Page 24 of 44 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 436

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

  1. #231
    Steve
    tryreading's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Last Seen
    02-26-13 @ 07:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,809

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    I agree that Bush and Chaney said things about AlQueda and Iraq that ended up being incorrect. Whether they were, at worst, deliberately and knowingly lying, or, at best, misinformed, I do not know. Others claim that they do KNOW. I am asking how they came to that conclusion. The excuses, smoke screening, and other diversion tactics used to avoid answering this question directly is obvious.

    Was there? You tell me? How do you KNOW?

    He was involved in WHAT exactly?

    What move? Did he make any move?


    Were they lies? The IG reports does not support that claim. They were differing opinions that were NOT supported by the CIA's intelligence analysts. In fact the IG report states specifically that the OUSD and Feith did NOT mislead congress when he sent them his reports.

    The Alternative Intel may have been wrong. It may have been made without properly consulting the CIA's analysts. But that is a far cry from concluding that it was a book of lies contrived to convince others, though that is a possibility.

    This is correct and is consistent with the IG report

    All of the above is your OPINION and SPECULATION on the motivations and thoughts of Wolfowitz and Feith.

    Is it possible that Wolfowitz and Feith made the reports (assuming they ordered and created the reports) in good faith and conscious?
    I was really asking your personal opinion on whether you think anybody lied or created any misleading information.
    Do not write in this space!

  2. #232
    Steve
    tryreading's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Last Seen
    02-26-13 @ 07:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,809

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This is exactly correct - there was never any question regarding Iraq's WMDs and WMD programs - until it was apparent that GWB was actually going to do something about it.
    Goddamed good decision, too...!
    Do not write in this space!

  3. #233
    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 tryreading View Post
    I was really asking your personal opinion on whether you think anybody lied or created any misleading information.
    I don't know if anyone lied (intentionally told incorrect/false things). I do believe the Administration was attempting to "sell" the war as most leaders of democracies must do.

    Some claim to KNOW that certain people lied. I'm asking them to demonstrate how they KNOW. That is, I do not accept their opinion, conjecture as evidence of lying.
    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.

  4. #234
    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
    I don't know if anyone lied (intentionally told incorrect/false things). I do believe the Administration was attempting to "sell" the war as most leaders of democracies must do.

    Some claim to KNOW that certain people lied. I'm asking them to demonstrate how they KNOW. That is, I do not accept their opinion, conjecture as evidence of lying.
    And the answer is very simple. Known facts at the time versus claims made.

    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.

  5. #235
    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
    Please specify these two different things CLEARLY and CONCISELY. Preferably quote both sources rather than paraphrasing or interpreting yourself.
    I think I have, but I'll try again. Direct pressure is saying that you have to give me the answer I want. That did not occur. Passive pressure is to keep sending it back and have them relook at doubted intel (to the CIA's credit they continued to doubt it). The two are different.


    How is your claim that they kept sending it back to the OUSD and questioning it as a means to have it changed, supported?

    Is your claim addressed in ANY official investigation or report? If so, which one and what part? If not, why not?
    I don't think you're reading me very well. You seem to always jump to what I have not claimed. I have not claimed the CIA changed their view. There was pressure, but I never claimed the CIA lied. I said, and continue to say the problem was in how the administration used the intel. Again, as i've said all along, you have to address this by looking at how curveball, al Libi and Chalibi and his heros in error goet into speeches, the NIE and in administration arguments and breifings with congress when the uintel was doubted, and like in the case with al Libi even stated that he really couldn't know what he was claiming under tortue.

    I know your side likes these little misunderstanding jaunts, but do try to follow what is actually being claimed.

    then you agree that:
    1) There is no evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure, analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mas destruction capabilities.

    2) There is 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.
    1. No evidence of any attempt? No, I'm not saying that. There is evidence of passive efforts, but that isn't something the report you cite would address.

