Last week's The Economist put Tony and George Jr on the cover with a title "Wielders of mass deception?" There is no doubt we went into Iraq on lies. How extensive those lies and why is still unfolding. For example, because the admininstration could not get intelligence (the spin) they wanted from CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, then Rumsfeld set up another intelligence gathering office in the Pentagon to "uncover" facts that were being filtered out. Facts mostly from anti-Saddam Iraqis. Facts that were rejected as politically inspired lies by responsible intelligence agencies.
Saddam was evil. Therefore facts were invented to prove it; to justify war. Just what this administration did. And so The Economist demonstrates more examples of why this happened:
Quote:
If there weren't any or many [sources], did analysts and their masters extrapolate from what they knew, or thought they knew, and present the outcome as fact? Did the two governments "cherrypick" the most gloomy assessements and prognoses? The underestimation of Iraq's nuclear progress before 1991 would have encouraged such an approach, and the aluminum-tube affair suggests that it was adpoted. As late as February of 2001, Mr Powell believes that Mr Hussein "had not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction." Something happened to change his mind.
And how much weight was given to the testimony of defectors, often eager to please, and (still less reliably) to exiles who are often out of touch with their native lands, and busily grinding private axes. Their influence seems to explain, in part, why some Americans expected ordinary Iraqis to be throwing flowers at their occupiers. A leak from Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency reportedly suggests that information from defectors furnished by the Iraqi National Congress turned out to have been distinctly suspect. Was there a kind of un-virtuous competition among the various American agencies, with some trying to outdo other by furnishing the administriation with evidence that most suited it prejudices?
Mr Bush and Mr Blair ... probably expected the sceptics to be quietened and chastened by the use of WMD during the war. But such weapons were never unleashed. Now they face a variety of probes into their case for toppling Mr Hussein. One British committee has already complained that too much "intelligence" has been withheld for it to reach properly informed conclusions. If that continues, it will be impossible to tell whether Mr Bush and Mr Blair or their publics were the more deceived.
|
The aluminum-tube affair (which was cited in The Cellar as myth then, and is widely pointed to as classic deception) suggests George Jr "cherrypick" the most gloomy assessements and prognoses, extrapolated from what they knew or thought they knew, and presented the outcome as fact. IOW he lied.
Bottom line remains. We are in Iraq because of deception. To be resolved: who did the deceiving. Evidence suggests it was at the highest levels of government. And so The Economist cover page with the title "Wielders of mass deception?"