• 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

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.
Not really.
Saddam claimed it had been destroyed. THAT you CAN prove.
He didn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
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.

No, the UN required him to prove it, and he agreed to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
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.

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
 
No, the UN required him to prove it, and he agreed to do so.

And yet...17 times he did not. He lied, hid, dissembled. Clintons own secretary of defense pointed out that UN inspectors were held at the front gates of facilities whilst trucks were loaded and rolled out the back gates. Every elected democrat denounced his possession of WMDs and the threat he posed from 1992 (throughout the Clinton presidency until 2004 and the pending election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
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.
 
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...!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
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?
 
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.
:shrug:
 
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.

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.

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.

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).

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!!!

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.

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.



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
 
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.
 
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.


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?

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.


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.


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.

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.
 
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.
 
"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."
 
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
 
"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.
 
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.
 
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'.
 
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.


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.
:2wave:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom