"Fabricated" News on the Iraq War

I have not heard the pentagon claim it, but it has been stated. A senate committee just last week was discussing that the intelligence community did not support the use of the “meeting in Prague” by one of the terrorist- Atta. Here is a discussion about the meeting: http://mediamatters.org/items/200512150009

Our intelligence community debunked this story, but the administration used it anyway to support their policy.

Our foreign policy has traditionally been made through the policy being created around the intelligence. This admin had a policy and forced the intelligence around their agenda. They cherry picked supporting documentation. They suppressed intelligence that didn’t support their views. And they used alternative means to analyze intelligence- using neo-conservative (with not security experience) to second guess our traditional intelligence community. LINK

Most of the members of this board also are members of The Project for the New American Century:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm

Read through some of these reports from 1997-2000. You will find the current strategy for Iraq. You will also see that most of the players on this admin were and are operating under an alternative agenda than the one they claim. Hence, the reasons why they needed to cherry pick their intelligence.

Here is a letter sent to President Clinton in 1998 stating that we start war with Iraq. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

When we left Afghanistan and changed our attention to Iraq- we made a big mistake. But also, we stopped relying on our intelligence community and began following the agenda of a few.

They may have had good intention. They may have believed that it would be beneficial. But it hasn’t been. While they continue to ignore REAL professional policy- the quagmire in Iraq continues.

Ben,

Sure they cherry picked. That’s very different from fabricating evidence which is what the WSWS accuses them of. That sort of exaggeration supports the enemy and disses our own troops - giving aid and comfort to the enemy which is treasonous as well as poisonous. There is a line where disagreement and criticism stop being rightful disagreement and become a disloyal propaganda attack. The original article crosses that line.

ALL politicians and commentators cherrypick "facts". Sometimes it is up to us to decide whether they have gone too far. But this story shows how radical elements will twist things to their own ends. It raises the potentially more important issue of First Amendment rights. Does the First Amendment protect people who issue treasonous statements? The Founding Fathers seem not to have thought so.

The link between Saddam and Al Qaeda is still questioned by many, as is the WMD saga. The links in the article make a pretty compelling case, including the Court Ruling, that there WAS a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. It is indisputable fact that Saddam ran terror training camps and, according to the Duelfer Report https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html, Saddam DID have a WMD program (he also reports that Saddam corrupted the Oil-for-Food program to support it). Either way he was an evil dangerous man and it is a good thing he and his regime were removed from power.

We are in a war. You may not like it, only a fool likes war, but once we have committed our troops, there is an obligation to support them. War has only 2 endings – victory or defeat and withdrawing support once things go badly only shows the enemy that they can win a war of attrition. The USA lost in Vietnam. The USSR lost in Afghanistan. If we withdraw early or give our troops in Iraq less than whole-hearted support what next? Withdraw from Afghanistan too? Wouldn’t Al Qaeda love that and use both victories to further more attacks on the USA elsewhere? Ahmedinejad would be pretty happy too!