Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

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

I think we need an investigation.

by Anonymousreply 10405/31/2015

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.

by Anonymousreply 111/14/2012

Oh, and because the Pentagon had all sorts of swell new implements of destruction it wanted to experiment with on living targets.

by Anonymousreply 211/14/2012

That Rice woman will never be Secretary of State, what with all her lies about this. I will not promote her!

by Anonymousreply 311/14/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 411/14/2012

The CIA is never to be trusted.

Harry Truman & Dwight Eisenhower made warnings about them, and we saw what happened to JFK.

by Anonymousreply 611/14/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 711/14/2012

[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?

by Anonymousreply 811/14/2012

[quote]WEHT those "peak oil" tin hats?

That was the late 90's, early 2000's. Now we're all about the zombie invasion!

by Anonymousreply 911/14/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 1011/14/2012

Four people in Benghazi have got the GOP frothing at the mouth and biting at their collars. Thousands in Iran? No problemo.

by Anonymousreply 1111/14/2012

"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?

by Anonymousreply 1211/14/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 1311/14/2012


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.

by Anonymousreply 1411/15/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 1511/15/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 1611/15/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 1711/15/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 1811/15/2012

Of course they did, R18. They had a role in 9/11 which was instrumental in getting us into the Iraq War.

by Anonymousreply 1911/15/2012

????? Don't just say "they did" .. post the historical proof.

by Anonymousreply 2011/15/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 2111/15/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 2211/15/2012

We're all in agreement. The point is in reference to the title of this thread:


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.

by Anonymousreply 2311/15/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 2411/15/2012

I'm sure I could find hours and hours of reading material on your theory, R27, as well as an equal amount supposing alternate theories. Regarding this CIA overlord/manchurian presidency, The question for you, however, is to what end? In terms of foreign policy, Obama and Bush couldn't be further apart. Bush was bellicose, invincible, resolute, and completely wrong. Obama is reserved, ruthless, superior, and only partially wrong. Whereas Bush was willing to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, Obama is only willing to kill Pakistani wedding parties, Osama's multiple wives, and aren't we up to about the 10th second-in-command of al Queda?

Bush racked up trillions of dollars in wars, all off the books, and Obama is reducing the size of the armed forces. Cheney demanded that our military be capable of fighting two simultaneous wars; Hagel has moved other priorities into play and says we only need to have a human force large enough to fight a single conflict.

Are the priorities of the CIA so in flux that this manipulation of our political system can be explained away?

by Anonymousreply 2904/03/2014

Dick Cheney earns several billion dollars a year. This is because his company gets several billion dollars of taxpayer dollars a week.

This is why we invaded Iraq.

by Anonymousreply 4105/04/2014

The problem with the "CIA controls everything" troll is that he seems to presupose the CIA knows what it wants, is not riven by conflict and rivalry, and is incapable of learning when they screw up. In contrast, I think most people can see that our political culture, defined by the rich, is more truly in that position than any government bureaucracy.

by Anonymousreply 4505/08/2014


The government lies about everything. Why should WMDs be different?

Obama has lied just as much as Bush. They are corrupt pawns of the empire. They both suck.

by Anonymousreply 4605/29/2014

Two words: Dick Cheney.

by Anonymousreply 4705/30/2014

Military-Industrial Complex.


by Anonymousreply 4805/30/2014


by Anonymousreply 4905/30/2014

As Rachel Maddow explained in "Why We DId It," the point was not to take the oil. The point was to make sure the oil flowed freely onto the market keeping prices steady. Saddam did not have the money to maximize production and faced sanctions, so global oil supplies were too low, and he could threaten the world economy by cutting off supplies sending prices sky-high. Too much power for a nut-job.

by Anonymousreply 5005/30/2014

You think the CIA isn't on the take too?

You think Cheney and W don't run the CIA?

by Anonymousreply 5105/30/2014

They're using the internets to foment unrest in all these countries. Like pranksters starting a fire and running off to snicker at a distance.

Then the U.S. (Haliburton, contractor$) rushes in to keep peace and start "democracies" (puppet governments).

That's why you never see the average person in these countries interviewed: they all know.

by Anonymousreply 5205/30/2014

Wrong on all counts R50. Saddam wanted to boost production which could have bankrupted Saudi Arabia. So they took action.

by Anonymousreply 5306/01/2014

Most of you don't want to believe it, but our political culture is under the direction of the King of Saudi Arabia.

by Anonymousreply 5406/01/2014

Because the CIA is paid to lie and obfuscate?

by Anonymousreply 5506/19/2014


They said there were WMDs because they knew that Fox News and the NYTimes would support their lies.

Look at Obama and Syria, or Iraq, or Ukraine.

They are all lying shit. Fuck the government.

by Anonymousreply 5706/27/2014

They invented The Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS- or whatever they're calling them this week- as a non-Christian boogeyman to get the Amurkan Sheeple's $upport (as if they even need it; the U.S. has been a police state for years).

Reports are that none of these groups is anymore than a few thousand "rebels" (financed by mysterious countries or orgs).

by Anonymousreply 5806/29/2014

Because the CIA lies? About everything?

by Anonymousreply 5907/09/2014

In related news, libertarians are dumber than a box of hammers.

by Anonymousreply 6007/10/2014

Terry Gilliam is a Nazi:

by Anonymousreply 6307/10/2014

Since the WMD bullshit proves Bush (and Cheney, and Rice, et al) and congress LIED...

WHY is it so hard to believe that Obama (and Biden, and Clinton, et al) are also lying about Syria, Crimea, Iran...

Why? Why do we automatically believe one side and demonize the other?

by Anonymousreply 7107/10/2014

Keep fucking that chicken, Libertarian Idiot.

by Anonymousreply 7207/11/2014

Trust me- PUTIN shot down that plane, and we don't need no stinking facts!

by Anonymousreply 7308/01/2014

Bomb and bomb and bomb again!

That Nobel Peace Prize was well earned! Slaughtering millions of brown people is awesome!

by Anonymousreply 7408/11/2014

Cheney pressured them like hell to say it and George Tenet, who fucked up over 9/11 as did Bush/Cheney/Rice, felt he had to go along to keep the Bush people covering his ass. Lower level analysts pointed out that it was bullshit all along.

by Anonymousreply 7608/11/2014


Because it's the CIA? They murder, overthrow and "disappear" anyone they want. They are just an outward manifestation of the evil rotten core that is Washington DC!

by Anonymousreply 7708/13/2014

So, where is that proof?

Bush and Obama are just evil puppets.

by Anonymousreply 7908/15/2014

Possibly the worst purveyor of this Cold War-style propaganda has been the New York Times, which has given its readers a steady diet of biased reporting and analysis, including now accusing the Russians for a resurgence in the fighting.

One way the Times has falsified the Ukraine narrative is by dating the origins of the crisis to several months after the crisis actually began. So, the lead story in Saturday’s editions ignored the actual chronology of events and started the clock with the appearance of Russian troops in Crimea in spring 2014.

The Times article by Rick Lyman and Andrew E. Kramer said: “A shaky cease-fire has all but vanished, with rebel leaders vowing fresh attacks. Civilians are being hit by deadly mortars at bus stops. Tanks are rumbling down snowy roads in rebel-held areas with soldiers in unmarked green uniforms sitting on their turrets, waving at bystanders — a disquieting echo of the ‘little green men’ whose appearance in Crimea opened this stubborn conflict in the spring.”

In other words, the story doesn’t start in fall 2013 with the extraordinary U.S. intervention in Ukrainian political affairs – spearheaded by American neocons, such as National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and Sen. John McCain – nor with the U.S.-backed coup on Feb. 22, 2014, which ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych and put one of Nuland’s chosen leaders, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, in as Prime Minister.

No, because if that history were included, Times readers might actually have a chance for a balanced understanding of this unnecessary tragedy. For propaganda purposes, it is better to start the cameras rolling only after the people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede from the failed state of Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

by Anonymousreply 8001/27/2015

Here's the link to the full expose of the NYTimes bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 8101/27/2015


The government lies constantly.

Reagan lied. Bush lied. Clinton lied. Then Bush REALLY lied, and Obama has supported his lies.

by Anonymousreply 8204/10/2015

From BEFORE the invasion, Feb. 7, 2003:

UK war dossier a sham, say experts

British 'intelligence' lifted from academic articles

Downing Street was last night plunged into acute international embarrassment after it emerged that large parts of the British government's latest dossier on Iraq - allegedly based on "intelligence material" - were taken from published academic articles, some of them several years old.

Amid charges of "scandalous" plagiarism on the night when Tony Blair attempted to rally support for the US-led campaign against Saddam Hussein, Whitehall's dismay was compounded by the knowledge that the disputed document was singled out for praise by the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, in his speech to the UN security council on Wednesday....

by Anonymousreply 8304/10/2015

If you believe anyone in the government is your savior, R84, you're in for a rude awakening.

by Anonymousreply 8504/10/2015

To find the WMDs in Iraq, just look for MADE IN USA on the box.

by Anonymousreply 8604/11/2015

Yes, R86. So always look for, the Union label. It says were able, to make it in the U.S.A. !!!!


by Anonymousreply 8704/11/2015

Well, I went back to Ohio But my family was gone I stood on the back porch There was nobody home I was stunned and amazed My childhood memories Slowly swirled past Like the wind through the trees Ay, oh, way to go, Ohio

Anyway, don't underestimate the shocking incompetence of those people.

But Iraq was Cheney's.

by Anonymousreply 8804/11/2015

Rise, R88, Rise!

by Anonymousreply 8904/11/2015


I know the government is incompetent at best, and usually pure evil.

by Anonymousreply 9004/12/2015

The location of the home Dick Cheney built for his retirement when on the East Coast is very interesting. The property was not available for anyone to build on --- until the Cheney's wanted a retirement home in the area. No doubt he's very cozy with his next door neighbors.

by Anonymousreply 9104/12/2015

The CIA doubted there were WMD in Iraq, and as so many have said they tried to warn elected officials and to a lesser degree the media. Valerie Plames husband, Joe Wilson former Niger ambassador, famously wrote a NYTImes editorial that exposed the fiction of Iraq purchasing Yellow Cake Uranium for Nukes from Niger. Wilson was asked by the CIA to investigate this Bush-Cheney claim, and he did a great job. The CIA was keenly aware that war with Iraq would be a collosal debacle well beyond any inate intelligence in the Bush Admin.

In Europe the news was everywhere that after the debut of the Euro, Saddam pegged his oil prices to that instead of the US dollar. This was a BOON to the European Union, and jab to the US for Gulf 1. Now US Oilmen were paying 20% more for Iraqi crude. The Texans/Halliburton etc went batshit and Bush was given the task to depose him.

The US barely acknowledged this turn of events. However we all paid and continue to til this day.

by Anonymousreply 9204/12/2015


All of that is true.

So, do you finally admit that Ron Paul was right?

by Anonymousreply 9304/12/2015

Every country on earth though Iraq had WMDs. Even Saddam thought so, or acted like he did.

by Anonymousreply 9404/13/2015


No, they didn't.

If you knew anything about history you would know better, but you still cannot admit Ron Paul was right.

by Anonymousreply 9504/13/2015

R94, then why the "Dodgy Dossier" in the UK and the claim that Saddam sought yellowcake uranium from Niger, based on a document that was known to be forged well before Bush used it to alarm the public in the State of the Union address in 2003?

by Anonymousreply 9604/13/2015

R 93 Rand is a POS.

I know this from first hand experience, working in Kuwait and being in Europe for months on end.

by Anonymousreply 9704/13/2015

Wmd is such Orwell speak. Every county on earth that has a army can create Mass destruction.

by Anonymousreply 9804/13/2015

The Congress, the Neo-cons and their cronies got tremendously rich off of Iraq and Afghanistan. Giving the Pentagon a blank check does wonderful things for the stock portfolios of those who are legally permitted t engage in insider trading.

by Anonymousreply 9904/14/2015

Jon Stwert exposing the NYTimes propaganda bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 10005/04/2015


by Anonymousreply 10205/10/2015


The government and CIA lie for a living.

Only fools trust them.

by Anonymousreply 10305/10/2015
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!