I submitted a similar story earlier (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13206344) and it was flagged to death because it was just an excerpt from the book in the Daily Mail. So I'm submitting this version because it's an actual story from a more reputable outlet.
It's flagged because it's a misleading attempt to relitigate only one of many causes of the war in Iraq.
Among other causes were Saddam's attempts at genocide against the Kurds,[0] his attacks on US and British forces patrolling the no fly zone,[1] his defiance of UN regulations,[2] his redirection and delay of distributing aid to hurt his own people while blaming the international community,[3] his army of fascist goons running the country--to include his serial rapist sons,[4] the training and financing of international terrorist groups,[5] and his attacks on and threats to destroy Israel.[6]
The ideal of providing a democratic model for other authoritarian regimes, proximity to Iran, a need for strategic air bases to support anticipated regional conflicts, and oil politics all may have played some role as well.
Moreover, information declassified in 2015 showed that Iraq had stockpiles of missiles armed with sarin, and internal plans to halt production during sanctions while retaining the capital and facilities to resume production as soon as sanctions were lifted.
The US had a policy of regime change in Iraq as early as 1998, and the conflict should really be seen as one from 1991-2003. In the 2000 Presidential debates, even Al Gore said Saddam should have been removed earlier, and that he wanted to arm rebels to topple Saddam.[7]
It was flagged because Saddam promising an interrogator he wouldn't use chemical weapons to start WWIII doesn't change any of that, and is barely relevant to anything.
Granted, it's an extremely unpopular war. It's extremely unpopular because it was one of the most poorly prosecuted wars in history, partly due to de-bathification deteriorating civil government and partly due to it becoming a magnet for rising violent jihadism.
It's not an unpopular war because Saddam was some noble innocent, some scapegoat who wandered into the crosshairs of geopolitical forces outside of his control.
This is all historical revisionism. You need to look at the reasons that were given at the time, not the reasons people made up to justify and obfuscate what they did decades later.
Most of those sources predate the war, and one is even to GWB's page explaining his reason for the war at the time, ie, your very threshold.
You could be forgiven for thinking this was just historical revisionism if you only looked at superficial news weeklies and ignored all foreign policy forums from the late 90s and early 2000s.
EDIT: Oh, I forgot Saddam's attempted assassination of a sitting US President, which Bush cited in a campaign speech as a reason he needed to be toppled: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1000
Most of these complaints with Saddam were aired at the time, in various forums. Some may have gotten more airtime, because they were more directly involved with UN processes or more sensationalist for journalists, but that doesn't mean the others weren't causes of the war. If you wanted one sole cause of the war it would have been ten years of defying sanctions and bellicose rhetoric after the 1991 Gulf War. Any read of primary sources from the late 90s about US-Iraqi relations makes that much more clear.
> It's flagged because it's a misleading attempt to relitigate only one of many causes of the war in Iraq.
It's a firsthand account from someone who was there at the time published in a reputable news outlet.
> It was flagged because Saddam promising an interrogator he wouldn't use chemical weapons to start WWIII ... is barely relevant to anything.
WMDs were the centerpiece of the case against Saddam. All the other arguments were just gilding the lily. The war was sold primarily (in fact, almost exclusively) on the grounds that Saddam was a clear and present danger to the U.S. because he had WMDs, and the fact of the matter was that he did not. (Not only did he not have them, but it was clear at the time that he did not have them: there were U.N. inspectors on the ground in Iraq before the war, and they, obviously, had found nothing.) A first hand account from someone who was there are the time is relevant if nothing else because it provides a fuller understanding of history that could inform future decisions and allow us to avoid repeating this catastrophic mistake.
> oil politics ... may have played some role as well
> it was clear at the time that he did not have them
That's laughable.
> there were U.N. inspectors on the ground
This cuts the other direction. Hans Blix said Saddam was not complying with his obligations and introducing unnecessary delays for inspectors.
The only reason WMDs were a core argument is because they were a triggering mechanism for a UN process that didn't happen anyway. It wasn't a cornerstone of getting popular support, popular support wasn't a significant obstacle, as they controlled government and won reelection anyway.
Besides, it's ridiculous to say, "there may have been great reasons for the war, but you didn't claim them in time loudly enough, so the war was unjustified."
What would that possibly matter? It's like pointing out that the motivations for entering WWII weren't to prevent the holocaust, therefore preventing the holocaust doesn't matter and WWII wasn't a just war. It's a three card monte with political ethics. Inventing an arbitrary rhetorical standard that decides actual facts about actions.
Moreover, it detracts focus from mistakes in execution, where focus is required if you want future wars not to leave a massive anarchic state in their wake.
But finally, I just keep hearing Clinton's line, "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"
There were several reasons for the war. Some got shouted more than others, so what? How does that help us now in any way deal with the current situation in Iraq?
> > oil politics ... may have played some role as well
> Ya think?
With the caveat that most of the discussion of that is a conspiracy theory about the US stealing Iraqi oil, which is naive and at best simplistic. A dream of adding a stabler countervailing voice to OPEC is more likely, but even if true, still a long, long way down the list.
This goes back to why this gets flagged, though. No amount of sources, reason, or evidence appear to have any effect on the other side. Each of us thinks we're the sane one and the other is just being stubborn and irrational. There's no possibility for useful discussion here, because everyone's views appear calcified to the other side.
If nothing can be gained, it's so much unproductive gibberish then.
Iraq was storing giant caches of sarin-tipped warheads. They also had mountains of yellow cake at Tuwaitha that was moved out of the country for neutralizing and processing.
"We judged that Iraq probably possessed one hundred to five hundred metric tons of CW munitions fill. One hundred metric tons would fit in a backyard swimming pool; five hundred could be hidden in a small warehouse.... When the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), led by David Kay, issued its interim report in October [2003], acknowledging that it had not found chemical or biological weapons, the inspectors had then visited only ten of the 130 major ammunition depots in Iraq; these ammunition dumps are huge, sometimes five miles by five miles on a side. Two depots alone are roughly the size of Manhattan. It is worth recalling that after Desert Storm, US forces unknowingly destroyed over 1,000 rounds of chemical-filled munitions at a facility called Al Kamissiyah."
This just illustrates that even if they hadn't found WMDs, it doesn't tell you they weren't there. Under myth #5 he describes the wide variety of sources that supported the conclusion that they were there. Under myth #9 he talks about the equivalent danger of rapid mobilization programs that are completely deniable and would not necessarily produce any recoverable material.
WMDs were found, but it would hardly matter if they weren't.
“We never thought about using weapons of mass destruction. It was not discussed. Use chemical weapons against the world? Is there anyone with full faculties who would do this? Who would use these weapons when they had not been used against us?”
Is there any sincere military historian who questions that Hussein used chemical weapons first against Iran?
Indeed, the purpose of having biological and chemical weapons - as well as the delivery system he was perfecting before the invasion - was to ensure he had a free hand in whacking his less powerful neighbors, aiding terrorism in the region, and hitting his Kurdish population. They were a threat designed to prevent EU and US intervention. His four-stage rocket, which came close to completion, was designed to have enough range to strike European capitals. Of course, he's putting the best spin on it all that he can - whyever not?
Kind of like James Simons: analyst makes sound recommendation, recommendation is ignored by inbred leaders, calamity ensues, analyst gives up on public service.
Perhaps there's a place for this Nixon guy in the hedge fund world?
It doesn't seem very logical to dismiss evidence from an organization because of a few mistakes. Consider also the wealth of things they got right, some of which may never be made public.
What evidence you are writing about? Did you seen any? that shows what mass media are saying? I didn't. And after seeing how US lost in Syria with Russia and suddenly CIA talks about Putin directly involved in hacking US election I would be really cautious to make any judgments without seeing hard proofs.
This middlebrow dismissal has occurred on so many threads at this point that I feel it's aged out of being taken seriously. Instead of generating evidence for you, I feel justified in telling you that obviously there has been evidence posted, and if you don't find it compelling and want to shoot it down, you must first demonstrate to others that you actually know how to find it.
The alternative position is the one where we first collect all the analysis and evidence and context and present it to you so that you can say you knew all of that all along and didn't mention it because it was so obviously flawed.
In addition to being frustrating to deal with, that latter position is an effective way to shoot down any common-sense argument, from "vaccines don't cause autism" to "men really did land on the moon" to "9/11 was not an inside job".
