room and get that lion.
Only a fool would knowingly lie about the presence of the lion since that same person would know that the untruth would be uncovered once we entered the room.
It is far more likely that the person talking about the lion completely believed that the lion existed.
kurtzz3 on February 4, 2013 at 9:20 PM
Intelligence is not about cast iron certainties.
That said, I have a source who worked closely with the neocons who assures me that Bush only invaded Iraq to steal the oil and give it to his good friends at QuickStop.
And no, I will not reveal my source.
CorporatePiggy on February 4, 2013 at 9:20 PM
Remind me, what was the reason in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Mali, and soon Syria? Oh that’s right. Boooooosshh!!!
Bmore on February 4, 2013 at 9:21 PM
They’ve had them for a long time.
———————————————————————–
The sad irony of the whole “Bush Lied” meme; The progs don’t care if he did or did not. They don’t care about any of the facts, just the ability to use it as a political weapon.
If progs were honest, the argument would have simply been “W rushed us to war”. That’s been an accepted fact since ’05.
But this is about progs using the country as a tool, or a vessel, from some delusion of a better tomorrow that uglier than the current reality.
budfox on February 4, 2013 at 9:21 PM
An expensive lesson, for sure.
aryeung on February 4, 2013 at 9:22 PM
Hussein was in breach of the Ceasefire Resolution for 12 years. Hussein harbored terrorists, including the 1993 WTC bomber. Then there is Salman Pak etc etc etc.
Basilsbest on February 4, 2013 at 9:26 PM
I called this one correctly in 2004. It just dawned on me that Hussein was playing a bluff, and it just made more sense than any other theory. He was more concerned about keeping the neighboring countries in check, and miscalculated how the US would respond. For that reason, I voted Libertarian that year.
But once we committed to the war, then there was only one course of action – to win. And the presence or non-presence of WMD’s didn’t mean jack from the moment we committed. And all the hand-wringing in the world doesn’t mean jack now. Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of the action. Even Bill Maher once had a moment of clarity that this was a chance to make a positive difference in the Middle East by planting a seed of democracy.
I have a similar feeling about Benghazi. I am still not believing that it was all a fuster-cluck in communication. I think there was a reason that we chose not to beef up defense at the embassy and the annex. Perhaps we had some under-cover activities going on? That’s the most plausible reason I have heard. We haven’t gotten the full story, and I fear we may never get to prove what happened and why. Strong word, “never”. But I can respect the need for secrecy. Truth is a dangerous thing at times.
connertown on February 4, 2013 at 9:26 PM
Is it believed that Saddam didn’t have wmd’s based on our failure to find them? That is fallacious logic. We also didn’t find the wmd’s that we knew he had because they had been catalogued by Blix. Even if those weapons were degraded, they still weren’t found so any assumption you can make regarding those you could also make regarding newer weapons.
I think you’d also have to prove that they were not moved out of Iraq in the Russian convoys during Tom Daschle and the Democrats’ “Why the rush to war?” stalling tactic.
Buddahpundit on February 4, 2013 at 9:27 PM
I’ve yet to see an explanation as to what those Russian convoys which travelled from Iraq into Syria were carrying.
Basilsbest on February 4, 2013 at 9:29 PM
According to our intelligence agencies, they’ve been making them since the 1980′s…
JohnGalt23 on February 4, 2013 at 9:31 PM
This seems to be missing all of the evidence of weapon production that was found. Just another in a long list of distortions.
Count to 10 on February 4, 2013 at 9:35 PM
connertown: Check this one out. It may explain Benghazi.
http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-rebuffed-clinton-petraeus-plan-arm-syrian-023937923.html
onlineanalyst on February 4, 2013 at 9:36 PM
This isn’t supported by the section that you quoted.
Your quoted sections says:
SIS worried that “Washington’s hawks” wanted to target Saddam
British believed U.S. would engage in bombing campaign
Spies ‘went along’ when invasion became more likely
If you want to claim that it’s dangerous to trust your spies because there is evidence that they (and the other governments around you) may be attempting to give you false info to placate you, there is some slim evidence in the above.
However, you’ve made the claim that the Bush admin said, “Here’s what we’re going to do. Give me proof so I can do it.” I don’t see any way to reach that conclusion from the premises actually provided.
