No Saddam and Osama? :(
September 8, 2006 9:06 PM   Subscribe


 
Do you have a different summary link than the one-sentence, registered-users-only first link? I'm afraid I don't have time today to read through the two massive PDF files to figure out what they concluded.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:24 PM on September 8, 2006


Why not just read the titles of the assessments and then ignore them entirely? That's what Condy did, isn't it? That's what congressmen do to all the bills they vote on. Just glance at the titles and then check to see what their financial connections want them to do.

Reading? Who has time for reading, Kickstart?
posted by ZachsMind at 9:29 PM on September 8, 2006


From the article: They said that on Oct. 7, 2002, the same day Bush gave a speech speaking of such a link, the CIA had sent a declassified letter to the committee saying it would be an 'extreme step' for Saddam to assist Islamist terrorists in attacking the United States.

It was even in the National Security Estimate 2002.

Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa’ida… could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.

- In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.


But I realize no one had time to read it.
posted by effwerd at 9:52 PM on September 8, 2006


Do you have a different summary link than the one-sentence, registered-users-only first link?

I'm afraid that's the only link on the internets discussing it. Sorry.
posted by homunculus at 9:55 PM on September 8, 2006




Wait. Here's another. I think. Huh.
posted by homunculus at 10:00 PM on September 8, 2006


from amberglow's link: "The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."

This makes no sense whatsoever (not saying Scheid is lying). Did anyone realize that leaving immediately did not gel with disbanding the Iraqi military and de-Bathifying the government? Or was that just done spontaneously by Bremer? Man, if this is true, this administration is even stupider than I thought, and that's a feat.

Unless, of course, it was a part of some cunning plan.
posted by effwerd at 10:07 PM on September 8, 2006


I'm afraid that's the only link on the internets discussing it.

i'm afraid you didn't try very hard

san jose mercury news

the independent, u k

yahoo

bbc
posted by pyramid termite at 10:09 PM on September 8, 2006


Reading? Who has time for reading, Kickstart?

The two PDFs weigh in at almost 375 pages. It's nice that you have all that time, most of us don't.
posted by Sandor Clegane at 10:10 PM on September 8, 2006


effwerd writes "Unless, of course, it was a part of some cunning plan."

Cunning plan? It was neither!
posted by clevershark at 10:14 PM on September 8, 2006


I mistakenly thought the first link was reg-free (my next comment was just sarcastic.) There are many summary articles online, a few of which were kindly linked by pyramid termite. But what made this worth posting, IMO, were the reports themselves, though I admit they are massive (and the SNL clip always makes me laugh.) But I am sorry the post was sloppy; I hate it when I do that.
posted by homunculus at 10:25 PM on September 8, 2006


The two PDFs weigh in at almost 375 pages. It's nice that you have all that time, most of us don't.

Well, the trick to reading any such document when pressed for time is to skip to the end and look for the section called, Conclusions.

Cunning plan? It was neither!

I was thinking in the Baldric from Black Adder sense.
posted by effwerd at 10:28 PM on September 8, 2006


Heh, the "previous evidence" link was a delicious pork rind of helarity.
posted by delmoi at 6:21 AM on September 9, 2006


Who has time for reading, Kickstart?
posted by ZachsMind at 9:29 PM PST


He's too busy working to pay his taxes so the military can loose trillions and billions can go to the defense industry.

Someone has to pay for the borrowed money.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:22 AM on September 9, 2006


effwerd writes "Unless, of course, it was a part of some cunning plan."
Cunning plan? It was neither!
posted by clevershark at 10:14 PM PST


Dig out the old "tax the war profiteers" templates from the war to end all wars, follow the money flows from the treasury and then ask "how cunning is greed"?
posted by rough ashlar at 6:24 AM on September 9, 2006


I'm shocked! Shocked to find... Oh, you know the routine.
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:25 AM on September 9, 2006


Needs the "surelythiswill" tag.
posted by rxrfrx at 7:43 AM on September 9, 2006


Are Bush, Cheney, Rove, and company gonna get to walk away from this incredible abuse of the public trust, international war crimes, et al?