The position of side-stepping the argument over the veracity of the Russia claims is an old and tired one. You can't just move the ball and dismiss anyone who questions you.
Your position seems to be "obviously my opinion is correct and LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUU"
You saw lot of evidences. You just not attributed them to Russia. Russia doesn't tries to make a direct action for their benefit, but to create situation to benefit from. Moreover, they are not trying to force single exit from a situation, but to limit number of exits, so they can prepare a solution for all of them beforehand.
I clearly see goals and actions, and I attribute them to Russia, because they will benefit a lot from resolution, but I have trained eye because I watched how Russians are working in Ukraine at time of Maidan.
All of the actual evidence that I've seen so far is equivalent to an investigator seeing "made in china" written on a hammer used to smash a store window and saying "china broke into wal-mart".
As far as Russia benefiting from the election, what benefit do you think Russia gets out of the situation that isn't just a large, common benefit that could be equally attributable to anyone?
EG: if you say Russia wanted Trump elected because Trump would be a better friend to Russia that doesn't convince me that Russia was involved in that at all. Fixing Russia/US relations has massive, global benefit, it seems equally fair to say that Belgium hacked the election (whatever that means) to prevent Hillary from ending up in a nuclear war with Russia which would obviously be bad for, well, everyone (to be crystal clear, i'm not saying this is true or that I believe this would have happened).
My point isn't that everything I'm saying is correct, merely that there are lots of equally plausible scenarios here.
Republicans are natural enemies of Russia, so preferred exists for Russia: democrat elected OR distrust in government happens, which then can be played into something like massive protest.
I also unable to see how Russian-US relations can be better than now. Russia captured Crimea, while USA and Britain are ignored their obligations. It's looks like a gift. Yeah, sanctions can be canceled, but even if not, sanctions are doing very minor harm in compare to gained benefit: Russia now controls Black Sea and can intercept rockets launched from Turkey, so USA bases in Turkey are useless now. Also Russia prevented Shell from pumping of natural gas from Sloviansk (their second goal after Crimea) to Europer, so they saved lot of money on that war.
Yes, what I mean by that is that I would guess (emphasis on guess) that it is much more likely for mistakes to be made public rather than successes. Someone or some agency needs to be blamed if something goes wrong. It's well known that various CIA activities are not public, and so my conjecture is that those are disproportionately successful as they didn't result in public criticism, etc.
Exactly, which is why I would conjecture that the secrets we don't find out about were disproportionately more successful than the failures that must be made public to place the blame on someone or some agency. This is strictly my conjecture, to be clear.
I'm not saying to completely dismiss it, but, keep a few things in mind.
Firstly, there is no evidence from the CIA regarding the election hacks. There are anonymous sources who claim to work with/in the CIA and/or have information from the CIA.
Secondly, I'm not saying to outright dismiss it, but, that you need to frame the information in the context of their success rate. (and, no, you don't get to consider secret unknowable wins in that calculation)
That's very reasonable; thank you for clarifying. I don't mean to imply that the CIA or anyone should be taken at their word, but it's a little concerning that some are more willing to trust the Russian state than the CIA. There isn't a conclusive case either way yet.
First: many more sources besides CIA are attributing the attack to Russia, including (I believe?) all the major private forensics/attributions companies, and what appears to be the entire IC.
Second: the CIA's role in the Iraq is complicated, and apparently significant numbers of senior people inside CIA were opposed to the case made for Hussein's weapons programs. Most of what I've read suggests that DoD and the VP's office was the primary driver for the war and for the perspective on intelligence supporting it. A good book here is Gellman's _Angler_.
Third: "the CIA" isn't a single monolithic thing and, in particular, the leadership at CIA changes dramatically across administrations --- as, in fact, it did within the Bush administration (similarly: Bush's first-term DoD leadership bears little resemblance to Robert Gates's DoD).
Fourth: the argument you're making is an essentialist one --- suggesting as it does that if CIA was ever wrong about anything, then that is dispositive evidence that the CIA is always wrong. But that's an absurd rhetorical position to take. If it's the case that CIA is uniformly (or, perhaps, in some Byzantine fashion) wrong, you have to support that claim with more evidence.
