IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New NIC Vice Chairman sets the record straight on WMD report
[link|http://www.odci.gov/nic/pubs/other_products/stu_iraq_wmd.html|Slams down each lie and distortion in detail]

There's too much to excerpt here. But I'll give you a listing of the myths debunked:

Myth #1: The Estimate favored going to war (It merely analyzed and reported facts, and it was the facts that favored this.)

Myth #2: Analysts were pressured to change judgments to meet the needs of the Bush Administration

Myth #3: NIE judgments were news to Congress

Myth #4: We buried divergent views and concealed uncertainties

Myth #5: Major NIE judgments were based on single sources (no, they didn't get all their info from NPR)

Myth #6: We relied too much on United Nations reporting and were complacent after UN inspectors left in 1998

Myth # 7: We were fooled on the Niger "yellowcake" story\ufffda major issue in the NIE

Myth #8: We overcompensated for having underestimated the WMD threat in 1991 (as if that would have been a bad thing)

Myth #9: We mistook rapid mobilization programs for actual weapons

And last but not least...

Myth #10: The NIE asserted that there were "large WMD stockpiles" and because we haven't found them, Baghdad had no WMD

Okay, I'm going to exceprt that last one:

From experience gained at the end of Desert Storm more than ten years ago, it was clear to us and should have been clear to our critics, that finding WMD in the aftermath of a conflict wouldn't be easy. We judged that Iraq probably possessed one hundred to five hundred metric tons of CW munitions fill. One hundred metric tons would fit in a backyard swimming pool; five hundred could be hidden in a small warehouse. We made no assessment of the size of Iraq's biological weapons holdings but a biological weapon can be carried in a small container. (And of course, we judged that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon.) When the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), led by David Kay, issued its interim report in October, acknowledging that it had not found chemical or biological weapons, the inspectors had then visited only ten of the 130 major ammunition depots in Iraq; these ammunition dumps are huge, sometimes five miles by five miles on a side. Two depots alone are roughly the size of Manhattan. It is worth recalling that after Desert Storm, US forces unknowingly destroyed over 1,000 rounds of chemical-filled munitions at a facility called Al Kamissiyah. Baghdad sometimes had special markings for chemical and biological munitions and sometimes did not. In short, much remains to be done in the hunt for Iraq's WMD.

I say:

And then there was [link|http://www.cpeo.org/lists/military/2000/msg00514.html|this little happening in Germany]. Makes you think... unless you try very hard not to.

As long as we find them before any bad guys do, we're golden. But let's be careful. Remember [link|http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/gulfwar/whiteper/|Al-Khamisiyah]. It's a very likely culprit in that Gulf War Syndrome.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEAL WITH IT.
"If I may be candid for a moment, and let's see you try to stop me..." - Jay Conrad Levinson
Compromise is for suckers. Seeking a middle ground is what led to 9/11.
"I do not want to be admired by scumbags and liars and wife beaters. I want to be admired by good and decent, intelligent and just people, and in order to achieve this I need to do things that make me despised by their opposites." - Bill Whittle
Never mind all the mass graves. Where's the nerve gas?
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
New I like this myth..
#5...

Myth #5: Major NIE judgments were based on single sources: Overwhelmingly, major judgments in the NIE on WMD were based on multiple sources\ufffdoften from human intelligence, satellite imagery, and communications intercepts. Not only is the allegation wrong, but it is also worth noting that it is not even a valid measure of the quality of intelligence performance. A single human source with direct access to a specific program and whose judgment and performance have proven reliable can provide the "crown jewels"; in the early 1960s Colonel Oleg Penkovskiy, who was then this country's only penetration of the Soviet high command, was just such a source. His information enabled President Kennedy to stare down a Soviet threat emanating from Cuba, and his information informed US intelligence analysis for more than two decades thereafter. In short, the charge is both wrong and meaningless.


Ahem - meaning that they DO take data from a single human source.
New Counter run down
1: In theory only. In practice government reports are often created for the purpose of leaking them to the public to influence and shape opinion. This is obviously true in the case of this NIE, which was crafted after the decision to go to war had been made.
2: Nice statement. Except there have been many reports of CIA analysts complaining of pressure.
3: He misses the point here. Many in Congress where surprised because the 2001 NIE and the 2002 NIE where so different. To give an example the 2001 NIE said that Iraq was unlikely to test long range missles even if US sanctions where lifted and would probably develop a medium range missle if sanctions where lifted, the 2002 NIE said that Iraq had medium range missles and was doing design work on long range missles.
4: He's probably correct here. The NIE does include some divergent views and it's supposed to be a summary to begin with, so it can't include everything.
5: His second statement admits the point. Notice the claim is only that some major judgements where based on single sources, while the denial is says only that the majority where based on multiple sources.
6: I've never heard that myth before. In fact a bigger problem was US refusal to accept UN reports, even though they have turned out to be more accurate then the US NIE.
7. The caveat in the unclassified portion of the report said only that the status of the deal was unknown. Nothing about the information being weak or (as the case turned out) a rather transparent fraud.
8. May or may not be true, but his argument against it is nothing more then a personal claim it's not true.
9. He dodges this point by ignoring the fact that rapid mobilization applies to the army as a whole and thus covers a lot beyond WMDs.
10. Don't know if was in the NIE or not, but the US government was claiming to know where large stockpiles where. And by large stockpiles, the NIE was talking about thousands of gallons, not a few stray shells.

As far as I can see, this is nothing more the butt covering from somebody that botched the job.

Jay
New Starve the Filbert!
jb4
"There are two ways for you to have lower Prescription-drug costs. One is you could hire Rush Limbaugh's housekeeper ... or you can elect me President."
John Kerry
     NIC Vice Chairman sets the record straight on WMD report - (marlowe) - (3)
         I like this myth.. - (Simon_Jester)
         Counter run down - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
             Starve the Filbert! -NT - (jb4)

This is untested and you're my guinea pig.
44 ms