Page 22 of 44 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 436

Thread: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

  1. #211
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,124

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    we can now observe, first hand, why the political tactic of plausible deniability works so effectively
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  2. #212
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    [QUOTE=scourge99;1059085099]
    Who inappropriately used what intel? Be specific.

    The report shows that the OUSD inappropriately (not illegally) presented reports inconsistent with other intelligence agencies and provided them to "decision makers" without informing them of a difference in opinion.

    How do you tie that into your claims that:
    1)Bush+Chaney lied about WMDs, and al-queda+Iraq
    2) the bush administration lied about WMDs and al-queda+Iraq (who specifically? Is there a difference between lying, being wrong, or being misinformed?)
    3) Gimble and Feith made faulty reports.
    The office Fieth worked in, the OUSD, was under Cheney. They specifically presented the false impression of a connection to al Queada. This is part of the claim. And this IG report deals with that issue. As I said, this is all old information, as are the wmd links. If you were knowledgable at all, you would know this. Which is why I suggest you read up some before we continue.

    I do NOT claim to be an expert on this subject. Do you?
    I'm well read on it. I suggest that anyone who is going to debate this should be well read. There is a lot to link if we have to start from the begining.


    Other than #4, how does the OUSD report substantiate those claims?
    That report addresses four. I only linked it because you said you never heard of it. I also stated for you to review Chalibi and his heors in error, al Libi, Curveball, what the administration knew early about aluimum tubes and mobile labs. Again there is a lot to link. If it was only one thing, like the report that you're missing, which is what I thought, it would be easy to link. But if I have to link you to all the reading, that's time consuming and somethign you should do on your own before you enter the discussion IMHO.


    I am requesting that evidence. It took over 5 posts for you to cough up 1 legitimate source.

    News articles, speeches, op eds, etc do NOT constitute trustworthy evidence. Does it to you?

    What other evidence do you offer to support your claims above?

    Or will you continue to masturbate about how knowledgeable and smart you are on the subject while ignoring requests to show that you are correct?
    That's nonsense on your part. From the first posting, you had a legitmate source. You'll notice nothing quoted from those sources was not in the report. The things you disqualify are in fact valid sources. If the source has a reputation as being credible, and they did, and if it is reported in mulptile credible sources, and it was, that is valid evidence. You play because either you lack knowledge on the subject, or you're trying to fake your way throuugh an invalid defense. Read up, seek to learn somethign on this topic, and then we can continue.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #213
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    we can now observe, first hand, why the political tactic of plausible deniability works so effectively
    No ****.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #214
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    The office Fieth worked in, the OUSD, was under Cheney.
    Most offices in the gov't are "under" the president or VP. How are you certain or believe its likely that Fieth was working to deliberately manufacture a report-of-lies on the direct orders of Cheney?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    They specifically presented the false impression of a connection to al Queada.
    What evidence supports the claim that "they" intentionally presented a lie rather than presenting what they believed was true?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    And this IG report deals with that issue.
    Wrong. The IG report ONLY deals with intel reports generated by OUSD, their differing conclusions, and the "inappropriate" dissemination of those reports. It has NO mention of Bush or Cheney. It has NO mention of Feith taking orders to knowingly produce faulty reports on the orders of ANYONE. Those are conclusions you surreptitiously inject into that report. A report that is silent on that issue. You continually OVERSTATE and MISREPRESENT the evidence to support your conspiracy theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    As I said, this is all old information, as are the wmd links. If you were knowledgable at all, you would know this. Which is why I suggest you read up some before we continue.

    I'm well read on it. I suggest that anyone who is going to debate this should be well read. There is a lot to link if we have to start from the begining.
    I am well aware how smart and knowledgeable you believe you are. However, you continuously FAIL to connect the dots with EVIDENCE. It appears you are unwilling or unable to defend your claims with anything more than speculation, conjecture, and your ego.

    Your opinion may very well may be correct. But until you can demonstrate and "show me" the evidence that supports it, then I and others are justified in rejecting your claims.

    Making excuses and beating your chest about how smart and knowledgeable you are (or how dumb and uninformed others are) does NOTHING to support your claim.

