U.S. Invaded Iraq on False Intel: Pentagon Report

Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy from 2001-05, provided falsified and inaccurate intelligence reports to the Secretary of Defense regarding pre-invasion Iraq and its connections to Al Qaeda. These false reports were used to help make a case for the invasion of Iraq.



Well, there it is.

This Feith character falsely concluded - quote 'reporting of dubious quality or reliability' - in his reports that there was a strong link between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Also, his reports falsely concluded that an Al Qaeda 9/11 hijacker met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague, a meeting which the Pentagon has since found did not happen.

And has anyone heard of the OSP? This is the Office of Special Plans, a secret Pentagon initiative authorized by Feith whose role was to find information that fitted in with the administrations anti-Iraq policy. The OSP 'lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam,' according to one Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer.

And this isn't mentioning all the claims the U.S. government made about a continuing Iraqi nuclear weapons program, even after reading the definitive reports made by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying that there was no way Iraq could make the weapons grade material and the reports from the U.S. intelligence community testifying to that fact also.1

Feith also authorized back channel meetings with many a foreign national - a number of which were involved in the Iran-Contra affair - to support the WMD claim.

The WMD claim and the so called 'Iraqi links with terrorism' were the two main reasons the U.S. invaded Iraq. And as you can quite plainly see, both were fabricated. Fabricated. False.
Look it all up yourself. You will have some very eye-opening reads.

Iraq presented no threat to the U.S. with regard to nuclear weapons, because they did not have any (as the IAEA and U.S. intel community knew but it would seem the administration did not), and the purported links between Iraq and terrorist cells were made up by Feith.



I see the invasion of Iraq as a battle in a larger war, and as a battle that did not need to be fought.


Related News Links:
newstandardnews.net
www.npr.org
www.wbir.com
www.telegraph.co.uk

[edit on 10-2-2007 by UM_Gazz]



[edit on 10/2/2007 by watch_the_rocks]

The OSP and it's "Intel" was coming under fire from concerned Military and Intelligence officers before the invasion of Iraq even happened.
The whole reason for the existence of this unit was to feed information directly into the White House, where it was presented as credible intelligence, even though it was bypassing the usual oversight channels of the traditional intel community.
So, the credibility of this office was being questioned from the time of it's creation but it served it's purpose in paving the way for invasion, based on outright lies.

Here's a good piece I read a few days ago.

www.rawstory.com...

Another big questionmark hangs over the people running the unit and their previous track records in relation to AIPAC and allegations of espionage on behalf of Israel.

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were in it all up to their ears and Cheney / Bush knew where the info was coming from, and so had to know it was unreliable or just downright untrue but still presented all the info as fact.

Do I have to remind you that the "Intelligence" came from brits, french, and even russian sources? What does that tell you about a conspiracy here?

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Do I have to remind you that the "Intelligence" came from brits, french, and even russian sources? What does that tell you about a conspiracy here?

Xphiles, I think your 'question' has already been answered...

Originally posted by Britguy
Another big questionmark hangs over the people running the unit and their previous track records in relation to AIPAC and allegations of espionage on behalf of Israel.

What does that tell you about a conspiracy?

Well duh! The truth was out there all along in the regular papers and journals from 2002/03 on if people had actually cared to look. Those us who opposed this war from the very beginning knew this was the case but no one wanted to listen. Did we read minds? No we read the papers, all this was being reported and being regulated to the back pages and small columns; but it was already out there.

Does someone have a speech or position paper by the government, publicly released, that shows that the administration ever said unequivocally that Iraq was allied with Al-Quaeda on 9/11?

Furthermore, this article clearly states that this report was meant to challenge the existing consensus. Don't we want our leadership to consider all options?

All of these things don't point to a picture of an invidious scheme to go to war. At worst, they help to paint a picture of incompetence.

Is this really a surprise?

How obvious does it need to be come, before people realise IRAQ was a war of CHOICE!

The USA stated they had PROOF of Major WMD CACHES and an Alqeada connection, they sent 150,000 troops into WAR based on this 'evidence'

What possible evidence could they of had? NO WMD's existed, and NO ALQAEDA link existed, so how in the world did they have rock hard EVIDENCE?

This was a war based on opportunity.
The opportunity for corporate figure heads to set up a major cashcow in Iraq, based on construction, OIL infrastructure and military spending, they just never intended it to get this far out of hand.

The Presidents FATHER profits,
The VICE President Profits.

Bush Snr and Cheney have been long time mutual friends, they created this war and put Bush JNR in the front seat because he's the only person on this planet STUPID enough, to sell their plans selling them as legitimate.

And now they expect us to believe what they are saying about Iran... It makes me wonder who the fools really are... those who believe them... or those who think we still would after the whole WMD thing.