JadeNYU on February 4, 2013 at 9:36 PM
A lot of other books have been written saying that the US and UK spooks were NOT emphatic about WMDs. They were more certain about other data and made that clear.
Tony Blair outright lied with his ’45 minutes’ speech.
Colonic Powell emphasized WMD *over everything else* for reasons that are not clear.
WMD was in the intelligence analysis. No one said it was 100%. By the time you know something is 100% you are picking up dead bodies regardless.
CorporatePiggy on February 4, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Which Hafez al-Assad did with Soviet help, of course. The same Soviets who probably helped Saddam Hussein develop Iraq’s weapons. The same
SovietsRussians who are now aiding Bashar al-Assad hang on to power.Read this article about the possible Russian-aided cleanup of Iraq’s chemical weapons. I, for one, find it quite plausible.
steebo77 on February 4, 2013 at 9:43 PM
Actually there no way you would come to that conclusion if you have read Corera’s book, nor Stephen Carter’s little mini-review here.
The mistake is in treating this as some kind of “news” as Carter does here. No objective journalist who has examined this subject in detail has ever come up with a conclusion different than Corera’s.
In fact the only liars during this whole affair have been people like you, on the left, who continually twist quotes, reports and events to make the situation out to have been something different.
The whole nonsense caused my final break with the left. Nothing but strawmen and lies for cheap political gain…there were good reasons for and against the war in Iraq, instead this stupid and cynical lefty sideshow just served to muddy the waters and provoked unecessary ill-will in this country; ill-will on both sides that is going to linger for a long, long time.
But then, that was the idea, wasn’t it?
Dreadnought on February 4, 2013 at 9:44 PM
actually part of the problem was Bush being so damned inarticulate that WMD was about the only phrase he could rely one since the other 20 reasons required more explanation than a simple sound bite. The real problem wasn’t they were all wrong it’s they decided that nation building was the thing to do. Democracy in the middle east isn’t going to make anything better since Arab culture is not grounded in individual liberty. Go in knock off a dictator then give every man a vote and chances are the majority of their new democracy will vote to go kill all the Jews.
bannor on February 4, 2013 at 9:44 PM
Here’s a little piece of forgotten history from the Clinton Administration: In ~Sept 1998 Clinton ordered an airstrike against Iraq because of Saddam’s failure to comply with UN weapons inspectors. While the bombers where in the air Saddam caved into demands to comply and the bombers returned stateside never reaching Iraq. Dec 1998 (around the time of Clinton Impeachment preceedings) Saddam once again rebuked UN weapons inspectors and Clinton once again ordered an airstrike – this time Saddam didn’t seem interested in trying to prevent it. So my question is why was Saddam so eager to avert an airstrike in Sept 1998 against his suspected WMD facilities but not in Dec. 1998. And if I recall correctly Saddam had kicked out the weapons inspectors in Sept 1998 before letting them back in weeks later.
heretic on February 4, 2013 at 9:44 PM
Look. ONE MORE TIME. We found enough nerve, chemical, and other CBWs to wipe out that entire region ten times over. My teams found some of the biggest bunkers holding nothing but CBWs, all ready to go. One of the first insurgent attacks used a 155 shell containing sarin. All right. Enough. Go peddle your media myths elsewhere.
flackcatcher on February 4, 2013 at 9:46 PM
Flackcatcher:
Can you elaborate a bit more? The stories I am used to hearing said these were “degraded” weapons, “pre-1991″ stockpile, etc. That may very well be a “media-myth” as you say-but that is the interpretation that has reached the American public.
Dreadnought on February 4, 2013 at 9:56 PM
I’m lost? What’s the reason for this distraction?
Dusty on February 4, 2013 at 9:57 PM
The WMD’s were emphasized because that was the only thing that could shame the anti-US members of the UN into some semblance of action, even if they were actually rather minor compared to the real reasons to deal with Saddam.
Count to 10 on February 4, 2013 at 10:01 PM
I’m still not convinced that SADDAM didn’t know that he didn’t have WMDs.
1800 gallons of anthrax that were apparently destroyed in 1991… but that the Iraqi scientists didn’t admit to until 2005 because they didn’t want Saddam to find out they dumped it next to one of his palaces.
(Fox News link here)
malclave on February 4, 2013 at 10:25 PM
What’s your problem with the truth?
I would think if after reading this article you could still make up a lame leftist conspiracy theory you’d take more of an interest in what happened in Benghazi.