    2. Outside of basic logic? When you have intel that is doubted with clear explanation as to why it is doubted, I think you have to xconsider that pressure. They wanted this answer. And if you really study their actions, one could argue that is how they opperated with a lot of things, start with the answer and seek to justify it.


    are you saying that they told the OUSD to redo their assessments regarding Iraq-AlQ repeatedly until the OUSD reports matched the administration's desired conclusions? How is this claim substantiated? News articles citing "unnamed sources"? Your own personal theories? An official report or investigation?
    Please pay attention. I'm saying the misused the intel, treating doubted intel as if it were valid and without doubt. Intel that should not have been used to justify was used, treated as good and valid. Not only do we know that it wasn't, we knew then.


    All of these were also considered by the CIA and given in their reports as well. Not just the OUSD reports. The CIA was more reserved in their judgments than the OUSD but the CIA did not fully dismiss many of these sources until further intel became available later.
    The difference being in the CIA reports, the clearly state those sources weren't trust worthy or vlaid. It is the use of the intel that is important here. Is that why you're skipping it?

    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. #236
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    Only because the dozens of inspectors, who searched every nook and cranny, year in year out...
    You do know that Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1998, only to allow them back in just before the war - right?
    And then, once there, Blix stated that Iraq 'has not made the fundamental decision to disarm' - right?

  7. #237
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,600

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    Only because the dozens of inspectors, who searched every nook and cranny, year in year out, were never really believed. Just another example of people preferring to believe bad news over good news, and probably why all wars in history were started.

    ricksfolly
    Do you EVER bother to ask why people are so willing to believe Clinton and HIS administration and their statements about Saddam and his efforts to hide information and materials and to block inspections, and yet so eager to believe that suddenly when it is president Bush they ignore the comments and facts made by the Clinton admin and embrace Saddam as being open, honest, and honorable in his disclosure of the disposition of chemical weapons?

  8. #238
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Do you EVER bother to ask why people are so willing to believe Clinton and HIS administration and their statements about Saddam and his efforts to hide information and materials and to block inspections, and yet so eager to believe that suddenly when it is president Bush they ignore the comments and facts made by the Clinton admin and embrace Saddam as being open, honest, and honorable in his disclosure of the disposition of chemical weapons?
    Clinton was a Democrat.

  9. #239
    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
    I think I have, but I'll try again. Direct pressure is saying that you have to give me the answer I want. That did not occur. Passive pressure is to keep sending it back and have them relook at doubted intel (to the CIA's credit they continued to doubt it). The two are different.
    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    1. No evidence of any attempt? No, I'm not saying that. There is evidence of passive efforts, but that isn't something the report you cite would address.
    the report addresses PRESSURE, period. You are mincing words (E.G., direct pressure, passive pressure) in attempt to inject your conclusion. A conclusion which is in direct conflict with the report. The investigation found no evidence of pressure, PERIOD. Your attempt to mince words and claim that there was "passive pressure" and the investigation only was looking for "direct pressure" is absurd.

    It appears you are UNWILLING to accept the findings of the investigation and must invent excuses to continue your unsubstantiated claims that there was pressure on the analysts to change their conclusions. This is despite the investigations EXPLICIT and UNAMBIGUOUS conclusion that there was NONE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I don't think you're reading me very well. You seem to always jump to what I have not claimed. I have not claimed the CIA changed their view. There was pressure, but I never claimed the CIA lied. I said, and continue to say the problem was in how the administration used the intel. Again, as i've said all along, you have to address this by looking at how curveball, al Libi and Chalibi and his heros in error goet into speeches, the NIE and in administration arguments and breifings with congress when the uintel was doubted, and like in the case with al Libi even stated that he really couldn't know what he was claiming under tortue.
    We will get to this. Right now I'm focusing on one claim at a time which is your inability to accept the reports findings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    2. Outside of basic logic?
    Do you claim to be a philosophy major? Do you even know what logic is? Have you studied it?

    Feel free to continue wanking about how smart you are (when its obvious you don't have a clue and are just posturing).