I've yet to see any indication the American people have the will to change things. Fuckin' Katherine Harris got re-elected, ferchrissakes!

There is no hope.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:56 AM on September 9, 2006


I have no comment at this time
posted by Postroad at 7:58 AM on September 9, 2006


The news about Rumsfeld's aversion to post-war planning is absolutely no surprise to me. I've always presumed that the Bushies hyped the intelligence and low-balled the cost-estimates fully realizing that they could never get the country behind them if the actual facts were known. If there's a Hell, a large proportion the folks involved in the planning of this war should be going to the head of the line when they check out of this side.
posted by hwestiii at 8:23 AM on September 9, 2006


The Lies of George Bush Exposed
posted by homunculus at 9:31 AM on September 9, 2006


He's too busy working to pay his taxes so the military can loose trillions and billions can go to the defense industry.

That would be funny if I was an American or living in the U.S. Or supported the massive military industrial complex. Or just about anything other than the assumptions you made.
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:07 AM on September 9, 2006


At what point is the debate over prewar intelligence over? When will there be enough reports so that we can just put all of this into the historical record and move on?

It reminds one of the "debate" on intelligent design. Just because a few people have this crazy alternative viewpoint that isn't substantiated by the facts, we have to have official inquiries and debates and reports.

I suppose this is the most compelling argument for impeachment, that we can have closure on what is surely one of the most shameful events in American history.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 10:08 AM on September 9, 2006


I'm as vocal a critic of this administration as you will find, but to play devil's advocate for a moment, and continuing from hwestiii's comment:

Up through the nineties, folks in the military and (I assume) the intelligence service felt that although contained, something would have to be done about Saddam eventually. During Operations Northern and Southern Watch, American aircraft were shot at with regular frequency and God help us had one been shot down and the crew taken captive.

Iraq as a regional power had been well contained by the first Gulf War and by the subsequent sanctions, but the sanctions and the commitment to enforce the No-Fly zones were already our tar baby to hold, excuse the metaphor.

Between the defiance of the no-fly zones and the apparent cat and mouse game Iraq was playing with the UN inspectors, I struggle to find a good resolution to the pre-invasion situation the united states was in with relation to Iraq.
posted by Andrew Brinton at 10:29 AM on September 9, 2006


Containment was the good resolution and it worked. We contained the USSR and all the rest too, and that worked. Diplomacy works too....all sorts of things short of lying us into war and occupation work.

It's the decisions this administration made all along that continue to fail in massive ways, from pre-invasion thru now.
posted by amberglow at 10:33 AM on September 9, 2006


Kickstart70, et al: Not only is there a conclusions section (page 52 for WMDs, page 105 for whether Iraq had anything to do with al-Qaida) but the most important sentences in those sections are bolded. Reports like these are designed to be really easy to skim.

I'd copy&paste stuff, but they didn't OCR the doc after re-scanning the redacted copy.

Reading the introduction and the dissenting-opinions sections is probably a good idea, too.

The short summary is that, yeah, the stated justifications for the war turn out to be bullshit after all.
posted by hattifattener at 10:53 AM on September 9, 2006


ABC's Path to 9/11 movie has gotten a lot of criticism for including a made-up scene where Sandy Berger refuses to authorize an attempt by CIA operatives to capture bin Laden. If they'd wanted to show government officials passing on chances to get terrorists, they could've included one of the three times the Bush administration passed on getting Zarqawi. (After all, if he'd killed Zarqawi, President Bush wouldn't be able to claim that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda. As the president has said, "Zarqawi’s the best evidence of a connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida.")

Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein "attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi." Saddam's tougher on terror than Bush is!
posted by kirkaracha at 10:58 AM on September 9, 2006


Iraq as a regional power had been well contained by the first Gulf War and by the subsequent sanctions, but the sanctions and the commitment to enforce the No-Fly zones were already our tar baby to hold, excuse the metaphor.

Between the defiance of the no-fly zones and the apparent cat and mouse game Iraq was playing with the UN inspectors, I struggle to find a good resolution to the pre-invasion situation the united states was in with relation to Iraq.


