29 ms·

> A few years ago, some bad actors were successful in convincing Congress of a crazy conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ... T

by bjt 5y ago

> A few years ago, some bad actors were successful in convincing Congress of a crazy conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ... They used a platform called The New York Times to spread their lies. Citation needed that this was a knowing conspiracy as opposed to bad intelligence. Setting that aside, there's a big difference between an institution like the NY Times getting it wrong on occasion, despite all their research and fact checking, vs an institution like Facebook building a platform that systematically rewards disinformation at massive scale.

sumedh 5y ago
> Citation needed that this was a knowing conspiracy as opposed to bad intelligence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
speeder 5y ago
I googled it and found some articles about it, link to one of them: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-wmds-an-intelligence-failure-or-white-house-spin/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-... Now for more context why I did this: Back then when Bush started pushing for the war, I immediately considered him a liar, I am not from US, and from my perspective and from many people where I live, it was blatantly obvious he was lying, for example some of the "evidence" he used was obviously bullshit, like his description of satellite photos on UN, or saying that WMD was found in certain places right after UN inspectors visited those places and said they found nothing there. Sometimes I wonder how people from USA don't see how evil they country is, for example when Brazil said they would vote against the war in the security council, John Bolton just went and threatened his family (his exact words were: "I know where your kids live."), while the rest of the world was horrified by the lies spouted by US media, the US public was cheerily supporting the warmongers, in some cases even more than needed, for example some public polls done at the time found out a majority of the population were in favor of the wars, in Afghanistan case some people even agreed with the assertion that USA should "glass" afghanistan.
- nurgasemetey 5y ago
  > John Bolton just went and threatened his family This is outrageous. You can be enemies but family is forbidden area.
  - JetSpiegel 5y ago
    Good thing John Bolton was never put in a position of power ever again...
    - EL_Loco 5y ago
      Yeah, imagine after this incident nominating this guy as the National Security Advisor or something similar? Yikes.
jamestnz 5y ago
> Citation needed that this was a knowing conspiracy as opposed to bad intelligence Within hours of the planes hitting the towers on 9/11, before any information was in, Rumsfeld's aides were drawing up plans for striking Iraq, despite zero evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks. The number one priority for the White House, above finding out who the real culprits were, was to figure out how to use it as a rationale to invade Iraq. This is not really a controversial viewpoint, it is documented fact [1]. When the 9/11 rationale for invading Iraq became untenable, it was replaced by the idea that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, that he'd definitely been procuring uranium from Niger. Except these were lies too (and the WH knew it, because they'd sent Joe Wilson to investigate and he'd reported back as such). When Wilson heard them saying it despite knowing it was false, he contradicted them in public [2]. In an act of retribution, the WH leaked his wife's position as a CIA agent, burning valuable contacts and networks, and endangering friendly lives. Then they moved onto the argument that regardless of WMDs, the Iraqi people actually wanted the invasion anyway, US forces would be welcomed as liberators by gift-bearing citizens, etc. When that didn't pan out either, a final argument became that Saddam was a tyrant and that fact alone provided sufficient moral and legal justification for preemptive war (i.e. The Bush Doctrine) [3]. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-9-11/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49856792 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49856792 [3] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/why/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/why/
- fieldcny 5y ago
  There is no evidence that the media was part of the conspiracy, they just parroted the talking points and a few media outlets did heavily question the rationale.. the fact is both wars were hugely popular when they started so few listened. This is not even close to a comparable situation to the social medial platforms, these platforms and democratized and weaponized mis-information. But it not just them, the ad-funded internet creates perverse incentives for views not truth, FB et al don’t care about truth they care about engagement, they know emotional touch points particularly angry drive engagement so their feeds optimize for that. Our fractured society is just an emergent behavior from several complex systems with poor incentives, as such we need to find out a way to realign the incentives
mimikatz 5y ago
What is the difference between bad intelligence vs the average conspiracy theorist? It is all just bad intelligence someone telling someone else "data" that they then "trust" reflects reality when in reality it doesn't.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  Well, quite. It's surprising - or perhaps not - how often foreign policy tends to be conspiracy theory with state approval. Conspiracy theories are often just grift. And the same thing applies, only on a bigger scale. Iraq and Afghanistan were immensely profitable for certain actors - some of whom are well known, some less so.
ahartmetz 5y ago
> Citation needed that this was a knowing conspiracy as opposed to bad intelligence. I watched the presentation of "evidence" and thought "Who is going to believe THAT?!". "We did not really see-see anything, but here is some CGI of truck-based weapons labs that we somehow believe might exist". It was rather ridiculous, really. It was so unconvincing, I can only assume that it was intentional sabotage by some actors with remains of integrity.
- dragonelite 5y ago
  There is a reason why you have the memes about oil and US invasions.
michaelt 5y ago
> Citation needed that this was a knowing conspiracy as opposed to bad intelligence. There were literally UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, and the "intelligence" couldn't guide them to a single weapon [1]. It was widely reported, even before the invasion, that the intelligence had been "sexed up" [2] - such as the inclusion of claims that WMDs could hit the UK within 45 minutes. Of course the politicians in charge knew the intelligence had been sexed up - they ordered it. There are also memos agreeing to invade regardless of whether WMDs could be found [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_Blix&oldid=1027163048#Iraq_disarmament_crisis_(2002%E2%80%932003) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_Blix&oldid=1... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_Dossier&oldid=1036061732#The_45_minute_claim https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_Dossier... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bush%E2%80%93Blair_2003_Iraq_memo&oldid=1024533303 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bush%E2%80%93Blai...
johncena33 5y ago
The whole lab leak debate had been deliberately tarred as conspiracy theory and is still being suppressed by mainstream media. [1] [2] [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2003 https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2003 [2] https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1656 https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1656
EL_Loco 5y ago
>Citation needed that this was a knowing conspiracy as opposed to bad intelligence. There's bad intelligence, and there's intelligence so bad and with evidence so thin or nonexistent that you know it's a fabrication.
fidesomnes 5y ago
the NY Times line is whatever the CIA wants it to be and it has been that way for decades. "Citation..." go back to reddit plebian.

by bjt 5y ago

sumedh 5y ago

> Citation needed that this was a knowing conspiracy as opposed to bad intelligence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

speeder 5y ago

I googled it and found some articles about it, link to one of them: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-wmds-an-intelligence-failure-or-white-house-spin/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-... Now for more context why I did this: Back then when Bush started pushing for the war, I immediately considered him a liar, I am not from US, and from my perspective and from many people where I live, it was blatantly obvious he was lying, for example some of the "evidence" he used was obviously bullshit, like his description of satellite photos on UN, or saying that WMD was found in certain places right after UN inspectors visited those places and said they found nothing there. Sometimes I wonder how people from USA don't see how evil they country is, for example when Brazil said they would vote against the war in the security council, John Bolton just went and threatened his family (his exact words were: "I know where your kids live."), while the rest of the world was horrified by the lies spouted by US media, the US public was cheerily supporting the warmongers, in some cases even more than needed, for example some public polls done at the time found out a majority of the population were in favor of the wars, in Afghanistan case some people even agreed with the assertion that USA should "glass" afghanistan.

nurgasemetey 5y ago
> John Bolton just went and threatened his family This is outrageous. You can be enemies but family is forbidden area.
- JetSpiegel 5y ago
  Good thing John Bolton was never put in a position of power ever again...
  - EL_Loco 5y ago
    Yeah, imagine after this incident nominating this guy as the National Security Advisor or something similar? Yikes.

