4 ms·

Have you read the key judgements from the 2002 NIE on Iraq? > High Confidence: > - Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological,

Have you read the key judgements from the 2002 NIE on Iraq? > High Confidence: > - Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions. > - We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs. > - Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles. > - Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Iraq_NIE_Excerpts_2003.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Iraq_NIE_Excerpts_2003.p...

guelo 5y ago
That unclassified public NIE "summary" was manipulated by Bush and Cheney. If you can find the classified full NIE it has much more nuance and strong dissents. Instead of showing rogue agencies it's evidence of full White House control. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB254/index.htm https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB254/index.htm
- mannerheim 5y ago
  I would agree that the White House placed a ton of pressure on the CIA to come up with a justification to invade Iraq, but the whole thing smacks of them trying to cover their own asses after the fact. Yes, there were dissenting opinions, but the IC still signed off on the NIE, including the summary, and top officials at the CIA have their share of the blame as much as Bush and Cheney: > On the other hand, senior CIA officials mentioned the uranium claim in congressional testimony at the same time, permitted it to be included in a December 2002 “fact sheet” on Iraq, and mounted only tepid opposition to inclusion of the charge in President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address, where it would become notorious as the “16 Words.” If they knew it was a lie, and repeated that lie to Congress, pawning it off as just 'Bush lied, people died' (which, not saying that was your position, but that's what your comment initially came off as, hence my reply) absolves the CIA of the blame they justly deserve for their part in Iraq. But you're right that they certainly were not a rogue agency.

guelo 5y ago

That unclassified public NIE "summary" was manipulated by Bush and Cheney. If you can find the classified full NIE it has much more nuance and strong dissents. Instead of showing rogue agencies it's evidence of full White House control. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB254/index.htm https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB254/index.htm

mannerheim 5y ago
I would agree that the White House placed a ton of pressure on the CIA to come up with a justification to invade Iraq, but the whole thing smacks of them trying to cover their own asses after the fact. Yes, there were dissenting opinions, but the IC still signed off on the NIE, including the summary, and top officials at the CIA have their share of the blame as much as Bush and Cheney: > On the other hand, senior CIA officials mentioned the uranium claim in congressional testimony at the same time, permitted it to be included in a December 2002 “fact sheet” on Iraq, and mounted only tepid opposition to inclusion of the charge in President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address, where it would become notorious as the “16 Words.” If they knew it was a lie, and repeated that lie to Congress, pawning it off as just 'Bush lied, people died' (which, not saying that was your position, but that's what your comment initially came off as, hence my reply) absolves the CIA of the blame they justly deserve for their part in Iraq. But you're right that they certainly were not a rogue agency.