Far too often people mistake correct guesses with having actual knowledge. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard somebody be "100% certain" of something I'd probably have a lot of money by now, although I don't know for sure.
The aluminum tube claim was pretty obviously bogus. The tubes were narrow in diameter, variably finished (often rough inside), thin walled, and would result in laughably inefficient uranium hexaflouride centrifuges. It just didn’t make any sense to anyone with even a casual understanding of enrichment methods.
They also made perfect sense for missiles/rockets.
The chemical weapon claims were believable. I mean, didn’t we help Iraq manufacture chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war? Wasn’t that long-suspected belief later confirmed?
So, yes. I knew at the time, and I said so. I wouldn’t fundamentally have had much of a problem with invading Iraq (one could have that argument), but the justification, timing, and prioritization didn’t really make sense. Watching Powell pitch that goat rodeo was pretty sad.
You might find this a good read about knowing the iraq wmd story was a lie in advance. From someone who predicted it, they explain their reasoning. It's rather convincing.
It was very well known that G. W. Bush was itching for an excuse to finish what his old man started.
See the PNAC documentation, if nothing else. You don't need to be a card-carrying member of the Illuminati to understand the personal and political dynamics that existed between Saddam's administration and Bush 43's, or to foresee what was likely to happen.
You ain't kidding. Talk about trying to rewrite a narrative with bogus claims.
The 2003 Iraq invasion had nothing to do with warnings from informants about state secrets.
The idea very idea that there was any concern about Iraq's capability to wage war is a joke. Iraq was pretty well softened up by no fly zones and sanctions, so as to be sufficiently anemic, and decapitating the incumbent dictator for life (literally) was mostly just sour grapes for him going off script, and besmirching the sanctity of Kuwait.
It was gloves off for Iraq, as soon as the 9/11 hijackings unfolded. Literally next month people were whispering about Iraq, even though Afghanistan was well understood as the official point of origin for the attacks.
> It was gloves off for Iraq, as soon as the 9/11 hijackings unfolded. Literally next month people were whispering about Iraq, even though Afghanistan was well understood as the official point of origin for the attacks.
Not only that, even though Afghanistan played an actual role, the majority of the hijackers were Saudi. People sort of mention that in passing and then go back to pretending it has no relevance.
The point being that, capturing or killing the associated individuals still alive, to be held responsible, meant transgressing the territory of Afghanistan.
Nonetheless, I'd agree that waging war on Afghanistan, The Country would be just as silly as waging war on Saudi Arabia. It's like Canada waging war on both the United States and Italy, for something The Mafia perpetrated.
Meanwhile, war with Iraq was akin to Canada invading Norway for it's whale blubber, because the Norweigan king sunk a fleet of Danish whaling ships ten years prior, and was now suspected of hoarding a cache of illegal harpoons. Thus triggering a cascade of geopolitical events, whereby Canada stepped in to defend Denmark, thus angering a member of the Gambino family, who subsequently demolished the CN tower, for tampering with Denmark's sovereignty. As if to say that had Norway not attacked Denmark, the CN tower would not have been destroyed by a hijacked train derailment.
Bad US intelligence. Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a detailed presentation at the United Nations that was seen around the world. It was all based on faulty sources.
