Page 25 of 44 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 436

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

  1. #241
    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 true. They is a difference between the types of pressure, one much more provable than another.
    The report stated:
    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 mass 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.


    The investigation found no evidence of 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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Do you claim to be a philosophy major? Do you even know what logic is? Have you studied it?
    Factually, yes, I've studied logic.
    What degree(s), credentials, or education have you acquired in your studies of logic?

    Do such credentials qualify you to dismiss out-of-hand others abilities to use and apply logic, as you have done repeatedly in this thread?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    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.
    Please cite evidence that Administration officials harassed analysts of the CIA or OUSD in the manner you claim.

    I do not accept your SPECULATION or OPINION as evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Or, they believed the intel WAS valid when the CIA was more skeptical.
    That's being very generous on your part, but still, being honest would be to relay the doubts.
    I do NOT claim that is the undeniable truth, only a reasonable possibility. As I have said before, I do NOT know if they lied or not because I have insufficient evidence to make such a judgment at this time. Others, such as yourself, claim to KNOW they lied. I ask for the EVIDENCE you used to make such a determination.

    It appears you do NOT have KNOWLEDGE that they lied. You only have opinion and speculation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Not [relaying the doubts] is lying and dishonest. A lie of omission is still a lie... but that doesn't change that it is a lie either way.
    One of the investigations conclusions was to criticize the OUSD for failing to mention the CIA's differing opinions on the matter (IMO, such an action was dishonest). However, the report also clearly stated that the OUSD did NOT mislead congress with their reports.

    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
    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.
    You claimed "the CIA reports clearly state those sources [curveball, Chalibi , al libi] weren't trustworthy or valid.

    Please :
    1) Clearly state the sources you are referring to that proves that the CIA completely dismissed these sources BEFORE the war.
    2) Cite or quote the section of the source that proves that the CIA completely dismissed these sources BEFORE the war.

    Otherwise I will assume that you are once again merely speculating or opining.
    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.

  2. #242
    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 scourge99 View Post
    The report stated:
    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 mass 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.


    The investigation found no evidence of 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.
    This is what happens when a liberal is confronted by truth that runs counter to his bigoted preconceptions.

  3. #243
    Guru
    USA_1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    BANNED
    Last Seen
    04-16-11 @ 02:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,142

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

    "George W. Bush recounted the mistakes of his presidency on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show as he launched a book tour to promote his just-released memoir, 'Decision Points,'" AP writes. "The former president said he still feels 'sick about' the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. His response to Hurricane Katrina could have been quicker, he said, and he should have landed Air Force One two days after the storm instead of viewing the destruction through the plane’s window. And he said he did not see the financial meltdown coming."
    "This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country."" GWB

  4. #244
    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;1059093987]
    The report stated:
    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 mass 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.


    The investigation found no evidence of 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.
    As it is legally defined. I stated and showed why I disagree, and pointed out it is not central to my argument.





    Please cite evidence that Administration officials harassed analysts of the CIA or OUSD in the manner you claim.

    I do not accept your SPECULATION or OPINION as evidence.
    There visits after having the answer is evidence of that.

    I do NOT claim that is the undeniable truth, only a reasonable possibility. As I have said before, I do NOT know if they lied or not because I have insufficient evidence to make such a judgment at this time. Others, such as yourself, claim to KNOW they lied. I ask for the EVIDENCE you used to make such a determination.

    It appears you do NOT have KNOWLEDGE that they lied. You only have opinion and speculation.
    Perhaps you don't know what the word lie means. A lie of omission:

    Lying by omission
    One lies by omission by omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. An example is when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service. Propaganda is an example of lying by omission.

    Lie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    As Bush presented claims as if there was no doubt, omitting the doubts and not representing the intel as it was, is lying. What they "believed" is irrelevent. They had doubt in the intel and did not shre that doubt.

    This is the easiest one to see. Of course, you do have to open your eyes.


    One of the investigations conclusions was to criticize the OUSD for failing to mention the CIA's differing opinions on the matter (IMO, such an action was dishonest). However, the report also clearly stated that the OUSD did NOT mislead congress with their reports.
    In an illegal manner, to which I agree. But they did not include it all when speaking on it. They required then congress to dig through the reports (how new are you to this?) True, congress shares some of the blame, which is in part why they didn't press charges on this, but that doesn't excuse Bush. Nor does it excuse from lying to us. Aslo not illegal btw.

