Fitting facts to theory on Iraq

[Wayne Grabert]

Of interest to skeptics as lovers of critical thinking, should be this real-world example of selectively ignoring evidence in order to fit facts to theory. In this case, it led to war and a potential commitment of military occupation that could last "decades" (according to prominent neo-con and war supporter Max Boot).

The hunt for "WMD" in Iraq has thus far been futile. According to Seymour Hersh, the case for war against Iraq was based on intelligence reports doctored by a small group of ideologues in the Pentagon. Besides ignoring evidence that contradicted their ideas, they relied on "evidence" supplied by an unreliable source--the Iraqi National Congress. The INC was largely composed of men who (by the time the war started) hadn't set foot in Iraq in 20 years or more. The leader of the INC was convicted embezzler Ahmad Chalabi.

Here is a short article that summarizes the matter.

Present and former CIA officials, quoted in The New York Times and The New Yorker magazine, claimed that a small number of powerful neo-conservative ideologues in the Pentagon were so determined to prove the existence of a banned weapons programme and links to al-Qaeda that they manipulated intelligence.

According to a report written by Seymour Hersh, the veteran New Yorker investigative reporter, the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans (OSP) relied too heavily on suspect intelligence provided by Iraqi defectors with links to the Iraqi National Congress, an opposition group headed by Ahmad Chalabi, an Iraqi exile.

Mr Hersh reported that intelligence gathered by the OSP drove the war agenda, often in the face of evidence that it was either unreliable or false. The OSP reported to Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary and a leading proponent of the war.

One former CIA official told Mr Hersh: “One of the reasons I left was my sense that they (OSP) were using the intelligence from the CIA and other agencies only when it fits their agenda. They were so crazed and so far out and so difficult to reason with . . . as if they were on a mission from God. If it doesn’t fit their theory, they don’t want to accept it.”

Mr Hersh maintained that key intelligence provided by Iraqi defectors with links to the Iraqi National Congress was disputed by the CIA.

Here is Mr. Hersh's lengthy, detailed article.

According to the Pentagon adviser, Special Plans was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States.

Note: I haven't had time yet to read all of Hersh's article myself.

 

[aerocontrols]

Speaking of fitting facts to theory...

How confident are you that Chalabi deserves the title 'convicted embezzler' without further elaboration?

I also think that it's worthwhile to note that the CIA officials that your article quotes may be the very same fellows who got into bed with Saddam in the 80s in the first place, thus have been enemies of Chalabi, who, unlike the United States, has always been the enemy of the Ba'ath party, as well as Saddam. (Stephen Pelletiere, your source for the theory that Saddam never gassed the Kurds, fits this category of CIA agent.)

MattJ

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Speaking of fitting facts to theory...

How confident are you that Chalabi deserves the title 'convicted embezzler' without further elaboration?

Extremely confident. It is a fact. Chalabi orchestrated an elaborate shell game in which large amounts of funds were shuttled around to other Chalabi shell companies with unsecured loans! He was convicted in absentia by the courts in Jordan.

EDITED TO ADD: How confident are you that "the CIA officials that your article quotes may be the very same fellows who got into bed with Saddam in the 80s in the first place"? As I recall, the fellows who jumped into bed with Saddam in the 80's were Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

For those who don't wish to read all of Hersh's article, I'd like to highlight the following passage.

In August, 1995, General Hussein Kamel, who was in charge of Iraq’s weapons program, defected to Jordan, with his brother, Colonel Saddam Kamel. They brought with them crates of documents containing detailed information about Iraqi efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction—much of which was unknown to the U.N. inspection teams that had been on the job since 1991—and were interviewed at length by the U.N. inspectors. In 1996, Saddam Hussein lured the brothers back with a promise of forgiveness, and then had them killed. The Kamels’ information became a major element in the Bush Administration’s campaign to convince the public of the failure of the U.N. inspections.

Last October, in a speech in Cincinnati, the President cited the Kamel defections as the moment when Saddam’s regime “was forced to admit that it had produced more than thirty thousand liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. . . . This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.” A couple of weeks earlier, Vice-President Cheney had declared that Hussein Kamel’s story “should serve as a reminder to all that we often learned more as the result of defections than we learned from the inspection regime itself.”

