zlacker

Wall Street Journal's article on US Intelligence having information on the three potential sick WIV researchers was written by a reporter named Michael R. Gordon[1].

[1]https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-on-sick-staff-at-w...

This is the same Michael R. Gordon who in 2002 wrote the famous NYTimes article saying US Intelligence had credible information that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (Thousands of aluminium tubes) [2] and led to the Iraq War.

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/world/threats-responses-i...

>>Leary+(OP)
To be clear - this guy's article didn't lead to the Iraq war. He was writing about the information that the US intelligence offices were putting out, which at this point we know was dubious. That really has nothing to do with his credibility.

>>CapmCr+q1
Saying it "has nothing to do with his credibility" sounds extremely naive.

It is totally within possibility that he is "writing about the information that the US intelligence offices were putting out" this time too, to make certain narrative that the US government wants.

>>Leary+(OP)
I mean to be fair there were actually WMD in Iraq

https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-contin...

>>_-davi+qi
It’s a widely accepted fact that Iraq had a chemical weapons program before the Persian Gulf War. Iraq and the UN cooperated to dismantle that program in the early 90’s. There was disagreement about whether that effort was exhaustive. The Bush administration’s claim to justify invasion was that there was an active ongoing chemical/biological/nuclear weapons program. Some old caches of chemical weapons materials discovered after the invasion doesn’t show that Iraq had an active chemical weapons program circa 2003.

You can read more about how the intelligence community failed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intel...

For example, they thought that Iraq had restarted its nuclear weapons program, and there was nothing like that in the evidence you linked to.