    You claimed "the CIA reports clearly state those sources [curveball, Chalibi , al libi] weren't trustworthy or valid.

    Please :
    1) Clearly state the sources you are referring to that proves that the CIA completely dismissed these sources BEFORE the war.
    2) Cite or quote the section of the source that proves that the CIA completely dismissed these sources BEFORE the war.

    Otherwise I will assume that you are once again merely speculating or opining.
    I've tried to get you to do some of your own work. Most of this is old news, know and accepted. This far down the line, I really think you should do it yourself. Like I susggested, you should start with al libi. I'll give you an overview:

    An article published in the November 5, 2005 New York Times quoted two paragraphs of a Defense Intelligence Agency report, declassified upon request by Senator Carl Levin, that expressed doubts about the results of al-Libi's interrogation in February 2002. The declassified paragraphs are:

    This is the first report from Ibn al-Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida's CBRN efforts. However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqi's [sic] involved, the CBRN materials associated with the assistance, and the location where training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers. Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may describing [sic] scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.[cite this quote]

    The January 2003 CIA paper Iraqi Support for Terrorism states that al-Libi told a foreign intelligence service that "Iraq — acting on the request of al-Qa'ida militant Abu Abdullah, who was Muhammad Atif's emissary — agreed to provide unspecified chemical or biological weapons training for two al-Qa'ida associates beginning in December 2000. The two individuals departed for Iraq but did not return, so al-Libi was not in a position to know if any training had taken place."[cite this quote] The September 2002 version of Iraqi Support for Terrorism stated that al-Libi said Iraq had "provided" chemical and biological weapons training for two al-Qaeda associates in 2000, but also stated that al-Libi "did not know the results of the training."[cite this quote]

    The 2006 Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq stated that "Although DIA coordinated on CIA's Iraqi Support for Terrorism paper, DIA analysis preceding that assessment was more skeptical of the al-Libi reporting." In July 2002, DIA assessed "It is plausible al-Qa'ida attempted to obtain CB assistance from Iraq and Ibn al-Shaykh is sufficiently senior to have access to such sensitive information. However, Ibn al-Shaykh's information lacks details concerning the individual Iraqis involved, the specific CB materials associated with the assistance and the location where the alleged training occurred. The information is also second hand, and not derived from Ibn al-Shaykh's personal experience."[12]

    (snip)

    On June 11, 2008 Newsweek published an account of material from a "A previously undisclosed CIA report written in the summer of 2002". The article reported that on August 7, 2002 CIA analysts had drafted a high-level report that expressed serious doubts about the information flowing from al-Libi's interrogation. The information that al-Libi acknowledged being a member al-Qaeda' executive committee was not supported by information from other sources. According to al-Libi, in Egypt he was locked in a tiny box less than 20 inches high and held for 17 hours and after being let out he was thrown to the floor and punched for 15 minutes. According to CIA operational cables, only then did he tell his "fabricated" story about Al Qaeda members being dispatched to Iraq.

    Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    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. #245
    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 USA-1 View Post
    "George W. Bush recounted the mistakes of his presidency on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show as he launched a book tour to promote his just-released memoir, 'Decision Points,'" AP writes. "The former president said he still feels 'sick about' the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.
    And thus, any thought that he lied about the WMDs is lost.

  6. #246
    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 Goobieman View Post
    And thus, any thought that he lied about the WMDs is lost.
    Nope. He could be lying now. Who knows.

    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.

  7. #247
    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 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?
    There's a big difference, though.

    Whatever Clinton said or did did not cost 4,400 American lives and a trillion dollars.
    Do not write in this space!

  8. #248
    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 tryreading View Post
    There's a big difference, though.

    Whatever Clinton said or did did not cost 4,400 American lives and a trillion dollars.
    I see - it is OK to lie about going to war as long as that war does not cost 'too much'.

  9. #249
    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
    Please cite evidence that Administration officials harassed analysts of the CIA or OUSD in the manner you claim.

    I do not accept your SPECULATION or OPINION as evidence.
    There visits after having the answer is evidence of that.
    The report specifically states, and I quote, 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."

    There is "no evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure, analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities."