First, I haven't seen anyone, CIA or not, provide any evidence to link russia with the DNC hacks (assuming that's what we mean by "russia hacked the election" this week)
Second, "its complicated" is a terrible excuse. Lots of things are complicated, this election was really complicated to some people too.
Third, yes, the leadership changes as the CIA director (and lots of the people who work for him) are political appointees. More evidence that they are politically motivated if they ever make any public claims w/r/t the election (which, btw, they haven't actually).
Fourth, I did not suggest that, you read into my statement. My point is purely that we should not accept the word of the CIA (if they ever actually speak about this, and its not just "anonymous sources") at face value and should question and that their historical accuracy should be a factor in that deliberation.
Second, my argument isn't "it's complicated". My argument is that the CIA of 2002 wasn't unanimously in support of the claim that Hussein had weapons programs. The DoD and VP's office, on the other hand, clearly were.
Your third point concedes my argument without rebutting it.
Again more "lalalala i can't hear you" arguments go discuss this somewhere else and "you didn't do the research" arguments. Completely incoherent ramblings. At some point, you're going to need to face the fact that this is just your opinion and that the facts don't line up. Today? I guess not. Eventually you'll need to face reality.
This is such an incredibly weird story. "Who would ever think that we would use chemical weapons on the world"? You might start by asking the Iranians, or the Kurds of Halabja.
40 comments
[ 0.30 ms ] story [ 58.3 ms ] threadAmong other causes were Saddam's attempts at genocide against the Kurds,[0] his attacks on US and British forces patrolling the no fly zone,[1] his defiance of UN regulations,[2] his redirection and delay of distributing aid to hurt his own people while blaming the international community,[3] his army of fascist goons running the country--to include his serial rapist sons,[4] the training and financing of international terrorist groups,[5] and his attacks on and threats to destroy Israel.[6]
The ideal of providing a democratic model for other authoritarian regimes, proximity to Iran, a need for strategic air bases to support anticipated regional conflicts, and oil politics all may have played some role as well.
Moreover, information declassified in 2015 showed that Iraq had stockpiles of missiles armed with sarin, and internal plans to halt production during sanctions while retaining the capital and facilities to resume production as soon as sanctions were lifted.
The US had a policy of regime change in Iraq as early as 1998, and the conflict should really be seen as one from 1991-2003. In the 2000 Presidential debates, even Al Gore said Saddam should have been removed earlier, and that he wanted to arm rebels to topple Saddam.[7]
It was flagged because Saddam promising an interrogator he wouldn't use chemical weapons to start WWIII doesn't change any of that, and is barely relevant to anything.
Granted, it's an extremely unpopular war. It's extremely unpopular because it was one of the most poorly prosecuted wars in history, partly due to de-bathification deteriorating civil government and partly due to it becoming a magnet for rising violent jihadism.
It's not an unpopular war because Saddam was some noble innocent, some scapegoat who wandered into the crosshairs of geopolitical forces outside of his control.
[0] https://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFALINT.htm
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/081399iraq-conf...
[2] https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/dec...
[3] http://www.usip.org/events/iraq-sanctions-what-have-we-learn...
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jul/23/iraq.suzannego...
[5] http://www.cfr.org/iraq/terrorism-havens-iraq/p9513
[6] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/956084.stm
[7] http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-11-2000-debate...
You could be forgiven for thinking this was just historical revisionism if you only looked at superficial news weeklies and ignored all foreign policy forums from the late 90s and early 2000s.
EDIT: Oh, I forgot Saddam's attempted assassination of a sitting US President, which Bush cited in a campaign speech as a reason he needed to be toppled: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1000
Most of these complaints with Saddam were aired at the time, in various forums. Some may have gotten more airtime, because they were more directly involved with UN processes or more sensationalist for journalists, but that doesn't mean the others weren't causes of the war. If you wanted one sole cause of the war it would have been ten years of defying sanctions and bellicose rhetoric after the 1991 Gulf War. Any read of primary sources from the late 90s about US-Iraqi relations makes that much more clear.
It's a firsthand account from someone who was there at the time published in a reputable news outlet.
> It was flagged because Saddam promising an interrogator he wouldn't use chemical weapons to start WWIII ... is barely relevant to anything.