The full record of Hussein Kamel’s interview with the inspectors reveals, however, that he also said that Iraq’s stockpile of chemical and biological warheads, which were manufactured before the 1991 Gulf War, had been destroyed, in many cases in response to ongoing inspections. The interview, on August 22, 1995,was conducted by Rolf Ekeus, then the executive chairman of the U.N. inspection teams, and two of his senior associates—Nikita Smidovich and Maurizio Zifferaro. “You have an important role in Iraq,” Kamel said, according to the record, which was assembled from notes taken by Smidovich. “You should not underestimate yourself. You are very effective in Iraq.” When Smidovich noted that the U.N. teams had not found “any traces of destruction,” Kamel responded, “Yes, it was done before you came in.” He also said that Iraq had destroyed its arsenal of warheads. “We gave instructions not to produce chemical weapons,” Kamel explained later in the debriefing. “I don’t remember resumption of chemical-weapons production before the Gulf War. Maybe it was only minimal production and filling. . . . All chemical weapons were destroyed. I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear—were destroyed.”

Kamel also cast doubt on the testimony of Dr. Khidhir Hamza, an Iraqi nuclear scientist who defected in 1994. Hamza settled in the United States with the help of the I.N.C. and has been a highly vocal witness concerning Iraq’s alleged nuclear ambitions. Kamel told the U.N. interviewers, however, that Hamza was “a professional liar.” He went on, “He worked with us, but he was useless and always looking for promotions. He consulted with me but could not deliver anything. . . . He was even interrogated by a team before he left and was allowed to go.”

After his defection, Hamza became a senior fellow at the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington disarmament group, whose president, David Albright, was a former U.N. weapons inspector....

 

[aerocontrols]

Extremely confident. It is a fact. Chalabi orchestrated an elaborate shell game in which large amounts of funds were shuttled around to other Chalabi shell companies with unsecured loans! He was convicted in absentia by the courts in Jordan.

In a 24 hour period, he was conviced in a special "security court" held under martial law.

Petra Bank was the only major Jordanian bank that wouldn't loan Saddam Hussein money to fight Iran.

The trial was held weeks after Chalabi went on 60 Minutes with documents showing how King Hussein of Jordan was arming Saddam Hussein.

Pay no attention to all these facts that might upset your theory, and focus on that conviction. Jordanian courts are, after all, some of the most respected in the world.

MattJ

 

[aerocontrols]

EDITED TO ADD: How confident are you that "the CIA officials that your article quotes may be the very same fellows who got into bed with Saddam in the 80s in the first place"? As I recall, the fellows who jumped into bed with Saddam in the 80's were Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

I'm 100% confident that they may be. (I said 'may' for a reason.) Pelletiere certainly is. You recall that Reagan and Bush did that jumping but perhaps you don't believe they did it all on their lonesome. You may also recall that of the three presidents that jumped into bed with Saddam Hussein, the Republican one that still has his faculties, according to you agrees with your anonymous CIA people about removing Saddam Hussein. As does Jimmy Carter.

So yeah, thanks for helping me demonstrate that some of Saddam's old buddies are still sticking up for him. Was this supposed to be an argument that it's unlikely that similar career CIA officials would do so?

MattJ

 

[Wayne Grabert]

In a 24 hour period, he was conviced in a special "security court" held under martial law.

Petra Bank was the only major Jordanian bank that wouldn't loan Saddam Hussein money to fight Iran.

The trial was held weeks after Chalabi went on 60 Minutes with documents showing how King Hussein of Jordan was arming Saddam Hussein.

Pay no attention to all these facts that might upset your theory, and focus on that conviction. Jordanian courts are, after all, some of the most respected in the world.

MattJ

I made a statement of fact: Chalabi is a convicted embezzler. If you would pay attention to sources other than the New York Sun, you'd know that the second largest bank in Jordan (Chalabi's) went belly up. Why? Because a bunch of unsecured loans went into default. Those are the facts that you ignore.

I'm not going to spend further time on your distraction over Chalabi. Where are the WMD? Why did Bush completely change gears in his speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln by having so little to say about WMD when talking about the war in Iraq? Instead, he pushed the Big Lie that Saddam was "an ally" of al Qaida and that the war was really about payback for 9/11. Note: No Iraqis were among the hijackers and no link has been shown between Saddam and al Qaida, despite the exhaustive efforts of the US, UK, Israel, and other countries to investigate the matter.

Why did Bush make those numerous references to 9/11 and terrorists? Because Bush knows that WMD may never be found in Iraq. He knows how the intelligence was fudged. He knows how he lied--repeatedly--about a
non-existent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that supposedly claimed Iraq was six months away from the development of a nuclear weapon (and he repeated the lie over and over after the IAEA disavowed the existence of such a report). He knows how Colin Powell used forged documents in front of the U.N. to claim that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Niger--even after he had been warned by the CIA that the documents appeared to be forgeries. He knows that other "evidence" presented by Powell was subsequently debunked by UN weapons inspectors. He knows that the US wasted no time after invading Iraq to thoroughly inspect 80 sites that its "intelligence" deemed the most likely to contain WMD and that it came up empty. He knows that Iraqi scientists who no longer have to worry about being monitored by Saddam's men still claim that Iraq has no WMD. (According to the biased headline used by yahoo news, Iraqis Won't Admit to Banned Weapons.)

Everyone is fooled at some time. However, someone who is a fool is someone who wants to be fooled and will ceaselessly defend those who have duped him. Are you falling into that trap, or are you willing to admit that Bush and his men have lied?

 

[Luke T.]

It is interesting that after 12 years of sanctions and on again, off again weapons inspections that many of the people who kept demanding the U.N. be given more time to disarm/inspect Iraq are the same ones demanding instant gratification/proof of WMD from the Bush Administration.

What has it been, less than a month since Baghdad fell?

I suppose if any WMD's are discovered, these same detractors will claim they were planted there.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

It is interesting that after 12 years of sanctions and on again, off again weapons inspections that many of the people who kept demanding the U.N. be given more time to disarm/inspect Iraq are the same ones demanding instant gratification/proof of WMD from the Bush Administration.

What has it been, less than a month since Baghdad fell?

I suppose if any WMD's are discovered, these same detractors will claim they were planted there.

Large stockpiles of weapons were destroyed by December 1998 and some people (like Scott Ritter) thought the case might be that there was nothing left to be found.

It is interesting that the same people who called the UN inspectors "Inspector Clouseaus" and compared Hans Blix to Mr. Magoo are complaining that the Bush Administration (with over 100,000 troops and hundreds of inspectors on the ground and unrestricted access to Iraqi documents, government buildings and palaces, and unconstrained interviews with Iraqi scientists) needs more time to discover WMD. (Funny, no such weapons were used by Saddam during the war. What was he waiting for?) Months from now, if the situation is the same, these same supporters will claim that the WMD were given away to Syria or al Qaida before the war. (Like that makes sense!)

 

[DavidJames]

Where I get confused is we were told that the WMD existed, not maybe, not possibly, but they Iraq HAD them. We were shown pictures, we had sources, we had proof. Never mind that we seemed to be unable to get the inspectors that information. We had proof, enough proof to go to war. So excuse me if I continue to be skeptical.

Show me the proof and I'm a believer - no different that UFO's or bigfoot. I've seen pictures of them as well

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Excellent points, David. The Bush League Administration has had ample opportunity to make its case. Instead, it is trying to change the argument. However, I am willing to give them more time, but they should allow the UN or at least some other third party to verify any finds to deflect claims that what was found was planted. For some reason, they are unwilling to take up Tony Blair's suggestions that they do just that.

 

[crackmonkey]

I think that a few more weeks are warranted for WMD searching, don't you? After all, the UN had 12 years. The US does have an advantage in that weost likely don't have anyone tipping off the Iraqis about impending inspections...
As for Scott Ritter - some papers turned up in Baghdad discussing payoffs to Ritter. Ritter denies it, and claims that he was offered bribes but turned them down - interestingly, the man named who was to offer the bribes was the same man who arranged for Ritter's trips to Baghdad and funded his film to the tune of $400,000 or thereabouts. Bears further scrutiny...
As far as Syria and al-Qaeda... of course, Saddam would NEVER try to ally himself with these enemies of his regime. The very idea of Saddam attempting to contact bin Laden is LUDICROUS. The thought of Syria aiding Iraq is laughable. The fact that there is proof of Saddam seeking out al-Qaeda and using weapons provided by Syria is beside the point...

 

[Guest]

As for Scott Ritter - some papers turned up in Baghdad discussing payoffs to Ritter. Ritter denies it, and claims that he was offered bribes but turned them down

Source please?

 

[Wayne Grabert]

As for Scott Ritter - some papers turned up in Baghdad discussing payoffs to Ritter. Ritter denies it, and claims that he was offered bribes but turned them down - interestingly, the man named who was to offer the bribes was the same man who arranged for Ritter's trips to Baghdad and funded his film to the tune of $400,000 or thereabouts. Bears further scrutiny...

Get your story straight. It's not that "some papers turned up," it's that Ritter not only turned down the bribes, he immediately reported to the FBI the attempts to bribe him.

The fact that there is proof of Saddam seeking out al-Qaeda and using weapons provided by Syria is beside the point...

Provide this elusive "proof." And by "Syria," I assume you mean the Syrian government--the same government that was part of the Gulf War coalition in 1991 that fought against Saddam.

 

[Segnosaur]

Source please?

Here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/04/writt04.xml

 

[Guest]

Interesting. Don't know whether to buy it, but interesting. Thanks!

 

[Segnosaur]

Of interest to skeptics as lovers of critical thinking, should be this real-world example of selectively ignoring evidence in order to fit facts to theory. In this case, it led to war and a potential commitment of military occupation that could last "decades".

Kind of like the anti-war side selectively ignores evidence that contradicts their view? (The US armed Iraq, or any of the other easily-debunked arguments coming from the anti-war side.)

Lets face it, there has been disinformation on both sides. However, I feel the U.S. course of action was justified based on what I knew had been verified independently.

As for the 'decades of military occupation'... Guess what? The US had bases in places like Saudi Arabia for a decade to protect it and Kuwait, and patrole the no-fly zones. Now those bases can be removed or moved. Sounds more like a re-deployment, rather than taking on a new responibility for military occupation.

Oh, and don't pull that 'skepics' thing... This is not the same as trying to prove/disprove psychics or other occult subjects that have no evidence. We had evidence; it is a case of weighing probabilities to see which would give the best cost/benefit ratio.

The hunt for "WMD" in Iraq has thus far been futile. According to Seymour Hersh, the case for war against Iraq was based on intelligence reports doctored by a small group of ideologues in the Pentagon. Besides ignoring evidence that contradicted their ideas, they relied on "evidence" supplied by an unreliable source--the Iraqi National Congress.

Ok, first of all, you are assuming that support for war was 'based on' doctored intelligence reports. While I don't deny that there was disinformation, there was also plenty of unbiased information that showed Iraq was guilty. They were not fully cooperative with the weapons inspectors (despite apologists who felt they should be 'given more time', Iraq did not follow the rules layed out in 1440.) If Iraq really did disarm, they certainly went through a lot of problems to make themselves look guilty.

Remember, 1440 said 'complete cooperation' from the first day. Yet, Iraqi apologists kept saying "they're increasing their cooperation". Given the fact that they were supposed to be 100% cooperative at all times, how can you 'increase cooperation' from 100%?

Face it... whether they had weapons or not, Iraq did not comply with 1440.

Secondly, many people believe that even if WMD are not found, the side effects (liberation of the Iraqi people elimination of a source of terrorist funding and a base of operations) justifies military action. (Non-compliance with UN resolutions just provides the legal justification for invasion.)

 

[a_unique_person]

It is interesting that after 12 years of sanctions and on again, off again weapons inspections that many of the people who kept demanding the U.N. be given more time to disarm/inspect Iraq are the same ones demanding instant gratification/proof of WMD from the Bush Administration.

What has it been, less than a month since Baghdad fell?

I suppose if any WMD's are discovered, these same detractors will claim they were planted there.

That says it all. The WMD argument was not that they were suspected, that they might, or that could have. You don't start a war for a sneaking suspicion. The WMDs, if that excuse was ever valid, would have been reasonably well known about, and produced pretty quickly, for the war to be justifiable.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Re: Re: Fitting facts to theory on Iraq

Face it... whether they had weapons or not, Iraq did not comply with 1440.

Secondly, many people believe that even if WMD are not found, the side effects (liberation of the Iraqi people elimination of a source of terrorist funding and a base of operations) justifies military action. (Non-compliance with UN resolutions just provides the legal justification for invasion.)

It was the place of the UN, not the US, to decide whether Iraq was in non-compliance with a UN resolution and whether the appropriate response was going to war, so your "legal" justification fails.

Here is another perspective on the "side effects" (some might say "lame excuses") of the war: Facing the Consequences of War in Iraq.

 

[crackmonkey]

Yes 'Syria' is the same 'Syria' that fought (or at least stood opposed to) Saddam in the first Gulf War... as far as I know, it is the only 'Syria' on this globe.
Papers were found in the Intelligence building in Baghdad discussing an apparently fruitful meeting with a respresentative of al Qaeda, and plans to meet later with Osama himself.
Syrian weapons have been found in Iraq. The Iraqis managed to knock out a couple of US Abrams tanks using anti-tank missiles (I believe they were Strela AT weapons circa '96) provided by Syria - Iraq had nothing in its arsenal that could penetrate the Abrams' armor.