• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

Never said they removed it. Again, you either have reading difficulties or you're being dishonest. I said they were in the NIE but not in the presidnet's arguments. Pay attention please.

You clearly stated that if we removed the conflicting information, we would reach the same conclusion as the Clinton NIE (which I really don't know what conclusion that reached, nor do I really care). Previously you indicated that there was conflicting information as to wether or not Iraq had WMD programs. So, what conflicting information, if not the alleged conflicting information on Iraq's WMD programs, do you think we should remove to reach a conclusion that better fits your views?

Boo Radley posted:
And yes, you do have to look at the entire information, and that is exactly what I've asked you to. If you remove the conflicting information, the doubted information, you have the Clinton NIE. That NIE reached a different conclusion.
 
Last edited:
And? I don't think that addresses wether the NIe assessment indicated that it was beleived that Iraq had active WMD programs. Did you have anything to offer in regards to the conversation we are actually having, or do you prefer just posting random videos?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
And? I don't think that addresses wether the NIe assessment indicated that it was beleived that Iraq had active WMD programs. Did you have anything to offer in regards to the conversation we are actually having, or do you prefer just posting random videos?

@approximately 25 seconds in Bush admits Iraq did not have WMD. He then states Iraq had the capability. I would imagine ANY country has the "ability". He then goes into the real reason for attacking Iraq which was clearly an international war crime. Attacking Saddam/Iraq was an easy sell in the wake of 9-11. Who the hell would say no to going to war and risk appearing like a traitor or ***** for the next election cycle?
 
@approximately 25 seconds in Bush admits Iraq did not have WMD. He then states Iraq had the capability. I would imagine ANY country has the "ability". He then goes into the real reason for attacking Iraq which was clearly an international war crime. Attacking Saddam/Iraq was an easy sell in the wake of 9-11. Who the hell would say no to going to war and risk appearing like a traitor or ***** for the next election cycle?

Yes, I think it has become fairly obvious that Iraq probably did not have active WMD programs. However, what we are actually discussing is wether the NIE indicated the intelligence community believed that Iraq had WMD programs.

It clearly did, as both the actual estimate and the chairman of the NIC indicated. The chairman of the NIC has clearly indicated that most governments outside of Iraq believed that Iraq had WMD programs and stockpiles.

In other words, we are discussing wether Bush lied or just believed faulty intelligence. Do you have anything to offer in regards to this discussion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
Do a search for the 2002 Iraq WMD NIE.

I have many times before, but you can make the work easier by linking and noted pages. Once you do that, we can more on to what else is there. And this is where you should have started to begin with.
 
You clearly stated that if we removed the conflicting information, we would reach the same conclusion as the Clinton NIE (which I really don't know what conclusion that reached, nor do I really care). Previously you indicated that there was conflicting information as to wether or not Iraq had WMD programs. So, what conflicting information, if not the alleged conflicting information on Iraq's WMD programs, do you think we should remove to reach a conclusion that better fits your views?

Yes, in Bush's argument. Remember, the CIA doesn't make conclusions about going to war. The rpesident did in this case. The only thing new in the NIE is the disputed information, which BUSH used in his arguments.
 
Yes, I think it has become fairly obvious that Iraq probably did not have active WMD programs. However, what we are actually discussing is wether the NIE indicated the intelligence community believed that Iraq had WMD programs.

It clearly did, as both the actual estimate and the chairman of the NIC indicated. The chairman of the NIC has clearly indicated that most governments outside of Iraq believed that Iraq had WMD programs and stockpiles.

In other words, we are discussing wether Bush lied or just believed faulty intelligence. Do you have anything to offer in regards to this discussion?

No, that he had growing programs, activley increasing his ability, gathering more weapons, stockpiling, the Bush claim. But get your link and I'll show you what I mean.
 
No, that he had growing programs, activley increasing his ability, gathering more weapons, stockpiling, the Bush claim. But get your link and I'll show you what I mean.

Both the NIE and NIC director that i previously quoted stated that it was believed that Saddam had active WMD programs. You can disagree all that you want, but somehow I think i'll trust our pal Stu and the NIE over our little Boo Boo.

I have many times before, but you can make the work easier by linking and noted pages. Once you do that, we can more on to what else is there. And this is where you should have started to begin with.

Feel free to search again. If you really cant figure out where I obtained those quotes from, i'll give you a hint: Just copy and paste the stuff I quoted into Yahoo/Google/Bing. Apparently you can't even figure that out, and expect me to take your word over that of a CIA operative with over 30 years experience who was chariman of the NIC when the NIE was actually produced.

Yes, in Bush's argument. Remember, the CIA doesn't make conclusions about going to war. The rpesident did in this case. The only thing new in the NIE is the disputed information, which BUSH used in his arguments.

No, of course the CIA didn't say we need to go to war or we should not go to war. Additionally it was the conclusion of intelligence communities around the world that Iraq had active WMD programs. This is partially because intelligence communities don't just remove conflicting information as you want to keep insisting that we do. If they did there would be zero need for analysis.

We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and
restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as
well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if
left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during
this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these
Key Judgments.)

Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons
facilities damaged during
Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and
biological infrastructure under
We judge that all key aspects--R&D, production, and
weaponization--of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and
that most elements are larger and more advanced than they
were before the Gulf war.

We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents
and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety
of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs,
missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives.

Again, I know you will, so i'm just waiting for you to tell me how that's not really what they said or beleved.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
I'm wating for a link. And make sure you have the claim correct, as little things make a difference, the Bush claim was growing and gathering. That's the claim that is being disputed. But, link and we'll go from there.
 
Back
Top Bottom