The evidence is that the Cheney faction of the W Administration leaned on the CIA and other government agencies to manufacture or slant evidence with the aim of justifying a preemptive invasion of Iraq. Neither the WMD menace or purported ties with Al Qaeda ever had much real support and its clear many intelligence officials knew specific allegations were of dubious origin, wildly exaggerated, or just flat out lies. Why would we believe these same sources when they tell us Russia hacked the DNC, when they produce less specific evidence than they did for the Iraqi WMD?
Meanwhile to refute the anti-Semitic canard that ascribes Israel the prime role pushing the US into invading Iraq, the fact is many Israeli officials at the time were strongly advising against such an invasion, stating then as they would later, that Iran was a greater threat and that a powerful Iraq kept Iran in check.
Israel warned us against Iraq invasion, US official says
Chief of staff of former secretary of state reveals that large number of senior Israeli officials warned Bush…
Also to set the commenter straight on other facts, since 1948 the main influx of Jews into their historic national homeland has been from Sephardic Jewish communities in Morocco, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, not primarily from Eastern Europe. There has also subsequently been a significant influx of Russian, Ethiopian, and Argentine Jews. What that has got to do with why US intelligence agencies cooked the intelligence to support W’s Iraq invasion is nothing, but it was brought up, possibly to taint the case against the intelligence agencies with a clearly false anti-Semitic charge, and thus needed to be factually refuted.
Let’s not overstate the case. What we have is this: US intelligence agencies, perhaps only three, have stated that 1.the DNC server was hacked by Russians. 2. The Russians arranged for Wikileaks to release real DNC emails that were obtained from the hack. The agencies did release a very general report making these accusations but so far have produced no real evidence. They have not testified publicly under oath nor have they been questioned under oath. My view is no thinking person should uncritically accept these assertions that form the basis of Russia-gate.