4 ms·
This is exactly what happened when both the US intelligence community and media decided that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in the 00's. All the
by brianberns 8y ago
This is exactly what happened when both the US intelligence community and media decided that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in the 00's. All the sources traced back to a handful of Iraqi dissidents who had made the story up to encourage American intervention.
- ams6110 8y agoNot just the US intelligence community but most of the Western world was convinced.
- longerthoughts 8y agoBased on independent intelligence or a relay of the bad US intelligence?
- brianberns 8y agoBad US intelligence. Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a detailed presentation at the United Nations that was seen around the world. It was all based on faulty sources.
- sitkack 8y ago> It was all based on faulty sources. Made up, manufactured "evidence", not faulty sources.
- badosu 8y agoPlease... I was a 12 year old boy in a poor city from Brazil and knew it was all garbage. At that time I did not even have internet and most people knew it was bullshit. The only thing that needed convincing was that the US would do it anyways, so better to have a smooth pathway.
- longerthoughts 8y agoQuite a skill to know that kind of thing with no direct involvement. Mind telling us the truth about what happened at Apple?
- tylersmith 8y agoFar too often people mistake correct guesses with having actual knowledge. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard somebody be "100% certain" of something I'd probably have a lot of money by now, although I don't know for sure.
- dwighttk 8y agoI'm 100% certain you would.
- ellius 8y ago"Some people are more certain of everything than I am of anything." —Robert Rubin
- tylersmith 8y agoI've never heard this before but it describes my feelings very well. Thanks for sharing it.
- badosu 8y ago> The tripartite definition holds that knowledge is justified true belief.
- compelledToken 8y agoI'd be more interested to know your opinion about the O.J. Simpson trial.
- graeme 8y agoYou might find this a good read about knowing the iraq wmd story was a lie in advance. From someone who predicted it, they explain their reasoning. It's rather convincing. http://blog.danieldavies.com/2004_05_23_d-squareddigest_archive.html?m=1 http://blog.danieldavies.com/2004_05_23_d-squareddigest_arch...
- Udo_Schmitz 8y agohttps://youtu.be/CpuN-yM1sZU?t=65 https://youtu.be/CpuN-yM1sZU?t=65
- CamperBob2 8y agoBecause at the time, the US intelligence community had a lot of credibility.
- AGoodName 8y agoIn that case the government led the charade, from claims of 'nuc-u-lar weapons' (as Bush pronounced it) to the claims of buying Yellowcake from Niger, the government led it and the media just went along. In this case the media is doing it themselves from the start.
- akira2501 8y agoIt's just slightly[1] more complicated than that. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
- sigmar 8y agoWell it wasn't the intelligence community screwing up, as much as it was the Bush administration using whatever they could to convince people to support war. The CIA and State Department had concluded the Niger uranium documents were likely fake, but Bush went on to use them as justification. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/08/wbr.iraq.claims/ http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/08/wbr.iraq.claims/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries#CIA_doubts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries#CIA_do...
- ad_hominem 8y agoIt's kind of weird to cite George Tenet in your claim since he's the one who famously told Bush they had a "slam dunk case" to convince the American people there was justification to invade Iraq.
- JKCalhoun 8y ago"the US intelligence community ... decided that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction" I hope you realize this was all an invention of the US intelligence community — they knew all along it was bullshit. It's well documented at this point.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y agoThe other bullshit that has never been substantiated is the narrative that Saddam was working in collusion with Bin Laden. Despite the latter being quite vocal about his derision of Saddam's secularism and suppression of the Shia. But ask any average American today and "of course" they were in cahoots.
- dang 8y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18152812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18152812 and marked it off-topic.
- umanwizard 8y agoWith respect, I am curious why this is off-topic? It's evidence that US intelligence community sources can be unreliable. That's directly related to this story because Bloomberg claims that many of their sources are from that community.
- iplusplus 8y agoBe careful. Questioning his decisions will earn you a 3-month ban: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18153219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18153219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18153421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18153421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18153478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18153478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18153499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18153499 There is no point in even attempting to ask why. Ironically, the only people left who are willing to listen are people who I would normally classify as right-leaning nutjobs. I consider myself firmly centrist, willing to listen to anyone with a good idea. But I now have them stuffing my inbox with "I told you so's" and "Isn't this evidence that the left wields its power to silence anyone who disagrees with them?" It's becoming harder and harder to ignore claims that I would have once considered so absurd as to immediately write off whoever was saying them. But as someone who is currently living with the effects of merely asking "Why?", it's worth pointing out what will happen if you continue to press this. I used to read a lot of hellbanned comments. I remember thinking "These people... What is their problem? Why can't they see that they deserve to be banned for spouting off such nonsense?" It's an ironic twist of fate. But the only thing left to do is to try to call out bad behavior, calmly but firmly, and to appear reasonable to whoever is listening. Because, somewhat surprisingly, there are a few.
- dang 8y agoYes, but the greater gravitational pull is the Iraq War, which is a very different topic.
- jjcc 8y agoI would blatantly present two debatable claims: 1.The intelligence flaw is a high order lie in order to mislead public to believe the war is launched by wrong information. It's not. The intelligence flaw is irrelevant or is intentional. The war is predetermined and flaw intelligence has nothing to do with real cause of the war other than a cover afterwards. 2.The narrative that the Bush Administration launch Iraq war with flaw intelligence is another lie that the majority of public who support the war were not responsible because they were misled by their leaders. The war is launched by not only Bush administration but also UK. The main stream media were not orchestrated by government like a totalitarianism regime can do. For example, CNN interviewed a famous Iraq nuclear scientist again and again to sell the impression to the public that Iraq DO have nuclear weapon. CNN independently promote the war which happened to match the government agenda. US/UK are democratic countries. Both countries collectively(meaning enough portion of the people ) decide to over thrown Iraq regime