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    When you have intel that is doubted with clear explanation as to why it is doubted, I think you have to xconsider that pressure.
    how is that pressure? That doesn't even make sense!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    They wanted this answer. And if you really study their actions, one could argue that is how they opperated with a lot of things, start with the answer and seek to justify it.
    Your conclusion is NOTHING but speculation and opinion which is what you try so hard to coverup. This is why you mince words in the official report, cite unsubstantiated news articles and speeches, and beat your chest about how smart you are and how uninformed others are. Because you argument is LACKING.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I'm saying the misused the intel, treating doubted intel as if it were valid and without doubt. Intel that should not have been used to justify was used, treated as good and valid. Not only do we know that it wasn't, we knew then.
    Or, they believed the intel WAS valid when the CIA was more skeptical.

    You keep arguing that pre-war, the CIA rejected these sources and you are ABSOLUTELY wrong. The CIA was skeptical but did not dismiss these sources outright. Especially curveball, to whom they had no first hand access to and were only provided intel via the Germans, until later.



    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    The difference being in the CIA reports, the clearly state those sources weren't trust worthy or vlaid. It is the use of the intel that is important here.
    Please :
    1) Clearly state the sources you are referring to.
    2) Cite the report that proves that the CIA completely dismissed these sources BEFORE the war.

    1st challenge
    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.

  10. #240
    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
    the report addresses PRESSURE, period. You are mincing words (E.G., direct pressure, passive pressure) in attempt to inject your conclusion. A conclusion which is in direct conflict with the report. The investigation found no evidence of pressure, PERIOD. Your attempt to mince words and claim that there was "passive pressure" and the investigation only was looking for "direct pressure" is absurd.

    It appears you are UNWILLING to accept the findings of the investigation and must invent excuses to continue your unsubstantiated claims that there was pressure on the analysts to change their conclusions. This is despite the investigations EXPLICIT and UNAMBIGUOUS conclusion that there was NONE.
    Not true. They is a difference between the types of pressure, one much more provable than another.


    We will get to this. Right now I'm focusing on one claim at a time which is your inability to accept the reports findings.
    No, you're wasting time and trying not to address anything.


    Do you claim to be a philosophy major? Do you even know what logic is? Have you studied it?

    Feel free to continue wanking about how smart you are (when its obvious you don't have a clue and are just posturing).
    I will as long as you continue to be an ass. Factually, yes, I've studied logic.

    how is that pressure? That doesn't even make sense!!!
    Now that's just silly. You work for me. You answer a question for me. I say look at it again. You do, answer me and explain why you answer that way, and I say do it again. Would you say I'm not pressuring you?

    Let me give you an example. I work at a school once where at the end of the semester if you failed astudent you had to stand before the president of the college and explain why and what you did to prevent that student from failing. Now, they never said you had to pass everyone. In fact, the president rarely said anything at all. But the result was students who couldn't even read above a 3rd gade level were graduating with honors. As one professor told, if you're going to give a grade, it might as well be a good grade. yet, the investigation concluded no pressure was applied. It wasn't so, and I think you should be able to see that.

    But, this point is not central to my argument, and that has been made clear as well.

    Your conclusion is NOTHING but speculation and opinion which is what you try so hard to coverup. This is why you mince words in the official report, cite unsubstantiated news articles and speeches, and beat your chest about how smart you are and how uninformed others are. Because you argument is LACKING.
    If you say so, but I disagree.

    Or, they believed the intel WAS valid when the CIA was more skeptical.

    You keep arguing that pre-war, the CIA rejected these sources and you are ABSOLUTELY wrong. The CIA was skeptical but did not dismiss these sources outright. Especially curveball, to whom they had no first hand access to and were only provided intel via the Germans, until later.
    That's being very generous on your part, but still, being honest would be to relay the doubts. Not doing so is lying and dishonest. A lie of omission is still a lie. I think your really rationalizing here, but that doesn't change that it is a lie either way.




    Please :
    1) Clearly state the sources you are referring to.
    2) Cite the report that proves that the CIA completely dismissed these sources BEFORE the war.

    1st challenge
    By report, what do you want? A congressional report? Again, I gave you want to look for. Start with al Libi. Just start with that one.

    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.

Page 24 of 44 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... 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
  •