Lou Dobbs: "There was not an intelligent agency in the years leading

[Scout1071]

up to 2003 saying they didn't have weapons of mass destruction."

Lou should read DU more often.

He then went to say:

"Well, talk to Harry Reid because he seems to be wanting to create new spin around this and waste more time instead of dealing with substantive issues. I know it's important to get to the truth, I just don't think this is the way to get there."

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. He stepped in doo-doo.

The half of the CIA that wasn't neo-conned, didn't believe there was WMD.

[Scout1071]

5. Nor did the Inspectors.

Asshats.

[jody]

2. If WMD includes CB weapons, then Dobbs is correct. n/t

[Scout1071]

9. Ex-squeeze me?

What are CB weapons? Chemical?

[Dudley_DUright]

12. I would think Chemical and Biological

However, their sales pitch was all based on the fear of "a mushroom cloud being the smoking gun".

[Scout1071]

15. Yea.....but don't really recall those massive cache's being located.

Did I miss something? I recall one stockpile of weapons from the 80's.

[jody]

21. The fact that CB weapons were not found is not evidence that intel

units did not believe Iraq had CB weapons.

Apparently Dobbs said "years leading up to 2003" and that could cover a decade or more going back to 1990. I would not accept without proof Dobbs' statement.

[jody]

16. Thanks, "CB" = Chemical and Biological. n/t

:hi:

[punpirate]

18. Hardly...

... there wasn't anything found. Beyond that, UNSCOM said that they'd found and destroyed 95% of what was available as of 1991 (and that the rest could not be determined to exist because of Iraqi record-keeping), and they destroyed all of the manufacturing capability. The IAEA had Tuwaitha under seal. The UNMOVIC inspectors sent in at UN insistence in 2002 verified what UNSCOM had said, and further, that the intelligence provided by the CIA at the time (at the insistence of the WH) was "garbage" and hadn't led to any further finds. We now know that that "intelligence" was composed of continuing claims from Ahmed Chalabi's group of fabricators.

Beyond that, the 2001 NIE on Iraq stated they were disarmed and were no threat to the US or their neighbors.

But, if you mean that a few artillery shells buried in 1991 with faint traces of nerve gas in them constitutes chemical weapons, well, then, that's a debatable point.

Cheers.

[jody]

23. See reply #21. n/t

[punpirate]

27. Again...

... the 2001 NIE on Iraq said they were disarmed and were not a threat. If you want to allow Dobbs a hair-splitting distinction in this regard, fine. But, since this impinges on reasons for war, then perhaps Dobbs minute observation doesn't really count for much. Its apparent intent is to justify that war, something the actual evidence doesn't support.

Cheers.

[jody]

28. Please cite the passage in the 2001 NIE that said Iraq did not have CBR

commonly referred to as WMD.
:hi:

ON EDIT ADD:
"The IC assesses that Iraq retains a small covert force of Scud-variant missiles, launchers, and conventional, chemical, and biological warheads." National Intelligence Estimate December 2001

[punpirate]

33. As you well know...

... the actual NIE is classified. This comes from what was released for public consumption, so we see no details of that assessment, nor the opposing views. And we do have statements from both Rice and Powell, referring to the 2001 NIE, saying that Iraq was not a threat. They could read the full report, but we are unable to do so.

Later in the published version of report, it says, "Baghdad had a crash program to develop a nuclear weapon for missile delivery in 1990, but coalition bombing and IAEA and UNSCOM activities significantly set back the effort. The Intelligence Community estimates that Iraq, unconstrained, would take several years to produce enough fissile material to make a weapon. Iraq has admitted to having biological and chemical weapons programs before the Gulf war and maintains those programs."

That's parsing things just a bit--we know how the Bush administration has used the word, "program." We also know that UNSCOM destroyed their manufacturing capabilities. And, as someone said recently, to suggest a "program" without a manufacturing capacity is "fantasy."