Bushco pushed through modified sanctions which were praised by the international community for being more focused on fixing the harms caused to the populace and further limiting the amount of money going to the Iraqi military.

The No-Fly zone violations, which weren't sanctioned by the UN (like we would care), were intended to prevent retaliation against the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South. When Saddam started violating the No-Fly policy it was with commercial passenger flights. Most inbound flights were carrying aid.

Occasionally, the Iraqi military would fire upon US and UK planes but from what I remember this never caused any casualties.

Diplomacy is hard and Saddam would've kept trying to game the system but he was contained and the troubles we would've had maintaining this posture would've been much better than what we have now. Cat and mouse is better than shock and awe. The Bush doctrine apologists (not saying you're one, Andrew) were always trying to portray a no invasion scenario as if we would've just stopped the sanctions and let Saddam do whatever the hell he pleased, basically saying if we had waited and found no WMD, we would've started acting like complete morons.
posted by effwerd at 11:15 AM on September 9, 2006


Wow, no sh*t. Who'd of thunk it?
posted by moonbiter at 11:15 AM on September 9, 2006


Oops. This: The No-Fly zone violations, which weren't sanctioned by the UN should obviously be "The No-Fly zones, which weren't..."
posted by effwerd at 11:21 AM on September 9, 2006


they didn't OCR the doc after re-scanning the redacted copy.

Does anyone know if all such documents are circulated like this? It would seem a very stupid thing to do. How are people supposed to have the data accessible to a search?
posted by effwerd at 11:25 AM on September 9, 2006


In 2001, Colin Powell and Coldoleeza Rice both said Iraq was contained.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:28 AM on September 9, 2006




The reports are part of a five-report study that the Senate Intelligence Committee has undertaken into the Bush administration's use of intelligence before the invasion of Iraq.

The study has left the committee badly divided. Three reports remain classified, including one comparing prewar statements by Bush administration officials to intelligence available at the time. Democrats have accused Republicans of delaying the reports until after the November congressional elections.
posted by homunculus at 12:53 PM on September 9, 2006


At what point is the debate over prewar intelligence over? When will there be enough reports so that we can just put all of this into the historical record and move on?

CNN poll: ... Fifty-seven percent of the respondents said they think it would be good for the country "if the Democrats in Congress were able to conduct official investigations into what the Bush administration has done in the past six years." ...
posted by amberglow at 12:58 PM on September 9, 2006


At what point is the debate over prewar intelligence over? When will there be enough reports so that we can just put all of this into the historical record and move on?

I think I'd be satisfied when someone high up in the administration, say Rummy, Rice, one of their immediate subordinates or predecessors, or someone reasonably high in the White House staff, then or now, simply stated for the record that this was all cooked up, and the intelligence skewed to fit the pre-existing desire to go to war. We have some of this already from Paul O'Neill, but nothing from anyone in the war cabinet.

My best hope is Colin Powell who seems to me the one whose putative good faith in the enterprise was the most clearly abused. His loyal-soldier instincts seem to have stayed his hand in this regard. I only hope that age and history will loosen its hold on him and the real story will ultimately come out.

I have little hope of anyone else doing this. The key players in the White House are not only so fully invested in the truth not coming out, but they've also shown a criminal tendency to simply lie and change their stories as further evidence contradictory to their most recent story is made public.

I know the whole "remember 9/11" this is supposed to make us sad for the country, but the way this administration governs makes me sadder. 9/11 was done to us, we've done Bush to ourselves.
posted by hwestiii at 1:00 PM on September 9, 2006


effwerd: This makes no sense whatsoever ... Unless, of course, it was a part of some cunning plan.

Actually the plan, as executed, was to fly Ahmed Chalabi and 600 of his followers into Baghdad immediately after the invasion. He and his followers were supposed to immediately take over the reins of government and the Americans would leave. Except when he got there, the Iraqis said "who the hell is this guy who hasn't been in Iraq for 45 years" and the rest is history.
posted by JackFlash at 2:00 PM on September 9, 2006


They're all already admitted criminals, and the Supreme Court has confirmed it--it's time for them to be removed--Gitmo is lovely this time of year, or maybe one of those secret prisons (also illegal).
posted by amberglow at 2:07 PM on September 9, 2006


A previous report in 2004 made clear the intelligence agencies' "massive failures," said Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.), a member of the committee. "Yet to make a giant leap in logic to claim that the Bush administration intentionally misled the nation or manipulated intelligence is simply not warranted."

