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!
  • Wanted: Met Council CEO.
  • “Look, on the one hand, I understand him,” says Rivka Ben-Pazi, a niece of Elchanan Hameiri, the boy that Henk Zanoli saved. “He had a family tragedy.” But on the other hand, she said, “I think he was wrong.” What do you think?
  • How about a side of Hitler with your spaghetti?
  • Why "Be fruitful and multiply" isn't as simple as it seems:
  • William Schabas may be the least of Israel's problems.
  • You've heard of the #IceBucketChallenge, but Forward publisher Sam Norich has something better: a #SoupBucketChallenge (complete with matzo balls!) Jon Stewart, Sarah Silverman & David Remnick, you have 24 hours!
  • Did Hamas just take credit for kidnapping the three Israeli teens?
  • "We know what it means to be in the headlines. We know what it feels like when the world sits idly by and watches the news from the luxury of their living room couches. We know the pain of silence. We know the agony of inaction."
  • When YA romance becomes "Hasidsploitation":
  • "I am wrapping up the summer with a beach vacation with my non-Jewish in-laws. They’re good people and real leftists who try to live the values they preach. This was a quality I admired, until the latest war in Gaza. Now they are adamant that American Jews need to take more responsibility for the deaths in Gaza. They are educated people who understand the political complexity, but I don’t think they get the emotional complexity of being an American Jew who is capable of criticizing Israel but still feels a deep connection to it. How can I get this across to them?"
  • “'I made a new friend,' my son told his grandfather later that day. 'I don’t know her name, but she was very nice. We met on the bus.' Welcome to Israel."
  • A Jewish female sword swallower. It's as cool as it sounds (and looks)!
  • Why did David Menachem Gordon join the IDF? In his own words: "The Israel Defense Forces is an army that fights for her nation’s survival and the absence of its warriors equals destruction from numerous regional foes. America is not quite under the threat of total annihilation… Simply put, I felt I was needed more in Israel than in the United States."
  • Leonard Fein's most enduring legacy may be his rejection of dualism: the idea that Jews must choose between assertiveness and compassion, between tribalism and universalism. Steven M. Cohen remembers a great Jewish progressive:
  • BREAKING: Missing lone soldier David Menachem Gordon has been found dead in central Israel. The Ohio native was 21 years old.
  • 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.