    Are you unwilling or unable to support your claims beyond speculation and conjecture?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I also stated for you to review Chalibi and his heors in error, al Libi, Curveball, what the administration knew early about aluimum tubes and mobile labs.
    I am familiar with these things. I don't see any tell-tale signs of lying or intentional deception beyond propaganda to sell the war (though it is possible that lying DID occur). The story is consistent: they believed that Saddam had WMDs. Sometime after or during the war it was discovered the intel was bad.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Again there is a lot to link. If it was only one thing, like the report that you're missing, which is what I thought, it would be easy to link. But if I have to link you to all the reading, that's time consuming and somethign you should do on your own before you enter the discussion IMHO.
    then present your strongest source(s). If this is so OBVIOUS and so cut-and-dry then why are you making so many excuses and dancing about the issue?


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    That's nonsense on your part. From the first posting, you had a legitmate source. You'll notice nothing quoted from those sources was not in the report. The things you disqualify are in fact valid sources. If the source has a reputation as being credible, and they did, and if it is reported in mulptile credible sources, and it was, that is valid evidence. You play because either you lack knowledge on the subject, or you're trying to fake your way throuugh an invalid defense. Read up, seek to learn somethign on this topic, and then we can continue.
    When there is the choice of between a secondary source or a primary source, I choose the primary. Furthermore, its been demonstrated that you have overstated what the IG report states. Rather than showing how your conclusions--that bush+Cheney lied--are derived from the IG report, you have presented a tangled web of claims and accusations that have not been substantiated beyond conjecture.

    As the we dive further into your rabbithole, we discover how detached from the evidence your claims are.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  5. #215
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Most offices in the gov't are "under" the president or VP. How are you certain or believe its likely that Fieth was working to deliberately manufacture a report-of-lies on the direct orders of Cheney?
    Not sure what you're looking for, but you should read more on this. if the only thing you will accept is a quilty verdict in a trial or Cheney saying yep, we did it, I doubt that is forth coming. But there is plenty of information on this if you take the time to look.

    FRONTLINE: the dark side: vice president cheney's network | PBS

    washingtonpost.com: Some Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney Visits

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/wa...n/27intel.html


    What evidence supports the claim that "they" intentionally presented a lie rather than presenting what they believed was true?
    If you present information that is doubted, the odds that you believe it to be true is slim to none. honest people present the doubts. Not doing so is lying.

    Wrong. The IG report ONLY deals with intel reports generated by OUSD, their differing conclusions, and the "inappropriate" dissemination of those reports. It has NO mention of Bush or Cheney. It has NO mention of Feith taking orders to knowingly produce faulty reports on the orders of ANYONE. Those are conclusions you surreptitiously inject into that report. A report that is silent on that issue. You continually OVERSTATE and MISREPRESENT the evidence to support your conspiracy theory.
    That's an silly argument on your part. I also did not limit my claim to only Bush and Cheney. I Said Bush and his people. Fieth counts as part of his people. And to argue that Fieth was not connected to Cheney is just silly.


    I am well aware how smart and knowledgeable you believe you are. However, you continuously FAIL to connect the dots with EVIDENCE. It appears you are unwilling or unable to defend your claims with anything more than speculation, conjecture, and your ego.

    Your opinion may very well may be correct. But until you can demonstrate and "show me" the evidence that supports it, then I and others are justified in rejecting your claims.

    Making excuses and beating your chest about how smart and knowledgeable you are (or how dumb and uninformed others are) does NOTHING to support your claim.

    Are you unwilling or unable to support your claims beyond speculation and conjecture?
    I've backed these many times. ANd if you did not need to be completely brough up to speed, or showed any willingness to actually investigate, I can could do so again. But one, you seem to lack basic knowledge and this is a henderance to discussion. Second, you seem to limit what you will accept to an unreasonable degree. And lastly, you don't recognize the importance of logic in this type of argument. That hinders us a lot here.


    I am familiar with these things. I don't see any tell-tale signs of lying or intentional deception beyond propaganda to sell the war (though it is possible that lying DID occur). The story is consistent: they believed that Saddam had WMDs. Sometime after or during the war it was discovered the intel was bad.
    The blind seldom see. I shoudl say the intentionally blind seldom see. And even hear you make a statement not consistent with Bush's claims. the claim was not that Saddam had some wmds. Most believed he had some left over. His claim was that he had active programs and was growing and gathering. There was no valid evidence to support that, and his exaggeration (to be nice) was not something shared by a majority. The intel was not bad as it did not say what he claimed it said.

    then present your strongest source(s). If this is so OBVIOUS and so cut-and-dry then why are you making so many excuses and dancing about the issue?
    There si not once source, but mulitple sources. Agian, I ask you look and read about Chalibi and his heors in error, Curveball, al Libi and coeresed testimony, alumuim tubes and moble labs and what was known before we invaded. This is a lot of reading, but until you read it, you will be behind the eightball in this discussion.