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the report was "nothing new."
Canadian Press
posted by porpoise at 2:21 PM on September 9, 2006


Actually the plan, as executed, was to fly Ahmed Chalabi and 600 of his followers into Baghdad immediately after the invasion. He and his followers were supposed to immediately take over the reins of government and the Americans would leave.

If this was their naive and vague idea of how to handle post-war Iraq, then still, how stupid can they be? Even taking just a minute to think this "plan" over would reveal serious outstanding concerns to address. Whoever suggested it was either a fool or had some other agenda, which wouldn't include what's best for us or Iraq. Anyone who would have approved this "plan" would have to have been even worse.

Nonetheless, during the war, it didn't appear that the administration was going to stick with this "plan." Jay Garner ran the CPA from April 21 thru May 11. Mission Accomplished was declared on May 1. In May, Bremer began deBaathification and dissolved the Iraqi military. The administration may have though they could just ship a bunch of expats over and call it a day but it doesn't look like they kept this in mind when we started our post-war activities. And if they knew they had no other real post-war plan, why would they go forward with such seriously flawed initial post-war orders?

If your scenario was actually the case, then this just makes them look even dumber.
posted by effwerd at 3:08 PM on September 9, 2006


DeBathification was part of the plan. Chalabi is a Shiite and he wanted to take over with Shiite militias. Garner was replaced partly because he thought dissolving the Iraq army was a bad idea. Chalabi was the darling of the neocons in the Pentagon, but distrusted by the State department. Rumsfeld won and Powell lost.

Chalabi played them like a fiddle. He was responsible for feeding the Pentagon and Judith Miller the phoney WMD stories. In return, the Pentagon paid Chalabi and his INC over $300,000 per month as a retainer. After the invasion he is famous for saying "As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important."

The relationship between Chalabi and the Pentagon didn't break down until around 2004 when it was revealed that Chalabi, a Shiite, was working with the government in Iran.

It's true. It would be hard to find a dumber bunch of folks than the neocons in the Pentagon.
posted by JackFlash at 3:39 PM on September 9, 2006


In May, Bremer began deBaathification and dissolved the Iraqi military.

DeBathification was part of the plan.

I got the impression from Assassins' Gate that de-Baathification is one of the many things that got bungled. However, I can't recall the details off the top of my head.

Something about starting too soon, and doing it in such a way that it left the interim government without experienced people in important positions, &c.
posted by sparkletone at 5:03 PM on September 9, 2006


Whoever suggested it was either a fool or had some other agenda, which wouldn't include what's best for us or Iraq. Anyone who would have approved this "plan" would have to have been even worse.

I hate to inform you, but that horror you have rejected is the truth. The men behind the scenes are truly evil bastards intent on furthering their own goals of power and wealth with absolutely no regard for the cost to the country or its people. They're not just worse, they're the worstest.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:54 PM on September 9, 2006


Well, at least Halliburton got a great Super Bowl party out of it all.
posted by homunculus at 9:04 PM on September 9, 2006


Speaking of H, turns out they were selling nuke tech to Iran not long ago. In fact, Cheney may have approved illegal nuke technology xfers to Iran during his employment with H.

These men have no qualms about using civilians as grist for their money-and-power machine.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:44 AM on September 10, 2006




It's gonna take a civil uprising in the USA to displace those fuckers. Ten-to-one your November elections accomplish SFA: between gerrymandering and fraud, the elections are chosen by those behind the scenes, not the electorate.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:29 AM on September 10, 2006


Condi also repeated the lies on TV today -- “there were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime going back for a decade.”
posted by amberglow at 12:11 PM on September 10, 2006


The Best War Ever!
posted by homunculus at 7:26 PM on September 11, 2006






« Older Help the ragdoll avoid falling icicles (Flash game...   |   Itsy Bitsy Spider-Man Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments