• 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

I have supported my claim. no one outside of you disputes my claim. Even Fieth addresses the report, and aknowledges what it says. Your silliness is just that, silliness.
The report says that the OUSD presented alternative intelligence reports that were inconsistent with the intelligence communities analysis on the iraq-AQ connection.

Nothing about WMDs. Nothing about Bush or Chaney lying, or being behind these reports.

How does this support your claim that Bush+Chaney knowingly lied about WMDs? At the VERY most it shows that Bush and Chaney believed the AQ-Iraq relationship. Of which they later BOTH admitted there was no relationship as they had previously believed.

Mostly on your side. Remember Rumsfeld, :absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That literally means there was no evidence. ;)
what does Rumsfeld have to do with your claim that Bush and Chaney lied?

It appears you are shifting the goalposts.
1) It was first that bush and chaney lied
2) then it was that the bush administration lied
3) now its changed to Gimble and Feith made faulty reports.
4) And now its that the OUSD made faulty reports about iraq-AQ, only.

It seems lies about WMDs have completely fallen off your radar and now its down to a contrived attempt to make some connection from OUSD to Bush+Chaney lying.


The claims have been supported. repeatedly.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/ig020907-decl.pdf


THANK YOU FOR FINALLY POSTING YOUR SOURCE. NOW ITS VERY OBVIOUS IT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE THINGS YOU CLAIM IT DOES.

This isn't the only thread here. ;)

Do you think that I believe Obama is a "muslim socialist marxist communist racist from Kenya who hates America."?

If not why would you say it? Just ranting?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
The report says that the OUSD presented alternative intelligence reports that were inconsistent with the intelligence communities analysis on the iraq-AQ connection.

Nothing about WMDs. Nothing about Bush or Chaney lying, or being behind these reports.

How does this support your claim that Bush+Chaney knowingly lied about WMDs? At the VERY most it shows that Bush and Chaney believed the AQ-Iraq relationship. Of which they later BOTH admitted there was no relationship as they had previously believed.

what does Rumsfeld have to do with your claim that Bush and Chaney lied?

You really have troubles following something. This backs up the part about inapropriate use of intel. What you're telling me is you knwo nothing about Iraq and anything ever presented on it, a complete novice.

It appears you are shifting the goalposts.
1) It was first that bush and chaney lied
2) then it was that the bush administration lied
3) now its changed to Gimble and Feith made faulty reports.
4) And now its that the OUSD made faulty reports about iraq-AQ, only.

No, it's all those things and not just one of them.

It seems lies about WMDs have completely fallen off your radar and now its down to a contrived attempt to make some connection from OUSD to Bush+Chaney lying.

Not at all, you just seemed to have such a hard time following one single point. I haven't had a discussion with a complete novice before on these boards. Why don't you google al Libi, Chalaibi and his heors in error, and Curveball, do some homework to catch up. Yiou might also look up what we knew about alumium tubes and mobile labs before the war, as it also is contrary to what Bush told us, the people. It would take too much to link all of this for you, so I suggest you catch up before we go on.




THANK YOU FOR FINALLY POSTING YOUR SOURCE. NOW ITS VERY OBVIOUS IT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE THINGS YOU CLAIM IT DOES.

It does, and says exactly what the other links say. You not reading them doesn't mean this link doesn't support what was claimed. You're being disingenuous now.

Do you think that I believe Obama is a "muslim socialist marxist communist racist from Kenya who hates America."?

If not why would you say it? Just ranting?

It's humor concerning all the conversations I've had here. Kind of a funny thought that came into my head while reading your silliness. I really didn't know you were so far behind the eightball, not having read anything on this subject. Either that, or you're just ebing disingenuous. There is pelnty of evidence. But it does require you think and use logic. No one's been brought up on charges and won't be, but there is plenty of evidence if you want to investigate and read, a lot.
 
Nothing about WMDs. Nothing about Bush or Chaney lying, or being behind these reports.
This is really quite simple:
-A lie is a staement that you know to be false.
-If you believe your statement to be true, then you cannot know the statement to be false.
-Both Bush and Cheney believed there were WMDs in Iraq.
Thus:
-Bush/Cheney did not lie.
:shrug:
 
This is really quite simple:
-A lie is a staement that you know to be false.
-If you believe your statement to be true, then you cannot know the statement to be false.
-Both Bush and Cheney believed there were WMDs in Iraq.
Thus:
-Bush/Cheney did not lie.
:shrug:

They couldn't have based on the intel they had.
 
Thats your subjective, post-facto, rabidly partisan opinion.

No that's fact. The CIA has clearly stated there was no new information. We know most was destroyed before we invaded, we had information the tubes were not compatable for nuclear weapons, we had information disclaim the mobile labs, we had no information that was not doubted by the CIA concerning wmds. Bush's claim of growing and gathering was not supported by available intel.
 
The Wikileaks leak may not have the happy ending that some folks are hoping for. If this turns out to be solid information, it will blow the lid off the anti-war movement's agenda.

No thanks... Only fools believe those with vested interests. Those of us who want facts, not politics, believe the dozens of inspectors who found nothing after years of searching.

ricksfolly
 
This backs up the part about inapropriate use of intel.
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.

What you're telling me is you know nothing about Iraq and anything ever presented on it, a complete novice.
I do NOT claim to be an expert on this subject. Do you?


t appears you are shifting the goalposts.
1) It was first that bush and chaney lied
2) then it was that the bush administration lied
3) now its changed to Gimble and Feith made faulty reports.
4) And now its that the OUSD made faulty reports about iraq-AQ, only.
it's all those things and not just one of them.
Other than #4, how does the OUSD report substantiate those claims?

No one's been brought up on charges and won't be, but there is plenty of evidence if you want to investigate and read, a lot.

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?
 
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.

I do NOT claim to be an expert on this subject. Do you?



Other than #4, how does the OUSD report substantiate those claims?



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?

Well, what about conceding that someone in the White House lied, or mislead us? Was there no involvement at all from any staf or cabinet member?

What about Wolfowitz? You would have to say he was involved, right? No doubt about that.

And did he make that move on his own? Without Rumsfeld?


So then the question is did those two lie?

There were misleading claims (lies) throughout the Alternative Intelligence documents, and even in the way they were presented - in three different versions.

Also, this 'intelligence' was presented as intelligence when it should have been submitted only as policy.

Part of the purpose of this work became an attempt to dispute actual intelligence by the proper IC agency. And Wolfowitz and Feith's 'intel' was wrong, of course. Its intent, in part, was to prove the CIA wrong on its claim that there was no cooperation between Iraq and al Quida. Of course, the CIA was right on that issue.

What happened was Wolfowitz and Feith, et al, were tasked to bolster the White House's case for a war it was going to wage in Iraq.

Is that honest?
 
Last edited:
Well, what about conceding that someone in the White House lied, or mislead us?
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 no involvement at all from any staf or cabinet member?
Was there? You tell me? How do you KNOW?

What about Wolfowitz? You would have to say he was involved, right? No doubt about that.
He was involved in WHAT exactly?

And did he make that move on his own? Without Rumsfeld?
What move? Did he make any move?


So then the question is did those two lie?

There were misleading claims (lies) throughout the Alternative Intelligence documents, and even in the way they were presented - in three different versions.
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.

Also, this 'intelligence' was presented as intelligence when it should have been submitted only as policy.
This is correct and is consistent with the IG report

Part of the purpose of this work became an attempt to dispute actual intelligence by the proper IC agency. And Wolfowitz and Feith's 'intel' was wrong, of course. Its intent, in part, was to prove the CIA wrong on its claim that there was no cooperation between Iraq and al Quida. Of course, the CIA was right on that issue.

What happened was Wolfowitz and Feith, et al, were tasked to bolster the White House's case for a war it was going to wage in Iraq.

Is that honest?
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?
 
we can now observe, first hand, why the political tactic of plausible deniability works so effectively
 
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.
 
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?

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?

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.

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?

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.


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?


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.
 
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/washington/27intel.html


What evidence supports the claim that "they" intentionally presented a lie rather than presenting what they believed was true?

:lol: 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. :lamo


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.
 
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/washington/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:
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.
 
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.


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.

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?

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

Stockpiles of wmds didn't exist, and there was no reason to think they did. Nor was there evidence of growing and gathering. Genocide was not on going, and years after it happen is a little late. Bringing more death years later is adding injury to injury. And he was a nobody on the global terrorism circut. So, none of the three actually wiork as justification.
 
No, it doesn't. It's talking about two different things.
Please specify these two different things CLEARLY and CONCISELY. Preferably quote both sources rather than paraphrasing or interpreting yourself.


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.



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.

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?

As far as they go, yes I accept it. But that is not all to the story, as noted.
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.


It is if they don't accept an answer until they get what they want.
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?

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.
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.
 
Stockpiles of wmds didn't exist, and there was no reason to think they did. Nor was there evidence of growing and gathering. Genocide was not on going, and years after it happen is a little late. Bringing more death years later is adding injury to injury. And he was a nobody on the global terrorism circut. So, none of the three actually wiork as justification.

Tell that to Bill Clinton and every other democrat. We dont REALLY have to post their comments...yet again...do we?

We only know today what we know because Bush acted.

And BTW...isnt ANYONE at least a LITTLE bit curious about what happened to the tons of biological spores unaccounted for?
 
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.

It's not about the illusive evidence, it's about trying to prove a negative. When Sadaam said he didn't have WMDs, Bush told him to prove it.

ricksfolly
 
Back
Top Bottom