My sincerest hope was that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld actually did have solid evidence of Hussein’s development nuclear weapons. My hope was that the News organizations I read had somehow got it wrong. After all, how can one justify misleading the public just to start a war?

This Newsweek article, “Where are Iraq’s WMDs?” agrees with NPR and BBC news I have been hearing about how the Bush Administration decided to go after Saddam. They tapped the CIA, NSA, and INR to find the evidence. The closest physical evidence were the aluminum tubes which Iraq claimed to have bought to buld small rockets. The US Dept of Energy decided that these tubes could not be used to enrich uranium. So there was not any physical evidence that had been found to support the claim that Iraq had WMDs before the decision to invade.

The evidence they did have were reports from people who had fled Iraq because for some reason or another they were scared the former dictator would probably kill them. How can one trust someone who was a crony of a dictator? These are desperate people that probably would do or say anything on a good day. They definitely would lie in order to get protection.

One cannot trust eye witness testimony. People are not trustworthy sources of information. These eye witnesses decide what is relevant and not relevant for investigators. Their memories can change to reflect current values instead of actual events.

I understand that intelligence gathering is difficult and not really 100%. However, to have government officials in the media stating that they are certain and have indisputable proof when they really decided without proof and have to scramble to invent the proof? That is wrong.

Currently Watching The Animatrix see related

Preserved comments:

• 6/5/2003 11:45 AM by freekycheek: I really want to see this movie, ever since seeing the ad in front of Matrix:Reloaded.As for the intelligence gathering of the US – it gets me how so many folks here think we the public are going to know everything the US gov’t does about foreign countries. If it ain’t on the news, if the reporters haven’t reported it, then it ain’t there. Believe me or don’t, having been in intelligence, there was a need.
• 6/5/2003 4:42 PM by sneezypb: I agree. I was very skeptical when Rumsfeld claimed that the government was 100% certain Hussein has WMDs. Later, when Powell started hedging, I realized that this 100% was probably more like 50% (or less) for a normal person. Powell’s speech to the U.N. to me sounded like he was only at the 60% certainty.Oh, Animatrix is a set of 8 short stories by different directors and writers on various topics. Good stuff, I think. Honestly, I picked up 3 of the 4 free ones online. Liked them enough to pick up the DVD.
• 6/6/2003 3:15 PM by Southern_Belle: I ( a hard core conservative) am still skeptical of this “Operation Iraqi Freedom”.  I don’t know how I feel about the whole thing, actually.  I support our current administration and trust them to do what is best, but right now there doesn’t seem to be much evidence that a war was absolutely necessary at this point in time.  We have to remember though, that to give up any sources of our secret intelligence to the public would threaten not only the lives of our intelligence officers, but also our abilities to gather information in the future.  Sometimes we must trust those who know what we are not allowed to know at this point in time and hope that it works out for the best.