WMDs were the centerpiece of the case against Saddam. All the other arguments were just gilding the lily. The war was sold primarily (in fact, almost exclusively) on the grounds that Saddam was a clear and present danger to the U.S. because he had WMDs, and the fact of the matter was that he did not. (Not only did he not have them, but it was clear at the time that he did not have them: there were U.N. inspectors on the ground in Iraq before the war, and they, obviously, had found nothing.) A first hand account from someone who was there are the time is relevant if nothing else because it provides a fuller understanding of history that could inform future decisions and allow us to avoid repeating this catastrophic mistake.
> oil politics ... may have played some role as well
Ya think?
Declassified intelligence has shown that he did.
> it was clear at the time that he did not have them
That's laughable.
> there were U.N. inspectors on the ground
This cuts the other direction. Hans Blix said Saddam was not complying with his obligations and introducing unnecessary delays for inspectors.
The only reason WMDs were a core argument is because they were a triggering mechanism for a UN process that didn't happen anyway. It wasn't a cornerstone of getting popular support, popular support wasn't a significant obstacle, as they controlled government and won reelection anyway.
Besides, it's ridiculous to say, "there may have been great reasons for the war, but you didn't claim them in time loudly enough, so the war was unjustified."
What would that possibly matter? It's like pointing out that the motivations for entering WWII weren't to prevent the holocaust, therefore preventing the holocaust doesn't matter and WWII wasn't a just war. It's a three card monte with political ethics. Inventing an arbitrary rhetorical standard that decides actual facts about actions.
Moreover, it detracts focus from mistakes in execution, where focus is required if you want future wars not to leave a massive anarchic state in their wake.
But finally, I just keep hearing Clinton's line, "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"
There were several reasons for the war. Some got shouted more than others, so what? How does that help us now in any way deal with the current situation in Iraq?
> > oil politics ... may have played some role as well > Ya think?
With the caveat that most of the discussion of that is a conspiracy theory about the US stealing Iraqi oil, which is naive and at best simplistic. A dream of adding a stabler countervailing voice to OPEC is more likely, but even if true, still a long, long way down the list.
This goes back to why this gets flagged, though. No amount of sources, reason, or evidence appear to have any effect on the other side. Each of us thinks we're the sane one and the other is just being stubborn and irrational. There's no possibility for useful discussion here, because everyone's views appear calcified to the other side.
If nothing can be gained, it's so much unproductive gibberish then.
Politics is the mind killer:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/
You can't be serious. George Bush himself has admitted that there were no WMDs.
You would know this if you had actually read the comments you're responding to.
For example, you completely missed the final point of the comment you just replied to, and instead provided more evidence to prove it's true.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/081399iraq-conf...
That is a story from August of 1999. So it cannot possibly be evidence that "declassified intelligence" shows Iraq had WMDs.
I feel like I have truly entered bizarro-world here.
Here's another incident where DOD describes recovered WMDs:
http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918
Iraq was storing giant caches of sarin-tipped warheads. They also had mountains of yellow cake at Tuwaitha that was moved out of the country for neutralizing and processing.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-ha...
More WMD discoveries covered in WIRED:
https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-contin...
This press release from Stu Cohen, under "Myth #10," Stu points out what we're talking about in the original argument about WMDs.
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statemen...
"We judged that Iraq probably possessed one hundred to five hundred metric tons of CW munitions fill. One hundred metric tons would fit in a backyard swimming pool; five hundred could be hidden in a small warehouse.... When the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), led by David Kay, issued its interim report in October [2003], acknowledging that it had not found chemical or biological weapons, the inspectors had then visited only ten of the 130 major ammunition depots in Iraq; these ammunition dumps are huge, sometimes five miles by five miles on a side. Two depots alone are roughly the size of Manhattan. It is worth recalling that after Desert Storm, US forces unknowingly destroyed over 1,000 rounds of chemical-filled munitions at a facility called Al Kamissiyah."
This just illustrates that even if they hadn't found WMDs, it doesn't tell you they weren't there. Under myth #5 he describes the wide variety of sources that supported the conclusion that they were there. Under myth #9 he talks about the equivalent danger of rapid mobilization programs that are completely deniable and would not necessarily produce any recoverable material.
WMDs were found, but it would hardly matter if they weren't.
Is there any sincere military historian who questions that Hussein used chemical weapons first against Iran?
Perhaps there's a place for this Nixon guy in the hedge fund world?
The alternative position is the one where we first collect all the analysis and evidence and context and present it to you so that you can say you knew all of that all along and didn't mention it because it was so obviously flawed.
In addition to being frustrating to deal with, that latter position is an effective way to shoot down any common-sense argument, from "vaccines don't cause autism" to "men really did land on the moon" to "9/11 was not an inside job".
Your position seems to be "obviously my opinion is correct and LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUU"
I clearly see goals and actions, and I attribute them to Russia, because they will benefit a lot from resolution, but I have trained eye because I watched how Russians are working in Ukraine at time of Maidan.
As far as Russia benefiting from the election, what benefit do you think Russia gets out of the situation that isn't just a large, common benefit that could be equally attributable to anyone?
EG: if you say Russia wanted Trump elected because Trump would be a better friend to Russia that doesn't convince me that Russia was involved in that at all. Fixing Russia/US relations has massive, global benefit, it seems equally fair to say that Belgium hacked the election (whatever that means) to prevent Hillary from ending up in a nuclear war with Russia which would obviously be bad for, well, everyone (to be crystal clear, i'm not saying this is true or that I believe this would have happened).
My point isn't that everything I'm saying is correct, merely that there are lots of equally plausible scenarios here.
I also unable to see how Russian-US relations can be better than now. Russia captured Crimea, while USA and Britain are ignored their obligations. It's looks like a gift. Yeah, sanctions can be canceled, but even if not, sanctions are doing very minor harm in compare to gained benefit: Russia now controls Black Sea and can intercept rockets launched from Turkey, so USA bases in Turkey are useless now. Also Russia prevented Shell from pumping of natural gas from Sloviansk (their second goal after Crimea) to Europer, so they saved lot of money on that war.
Also chemical weapons in Iraq.
Firstly, there is no evidence from the CIA regarding the election hacks. There are anonymous sources who claim to work with/in the CIA and/or have information from the CIA.
Secondly, I'm not saying to outright dismiss it, but, that you need to frame the information in the context of their success rate. (and, no, you don't get to consider secret unknowable wins in that calculation)
Second: the CIA's role in the Iraq is complicated, and apparently significant numbers of senior people inside CIA were opposed to the case made for Hussein's weapons programs. Most of what I've read suggests that DoD and the VP's office was the primary driver for the war and for the perspective on intelligence supporting it. A good book here is Gellman's _Angler_.
Third: "the CIA" isn't a single monolithic thing and, in particular, the leadership at CIA changes dramatically across administrations --- as, in fact, it did within the Bush administration (similarly: Bush's first-term DoD leadership bears little resemblance to Robert Gates's DoD).
Fourth: the argument you're making is an essentialist one --- suggesting as it does that if CIA was ever wrong about anything, then that is dispositive evidence that the CIA is always wrong. But that's an absurd rhetorical position to take. If it's the case that CIA is uniformly (or, perhaps, in some Byzantine fashion) wrong, you have to support that claim with more evidence.
Second, "its complicated" is a terrible excuse. Lots of things are complicated, this election was really complicated to some people too.
Third, yes, the leadership changes as the CIA director (and lots of the people who work for him) are political appointees. More evidence that they are politically motivated if they ever make any public claims w/r/t the election (which, btw, they haven't actually).
Fourth, I did not suggest that, you read into my statement. My point is purely that we should not accept the word of the CIA (if they ever actually speak about this, and its not just "anonymous sources") at face value and should question and that their historical accuracy should be a factor in that deliberation.
Second, my argument isn't "it's complicated". My argument is that the CIA of 2002 wasn't unanimously in support of the claim that Hussein had weapons programs. The DoD and VP's office, on the other hand, clearly were.
Your third point concedes my argument without rebutting it.
Your fourth point knocks down a straw man.
Maybe one more Nobel's price for president Obama who's legacy is only war and lie to people ?
It's probably all just going to get swept under the carpet as the focus moves onto Syria. So many secrets and lies.