4 ms·

No surprise here. The geniuses at the CIA failed to anticipate the fall of the Soviet Union, ignored the warning signs about 9/11, and falsely claimed there wer

No surprise here. The geniuses at the CIA failed to anticipate the fall of the Soviet Union, ignored the warning signs about 9/11, and falsely claimed there were "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq during the American invasion in 2003. Apparently the so-called intelligence agency was busy with important research on "telepathy," "psychokinesis" and other "para-psychological phenomena."

logicchains 10mo ago
>falsely claimed there were "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq during the American invasion in 2003 This was due to malice not ignorance/incompetence.
- diogenes_atx 10mo ago
  Well in that case, the CIA is not merely stupid and incompetent, it's deliberately evil. How many innocent civilians were slaughtered in Iraq during the American occupation?
  - m4ck_ 10mo ago
    I mean yeah, that's the Americas in general since Europeans first put eyes on it. ~500 years of brutality and slaughter in pursuit of profit. We're gonna do it again in Venezuela and probably Denmark/Greenland. C'est la vie
    - stuffn 10mo ago
      [flagged]
      - freejazz 10mo ago
        > Before the evil Europeans set their greedy eyes on the new world there was peace, love, and ecstasy every single day. That's reading a lot into the other post.
        NetMageSCW 10mo ago
        “since Europeans first put eyes on it” seems to justify it pretty well.
        freejazz 10mo ago
        "500 years of brutality and slaughter in pursuit of profit" no one said it was peaceful before
  - therobots927 10mo ago
    Evil and apparently experimenting with magic. Sounds like a recipe for a good time.
- tevon 10mo ago
  They did tell the admin that there was no WMDs. But Rumsfeld didn't want to hear it, and forced them to "find" it. Almost killed the agency
kjkjadksj 10mo ago
I thought the story was the CIA and other intelligence said there are not wmds, but the bush whitehouse said there were anyhow and invaded all the same.
- diogenes_atx 10mo ago
  A Google search using the terms "did the CIA claim there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003?" yields the following information: The CIA and the Bush administration claimed Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in 2003, building the case for invasion on assertions that Saddam Hussein had active WMD programs and failed to comply with UN resolutions, though these claims proved to be incorrect after the invasion found no stockpiles, leading to later acknowledgments of intelligence failures... CIA's Role: The CIA provided assessments, including classified estimates, stating high confidence in Iraq's possession of biological and chemical weapons, which formed the basis for public statements by officials... Intelligence Failures: Investigations later confirmed that the intelligence community was "simply wrong" in its assessments, highlighting failures in analysis and sourcing, despite intelligence professionals believing their information at the time... In summary, the CIA and U.S. government did assert the presence of WMDs, but these claims were later disproven, revealing significant flaws in the intelligence used to justify the war.
  - tevon 10mo ago
    Recommend "The Mission" by Tim Weiner for this one. Not as simple as this. Often the intel community is dead right, but get thrown under the bus by the admin. The intel community can't really come out and say "actually what our pres is saying is false, we told him this would happen".
- mmooss 10mo ago
  It was more complicated, from what I've seen: I think CIA analysts said no WMDs, but the CIA head personally told the President that the case for WMDs was a "slam dunk" - maybe just a kiss-ass moment, but something to learn from: those moments have consequences. But generally not getting the answers they wanted, VP Cheney and/or SecDef Rumsfeld setup their own mini-intelligence agency in the Department of Defense which produced their desired results, including WMD and also Iraq somehow being involved in 9/11. They relied heavily on an informant that they code-named "Curveball". Seriously.

logicchains 10mo ago

>falsely claimed there were "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq during the American invasion in 2003 This was due to malice not ignorance/incompetence.

diogenes_atx 10mo ago
Well in that case, the CIA is not merely stupid and incompetent, it's deliberately evil. How many innocent civilians were slaughtered in Iraq during the American occupation?
- m4ck_ 10mo ago
  I mean yeah, that's the Americas in general since Europeans first put eyes on it. ~500 years of brutality and slaughter in pursuit of profit. We're gonna do it again in Venezuela and probably Denmark/Greenland. C'est la vie
  - stuffn 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - freejazz 10mo ago
      > Before the evil Europeans set their greedy eyes on the new world there was peace, love, and ecstasy every single day. That's reading a lot into the other post.
      - NetMageSCW 10mo ago
        “since Europeans first put eyes on it” seems to justify it pretty well.
        freejazz 10mo ago
        "500 years of brutality and slaughter in pursuit of profit" no one said it was peaceful before
- therobots927 10mo ago
  Evil and apparently experimenting with magic. Sounds like a recipe for a good time.
tevon 10mo ago
They did tell the admin that there was no WMDs. But Rumsfeld didn't want to hear it, and forced them to "find" it. Almost killed the agency

kjkjadksj 10mo ago

I thought the story was the CIA and other intelligence said there are not wmds, but the bush whitehouse said there were anyhow and invaded all the same.

diogenes_atx 10mo ago
A Google search using the terms "did the CIA claim there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003?" yields the following information: The CIA and the Bush administration claimed Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in 2003, building the case for invasion on assertions that Saddam Hussein had active WMD programs and failed to comply with UN resolutions, though these claims proved to be incorrect after the invasion found no stockpiles, leading to later acknowledgments of intelligence failures... CIA's Role: The CIA provided assessments, including classified estimates, stating high confidence in Iraq's possession of biological and chemical weapons, which formed the basis for public statements by officials... Intelligence Failures: Investigations later confirmed that the intelligence community was "simply wrong" in its assessments, highlighting failures in analysis and sourcing, despite intelligence professionals believing their information at the time... In summary, the CIA and U.S. government did assert the presence of WMDs, but these claims were later disproven, revealing significant flaws in the intelligence used to justify the war.
- tevon 10mo ago
  Recommend "The Mission" by Tim Weiner for this one. Not as simple as this. Often the intel community is dead right, but get thrown under the bus by the admin. The intel community can't really come out and say "actually what our pres is saying is false, we told him this would happen".
mmooss 10mo ago
It was more complicated, from what I've seen: I think CIA analysts said no WMDs, but the CIA head personally told the President that the case for WMDs was a "slam dunk" - maybe just a kiss-ass moment, but something to learn from: those moments have consequences. But generally not getting the answers they wanted, VP Cheney and/or SecDef Rumsfeld setup their own mini-intelligence agency in the Department of Defense which produced their desired results, including WMD and also Iraq somehow being involved in 9/11. They relied heavily on an informant that they code-named "Curveball". Seriously.