    When there is the choice of between a secondary source or a primary source, I choose the primary. Furthermore, its been demonstrated that you have overstated what the IG report states. Rather than showing how your conclusions--that bush+Cheney lied--are derived from the IG report, you have presented a tangled web of claims and accusations that have not been substantiated beyond conjecture.

    As the we dive further into your rabbithole, we discover how detached from the evidence your claims are.
    You may choose for yourself whatever you prefer, but that doesn't make other sources invalid. There are rules for evaluating evidence and having to always have the primary source is not one of them. And I have not overstated the IG report. You have misread what I have said, and for some reason continue to do so even after being corrected. And if you go back and read the parts I quoted from the begining, no reasonable person would suggest I said what you are now claiming.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #216
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Not sure what you're looking for, but you should read more on this. if the only thing you will accept is a quilty verdict in a trial or Cheney saying yep, we did it, I doubt that is forth coming. But there is plenty of information on this if you take the time to look.

    FRONTLINE: the dark side: vice president cheney's network | PBS

    washingtonpost.com: Some Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney Visits

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/wa...n/27intel.html

    I don't have time to respond to everything but I will try tomorrow. In the meantime, one of your cited news articles is without a doubt in conflict with official investigations. The one about Chaney and Administration officials "pressuring" analysts.

    This is the source your cited:
    washingtonpost.com: Some Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney Visits
    Some Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney Visits

    Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives, according to senior intelligence officials.

    ...

    Former and current intelligence officials said they felt a continual drumbeat, not only from Cheney and Libby, but also from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, Feith, and less so from CIA Director George J. Tenet, to find information or write reports in a way that would help the administration make the case that going into Iraq was urgent.
    These claims are DIRECTLY rebutted by the Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

    See section 9

    (U) Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure, analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mas destruction capabilities.
    (U) Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President’s visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.


    Do you dispute the findings by the official investigation because of a news article which cites "unnamed" individuals?

    Do you retract your claim that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure, analysts to change their judgments?
    Last edited by scourge99; 11-09-10 at 03:29 AM.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  7. #217
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    [QUOTE=scourge99;1059091021]
    I don't have time to respond to everything but I will try tomorrow. In the meantime, one of your cited news articles is without a doubt in conflict with official investigations. The one about Chaney and Administration officials "pressuring" analysts.

    This is the source your cited:
    washingtonpost.com: Some Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney Visits

    These claims are DIRECTLY rebutted by the Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq: Congressional Reports: Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq

    See section 9
    Bot surprising. Nor does it mean it is inaccurate.

    This was in the Post article:
    . . . . creating an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives, according to senior intelligence officials.
    As was this:

    Other agency officials said they were not influenced by the visits from the vice president's office, and some said they welcomed them. But the disclosure of Cheney's unusual hands-on role comes on the heels of mounting concern from intelligence officials and members of Congress that the administration may have exaggerated intelligence it received about Iraq to build a case for war.
    It is inaccurate to confuse two different things. I doubt Cheney was overt in his pressure, thus not finding anything they could charge him with, particularly with republicnas controlling both congress and the presidency at the time. However, as the visits are not in dispute, and we know that what he was questioning, again and again, was their assessment, and that this is how Curveball, al Libi, and Chalibi and his heros in error got into the final report as accepted intel, if we're crticial thinkers and nto tools, we have to question this beyond the offical report.

    Again, as I have stated, pressure isn't the point. Bush got good intel, he just didn't use it. He presented intel as if there were no doubts, using the intel that was doubted. As long as you focus on pressure as being the only way this could happen, you miss the point completely.

    Similarly, the President himself said this in a speech to the nation, just three days before the House vote to authorize force:

    Bush, Oct. 7, 2002: We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases . And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

    Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

    That statement is open to challenge on two grounds. For one thing, as we've seen, the intelligence community was reporting to Bush and Congress that they thought it unlikely that Saddam would give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists – and only "if sufficiently desperate" and as a "last chance to exact revenge" for the very attack that Bush was then advocating.

    Furthermore, the claim that Iraq had trained al Qaeda in the use of poison gas turned out to be false, and some in the intelligence community were expressing doubts about it at the time Bush spoke. It was based on statements by a senior trainer for al Qaeda who had been captured in Afghanistan. The detainee, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, took back his story in 2004 and the CIA withdrew all claims based on it. But even at the time Bush spoke, Pentagon intelligence analysts said it was likely al-Libi was lying.

