Bush Administration made 935 false statements because of the Iraq War

[Symphony D.]

The US conservative rewrite if history is obviously complete at this point.

Indeed, I am in fact a Secret Service agent typing this on behalf of the Administration. How ever did you catch on?

I do remember watching TV in 2002 and 2003, thank you, watching what little was shown of the U.N. debates, and reading what I could. In fact, here is some of the text of Resolution 1441 for you:

[...] 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material; [...]

Now, I would say that this alone makes it rather clear they were concerned as to what, exactly, was in Iraq. You're free to read the full text if you'd like to do more than dismiss me as clearly a right-wing, war-loving, oil-guzzling drone who sings the American national anthem in the shower. I somehow doubt you will.

I'll also note that the resolution passed the Security Council unanimously. Pray tell, why would countries like Russia, China, France and Syria--most of whom were selling weapons to or buying oil from Iraq and had everything to gain from turning a blind eye to a nonthreatening Saddam Hussein--vote in favor of such a Resolution if they believed Iraq had nothing to hide? Now, if you'd actually like to argue that what I'm saying is false, I'd ask you do so on facts, rather than your own personal biases and agenda. Otherwise, I have a tinfoil hat you might be interested in acquiring.

 

[countrygrl]

I'll also note that the resolution passed the Security Council unanimously. Pray tell, why would countries like Russia, China, France and Syria--most of whom were selling weapons to or buying oil from Iraq and had everything to gain from turning a blind eye to a nonthreatening Saddam Hussein--vote in favor of such a Resolution if they believed Iraq had nothing to hide? Now, if you'd actually like to argue that what I'm saying is false, I'd ask you do so on facts, rather than your own personal biases and agenda. Otherwise, I have a tinfoil hat you might be interested in acquiring.

they voted for it because it was open ended. it was vague, and hardly an authorization for a full blown invasion or war. it was seen as a way to prolong the diplomatic process.

but to the illiterate bush administration, it was an endorsement of war, which it was not.

 

[Symphony D.]

but to the illiterate bush administration, it was an endorsement of war, which it was not.

I didn't say it wasn't. I haven't offered an opinion on that.

What I did say was that everyone's intelligence was indicating the same things, and that they were all sufficiently convinced that Iraq was not disclosing enough that there was a very strong possibility of the presence of NBC weapons in-country, and were expressing concern over it. To the degree they pushed out the IAEA again and trotted out a whole bunch of Resolutions and had vicious debates over what to do. They didn't really discuss what was there. That's the only thing I have claimed, and it's the only thing I'm going to defend.

Again, whatever you want to say about his motivations for going into Iraq, his war policy, or how long he was planning it, the idea that Bush outright fabricated all, most, a majority, or a notable fraction of the intelligence on the presence of NBC weapons in Iraq is a myth, unless you believe that he was somehow able to orchestrate a world-wide conspiracy with people who were diametrically opposed to his objectives. The opposition was to the war, not to the intelligence.

That myth has been circulating around since about a year after the war began with claims of Bush "misleading the people," and it's really kind of disheartening how it has more or less become "truth" simply because people keep hearing it and some prefer to believe it because of their other opinions of the man and his performance. I'm just pointing out that it's precisely that, is all. Bush didn't lie, or at least, didn't lie to any substantial degree before the war began; he was in the same boat of data as everybody else.

 

[Verbose]

I do remember watching TV in 2002 and 2003, thank you, watching what little was shown of the U.N. debates, and reading what I could. In fact, here is some of the text of Resolution 1441 for you:

Now, I would say that this alone makes it rather clear they were concerned as to what, exactly, was in Iraq. You're free to read the full text if you'd like to do more than dismiss me as clearly a right-wing, war-loving, oil-guzzling drone who sings the American national anthem in the shower. I somehow doubt you will.

You're being disingenious.

In 2002 everyone (at least in the West) was in agreement that the situation in Iraq couldn't go on indefinately, i.e. something had to be done eventually. Except there was also agreement that there was no acute urgency to any of this.

It's far from same thing as instant invasion. And the real problem was always the way the US government went about things. Not least the nonsensical haste with which it demanded everything be done. The only reason outsiders have seen for playing up the WMD-thing was that it was pretty much the only thing that had a chance of speeding things up to the point the GWB admin seemed to want. Why they wanted this never made real sense. (The most concrete suggestion I've seen was that they wanted the troops in and the thing over before summer, when it gets really hot. Very practical, and very limited thinking if so.)

Had GWB been willing to process Iraq through normal UN channels, at the normal UN speed - and if his admin. had been able to avoid being caught out as a bunch of fast talking con-men over the WMD-schtick - it was entirely possible the US could have moved in on Iraq in the Fall of 2003, or spring of 2004 or so, with the UN's full blessing, the French along for the ride, and the Germans bankrolling things. (Since the extra men and the money the US could have used in the early stages of Iraq would have to come from these two.)

As late as mid december 2002 the French line was to chip in 20 000 men and 150 aircraft for an Iraq-operation. Provided it passed the UN security council, which it should, were the WMDs for real.

But by February 2003 the collective decision of a considerable number of nations, with intelligence capabilities of their own, was that the WMDs were with the greatest likelyhood a bunch of BS, and what residue of actual cause for concern there was, was manageable through the ongoing weapons inspections, which was far from an uplifting spectacle of Saddam playing hide-and-seek with the UN, but at least kept him busy enough not to get involved in anything worse.

The US overplayed its hand, made allegations that didn't hold up to scrutiny, and ended the display by insulting major allies. For what has never been entirely clarified. One possibility is of course that the neoconservatives handling the foreign policy back then genuinely believed they could dispense with things like legitimacy of actions, the UN, diplomacy, consensus building, common courtesy...

So now the US has a clear deficit on legitimacy for what is being done in Iraq. And a common US counterattack to criticism is that everyone else is a dirty rotten scoundrel apparently.

 

[Berzerker]

I am saying prove the stupid crap you are putting out as fact. You cant however.

I'm not gonna bother tracking down polls from that time to prove what I already know to be true, but if its so stupid then are you saying a majority of the world supported us? Do you ever consider the implications of your arguments?

And you have agreed with me that its his opinion. Now if Koofi had really wanted to do something then it should have been brought up before the general assembly. It wasnt. Koofi was bluffing and/or didnt have the balls to make it the issue he apparently thought it was.

Now that is stupid, of course its his opinion... But his opinion aint equal to your opinion, he was the sec gen and you still haven't explained why he's wrong. You just keep repeating, "thats his opinion". And he did make an issue of it, he repeatedly said we were violating the UN Charter.

Not all of the 49 nations in support of the invasion took part in it.

You do understand this right?

Let me know if I have to explain it to you.

Where did I say all 49 nations took part in the invasion?

 

[C~G]

All US posters should read what Verbose said, it is exactly how most of europeans saw the situation back then.

Of course additionally it should be noted that Bush administration was never liked in Europe even before this all hassle about Iraq.

After 911 you got lots of compassion but after the arrogant and aggressive Iraq policy you lost your hand in International arena.

When new government steps in after the election, it's better the one sitting there isn't same kind of type as the last one if you want run succesful foreign policy and like to have your allies with you whatever you might do.

 

[bathsheba666]

We're the good guys, we know what needs to be done and we'll do it, regardless of what the world thinks of it.

In a nutshell. Were we talking perception problems?

However, John Wayne rode off into the sunset a long time ago.

 

[Berzerker]

This entire thread simply illustrates why the United States must, ASAP, void all UN brokered treaties, withdraw from the UN, and kick the UN out of our nation. That the majority of the world seems to have perception issues and cannot see things for what they truly are is not the US's problem and we shouldn't have to justify our actions to these people. We're the good guys, we know what needs to be done and we'll do it, regardless of what the world thinks of it.

I'd agree for other reasons, but not because a majority, a large majority of the world opposed our invasion - they were right. I dont know how you could argue they have the perception problem, they didn't get bombarded with propaganda depicting Saddam as a madman building nukes.

 

[bathsheba666]

I didn't say it wasn't. I haven't offered an opinion on that.

What I did say was that everyone's intelligence was indicating the same things, and that they were all sufficiently convinced that Iraq was not disclosing enough that there was a very strong possibility of the presence of NBC weapons in-country, and were expressing concern over it. To the degree they pushed out the IAEA again and trotted out a whole bunch of Resolutions and had vicious debates over what to do. They didn't really discuss what was there. That's the only thing I have claimed, and it's the only thing I'm going to defend.

Again, whatever you want to say about his motivations for going into Iraq, his war policy, or how long he was planning it, the idea that Bush outright fabricated all, most, a majority, or a notable fraction of the intelligence on the presence of NBC weapons in Iraq is a myth, unless you believe that he was somehow able to orchestrate a world-wide conspiracy with people who were diametrically opposed to his objectives. The opposition was to the war, not to the intelligence.

That myth has been circulating around since about a year after the war began with claims of Bush "misleading the people," and it's really kind of disheartening how it has more or less become "truth" simply because people keep hearing it and some prefer to believe it because of their other opinions of the man and his performance. I'm just pointing out that it's precisely that, is all. Bush didn't lie, or at least, didn't lie to any substantial degree before the war began; he was in the same boat of data as everybody else.

Your own Senate has commented on the inadequate intelligence.

Your own Senate, has yet to comment of the discrepancy between the intelligence and the Bush administration's representation of it. But it is acknowledged as needing to be investigated.

That's polite talk for 'they lied'.

The fact that this part of the Senate investigation has been postponed, indicates politicking is still alive and well in your country.
It does not indicate that Bush was telling the truth, just that they're holding off on this for as long as possible.

It's your myths that are disturbing. The rest of the world accepted the US statements about its intelligence; they simply thought invading was a dumb idea. (Funny that!).

Any idea when the Senate will move on to the next phase? Or are you blanking that out as it will conflict with your state of denial?

 

[countrygrl]

I didn't say it wasn't. I haven't offered an opinion on that.

What I did say was that everyone's intelligence was indicating the same things, and that they were all sufficiently convinced that Iraq was not disclosing enough that there was a very strong possibility of the presence of NBC weapons in-country, and were expressing concern over it. To the degree they pushed out the IAEA again and trotted out a whole bunch of Resolutions and had vicious debates over what to do. They didn't really discuss what was there. That's the only thing I have claimed, and it's the only thing I'm going to defend.

Again, whatever you want to say about his motivations for going into Iraq, his war policy, or how long he was planning it, the idea that Bush outright fabricated all, most, a majority, or a notable fraction of the intelligence on the presence of NBC weapons in Iraq is a myth, unless you believe that he was somehow able to orchestrate a world-wide conspiracy with people who were diametrically opposed to his objectives. The opposition was to the war, not to the intelligence.

That myth has been circulating around since about a year after the war began with claims of Bush "misleading the people," and it's really kind of disheartening how it has more or less become "truth" simply because people keep hearing it and some prefer to believe it because of their other opinions of the man and his performance. I'm just pointing out that it's precisely that, is all. Bush didn't lie, or at least, didn't lie to any substantial degree before the war began; he was in the same boat of data as everybody else.

i wasn't jabbing at you. just the illiterate president.

and i disagree about the idea that it was a disagreement about the war, not the intel. most of the countries who disagreed about the war believed the intelligence did merit a war. they also believed that a policy of containment would be effective, and that continuing inspections would promote containment.

i've read articles, and not loony toony articles before in my worldview class about the fact that bush repressed negative intelligence on iraq when he submitted stuff to congress. and that the cia and other intelligence groups omitted conflicting intel as well.

if i come back on tonight, i'll see if i can find some. but for now, i'm going to go outside and enjoy the remains of the day.

 

[Symphony D.]

The US overplayed its hand, made allegations that didn't hold up to scrutiny, and ended the display by insulting major allies.

That did not stand up to scrutiny after the fact. Their veracity was not, however, disputed by the United Nations Security Council at the time of their proposal. I will grant you, the U.N. wanted to verify it, which is precisely why they sent Hans Blix and company in, but they did not dispute the intelligence.

As I just got through saying, I am not defended G.W.B.'s march to war. I am not defending his methodology, or any of it. All I am saying is that when Collin Powell got up at that podium and presented his evidence, nobody in the U.N. disagreed. And, despite what bathsheba666 might want you to believe about America's rivals accepting America's word on the matter at the drop of a hat for some bizarre and implausible reason, the reason nobody disagreed was because their own information gathering services were generally telling them the same things.

Meaning, that if there was a general consensus that there was a problem, whatever the level of danger or recourse to solving it (I don't care, I'm not debating those issues here, and they're not important to my point), the intelligence could not be faked by an American source--unless, of course, you want to posit that America's intelligence services, after having botched 9/11, somehow pulled a complete 180° turn and carried off one of the most successful plants in all of human history. That is what I'm saying. I'm essentially echoing DaveShack's point in more detail:

This article conveniently leaves out a fact.

We know now that Iraq no longer had WMD, or at least didn't have them in large numbers. At the time the statements were made, the best information available at the time said that there were WMD.

I am attacking the notion that all intelligence leading up to the Iraq War was some sort of cover story concocted by America, which a lot of people seem to believe, because it is implausible short of a global conspiracy. I am not making any other statements on the war, either prelude, prosecution, motive, justification or conclusion. I'm not interested in debating those points, and they've been beaten to death for several years now. I am simply pointing out how stupid the notion that the entire world was fooled by Bush is when you genuinely sit down and look at the way the discussion of the issue proceeded at the time.

It's your myths that are disturbing. The rest of the world accepted the US statements about its intelligence;

So you're genuinely saying you believe that other France, China, Russia, and Syria would, in regards to a lucrative trading partner, this one time only in the entire history of modern states, decided to blindly trust American intelligence, not fact-check it with their own well-developed intelligence networks, and rubber-stamp it as A-OK when they had billions of dollars on the line in terms of various contracts? To what end? To see America get egg on its face? Just for the hell of it? Temporary insanity?

I think that kind of view of global politics is disturbing. I would like to think America is in fact so trusted, but if you truly believe that I can say quite flatly that you don't have the foggiest idea of how countries gather or process sensitive data for national defense and security. This wasn't an episode of G.I. Joe.

 

[Berzerker]

Your own Senate, has yet to comment of the discrepancy between the intelligence and the Bush administration's representation of it. But it is acknowledged as needing to be investigated.

That's polite talk for 'they lied'.

The fact that this part of the Senate investigation has been postponed, indicates politicking is still alive and well in your country. It does not indicate that Bush was telling the truth, just that they're holding off on this for as long as possible.

They dont wanna impeach him, and thats where any assessment will lead.

 

[bathsheba666]

So you're genuinely saying you believe that other France, China, Russia, and Syria would, in regards to a lucrative trading partner, this one time only in the entire history of modern states, decided to blindly trust American intelligence, not fact-check it with their own well-developed intelligence networks, and rubber-stamp it as A-OK when they had billions of dollars on the line in terms of various contracts? To what end? To see America get egg on its face? Just for the hell of it? Temporary insanity?

I think that kind of view of global politics is disturbing. I would like to think America is in fact so trusted, but if you truly believe that I can say quite flatly that you don't have the foggiest idea of how countries gather or process sensitive data for national defense and security. This wasn't an episode of G.I. Joe.

No, I am not playing along with your strawman.

A simple re-read of my posts will indicate - possibly even to you - that I am not saying what you assert I am 'genuinely saying'.

I mentioned your Senate and its investigations.
So it's amusing, but a little sad, to see you trying to suggest that it is only bathsheba trying to mislead people.

Once you have cleared up your little difficulty with reading, by all means try again to suggest that I haven't the foggiest idea about anything.
That appears to me to be a degree of projection that exceeds even the us's military power.

 

[Berzerker]

I'd like to see the evidence all these other countries thought Saddam had WMD. I hear it from the Bushies all the time but I never hear it confirmed by ~neutral countries. Why did the 10 Downing St memo say the intel was being fixed around going to war?

The west had a very good idea of what Saddam had, we have the receipts. And the west knew what the inspectors were finding and destroying, and according to Scott Ritter ~95% or more was destroyed. The inspectors were so effective all we've been able to find are old rusting shells from the 80s buried near the front with Iran. The inspectors were ridiculed and then ignored as part of the campaign of BS.

 

[Symphony D.]

First, thank you for being so cordial. I'm glad to see OT lives up to its reputation of nice, happy people willing to engage in good debate, rather than personal attacks. Truly, you do it proud.

I mentioned your Senate and its investigations. So it's amusing, but a little sad, to see you trying to suggest that it is only bathsheba trying to mislead people.

Once you have cleared up your little difficulty with reading, by all means try again to suggest that I haven't the foggiest idea about anything.
That appears to me to be a degree of projection that exceeds even the us's military power.

Fine. You don't know jack. Is that more clear?

Of course there was an investigation. Of course the intelligence looks patchy and bad now. Why? Because we didn't find anything. Yes, it was wrong. I never once said it was right, thank you. Take your angst and fuming and direct it somewhere else, please. I am not paid by the Administration to suffer abuse for using common sense.

We had poor and unreliable sources. Our information was inaccurate. And yes, the Administration did treat it as a slam dunk case and invoke the memory of Adlai Stevenson with the U2 photos when it sent Powell to the U.N. And it was a flop. We've spent a couple hundred billion dollars on it, lost a few thousand of our boys, and only just now after five some odd years of toil is the situation starting to turn around. And all we've got to show for it is a handful of old rusted out shells that once held chemical agents. It was a joke. We were wrong. What happened to the weapons is still mostly unknown. I never said otherwise.

But that's all irrelevant to my point. I'm not talking about what we know to be truth after the fact. I'm talking about what was perceived at the time.

Because, if you'd bothered reading my posts more carefully, at he time we were saying all of that, everybody else had the same information, and they nodded their heads when we said it, because their people were saying the same things. Unless you'd like to go back to the theory you yourself just waved off that for some reason every other major government in the world decided to be sheep and bah when we presented the data, that is.

 

[Verbose]

As I just got through saying, I am not defended G.W.B.'s march to war. I am not defending his methodology, or any of it. All I am saying is that when Collin Powell got up at that podium and presented his evidence, nobody in the U.N. disagreed. And, despite what bathsheba666 might want you to believe about America's rivals accepting America's word on the matter at the drop of a hat for some bizarre and implausible reason, the reason nobody disagreed was because their own information gathering services were generally telling them the same things.

Meaning, that if there was a general consensus that there was a problem, whatever the level of danger or recourse to solving it (I don't care, I'm not debating those issues here, and they're not important to my point), the intelligence could not be faked by an American source--unless, of course, you want to posit that America's intelligence services, after having botched 9/11, somehow pulled a complete 180° turn and carried off one of the most successful plants in all of human history. That is what I'm saying.

Yes, but Colin Powell got up in a pretty desperate last minute bid to save some credibility for what the US had up until then been alleging. He had credibility with the sceptics. As for the lack of direct challenge to what he was saying in the UN, if that's where we're at right now, I'd say that was common courtesy.

What it says is that the process of interpretation is in itself a dicy thing. There was little or no actual "faking". The conclusion was that the US was overstating, slanting and misrepresenting information gathered in a very consistent way. The observations were there all right. The wrangle was over interpretation and meaning, where the US came out guns blazing with a very consistent version of things, one, once enough of the data was available to make it something more than "the US says", it could be concluded that there was a lot of incidental evidence based on strings of assumptions, lots of grey areas, and lots of things that could mean any number of things. But the US was very consistent in opting for a very specific framework within which to position everything.

There never was a "smoking gun" or anything in the form of an unequivocal "fact" stating that Saddam has WMDs. Everyone was involved in sifting and above all interpreting some pretty open-ended information. The US and the UK either did an uncharacteristically piss-poor job of it, which no one believes for a minute since they are both excellent at it, when they want to, or something else was going on.

No one expected anything else of Saddam than attempting to get WMDs if he only could. The rift between the US and UK and the crowd following France in particular, was that the former alleged he had wads of the stuff, deployable at the drop of a hat, while the latter felt the evidence suggested he most likely did not, and if he did, he wasn't in a position to quickly deploy anything.

As long as it was just the US saying "We have evidence" everyone else was scurrying around going "Gee! This is MAJOR! Why haven't we picked up any of this before?", because back in 2002 the default reaction to US intel was to trust it, since the US had so far proven to be as reliable as can be about stuff like this. (This may no longer be the case.)

The further the US stalled sharing the alleged dirt the more suspiscious people got, since they were coming up with nothing on their own, and when Colin Powell made his presentation it became even more clear that there was no sterling evidence either way in this matter.

It certainly could all be like Colin Powell was claiming. It just seemed a damn sight more likely it wasn't.

 

[Symphony D.]

As for the lack of direct challenge to what he was saying in the UN, if that's where we're at right now, I'd say that was common courtesy.

[...]

As long as it was just the US saying "We have evidence" everyone else was scurrying around going "Gee! This is MAJOR! Why haven't we picked up any of this before?", because back in 2002 the default reaction to US intel was to trust it, since the US had so far proven to be as reliable as can be about stuff like this. (This may no longer be the case.)

The further the US stalled sharing the alleged dirt the more suspiscious people got, since they were coming up with nothing on their own, and when Colin Powell made his presentation it became even more clear that there was no sterling evidence either way in this matter.

It certainly could all be like Colin Powell was claiming. It just seemed a damn sight more likely it wasn't.

It seems we're approaching a common ground then. I take issue with these bits thought for a few reasons, not the least of which are the political climate at the time and the relationship between the United States and several of the other UNSC members which did not strongly dispute America's initial findings. Shortly, they are as follows:

• France under Chirac was no strong friend of America for a fair amount of time before the issue of Iraq ever came up. Up until Sarkozy came into office, one of France's main pushes has been to counter American "hyperpower." France has, despite NATO membership, maintained a fairly independent policy from the US in military affairs, and had a well-documented history of opposing US moves. Chirac himself was involved in the reactor construction project in Iraq in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and France was a fairly major supplier of military hardware to Iraq before the first Gulf War. France also possesses "Frenchelon" as a parallel to the UKUSA Community Echelon--in short, it had its own, entirely independent intelligence network, no good reason to agree with anything America might say, and a vested interest in the financial security of Iraq, despite ongoing sanctions.
• The same is mostly true of Russia and China, the former of which under Putin, while more agreeable on the surface at the time than now, was still on the road to its current position of trying to regain superpower status and function as a counterweight to America. Their intelligence capabilities need no description. China has also been pursuing a quiet policy of opposing American interests globally in areas typically neglected by the United States, and vying in influence in the Middle East for the sake of securing energy deals to meet its growing demand. Their intelligence services also need no real description. Both of these factors were in play in 2002, albeit to lesser degrees than currently. Furthermore, both had extensive arms deals with Saddam Hussein for weapons and equipment--both had a vested interested in the financial security of Iraq, again despite ongoing sanctions.
• Syria, too, is no great friend of the United States, for a long and varied list of reasons, including supporting Israel. It was also a Baathist state with strong ties to Iraq ideologically, and in the past militarily. Although it had fought with Iraq on the Coalition side during the Gulf War, it seems rather evident from the fact that insurgent fighters routinely cross the Syrian border into Iraq today and the Syrian government does nothing to stop them that it has and had a vested interest in not seeing an American presence in Iraq.

