"Every Intelligence Agency in the World" on Iraq WMD

[Chris Alger]

Does anyone have any good source for the claim that all, most or any intelligence agency issued an opinion, after the UN inspections began in 2002, that Iraq probably had WMD or active WMD programs?

Some examples:

1. Norman Podhorezt, in the WSJ, 11/14/05: "In the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with "high confidence" was that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions. The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel and--yes--France all agreed with this judgment."

2. David Limbaugh, 5/22/06: [Tim Russert failed to say] "all the foreign intelligence agencies for all other major countries unanimously agreed with our assessment of Iraqi WMD"

3. In a thread below, Copernicus writes: "There is no significant country who's intelligence thought Iraq was any less a threat than we did..in fact thanks to the hand tying of our own intelligence a good portion of our intelligence came from those other countries."

I've seen these claims made dozens of times, and that they have been made by over 500 seperate souces. If there's any basis for them, it should be easy to find.

I contend these claims are an urban legend created by the pro-war propaganda machine. On it's face, it seems absurd: in the absence of public reports, how could anyone or any country claim to have access to the secret intelligence of every other "significant" or "major" country in the world? I note also that these claims are never time-specific and don't actually refute the argument that Bush and Blair both knew that the UN inspectors had undermined and would likely continue to undermine any claim of an Iraqi threat. I also note that they virtually never appear with sources.

I suspect that the genesis for this myth began with the UN-discredited 2002 NIE and contempory pre-inspection reports from the UK and Israel. The only three countries that strongly supported the war were then morphed into "every significant country" or every country with "active intelligence gathering" in the Middle East, or something similar. But I'm unaware that any of their intelligence agencies attempted to refuted the findings of the UN inspectors, tentative though they were.

I contend that not a single intelligence service anywhere in the world, including the CIA, DIA, SSI or Mossad, produced any report or opinion that after the UN inspectors started issuing reports, that Iraq likely had any WMD or active WMD programs at all.

Can anyone prove me wrong? Please don't waste space with reports about WMD in the early 1990's.

[cdutilb]

This doesn't deal with WMD per say but more that Saddam was planning a terrorist attack against the US.

[ QUOTE ]
MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.

However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks.

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said.

He said the information was given to U.S. intelligence officers and that U.S. President George W. Bush expressed his gratitude to a top Russian intelligence official.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...ussia.warning/

[boracay]

pure fact.

[Chris Alger]

There's barely any indication that this intelligence ever existed and no indication that, if it did, either the Russians or the Americans believed it. Weirdly, the Bush administration declined to confirm that it ever happened, most likely because of fear that U.S. analysts would leak the fact that it didn't. The White House insistence that it doesn't comment on foreign intelligence is scarecly credible given Bush's claims about British intelligence in the SOU speech. And we know that the intelligence, if it existed, was bad or bogus because none of the "several . . . planned terrorist attacks" ever occurred and that the supposed planners apparently obscured all evidence of them.

Aside form the complete absence of specifics, there's been no confirmation of any such plans by U.S. intelligence, who now have vast access to Iraqi intelligence plans and personnel (under torture, no less). There was no mention of any such intelligence in the 2002 NIE, Powell's attempt to tie Iraq to terrorism before the UN or any other U.S. govt. propaganda, whereas administration officials took every occasion to stretch any scintilla of "ties to terrorism," such as the al-Libi and curveball disclosures, dismissed at the time, we know now, by U.S. intelligence with access to the real facts.

The Russians were ecstatic about Bush's declaraton of the "war on terror" because it signalled that they would have a free hand in the destruction of Chechnya under the same guise. This looks more like a quid pro quo after Bush called in the favor just after the 9/11 Commission blew Cheney's claims about the al-Qaeda link out of the water.

[Knockwurst]

I'd like to add that imo the argument that the Clinton Admin. and our allies believed Iraq had WMD's is a red herring.

This simplistic iteration fails to acknowledge that there are differing levels of certainty in assessing intelligence, and there were certainly differing levels of certainty as to Iraq's WMD holdings.

Moreover, there were certainly differing views of Iraq's delivery capabilities, and only the Bush administration offered forth the imminent nature of the threat to justify their pre-emptive war.


Thus, to say even the Clinton Admin. and the French believed Iraq had WMD is a proposition with little relevance in relation to whether a full-scale invasion was justified.

The more relevant question is whether anyone but the Bush Admin. and its neo-con cohorts believed with sufficient certainty that Iraq had WMD and the threat was imminent to justify an invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Clearly, the answer is no.

Sorry for the hijack, but this Administration and this war have got me on some serious tilt.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to add that imo the argument that the Clinton Admin. and our allies believed Iraq had WMD's is a red herring.

This simplistic iteration fails to acknowledge that there are differing levels of certainty in assessing intelligence, and there were certainly differing levels of certainty as to Iraq's WMD holdings.

Moreover, there were certainly differing views of Iraq's delivery capabilities, and only the Bush administration offered forth the imminent nature of the threat to justify their pre-emptive war.


Thus, to say even the Clinton Admin. and the French believed Iraq had WMD is a proposition with little relevance in relation to whether a full-scale invasion was justified.

The more relevant question is whether anyone but the Bush Admin. and its neo-con cohorts believed with sufficient certainty that Iraq had WMD and the threat was imminent to justify an invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Clearly, the answer is no.

Sorry for the hijack, but this Administration and this war have got me on some serious tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Bush and the administraion NEVER claimed the threat was imminent, in fact they expressly said it was NOT imminent.

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to add that imo the argument that the Clinton Admin. and our allies believed Iraq had WMD's is a red herring.

This simplistic iteration fails to acknowledge that there are differing levels of certainty in assessing intelligence, and there were certainly differing levels of certainty as to Iraq's WMD holdings.

Moreover, there were certainly differing views of Iraq's delivery capabilities, and only the Bush administration offered forth the imminent nature of the threat to justify their pre-emptive war.


Thus, to say even the Clinton Admin. and the French believed Iraq had WMD is a proposition with little relevance in relation to whether a full-scale invasion was justified.

The more relevant question is whether anyone but the Bush Admin. and its neo-con cohorts believed with sufficient certainty that Iraq had WMD and the threat was imminent to justify an invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Clearly, the answer is no.

Sorry for the hijack, but this Administration and this war have got me on some serious tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. Bush and the administraion NEVER claimed the threat was imminent, in fact they expressly said it was NOT imminent.

[/ QUOTE ]


You, sir, are the one who is wrong, again, but what can one expect of a purely partisan hack. For your edification, here is a list of quotes from the Bush Admin. re the imminent nature of the threat gathered at americanprogress.org:


The Bush Administration is now saying it never told the public that Iraq was an "imminent" threat, and therefore it should be absolved for overstating the case for war and misleading the American people about Iraq's WMD. Just this week, White House spokesman Scott McClellan lashed out at critics saying "Some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used." But a closer look at the record shows that McClellan himself and others did use the phrase "imminent threat" – while also using the synonymous phrases "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", "unique threat," and claiming that Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction" – all just months after Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that Iraq was "contained" and "threatens not the United States." While Iraq was certainly a dangerous country, the Administration's efforts to claim it never hyped the threat in the lead-up to war is belied by its statements.



"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

Besides Dan Bartlett and Scott McClennan in the highlighted quotations stating Iraq is an imminent threat, I will let others decide from the quoted material whether others in the administration including the CIC suggested Iraq was an imminent threat.



Unfortunately, for supporters of this administration, facts can be most inconvenient.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to add that imo the argument that the Clinton Admin. and our allies believed Iraq had WMD's is a red herring.

This simplistic iteration fails to acknowledge that there are differing levels of certainty in assessing intelligence, and there were certainly differing levels of certainty as to Iraq's WMD holdings.

Moreover, there were certainly differing views of Iraq's delivery capabilities, and only the Bush administration offered forth the imminent nature of the threat to justify their pre-emptive war.


Thus, to say even the Clinton Admin. and the French believed Iraq had WMD is a proposition with little relevance in relation to whether a full-scale invasion was justified.

The more relevant question is whether anyone but the Bush Admin. and its neo-con cohorts believed with sufficient certainty that Iraq had WMD and the threat was imminent to justify an invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Clearly, the answer is no.

Sorry for the hijack, but this Administration and this war have got me on some serious tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. Bush and the administraion NEVER claimed the threat was imminent, in fact they expressly said it was NOT imminent.

[/ QUOTE ]


You, sir, are the one who is wrong, again, but what can one expect of a purely partisan hack. For your edification, here is a list of quotes from the Bush Admin. re the imminent nature of the threat gathered at americanprogress.org:


The Bush Administration is now saying it never told the public that Iraq was an "imminent" threat, and therefore it should be absolved for overstating the case for war and misleading the American people about Iraq's WMD. Just this week, White House spokesman Scott McClellan lashed out at critics saying "Some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used." But a closer look at the record shows that McClellan himself and others did use the phrase "imminent threat" – while also using the synonymous phrases "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", "unique threat," and claiming that Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction" – all just months after Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that Iraq was "contained" and "threatens not the United States." While Iraq was certainly a dangerous country, the Administration's efforts to claim it never hyped the threat in the lead-up to war is belied by its statements.



"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

Besides Dan Bartlett and Scott McClennan in the highlighted quotations stating Iraq is an imminent threat, I will let others decide from the quoted material whether others in the administration including the CIC suggested Iraq was an imminent threat.



Unfortunately, for supporters of this administration, facts can be most inconvenient.

[/ QUOTE ]

The inconvenient fact for you is that there is one quote in all of those that sounds like "imminent threat", and Id like to see the full text of that one.

Of all of these : "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", "unique threat,"

the only one that comes anywhere near "imminent" is "immediate", I dont see that used in any of the quotes, and if I missed it, show me the full text.

Your cut and paste as has many red herrings as a 9/11 conspiracy thread.

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
The inconvenient fact for you is that there is one quote in all of those that sounds like "imminent threat", and Id like to see the full text of that one.

Of all of these : "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", "unique threat,"

the only one that comes anywhere near "imminent" is "immediate", I dont see that used in any of the quotes, and if I missed it, show me the full text.

Your cut and paste as has many red herrings as a 9/11 conspiracy thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suffice it to say that two Whitehouse spokesmen and the communications director, if that's Bartlett's current title, called it an imminent threat.

But you decry Ari and Dan only said the word "yes" in response to the question: Is Saddam an imminent threat? They never said the words imminent threat.

If that's the what your hanging your hat on, it doesn't pass the laugh test.

As for the rest of the quotations, they speak for themselves.

[..........]

[ QUOTE ]
Your cut and paste as has many red herrings as a 9/11 conspiracy thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you'd just stay out of them....