Did This Woman Cause The War In Iraq?

New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/jon-stewart-accuses-ny-times-reporter-of-helping-lead-us-into-most-devastating-foreign-policy-mistake-in-100-years/ar-BBj16Rj?ocid=iehp

Jon Stewart accuses NY Times reporter of helping lead US into "most devastating" foreign policy mistake in 100 years

Jon Stewart finally got to interview the former New York Times reporter whose stories helped bolster the US case for the war in Iraq – and it got ugly fast.

"I believe that you helped take us to, like, the most devastating mistake in foreign policy that we've made in 100 years," Stewart told investigative journalist Judith Miller.

On Wednesday, Miller stopped by the Daily Show to promote her new memoir, "The Story," in which she attempts to refute claims that her discredited New York Times stories linking Saddam Hussein to weapons of mass destruction gave the Bush administration the ammunition to convince the public that it was necessary to go to war.

In a testy 10-minute interview, Miller blamed unreliable intelligence sources, while the Daily Show host tried to demonstrate that Miller leaned too heavily on biased Bush administration sources.

"That's what the intelligence community believed," Miller said, referring to false information that showed Iraq attempting to enrich uranium before the US invasion.

"That's what they were feeding you," Stewart said.

The former journalist has maintained that various high-level officials got it wrong, and that she has been unfairly singled out for criticism. In the interview with Stewart, Miller noted that various lawmakers were also concerned that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was seeking weapons of mass destruction, naming then-Senators Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.

"Turns out, idiocy is bipartisan," Stewart replied.

After Miller refused to concede that she was any more to blame than intelligence officials and lawmakers, Stewart lamented that so few officials who believed that Iraq had WMDs have taken responsibility for their mistakes.

"I appreciate you coming on the program. These discussions always make me incredibly sad because I feel like they point to institutional failures at the highest levels, and no one will take responsibility for it, and they pass the buck to everyone but themselves," Stewart said. "It's sad."

Miller's 2002 reporting has been controversial since its release over a decade ago. The report was widely cited by Bush administration officials in the lead up to the war in Iraq as credible evidence that Hussein was seeking to obtain materials for a bomb. In 2004, the Times offered a tepid apology for the reporting leading up to the war, citing faulty sources.

Stewart id being a douche.

Every intelligence agency in the world had the same opinion, not just ours.

We now know the Saddam was running a disinformation campaign to keep his enemies in the ME scared of him.

It worked a little too well.

Am I the only one who clicked in thinking Id see a 10/10 desert sorceress? Phone Post 3.0

He also slapped her ass. Phone Post 3.0

When John Stewart retires the US will have lost one of the few reporters I respect

gregbrady - When John Stewart retires the US will have lost one of the few reporters I respect
I don't always agree with him but I do like how he will call anyone out if he thinks they are full of shit. Phone Post 3.0

e. kaye - 


Stewart id being a douche.



Every intelligence agency in the world had the same opinion, not just ours.



We now know the Saddam was running a disinformation campaign to keep his enemies in the ME scared of him.



It worked a little too well.


iirc that was the exact conclusion that "Sadam's Interrogator" Nat Geo program came to. The interrogator said thats why Saddam acted the way he did.

gregbrady - When John Stewart retires the US will have lost one of the few reporters I respect

Wait... you get your news from a comedian....by any chance would you consider yourself a liberal? serious question.

e. kaye - 


Stewart id being a douche.



Every intelligence agency in the world had the same opinion, not just ours.



We now know the Saddam was running a disinformation campaign to keep his enemies in the ME scared of him.



It worked a little too well.



Every intelligence agency?  That might be a slight exagerration. 

E55 Pilot - 
gregbrady - When John Stewart retires the US will have lost one of the few reporters I respect

Wait... you get your news from a comedian....by any chance would you consider yourself a liberal? serious question.

that's exactly what I said


are you a conservative by any chance?

e. kaye -


Stewart id being a douche.



Every intelligence agency in the world had the same opinion, not just ours.



We now know the Saddam was running a disinformation campaign to keep his enemies in the ME scared of him.



It worked a little too well.

By every intelligence agency you mean only the usa and Britain. ..two countries that were run by neocons at the time.

France, Germany, Italy, russia all said they may have some left over Chem weapons from the 80s and mo nuclear weapons. Phone Post 3.0

No, all.   Even countries in the ME confirmed to us that they believed Saddam had WMDs/

gregbrady - When John Stewart retires the US will have lost one of the few reporters I respect

You realize he's saying stuff written by writers, right??

"In fact, however, George Tenet, George W. Bush's CIA director, assured the President that the case for Saddam possessing WMD was “a slam dunk.” In this assessment, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, asserted with “high confidence” that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France all agreed with this judgment. Even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he dispose of the WMD he was known to have had in the past—lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:"

In retrospect it is clear that the weapons did not exist, although they had in the past, and Hussein had used them against his enemies. But what is also clear from captured documents now coming to light is that Mr. Bush had every reason to believe they still existed at the time he launched the military campaign in Iraq. Not only did US and allied intelligence agencies assert that the weapons were there, but Hussein himself played a dangerous game of convincing enemies such as Iran, and even his own generals, that he had such weapons, while protesting to United Nations inspectors that he did not.

The Americans, however, took seriously the probability of confronting Hussein's WMD. When the president of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who had close ties with Hussein, told Vice President Cheney that Hussein did not want war but would use chemical weapons if attacked, Mr. Cheney did not blink. The Americans, said Cheney, would deal with them.

But within Hussein's war council, the story was very different. In December 2002, Hussein called his generals together for a surprising announcement: Iraq did not possess WMD. The generals were stunned. They had long assumed that they could count on a hidden cache of chemical or biological weapons. Iraq had used such weapons in the war with Iran. Hussein had convinced his generals that it was the threat of WMD that had enabled him to stop the Americans moving on Baghdad after the 1991 war.

In its official report, the Silberman-Robb Commission evaluated only American intelligence on Iraq, not what the administration did with it. But Judge Silberman saw more than enough to draw his own conclusions. During a recent interview with me, he spoke freely about his views for the first time. “As a federal judge I am very careful to stay out of politics,” Silberman says. “But [now that several years have passed] I am inclined to think that … [for] historical purposes I can give an opinion.”

Did the Bush administration distort or misconstrue intelligence to show that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction? No. The intelligence agencies did that by themselves.

The intelligence agencies, Silberman says, “clearly indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They made that clear to both President Clinton and President Bush. They made that clear in the national intelligence estimate of 2002.” How did the intelligence agencies get such a basic, vital question so thoroughly wrong? “A lot of fundamental and almost amateurish mistakes.”

Consider, for instance, the intelligence that Saddam had resumed his program to produce biological weapons.

“That claim came to American intelligence from several different entry points,” Silberman says. “[But] it turned out that it all came from a single source, one person who had made the claim to German intelligence. Nobody in American intelligence realized that what looked like three or four bits of corroborating evidence was really all the same phony thing.”

The intelligence community, in other words, proved incapable of a task that takes place dozens of times a day in every newsroom in America: double sourcing.

Bush lied? Hardly. The intelligence agencies screwed up.

Silberman, however, refuses simply to shift blame for the war from the administration to the intelligence agencies. Instead he rejects the idea that the invasion of Iraq represented a war of choice in the first place.

“Even people at the highest level of the Iraqi regime believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,” Silberman explains. “Saddam was running a bluff. He was bluffing his own people, and he was bluffing Iran. It would have been impossible for any intelligence agency in the world … to have determined that Saddam had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction.”

 

Get it?

Even Saddam's generals thought that he had them.

How interesting, the CIA funnels chemical weapons to Saddam with the ok of the POTUS, years later it would have turned out to be a great setup to justify the invasion of Iraq. But Saddam turns around and uses them on the Kurds and probably disposed of the leftovers just to be on the safe side.

Dirty politics...don't we play that well.