No?
Great, you’re back to obama butt-sucking hypocrite.
hawkdriver on February 4, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Only an idiot didn’t know that we’d have to go back, sooner or later, and finish the job after Gulf War I.
Christien on February 4, 2013 at 10:40 PM
Oh look, the people that always preach about how evil the BBC is like the BBC all of a sudden.
And “Washington’s hawks” had their hearts set on going into Iraq a hell of a lot longer back than Nov 2001. Try the entire Clinton era after Bush 41 failed to go in.
The main reason Bush/Cheney got the push they got from the right is because they promised action on Iraq. And that was well before 911. It’s the main reason 911 conspiracies exist.
Moesart on February 5, 2013 at 12:19 AM
And the Bush admin were just plain wrong on Iraq WMD. They wagered on a hunch and they lost.
Moesart on February 5, 2013 at 12:21 AM
You’re both dead wrong. The author of the article is also wrong, but not as far wrong as you are.
Saddam absolutely did have WMDs. The proof of this is absolute and verifiable, in that he USED them against the Kurds. That is, he used chemical weapons, which are classified as WMDs.
Now, you can argue that Saddam had no more WMDs by the time we went into Iraq, but there’s no question he had them before that time. This is significant because we have had so many dishonest leftists try to make it sound like any discussion of Saddam’s WMDs was all made up. All so they can call Bush a liar. Like you.
The reason all the intelligence analysts said Saddam had WMDs was not because Bush made them, or because “everyone said so,” but a) because they knew that he had them at one time, and b) there was evidence that he had them, and c) under the ceasefire at the end of Desert Storm it was Saddam’s responsibility to prove he had no WMDs — not anyone else’s responsibility to prove he did.
But the author of the article does come to one clear and obviously correct conclusion: Bush was not saying anything different from all the intelligence analysts. Even if you accept uncritically the claim that there were no WMDs in Iraq at all, it was certainly the best conclusion of the intelligence community. Calling Bush a liar about WMDs is still spectacularly dishonest.
And yes, that means you. Contemptible behavior, really.
tom on February 5, 2013 at 12:38 AM
What difference, at this point, does it make. Saddam’s comeuppance was long overdue, regardless of WMD. Try to keep up.
Christien on February 5, 2013 at 12:45 AM
The point is not the level of evidence as seen in hindsight. The point is that a high number of intelligence services for many nations, including some in the middle east, believed that Saddam had them, and would use them, Because he did have them, and had used them. Much worse was the possibility that he would make them available to terror groups to strike at the country that he hated above all others, the one that had thrown him back from any easy conquest, and was preventing him from destroying the Kurds, who also had his undying wrath. The point is that, given his hiding of things from UN inspectors, given his intransigence in the face of a mounting threat, that could have been ameliorated simply by opening his facilities to the UN if he had nothing to hide.
Under those circumstances, failure to deal with him would have been dereliction of duty by the Bush administration. That is the thing that is forgotten, constantly. The US had been brutally attacked not 2 years earlier, indications were that Saddam was in possession of WMD, and that he would be more than willing to give them to terrorist groups. To allow this to happen would have made GW Bush the president who believed he had good intelligence that a dangerous attack that was likely to kill thousands, hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of American citizens was in the works, and did nothing to stop it! That would have made him a far worse and more useless President than even the most rabid of his detractors now claim.
Siddhartha Vicious on February 5, 2013 at 6:18 AM
That pretty much sums up how they feel about every issue they have. Notice that all this warring and detaining is just peachy for BO to do. Not to mention the drone strikes. Going after one of theirs for raping and a killing is not productive. Going after a repub for farting at a party. Well that’s a national security issue and treason and requires hanging or at least life in prison. Which would be fine except that far too many of the repubs always seem to back them.
Dr. Frank Enstine on February 5, 2013 at 6:41 AM
+1000
That is just Lester editorializing. Dude’s just dishonest.
CW on February 5, 2013 at 7:28 AM
Lester didn’t quote a lot of other books. He didn’t quote any other books.
He made a claim that HotAir had misrepresented the linked article and then pulled a quote that did not support his claim.
His options (for making an accurate argument) are fairly simple – find evidence in the article to support what he claims was the point of the article.
JadeNYU on February 5, 2013 at 12:21 PM