    You are free to disagree but it has been plainly shown that your position is in DIRECT contradiction to the report when you claim that visits were pressure, either passive or direct pressure.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I've tried to get you to do some of your own work. Most of this is old news, know and accepted. This far down the line, I really think you should do it yourself. Like I susggested, you should start with al libi. I'll give you an overview:


    An article published in the November 5, 2005 New York Times quoted two paragraphs of a Defense Intelligence Agency report, declassified upon request by Senator Carl Levin, that expressed doubts about the results of al-Libi's interrogation in February 2002. The declassified paragraphs are:

    This is the first report from Ibn al-Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida's CBRN efforts. However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqi's [sic] involved, the CBRN materials associated with the assistance, and the location where training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers. Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may describing [sic] scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.[cite this quote]

    The January 2003 CIA paper Iraqi Support for Terrorism states that al-Libi told a foreign intelligence service that "Iraq — acting on the request of al-Qa'ida militant Abu Abdullah, who was Muhammad Atif's emissary — agreed to provide unspecified chemical or biological weapons training for two al-Qa'ida associates beginning in December 2000. The two individuals departed for Iraq but did not return, so al-Libi was not in a position to know if any training had taken place."[cite this quote] The September 2002 version of Iraqi Support for Terrorism stated that al-Libi said Iraq had "provided" chemical and biological weapons training for two al-Qaeda associates in 2000, but also stated that al-Libi "did not know the results of the training."[cite this quote]

    The 2006 Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq stated that "Although DIA coordinated on CIA's Iraqi Support for Terrorism paper, DIA analysis preceding that assessment was more skeptical of the al-Libi reporting." In July 2002, DIA assessed "It is plausible al-Qa'ida attempted to obtain CB assistance from Iraq and Ibn al-Shaykh is sufficiently senior to have access to such sensitive information. However, Ibn al-Shaykh's information lacks details concerning the individual Iraqis involved, the specific CB materials associated with the assistance and the location where the alleged training occurred. The information is also second hand, and not derived from Ibn al-Shaykh's personal experience."[12]

    (snip)

    On June 11, 2008 Newsweek published an account of material from a "A previously undisclosed CIA report written in the summer of 2002". The article reported that on August 7, 2002 CIA analysts had drafted a high-level report that expressed serious doubts about the information flowing from al-Libi's interrogation. The information that al-Libi acknowledged being a member al-Qaeda' executive committee was not supported by information from other sources. According to al-Libi, in Egypt he was locked in a tiny box less than 20 inches high and held for 17 hours and after being let out he was thrown to the floor and punched for 15 minutes. According to CIA operational cables, only then did he tell his "fabricated" story about Al Qaeda members being dispatched to Iraq.

    Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I think we are done here. I have demonstrated from start to finish that, though you may be correct, you are incapable of demonstrating the truth of your claims.

    Your debating strategy is the following:
    *) present ad homs in every 3rd sentence (E.G., claim those who disagree with you are "misinformed", partisan, have their "eyes closed", "have such a hard time following one single point"
    *) claim that you are more informed than others.
    *) present news articles, speeches, and opinions as "evidence" when primary sources are requested.
    *) deny requests to cite or provide primary sources despite your own previous references to them to support your argument
    *) when confronted about a particular claim, smokescreen and make excuses to avoid addressing these criticisms. (E.G., change topics, or post page long wikipedia articles in attempt to "bulldoze" your way out of support)
    *) mince and redefine words to fit an argument (E.G., claiming the reports only deal with "direct pressure" and not "indirect pressure" despite the reports unambiguous statement that "no evidence of pressure was found".)

    Thank you for what little tidbits of evidence you did provide. Perhaps you might reflect on the above list for future reference but your usefulness has long since expired. I've grown tired of debating someone with no integrity let alone piss poor talent.
    Last edited by scourge99; 11-11-10 at 02:53 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.

  10. #250
    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

    No, scourge99, that above is simply untrue. All I have expressed to is that you do not seem to be knowledgable on a very well discussed subject. I sugegsted that instead of me looking up everythign for you, that you do a little work on your own. I've given you evidence and explained my position, clearly. You have played games and ignored the central arguments. You're free to that I suppose, but don't expect me to accept that from you.

    As for minicning words, on a point that was not part of my main argument, I am quite clear that there was nothing that would fit a legal definiion, and then gave an example that would show my point. You may disagree with it, but that is minicing or anything dishonest. And we also have to consider not just what a report said, tied to legal and political reliaites, but to what agents reported openly and to our own ability to reason. These things are also part of the picture.

    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 25 of 44 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... 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
  •