WMD Myths
Published November 29, 2003
This is absolutely critical reading.
Stuart Cohen, who has been with the CIA for 30 years, was acting chairman of the National Intelligence Council when the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was published. Does he have a dog in this race? Yes he does, but most of the "Bush is lying, there were no weapons of mass destruction and they knew it" partisans seem to think the CIA is on their side. They would be wrong.
Cohen addresses some very prevalent myths:
- Myth: The NIE favored going to war. Intelligence judgments, including NIEs, are policy-neutral. We do not propose policies, and the estimate in no way sought to sway policymakers toward a particular course of action.
Myth: Analysts were pressured to change judgments to meet the needs of the Bush administration. The judgments presented in the October 2002 NIE were based on data acquired and analyzed over 15 years. Our judgments were presented to three different administrations and routinely to six congressional committees. And the principal participants in the production of the NIE from across the entire U.S. intelligence community have sworn to Congress, under oath, that they were not pressured to change their views or to conform to administration positions.
Myth: We buried divergent views and concealed uncertainties. Alternative views presented by intelligence officials at the Department of State, the Department of Energy and the U.S. Air Force were showcased in the NIE and were acknowledged in unclassified papers on the subject. Uncertainties were highlighted in the key judgments and throughout the text.
Myth: Major NIE judgments were based on single sources. Overwhelmingly, major judgments in the NIE on WMD issues were based on multiple sources — often from human intelligence, satellite imagery and communications intercepts.
Myth: We were fooled on the Niger uranium story — a major issue in the NIE. This was not one of the reasons underpinning our key judgment about nuclear reconstitution. In the body of the estimate, after noting that Iraq already had considerable low-enriched and other forms of uranium, enough to produce roughly 100 nuclear weapons, we included reference to reported Iraqi efforts to procure uranium from Niger with appropriate caveats, for the sake of completeness.
- WMD Myths
- Published: November 29, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Eric Olsen
- Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
- Eric Olsen's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
So some guy who's butt is on the line for being such a tool says it's a myth and you believe him.
Let's remember, shall we, that the NIE was produce only after the decision to go to war was made - in the opposite order it is supposed to be don - and only after repeated and plaintive requests by Senators for this necessary document.
Not exactly a foundation of strength on which Cohen can base his arguments on.
Yeah... I agree. we should just put our intelligence on a readily accessible website so that everyone can feel much better.
The central point is this: it has become received wisdom that the administration rigged or ignored the intelligence community regarding Iraq, and that there weren't and aren't any WMD in Iraq - it's all a White House plot.
This is a bracing statement from someone directly involved that none of that is true.
This is all proof that hatred can be seriously blinding. Bush hasn't done everything perfectly. He (along with every other politician ever) has used hyperbole to make his points and sway opinions. Is he a liar? Let's not go that far. Was it absolutely necessary to go to war? It depends on your definition of imminent and threat. It was a foreign policy decision and I don't think anyone can say whether it was right or wrong. It was a decision and it will only serve to create more decisions further down the line.
People need to stop acting like the whole thing is cut and dry. There is no right answer, just different choices.
For the most part, that is a very wise statement, Craig.
I like that statement too Craig. Uh... can I borrow that?
If you find it worthy of borrowing, I am flattered. Go for it.
Wow. Here I thought we had a constitutional process, international law, and many decades of intelligence analysis and vetting processes.
Learn something new every day.
the CIA may not have been fooled by the niger forgeries, but said forgeries were still allowed to circulate as "evidence" at high levels of government (and earlier in England too, where to begin with Blair somehow missed the telltales signs, such as one of the ministers' names appearing on the documents actually being a minister who had not been in power for several years)
Considering the intelligence capablities the US has at its disposal (here i mean technology like its satlellites) i am amazed that they have not thus far been able to track down any wmd or even convincing evidence that such exists. The most they came up with so far was some biological agents that were developments on those we sold them over a decade ago, nothing that is a big threat due to its effectiveness (or lack thereof).
i will not say "iraq definitely did not have wmds" but i am highly skeptical it was anywhere near the level of threat the us and uk made it out to be.
Don't be too quick to overestimate our intelligence capabilities with regard to WMDs. In 1998, both India and Pakistan were able to actually detonate nuclear devices without us having any advance notice, basically catching the CIA flat on their collective ass. Additionally, look at the ambiguity surrounding the DPRKs program, a lot of speculation as to what the actual status is with few hard facts. Given these instances, perhaps our low risk tolerance with Iraq is more understandable.
Someone somewhere still believes there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Amazing! Proof that the Big Lie technique works.
Eric, why can't you accept that the leaders of the U.S. can be wrong? They were wrong about Vietnam (and most of the petty invasions since), and they are wrong now.
Big Lie technique? What do your results on the bar exam have to do with this discussion?
I absolutely accept that leaders can be, and are, wrong frequently. That's central to my point that it's not all about a Big Lie - it isn't either/or.
And I absolutely believe there are or were in the very recent past WMD in Iraq. Quoting above, what was estimated to exist would fit into one small warehouse and one swimming pool.
And rather obviously, given the current conditions in Iraq, people do not feel free to reveal all they know.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/10530)
No Eric, if we haven't found them then I don't believe that they exist. Also unless I get a picture of Saddam and members of Al Qaeda having tea together I won't believe there is a link between them.