Coming to (Wrong) Conclusions

By Gus Tyler

Published April 08, 2005, issue of April 08, 2005.
  • Print
  • Share Share

A nonpartisan commission appointed by President Bush has completed a study of the reasons that we went to war in Iraq. It concluded its research with a lengthy statement that scourges the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency for misinforming the president on the true situation in Iraq and for feeding the White House with false information on two vital matters. To wit:

First, they informed the president that Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s dictator, had weapons of mass destruction. The report says that he did not. They also reported that Saddam had close relations with Osama bin Laden and his global terrorist outfit Al Qaeda, This was also untrue.

The report of the presidential commission confirmed an earlier finding by a Senate investigating committee. Indeed, it was the hope of the White House that the presidential commission would reverse the findings of the Senate. Instead, it did just the opposite.

Was there any reason to believe that Saddam had WMD? Yes. During the eight-year war between Iraq and Iran, the United States was a staunch ally of Iraq. And during that period, the United States provided Saddam with chemical and biological weapons. But after the Gulf War, we stipulated that Saddam had to get rid of the weaponry we gave him. And he kept his word.

Weaponry aside, the charge that Saddam was in cahoots with bin Laden is, to any slightly informed observer, absurd. Saddam and bin Laden represent opposite ends, ideologically, of the Muslim world.

In light of all these facts, how did three-plus intelligence agencies come individually and collectively to their conclusions?

More than a few high-ranking intelligence operatives spoke to the president before 9/11 about the likelihood of a terrorist attack on the United States. The president did not show any interest; he wanted to hear more about Iraq.

Why Iraq? Saddam had nationalized the oil industry in Iraq. Whoever took over Iraq would have control of its oil industry. If the United States took over, it would put power in the hands of two men who had oil in their blood and on their brains: Bush and Cheney.

People in the intelligence agencies were not ignorant about what the White House wanted. They knew that people in positions of power who did not fall in line would not last long in their posts. Even our most competent secretary of state, Colin Powell, ultimately was ousted because he wasn’t a “yes man.”

What we are surmising and suggesting is that the intelligence agencies tailored their findings to please the oily president and his equally oily vice president. They all could have concluded their reports honestly with the old fashioned signoff: “Your obedient servant.”






Find us on Facebook!
  • This is what the rockets over Israel and Gaza look like from space:
  • "Israel should not let captives languish or corpses rot. It should do everything in its power to recover people and bodies. Jewish law places a premium on pidyon shvuyim, “the redemption of captives,” and proper burial. But not when the price will lead to more death and more kidnappings." Do you agree?
  • Slate.com's Allison Benedikt wrote that Taglit-Birthright Israel is partly to blame for the death of American IDF volunteer Max Steinberg. This is why she's wrong:
  • Israeli soldiers want you to buy them socks. And snacks. And backpacks. And underwear. And pizza. So claim dozens of fundraising campaigns launched by American Jewish and Israeli charities since the start of the current wave of crisis and conflict in Israel and Gaza.
  • The sign reads: “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances.”
  • Is Twitter Israel's new worst enemy?
  • More than 50 former Israeli soldiers have refused to serve in the current ground operation in #Gaza.
  • "My wife and I are both half-Jewish. Both of us very much felt and feel American first and Jewish second. We are currently debating whether we should send our daughter to a Jewish pre-K and kindergarten program or to a public one. Pros? Give her a Jewish community and identity that she could build on throughout her life. Cons? Costs a lot of money; She will enter school with the idea that being Jewish makes her different somehow instead of something that you do after or in addition to regular school. Maybe a Shabbat sing-along would be enough?"
  • Undeterred by the conflict, 24 Jews participated in the first ever Jewish National Fund— JDate singles trip to Israel. Translation: Jews age 30 to 45 travelled to Israel to get it on in the sun, with a side of hummus.
  • "It pains and shocks me to say this, but here goes: My father was right all along. He always told me, as I spouted liberal talking points at the Shabbos table and challenged his hawkish views on Israel and the Palestinians to his unending chagrin, that I would one day change my tune." Have you had a similar experience?
  • "'What’s this, mommy?' she asked, while pulling at the purple sleeve to unwrap this mysterious little gift mom keeps hidden in the inside pocket of her bag. Oh boy, how do I answer?"
  • "I fear that we are witnessing the end of politics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I see no possibility for resolution right now. I look into the future and see only a void." What do you think?
  • Not a gazillionaire? Take the "poor door."
  • "We will do what we must to protect our people. We have that right. We are not less deserving of life and quiet than anyone else. No more apologies."
  • "Woody Allen should have quit while he was ahead." Ezra Glinter's review of "Magic in the Moonlight": http://jd.fo/f4Q1Q
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.