The reference to retaining "a small covert force of Scud-variant missiles, launchers, and conventional, chemical, and biological warheads" comes from UNSCOM's own assessments about being unable to verify that everything had been destroyed--due not to having evidence of weapons to which they had no access, but, rather, because the record-keeping of the Iraqis did not show those items being destroyed, as I mentioned. The reports at the time were that they'd scoured the country and had not found the SCUDs or chemical weapons that US intelligence was telling them were there--precisely the situation in which UNMOVIC inspectors found themselves in 2002.

So, that eventually reduced to trying to prove a negative.

In essence, there were reports, from both UNSCOM and UNMOVIC that they were unable to find any more than a few illegal rocket motors and a couple of missiles that, marginally, did not meet UN resolution requirements--that's as of 2002.

As I say, Dobbs is splitting hairs here toward a purpose; that is, justifying an unjustifiable war. There were credible reports from UN teams--before 2003--saying that the weapons weren't there--or, at the most precise reading of their remarks, that they were unable to find evidence that actual weapons remained, despite the records. So, when Dobbs says no intelligence said that, he's not being forthright--he's being disingenuous.

Our own 2001 NIE says Hussein was contained, and the UN inspectors said that they'd been unable to find anything further--and that the US intelligence supplied was faulty and incorrect. They were placed in a position of trying to prove a negative, just as was Iraq. As late as 28 December, 2002, they were issuing progress reports saying that inspections were being made, and that nothing was found. They were being directed to those sites by US intelligence, which was, in turn, being directed by the White House and the INC. The proof that the UN teams were correct in their assessments, and that US intelligence was not, is in the results.

Cheers.

[jody]

34. Are you saying the cite I provided is a lie? Then please provide facts

from the classified NIE that support your assertion.

ON EDIT ADD:
The CIA document I cited says, "The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has requested that the Intelligence Community (IC) produce annual reports containing the latest intelligence on ballistic missile developments and threats and a discussion of nonmissile threat options. This paper is an unclassified summary of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that is the fourth annual report."

[punpirate]

39. What I should say...

... is that, perhaps, your defense of Dobbs is inappropriate given the facts that we can know. When people who have read the classified report say that Iraq is not a threat, we sort of have to take that for what it is.

And, Dobbs, for his part, is, in effect, saying "no intelligence" when he really means US intelligence. The UN has reported as I've described.

The declassified summary of the NIE that both you and I are quoting says, as justification for their header remarks, that Iraq maintains "programs." That's contrary to what the UN inspectors have said. I've also explained the context of that header remark about small quantities. It was a record-keeping matter, not evidence that those weapons still existed.

What are the facts? There weren't any WMD found. US intelligence was manipulated--and we have an excellent idea of by whom.

Now, is that NIE summary a lie? I don't know. What I do know is that it's contradicted by both the facts as we know them now and by what UN inspectors were saying before 2003. We also know that the 2002 NIE was hastily produced and that the declassified summary did not include the objections of other agencies and analysts that disagreed with the assessments made in the declassified summary and the classified reports--objections that turned out to be correct.

That was the original point--that Dobbs is saying something that is contradicted by other facts which he doesn't include in his remarks. His doing so is an attempt to justify the invasion. There is a need to focus on the whole of reality, and not just a selective technicality.

Cheers.

[AntiFascist]

3. Falsified Niger documents, swept under the rug!!!! nt

[LSK]

4. maybe the IAEA??????????

Hans Blix: "THERES NOTHING HERE, THERES NOTHING HERE, CAN YOU HEAR ME?!?!?!"

[Bjornsdotter]

8. I just sent him an email

...with that information. I'm sure he doesn't care, after all why would the truth matter.

Cheers!

[Scout1071]

10. Thanks. I'm working on one now. n/t

[Scout1071]

11. Holy Shit, now he has on 2 cowboys from the 1800's! n/t

[punpirate]

6. Idiot...

... this guy should look at the 2001 NIE on Iraq (quoted by both Kindasleezza Rice and Powell).

