Why Did The CIA Say There Were WMDs In Iraq, Thereby Causing An Unnecessary War?

I think we need an investigation.

Because Iraq has lots of oil, because Israel felt threatened by Saddam Hussein and because thousands of well-connected Americans in government and finance wanted to make millions of dollars for themselves in defense contracts.
Oh, and because the Pentagon had all sorts of swell new implements of destruction it wanted to experiment with on living targets.
That Rice woman will never be Secretary of State, what with all her lies about this. I will not promote her!
Senator%20Miss%20Lindsay%20Graham
Many profit from America wars. Weapons company like Rockwell, General Dynamics, Northrop, Teledyne, Colt etc. etc. Blowing sh*it up, is a big and profitable business in the USA.
R3, I love when Obama gets serious and reminds the idiot republicans WHO is in charge. If Rice is appointed, she will be put through.
The CIA is never to be trusted. Harry Truman & Dwight Eisenhower made warnings about them, and we saw what happened to JFK.
Agree with comments about the military industrial complex, it's a greedy monster. As to why it was Iraq and not somewhere else, let's not forget Bush Sr.'s revenge.
[quote]Because Iraq has lots of oil The US now has more than anyone. The U.S. is expected to be the world's #1 producer in 2020, surpassing Saudi Arabia. WEHT those "peak oil" tin hats?
Exxon
[quote]WEHT those "peak oil" tin hats? That was the late 90's, early 2000's. Now we're all about the zombie invasion!
I read somewhere, it might have been here on CL, that the plan was to use as much of the world's oil as we could before we upped our domestic oil output.
Four people in Benghazi have got the GOP frothing at the mouth and biting at their collars. Thousands in Iran? No problemo.
Dick%20Chainie
"Weapons company like Rockwell, General Dynamics, Northrop, Teledyne, Colt etc. etc." Colt is a weapons company? Does that mean I'm supporting the military-industrial complex when I buy one of their calendars?
Funny thing about a standing army. It can be a dangerous thing. You have to keep them focussed on an enemy, and you have to keep them busy. Abroad. So you manufacture conflict. This keeps contactors very happy and weapons designers and dealers ecstatic.
LET'S BOMB TEXAS, THEY'VE GOT OIL TOO!! Where have you been OP? Many people a number of years ago have called for Bush to be tried as a war criminal, but do you think that is going to happen? It wasn't necessarily the CIA but the Bush crime family and "dubya's" handlers, like Cheyney.
anon
Colt is the manufacturer of the M-16 Assault Rifle, among many others things. A major international weapons manufacturer and designer for over 100 years. Also, rumor has it there is a restaurant named McDonalds in the USA which does not sell the big mac.
From my readings, two things: First, the NeoCons wanted to go into Iran. They wanted to subdue & control the entire Middle East, but Iran was the crown jewel. That was their grand plan. They needed to make sure Iraq and Lebanon were neutralized first. The path to Iran was thru Iraq then Lebanon. Saddam wasn't cooperating. He felt betrayed. He was spiralling out of control, acting mental, etc. They knew his sons were unfit to govern. They were looking for a pawn they could replace him with. (Chalabi, Cheney's buddy.) It was almost impossible to assassinate hm since he was very well guarded. Then he did something stupid. He started offering bounties and sanctuary to Palestinians who suicide bombed Israel. He also bragged about his non-existent weaponry. He realized too late he was in deep shit, he complied with the USA's demands to destroy his missiles because he realized they weren't going though the UN, and were getting ready to kick his ass. He mismanaged things badly. Secondly, Defense contractors and weapons deigners and generals need wars. (Politicians do too. Espcially short successful wars.)It's why they exist. There is money to be made in wartime. Lots of it. Governments are always willing to spend without question during wartime. The spend, and "lose" billions. They had a perfect pretext: 9/11. They depended on our stupidity. They depended on their ability to scare yp with WMDs and by libking Saddam to Osama and AlQaeda. It worked. For some Americans, maybe 30-40% it is still working. Goggle how many people think Saddam had a role in 9/11 or that he had WMDs. It'll scare you. At least it should scare you.
Actually the CIA did not say there were WMD in Iraq. Both the CIA and the State Dept were skeptical at best. Rummy and Cheney set up an "intelligence" apparatus in the Defense Dept and there was a power struggle- with you know who as the "decider". He went with the Defense Dept. By his second term the group at the Defense Dept. was on the outs (Cheny,Rummy et al.) and the State (Condi) back in the driver's seat. Neocons were of course on the Defense Dept side. All this laid out very nicely years ago in a Frontline report on PBS and in the NY Times.
charlie
I agree with this. But it needs further-finger pointing. The CIA didn't say there were WMD's in Iraq. From the very beginning, the CIA was running to the TV morning news shows to alert them that the White House was demanding the CIA fabricate intelligence reports claiming Saddam had WMD's. Specifically, the CIA representatives claimed it was Dick Chency who was making the demands. The CIA let it be known, publicly, in the TV news shows, that no such intelligence existed. The unfortunate fact is that the TV news shows were already corrupted. They refused to take up the issue no matter how hard the CIA tried to bring it to the forefront of national debate. Finally, in one news show, the host asked the CIA rep: "are you afraid of the White House?" .. the answer clearly had to be no. That was the last time the CIA tried to alert the public the White House was placing us on the path to war. The CIA had nothing to do with the lies and deceptions that took us to war in Iraq.
Nokeyston%20Ian
Of course they did, R18. They had a role in 9/11 which was instrumental in getting us into the Iraq War.
????? Don't just say "they did" .. post the historical proof.
Nokeyston%20Ian
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld demanded to see all the intel that CIA got about Iraq to search for any excuse to go to war with Iraq. When they found an unreliable source claiming that WMDs exist in Iraq they had their exuse and invaded Iraq.
R18, you are going to have to do a little better than that. As you may also know, 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq- unless your name is Dick Cheney. The Iraq WMD debacle was a struggle between the neocons in the Defense Dept who conjured up their own intel, versus the State Dept and the CIA both of which did not think Iraq had WMD. Cheney et al won the argument, they were wrong and Bush turned away from them and toward Condi and the State Dept, although he would never admit the invasion was the huge bungle that it was- aside from diverting from Al Qaeda in Afganistan and helping that one turn into an endless war that cannot be won. Our Middle Eastern wars will go down in history as two of the US's biggest blunders, right up there with Vietnam- not to mention the immorality of these wars. Oh and the Iraqi war immediately empowered Iran of course.
charlie
We're all in agreement. The point is in reference to the title of this thread: WHY DID THE CIA SAY THERE WERE WMDS IN IRAQ, THEREBY CAUSING AN UNNECESSARY WAR? The proof didn't come from the CIA, therefore the title posits an incorrect statement. It is correct that someone from the Cabinet, I believe it was Douglas Feith, assigned himself an office in the Pentagon and called it the Pentagon Intelligence Agency (PIA?), and he's the one who came up with the 'unreliable' intelligence (provided by Israel's Mossad) which stated the WMD lie that Saddam had WMD's.
Nokeyston%20Ian
The CIA actually had a lot of internal opposition to the invasion, and one agent and her entire operation were outed because of it. THAT still could use a real investigation too.