jamestnz 5y ago

> Citation needed that this was a knowing conspiracy as opposed to bad intelligence Within hours of the planes hitting the towers on 9/11, before any information was in, Rumsfeld's aides were drawing up plans for striking Iraq, despite zero evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks. The number one priority for the White House, above finding out who the real culprits were, was to figure out how to use it as a rationale to invade Iraq. This is not really a controversial viewpoint, it is documented fact [1]. When the 9/11 rationale for invading Iraq became untenable, it was replaced by the idea that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, that he'd definitely been procuring uranium from Niger. Except these were lies too (and the WH knew it, because they'd sent Joe Wilson to investigate and he'd reported back as such). When Wilson heard them saying it despite knowing it was false, he contradicted them in public [2]. In an act of retribution, the WH leaked his wife's position as a CIA agent, burning valuable contacts and networks, and endangering friendly lives. Then they moved onto the argument that regardless of WMDs, the Iraqi people actually wanted the invasion anyway, US forces would be welcomed as liberators by gift-bearing citizens, etc. When that didn't pan out either, a final argument became that Saddam was a tyrant and that fact alone provided sufficient moral and legal justification for preemptive war (i.e. The Bush Doctrine) [3]. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-9-11/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49856792 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49856792 [3] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/why/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/why/

fieldcny 5y ago
There is no evidence that the media was part of the conspiracy, they just parroted the talking points and a few media outlets did heavily question the rationale.. the fact is both wars were hugely popular when they started so few listened. This is not even close to a comparable situation to the social medial platforms, these platforms and democratized and weaponized mis-information. But it not just them, the ad-funded internet creates perverse incentives for views not truth, FB et al don’t care about truth they care about engagement, they know emotional touch points particularly angry drive engagement so their feeds optimize for that. Our fractured society is just an emergent behavior from several complex systems with poor incentives, as such we need to find out a way to realign the incentives

mimikatz 5y ago

What is the difference between bad intelligence vs the average conspiracy theorist? It is all just bad intelligence someone telling someone else "data" that they then "trust" reflects reality when in reality it doesn't.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Well, quite. It's surprising - or perhaps not - how often foreign policy tends to be conspiracy theory with state approval. Conspiracy theories are often just grift. And the same thing applies, only on a bigger scale. Iraq and Afghanistan were immensely profitable for certain actors - some of whom are well known, some less so.

ahartmetz 5y ago

> Citation needed that this was a knowing conspiracy as opposed to bad intelligence. I watched the presentation of "evidence" and thought "Who is going to believe THAT?!". "We did not really see-see anything, but here is some CGI of truck-based weapons labs that we somehow believe might exist". It was rather ridiculous, really. It was so unconvincing, I can only assume that it was intentional sabotage by some actors with remains of integrity.

dragonelite 5y ago
There is a reason why you have the memes about oil and US invasions.

michaelt 5y ago

> Citation needed that this was a knowing conspiracy as opposed to bad intelligence. There were literally UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, and the "intelligence" couldn't guide them to a single weapon [1]. It was widely reported, even before the invasion, that the intelligence had been "sexed up" [2] - such as the inclusion of claims that WMDs could hit the UK within 45 minutes. Of course the politicians in charge knew the intelligence had been sexed up - they ordered it. There are also memos agreeing to invade regardless of whether WMDs could be found [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_Blix&oldid=1027163048#Iraq_disarmament_crisis_(2002%E2%80%932003) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_Blix&oldid=1... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_Dossier&oldid=1036061732#The_45_minute_claim https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_Dossier... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bush%E2%80%93Blair_2003_Iraq_memo&oldid=1024533303 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bush%E2%80%93Blai...

johncena33 5y ago

The whole lab leak debate had been deliberately tarred as conspiracy theory and is still being suppressed by mainstream media. [1] [2] [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2003 https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2003 [2] https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1656 https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1656

EL_Loco 5y ago

>Citation needed that this was a knowing conspiracy as opposed to bad intelligence. There's bad intelligence, and there's intelligence so bad and with evidence so thin or nonexistent that you know it's a fabrication.

fidesomnes 5y ago

the NY Times line is whatever the CIA wants it to be and it has been that way for decades. "Citation..." go back to reddit plebian.