I do not see these powers simply kowtowing to American intelligence. I do not see them, with any sort of plausibility, accepting what American might present--particularly if so flimsy as you have alleged--at face value, even out of courtesy. I do not see them envisioning a U.S. move against Iraq as anything but a powerplay to gain stronger control over Middle Eastern energy resources simply because, at the time (and, for the latter three, to this day) they have established themselves as opposed to American ambitions. There was no logical reason for them to trust what the United States was saying. Particularly as American intelligence had already suffered a tremendous blow in prestige after having utterly failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks.

I just cannot fathom their governments doing anything but immediately checking their own sources in light of that mentality, and if that is considered, the only plausible reason why they did not raise hell over the issue is because their people said much the same things. The other recourse is not terribly different from believing the USSR or the PRC under Mao would arbitrarily decide to accept American intelligence on some international affair in the 1960s without bothering to verify it. Nobody would argue that to be a possibility. They opposed the war, but they did not start being vocal about their opposition until it became evident the U.S. was moving for military action.

 

[Gibsie]

Forgive me if I'm mistaken Symphony D, but didn't France oppose the war and not support it? Don't you think that would be because they did not accept the intelligence erroneously and dishonestly presented by Colin Powell (among others)?

Also just to be nice for MobBoss, here's a link showing support for the war, exactly as Berzerker had stated earlier:
http://misnomer.dru.ca/2003/02/11/a_coalition_of_the_willing.html
So 86% of Brits, the most willing partner in the coalition, thought that the inspectors should be given more time. I'm sure MobBoss will graciously accept this data and accept that he was mistaken in this case...

 

[Symphony D.]

Forgive me if I'm mistaken Symphony D, but didn't France oppose the war and not support it? Don't you think that would be because they did not accept the intelligence erroneously and dishonestly presented by Colin Powell (among others)?

To the best of my knowledge and recollection France opposed the war. It did not, however, oppose the intelligence which lead to the drafting of the various Resolutions, nor did it oppose sending in the IAEA.

Imagine you're Jacques Chirac and you're trying to elevate French prestige in international affairs and are trying to function as the nucleus of international opinion separate from the United States. If the United States said "We believe there are WMDs in Iraq," and you want to fulfill that function, wouldn't you double-check that information to see if it was apparently wrong? And if you found that it was apparently wrong, wouldn't you in pursuing that function start screaming it was wrong as loud as possible in order to discredit the U.S. and thus elevate your own position?

They didn't. They went along with the process, although they disagreed on the specifics, until it became clear America was bum-rushing to war. Then they jumped ship and started to vehemently oppose it--but not before.

To my mind, this is a binary decision, wherein either you agree with the data presented with America, and don't oppose it, or you don't agree, but for some reason act entirely out of character and sit passively until it becomes clear action is being undertaken. The only third option I really see is these powers disagreeing with American data but playing along and letting the U.S. rush headlong into a quagmire. That sounds particularly dastardly though, and I happen to like Occam's Razor.

 

[Gibsie]

Oh, so France should have simply double checked the information... guess Chirac should've just called up his buddy Saddam and double checked it eh? I think you oversimplify the situation way too much (Like I just did, only not as obviously stupid ). The US were the ones presenting the WMD information. Their own information. I'm sure France had their own programs, and if the French programs had indicated Iraq was a direct threat, don't you think they would have gone along with the war? As has been pointed out many, many times, the chief weapons inspector stated there was no evidence of active weapons programs, and I listened to that. Why didn't you?

As someone who likes quoting things like Occam's Razor, you should also know basic tenets such as "you can't prove a negative". There was no way that France or any other country could have reasonably and completely refuted the US intelligence. What would you have liked them to do? "Eer eez a picktyure of an empty dessert, zis eez allze proof we in Paree need zat zer are no WMDs!" All it came down to was the interpretations of the evidence presented... and it convinced few- those who wanted to believe. If France's own intelligence had indicated an active threat, do you really think they would have ignored it? Ocham's Razor works both ways, see. Your application of the principle sucks anyway, because France obviously and actively tried to discouage the war, i.e. the development of the quagmire.