Did the intelligence Bush receive really "leave no doubt" about WMD?

Question

Can anyone cite me the raw intelligence that Bush said "left no doubt" that Iraq had WMD in 2003?

Or is the "left no doubt" just the lie that Bush added himself.

Yes, obviously Hillary lied too. What a boring question. And boo to you for being such a sheep. If "classified intelligence" told you it was safe to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

Answer 1

Of course no one can. It did seem to be the popular interpretation of that intelligence by several countries and individuals at that time though.

Answer 2

Great question.. but i think we must now ask if we can trust our intelligence communities... here is an excerpt from a great article... "The State of Security in America"

"Current polling suggests that Americans remain unscathed from fears of imminent and future terror attacks on U.S. soil. Since November 2001, the Gallup Poll has questioned Americans about their thoughts regarding terrorism occurring within the United States. At any given time, only about 5 - 14 % of Americans polled have said that they are Very worried that they or someone in their family would become a victim of terrorism. Around 55% answered that they were either not to worried, or not worried at all. When asked if they felt that there would be further acts of terrorism in the United States the majority responded that it wasn't too likely or not likely at all. When polled regarding what the priorities for Congress and the President were, National Security was rated seventh falling behind the environment and pollution.



In a news briefing on July 17th 2007, Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend expresses that Americans should feel safer due to "Our greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts since September the 11th." She further states that it is because of this effort that "we have constrained the ability of Al Qaida to attack the U.S. again and have led terrorist groups to view the homeland as a harder target to strike than it was on 9/11." However, Townsend also explained that "Al Qaida will continue to attempt visually dramatic mass casualty attacks in the homeland. And they will continue to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials and will not hesitate to use them if they develop sufficient capability." These statements were based upon the newly released national intelligence estimate of the terrorist threat to the United States homeland. The first ever of its kind, this estimate is "intended to provide a strategic understanding of the terrorist threat to the homeland over the next three years and to give the intelligence communities baseline judgments in order to help policy-makers develop and prioritize government actions." But do Americans trust the intelligence gathered by the various agencies of the federal government to be credible?"

Answer 3

A lot of that information is highly classified and will be so for at least 20 years. Read the Iraq study group report they had access to that information and give inklings to it.

What I do know is Intelligence isn't a science, it's an art form. You don't usually have a complete answer just past reporting, you have to go on the interpretation of the intelligence you have.

EDIT: Let's examine the unclassified bridge first:
Iran-Iraq war mustard gas and Sarin nerve gas were commonly used against Iranian forces (1988)

Al-Anfal: an Iraqi an eight stage military campaign against the Kurdish people which resulted in anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 Kurds being slaughtered. Human Rights Watch classified it a Genocide utilizing chemical weapons (1992-1993)
[Additionally if you ever get a chance to go to Kurdish Iraq go, they love Americans up there, there's a reason they call it "the other Iraq"]

Ever Since the Gulf War Resolution 687has been in effect, which established a cease fire between the US and Iraq, one of the provisions of that resolution was that we would have access to inspect their facilities, as far as I'm concerned the second they stopped us from inspecting we have not only the grounds for war, but the right. (1991-2003)

IAEA were forced out of the country after attempting to search factories for WMD (1998)

When UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq, they had been unable to account for a substantial amount of chemical and biological weapons materials that Iraq claimed to have destroyed (1999)

Iraq continued to obstruct resumption of inspections. In November 2002, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441 which found Iraq was in material breach of is obligations and gave Iraq a “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions”. (November 2002)

This is the information that is unclassified, verifiable without a shadow of a doubt and what it tells me is that there were atrocious murders, America had a warrant to search for WMDs, when denied access busted down the door.

Just think what the Classified documents actually say, but you'll read that along with me in November of 2027 when those documents are fully declassified.

This is NOT US intelligence, it's multi-source international reporting, and yes, there is still plenty of wiggle room for doubt, but don't act as if we went in there without motive.

Answer 4

yet that isn't any longer the certainty, that is only extra opinion. it would not remember who ok'd that document, in certainty that there became little or little question expressed by way of the CIA approximately those on the time. look on the Congressional archives. human beings, you ought to understand that what it extremely is is a sparkling attempt to re-write historic past. that is 1984 Ministry of fact stuff.

Answer 5

there are many if you care to really know. the whole world thought Saddam had them, even the UN, who issue numerous resolutions against Saddam.

i just watched the history channel's 'targeted' giving the facts of events leading up to this decision. it was very informative and showed that many failed to understand the threat that al- quaida was/is a threat to the world. dening this is at our peril.

we should learn all we can about this issue as it will affect our lives in many ways for years to come.

Answer 6

Last time I posted such, I got a violation so I will let someone else take their chances.

Answer 7

Gee, I would cite the intellegence data but I just don't have the security clearance. Are you really that dense? You do know most of us will never be privvy to intellegence like that. But why don't you just go and ask Hillary, evidently she was convinced by the intellegence as well... did she lie, too?

Answer 8

Alot of the intel he got regarding WMD was shaky(very shaky) or said that there were no WMD.

CIA reports showed saddam did not possess any working weapons(Shells of gas were found, but had expired, and were from pre 1991), and Hans blix said iraq was clean

Answer 9

Geeezz, honey, you act like he was the only one saying that. If I remember correctly all the democrats said it first.

Answer 10

Oh please. He had no evidence. Please show me where he did!

Every report, every investigation done, says there were no weapons! According to the CNN piece from the Ex head of the CIA in Europe said they gave him the fact that there were no weapons, and the reply was that it was no longer about the weapons, it was about regime change!

Even Tenet in his book admits there was no evidence and that was withheld from the American people, and congress!