[Scout1071]

14. Can't let the facts get in the way of a continued cover-up.

Honestly, he looks as bad as anyone. Pretty clear he's content to doing zero research on anything other than illegal immigration.

[shoopnyc]

7. Yea, that was pretty unfortunate...

...he doesn't have a grasp on the facts. That kinda stuff is sorta outside of his realm. I even get the feeling that he doesn't really want to cover dtuff like that...

[Reciprocity]

13. Well duh.

The difference is that they believe it BUT did not take our country to WAR. News flash Clinton is no longer our president. He did not call for a PREEMPTIVE war of choice.

[LSK]

17. even if that is true, we had inspectors there for months before war

And they found nothing and were getting FULL COOPERATION.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

"As I noted on 14 February, intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks and, in particular, that there are mobile production units for biological weapons. The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist. Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen, as well as large containers with seed processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found. Iraq is expected to assist in the development of credible ways to conduct random checks of ground transportation.

There have been reports, denied from the Iraqi side, that proscribed activities are conducted underground. Iraq should provide information on any underground structure suitable for the production or storage of WMD. During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities, inspection teams have examined building structures for any possible underground facilities. In addition, ground penetrating radar equipment was used in several specific locations. No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far."

When is Dobbs going to do a story of violations of the IWR??????

[Scout1071]

20. Never. Don't hold your breath. He's narrowly focused on the border

to our South. Never really hear him talk about that Canadian border, do you?

[sandnsea]

37. That's the key

Separating what was known in 2002, before the vote, and what was known after the inspectors went in. Worlds apart.

[The Stranger]

19. Lou Dobbs is a fucking liar.

[goclark]

24. He is an arrogant slimeball

He is so into his opinion that he never sees the other side.

He may be a racist but I don't want to pin the tail on that donkey just yet.

[jsamuel]

22. Sent him: You were "factually" wrong tonight Mr. Dobbs. You said everyone

You were "factually" wrong tonight Mr. Dobbs. You said everyone knew or everyone all over the world thought that Saddam had WMD's.

If that were true, why did our "grand coalition" only have around 5 nations?

Exactly. Because everyone in the world DIDN'T KNOW FOR SURE THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE WMD's. But they said they didn't have proof. The Bush Admin said they did. In the state of the union address, Bush said that Saddam tried to obtain uranium from Niger.

I suggest you take a hint from the 51% of Americans who believe that the Admin intentionally misled us into war and stop repeating talking points from the WH as facts.


http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?9

[jody]

25. "You were 'factually' wrong"? Please prove your assertion. n/t

[jsamuel]

26. Lou said it was a "fact" that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD thought Saddam had wmd

my refutation is above

[jody]

29. Your "refutation" is an unsupported assertion. I asked for proof.

:hi:

[jsamuel]

31. ok, you tell me what proof you want

tell me what you want me to prove

because it sounds like you want me to prove a negative

[jody]

32. You said, "You were 'factually' wrong"? Please prove your assertion. If

you say "In my opinion you are wrong", OK but, to say you are "'factually' wrong", your emphasis can only mean you have the facts to prove Dobbs wrong. Either you have the facts or you don't. :shrug:

I didn't make the statement, you did and I simply asked for proof thinking that I must have overlooked something.

[jsamuel]

36. I don't have time for someone who doesn't understand quotation marks

By the way, he was wrong because there were people who did not think he had WMD. That is a fact and that proves him wrong.

[jody]

38. I guess that's your concession statement. Goodnight and goodbye.

:hi:

[sinkingfeeling]

30. Yea...and the WH didn't receive 54 warnings about 9/11 either.

[leesa]

35. CIA, UN inspectors and many foreign intelligence agencies pointed out that

little fact, Lou. Ever read a newspaper?