    According to newly declassified documents, the Defense Intelligence Agency said in February 2002 – seven months before Bush's speech – "it is . . . likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers. Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest. . . . Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control." The DIA's doubts were revealed Nov. 6 in newly declassified documents made public by Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, a member of the Intelligence Committee.

    FactCheck.org: Iraq: What Did Congress Know, And When?

    In the case of al-Libi, however, the Bush administration was only too glad to make use of the "take" from al-Libi's interrogation, helpfully provided by Egyptian intelligence. Under questioning by the Egyptian authorities (techniques unknown, but not hard to imagine), al-Libi confessed that Al Qaeda terrorists, beginning in December 2000, had gone to Iraq to learn about chemical and biological weapons. This was just the evidence the Bush administration needed to make the case for invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam Hussein. In his famous, now discredited speech to the United Nations in February 2003, the then Secretary of State Colin Powell cited the intelligence extracted from al-Libi, referring to him not by name but as a "senior Al Qaeda terrorist" who ran a training camp in Afghanistan.

    There was only one problem with al-Libi's story: after the Powell presentation, he recanted it. Overlooking timely doubts raised by some U.S. intelligence officials, particularly at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the ideologues in the Bush administration had used information obtained by torture to mislead the world.

    The Debate Over Torture - Newsweek

    As I keep telling you, there is much to read on this, and frankly, you should know this stuff, being involved in a site like this. Nothing is new here.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #218
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    one of your cited news articles is without a doubt in conflict with official investigations. The one about Chaney and Administration officials "pressuring" analysts.

    This is the source your cited:
    washingtonpost.com: Some Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney Visits

    These claims are DIRECTLY rebutted by the Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq: Congressional Reports: Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq

    See section 9
    Bot surprising. Nor does it mean it is inaccurate.
    Yes, it does mean your source is, at best, unsubstantiated and at worst, false. The official investigation reported that NO EVIDENCE OF PRESSURE on analysts was found.

    Now its possible that there was pressure and there wasn't any evidence of it. Its also possible that an invisible pink elephant is sitting on your shoulder but there is no evidence of that either.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    This was in the Post article:


    As was this:



    It is inaccurate to confuse two different things.
    what things am I confusing?? Please specify them CLEARLY and CONCISELY.

    You cited a news article where some of its claims were found to be unsupported following an official investigation. Yet you continue to prop up this source as valid despite its UNSUBSTANTIATED claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I doubt Cheney was overt in his pressure, thus not finding anything they could charge him with, particularly with republicnas controlling both congress and the presidency at the time.
    its not that they didn't find anything to charge him with, its that they found NO EVIDENCE of PRESSURING, period.

    You seem UNABLE or UNWILLING to accept the findings of a report that your previously proped up as supporting your claims. Are you cherry-picking?

    Do you accept the findings of the official investigation's findings? Or do you continue to believe that Chaney and/or other Administration officials pressured analysts despite the investigations conclusions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    However, as the visits are not in dispute, and we know that what he was questioning, again and again, was their assessment, and that this is how Curveball, al Libi, and Chalibi and his heros in error got into the final report as accepted intel, if we're crticial thinkers and nto tools, we have to question this beyond the offical report.
    Your speculation is just that, speculation. Chaney and others made visits. That is not disputed nor inappropriate or unexpected. Your speculation and conspiracy theorizing is supported by NOTHING from official investigations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Again, as I have stated, pressure isn't the point. Bush got good intel, he just didn't use it. He presented intel as if there were no doubts, using the intel that was doubted. As long as you focus on pressure as being the only way this could happen, you miss the point completely.

    Similarly, the President himself said this in a speech to the nation, just three days before the House vote to authorize force:

    Bush, Oct. 7, 2002: We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases . And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

    Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

    That statement is open to challenge on two grounds. For one thing, as we've seen, the intelligence community was reporting to Bush and Congress that they thought it unlikely that Saddam would give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists – and only "if sufficiently desperate" and as a "last chance to exact revenge" for the very attack that Bush was then advocating.

    Furthermore, the claim that Iraq had trained al Qaeda in the use of poison gas turned out to be false, and some in the intelligence community were expressing doubts about it at the time Bush spoke. It was based on statements by a senior trainer for al Qaeda who had been captured in Afghanistan. The detainee, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, took back his story in 2004 and the CIA withdrew all claims based on it. But even at the time Bush spoke, Pentagon intelligence analysts said it was likely al-Libi was lying.

    According to newly declassified documents, the Defense Intelligence Agency said in February 2002 – seven months before Bush's speech – "it is . . . likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers. Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest. . . . Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control." The DIA's doubts were revealed Nov. 6 in newly declassified documents made public by Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, a member of the Intelligence Committee.

    FactCheck.org: Iraq: What Did Congress Know, And When?

    In the case of al-Libi, however, the Bush administration was only too glad to make use of the "take" from al-Libi's interrogation, helpfully provided by Egyptian intelligence. Under questioning by the Egyptian authorities (techniques unknown, but not hard to imagine), al-Libi confessed that Al Qaeda terrorists, beginning in December 2000, had gone to Iraq to learn about chemical and biological weapons. This was just the evidence the Bush administration needed to make the case for invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam Hussein. In his famous, now discredited speech to the United Nations in February 2003, the then Secretary of State Colin Powell cited the intelligence extracted from al-Libi, referring to him not by name but as a "senior Al Qaeda terrorist" who ran a training camp in Afghanistan.

    There was only one problem with al-Libi's story: after the Powell presentation, he recanted it. Overlooking timely doubts raised by some U.S. intelligence officials, particularly at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the ideologues in the Bush administration had used information obtained by torture to mislead the world.

    The Debate Over Torture - Newsweek

    As I keep telling you, there is much to read on this, and frankly, you should know this stuff, being involved in a site like this. Nothing is new here.
    I will address one point at a time. I'm not moving on until we cover this point about supposed pressuring. Your not going to wiggle out of every false or speculative claim you make by changing the subject.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  9. #219
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Yes, it does mean your source is, at best, unsubstantiated and at worst, false. The official investigation reported that NO EVIDENCE OF PRESSURE on analysts was found.
    No, it doesn't. It's talking about two different things.

    Now its possible that there was pressure and there wasn't any evidence of it. Its also possible that an invisible pink elephant is sitting on your shoulder but there is no evidence of that either.
    More diffinition of what we're calling pressure. No one told them they had to say anything of falsify anything. they just kept sending it back, and in the end, simply misused the intel, using sources doubted by the CIA and not mentioned in their report as being doubted.


    what things am I confusing?? Please specify them CLEARLY and CONCISELY.

    You cited a news article where some of its claims were found to be unsupported following an official investigation. Yet you continue to prop up this source as valid despite its UNSUBSTANTIATED claims.

    its not that they didn't find anything to charge him with, its that they found NO EVIDENCE of PRESSURING, period.
    No, one looked at a specific question, did the US tell agents they ahd to present false intel. They didn't. No one says they did. What they did do was keep sending it back and questioning. This is clearly spelled out.

    You seem UNABLE or UNWILLING to accept the findings of a report that your previously proped up as supporting your claims. Are you cherry-picking?

    Do you accept the findings of the official investigation's findings? Or do you continue to believe that Chaney and/or other Administration officials pressured analysts despite the investigations conclusions?
    As far as they go, yes I accept it. But that is not all to the story, as noted.

    Your speculation is just that, speculation. Chaney and others made visits. That is not disputed nor inappropriate or unexpected. Your speculation and conspiracy theorizing is supported by NOTHING from official investigations.


    I will address one point at a time. I'm not moving on until we cover this point about supposed pressuring. Your not going to wiggle out of every false or speculative claim you make by changing the subject.
    It is if they don't accept an answer until they get what they want. You have to deal with the admission of Chalibi and his heors in error, al Libi, and Curveball, all doubted by the intelligence community, yet they were in the NIE and more importantly, in the comments made by the administration.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #220
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,600

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Hmmm from the article:

    An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.

    Read More WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com

    It doesn't seem to support Bush's reasons for invading.
    Depends on if you are citing Bush's actual stated REASON or the meaning ascribed by democrats. Bush stated (as one of three reasons, the other two being Genocide and Iraq's support of global terrorism) "Iraqs refusal to provide an accounting of their WMD program as mandated by UN resolution". The UN passed 17 separate resolutions (because he didnt respond to the previous 16). Every intel agency in the world and every elected democrat from 1992 til 2004 ALSO cited Iraq as a WMD possessor and immediate threat. Perhaps had the world actually ACTED to enforce those resolutions for the 11 years following the first gulf war, we would have known what we know now.

Page 22 of 44 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •