• 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

buck said:
Basically, I would rather the govt work on the intelligence that they have and be wrong, rather then not act because the intelligence has some doubters or is not 100.0% (as no intelligence ever is) and have the situation turn far worse.
Click to expand...

The government must acquire accurate intelligence. Period.

There was conflicting intelligence on Iraq. Our government preffered selectively choosing information that seemed to make their case for the Iraq war that they already wanted. This has happened before, and gives good grounds for questioning US leadership when it comes to attacking another country.

You have said something recklessly irresponsible about going to war with the intelligence that you have, even if this intelligence is wrong. Don't really know how to respond to that. Don't see how anybody can think that's reasonable. It does give insight into your standards for an invasion of another country. Your bar is set very low for something so profoundly important.
 
Last edited:
tryreading said:
The government must acquire accurate intelligence. Period.

There was conflicting intelligence on Iraq. Our government preffered selectively choosing information that seemed to make their case for the Iraq war that they already wanted. This has happened before, and gives good grounds for questioning US leadership when it comes to attacking another country.
Click to expand...

You sure do seem to have the wrong idea of how intelligence works. It's rarely going to be perfect. You will have conflicting information. It's the nature of the beast. A determination has to be made based on the entirety of the intelligence obtained. This will sometimes mean that you have to analyze conflicting information and make the determination.


You have said something recklessly irresponsible about going to war with the intelligence that you have, even if this intelligence is wrong. Don't really know how to respond to that. Don't see how anybody can think that's reasonable. It does give insight into your standards for an invasion of another country. Your bar is set very low for something so profoundly important.
Click to expand...

You go to war based on the best intelligence available. When the preponderance of evidence points you to believe that "A" is true, then you have to act as if "A" is accurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
buck said:
You sure do seem to have the wrong idea of how intelligence works. It's rarely going to be perfect. You will have conflicting information. It's the nature of the beast. A determination has to be made based on the entirety of the intelligence obtained. This will sometimes mean that you have to analyze conflicting information and make the determination.



You go to war based on the best intelligence available. When the preponderance of evidence points you to believe that "A" is true, then you have to act as if "A" is accurate.
Click to expand...

If you'll look, part of my point was the government often will not make a decision based on the entirety of the intelligence, but on the parts that support their agenda.

So you don't want the government to go to war based mostly on intelligence. That's only one tool. There are also the considerations of history, common sense, pragmatism, feasibility, level of trust in the current government, current ongoing military operations, international relationships, etc.

After Iraq, we should never go to war again based mostly on intelligence, which is obviously very easy to manipulate and fabricate.
 
tryreading said:
If you'll look, part of my point was the government often will not make a decision based on the entirety of the intelligence, but on the parts that support their agenda.

So you don't want the government to go to war based mostly on intelligence. That's only one tool. There are also the considerations of history, common sense, pragmatism, feasibility, level of trust in the current government, current ongoing military operations, international relationships, etc.

After Iraq, we should never go to war again based mostly on intelligence, which is obviously very easy to manipulate and fabricate.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is noted. When you become president you will be able to implement whatever policies youu want using whatever criteria you want.

However, I for one, hope that you do not become president. Sometimes intelligence is all that we will have, and actions will have to be taken based on the preponderence of information available.
 
Last edited:
buck said:
When you don't act on the intelligence that you have, you end up with N.K. You can claim that Bush lied about the intelligence prior to the Iraq war. However, those assertions are not quite as certain as you choose to believe.

Basically, I would rather the govt work on the intelligence that they have and be wrong, rather then not act because the intelligence has some doubters or is not 100.0% (as no intelligence ever is) and have the situation turn far worse.
Click to expand...

Let's be logical about this. The enemy is only one suicide bomber that appears out of nowhere (Iraq), or in small groups that move around (Afghanistan), and no way to pin them down.

So all intelligence is left with are possible phone taps with gibberish that may or may not be reliable, whistle blowers, and occasional statements by Arabs on the net that may or may not have value.

It all breaks down to NO intelligence, only educated guesswork, imaginative possibilities, seek and destroy all groups gathered outside the cities because they may or may not be the enemy.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
Let's be logical about this. The enemy is only one suicide bomber that appears out of nowhere (Iraq), or in small groups that move around (Afghanistan), and no way to pin them down.

So all intelligence is left with are possible phone taps with gibberish that may or may not be reliable, whistle blowers, and occasional statements by Arabs on the net that may or may not have value.

It all breaks down to NO intelligence, only educated guesswork, imaginative possibilities, seek and destroy all groups gathered outside the cities because they may or may not be the enemy.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Yes, the fog of war does exist. However, I really hope you aren't suggesting that they not react to the intelligence. If they tapped a call indicating that individual A is going to blow up a jet but don't react to it then a few weeks later individual A blows up a jet, would you be among those claiming that the government should have done more? Same question if internet chatter about a specific action increased... I know I would be. I will obviously acknowledge that they will have to analyze that information, though.
 
buck said:
When you don't act on the intelligence that you have, you end up with N.K. You can claim that Bush lied about the intelligence prior to the Iraq war. However, those assertions are not quite as certain as you choose to believe.

Basically, I would rather the govt work on the intelligence that they have and be wrong, rather then not act because the intelligence has some doubters or is not 100.0% (as no intelligence ever is) and have the situation turn far worse.
Click to expand...

We didn't have any intel to act on with either Iraq or NK. That's the point here. If you take away Curveball, al Libi, and the heros in error, there's no intel at all that suggest we invade. It just isn't there. And as we ahd every reason to doubt Curveball, al Libi, and the heros in error, we should not have gone to war.

And yes, the assertion that Bush lied is quite sound. He did not express the doubts, which is a lie of ommission at the very, very least. Not to mention that nothing supported gorwing and gathering anywhere.
 
Boo Radley said:
And yes, the assertion that Bush lied is quite sound.
Click to expand...

The assertion that Bush believed the majority of intelligence that was provided to him (and hence did not lie) is also quite sound. It's fun to just make declaritive statements.

He did not express the doubts, which is a lie of ommission at the very, very least.
Click to expand...
Silly little statement. Truly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
buck said:
The assertion that Bush believed the majority of intelligence that was provided to him (and hence did not lie) is also quite sound. It's fun to just make declaritive statements.


Silly little statement. Truly.
Click to expand...

Beleived what? The intel was that Curveball, al Libi and the heros in error were unreliable. So, exactly how does him presenting them as they were reliable show he belived the intel present to him? Please explain.
 
Boo Radley said:
Beleived what? The intel was that Curveball, al Libi and the heros in error were unreliable. So, exactly how does him presenting them as they were reliable show he belived the intel present to him? Please explain.
Click to expand...

You do realize that many times different individuals in the intelligence community will reach different conclusions? In other words, some people in the community reached the conclusion that the intelligence was unreliable. Others (most) reached the conclusion that the intelligence was accurate. Bush and most of his admin believed the consenus opinion that was presented.

You seem to want to live in this ideal little world where the intelligence will only point in one conclusion. However, this is not the way intelligence works. It didn't work that was with NK. It's not working that way with Iran. Why would you think Iraq should be any different? The majority opinion in the intelligence community was that he had WMD. Added to the fact that he was ignoring UN resolution after UN resolution and was acting as if he had WMD programs (apparently to fool Iran, etc) and you get to the point where invasion is going to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
buck said:
You do realize that many times different individuals in the intelligence community will reach different conclusions? In other words, some people in the community reached the conclusion that the intelligence was unreliable. Others (most) reached the conclusion that the intelligence was accurate. Bush and most of his admin believed the consenus opinion that was presented.

You seem to want to live in this ideal little world where the intelligence will only point in one conclusion. However, this is not the way intelligence works. It didn't work that was with NK. It's not working that way with Iran. Why would you think Iraq should be any different? The majority opinion in the intelligence community was that he had WMD. Added to the fact that he was ignoring UN resolution after UN resolution and was acting as if he had WMD programs (apparently to fool Iran, etc) and you get to the point where invasion is going to happen.
Click to expand...

I realize fully, but the NIE clearly states these people were doubted, and gave very good rationale for doubting them, like al Libi couldn't knwo what he reported. Yet, Bush did not present it that way, so how can it be argued he acted in good faith based on the intel?

I'm not the one living in an ideal world. Nor am I the one making excuses for the person who simply did not act on the actual intel, but sought to use doubted intel, pretending it was the actual intel. The fact is the NIE contained no new intel in it, and did not conclude Saddam was growing and gathering. Remove the doubted intel, and you cannot honestly make the claims Bush made.
 
Boo Radley said:
I realize fully, but the NIE clearly states these people were doubted, and gave very good rationale for doubting them, like al Libi couldn't knwo what he reported. Yet, Bush did not present it that way, so how can it be argued he acted in good faith based on the intel?

I'm not the one living in an ideal world. Nor am I the one making excuses for the person who simply did not act on the actual intel, but sought to use doubted intel, pretending it was the actual intel. The fact is the NIE contained no new intel in it, and did not conclude Saddam was growing and gathering. Remove the doubted intel, and you cannot honestly make the claims Bush made.
Click to expand...

Remove the doubted intel of nearly any major decision, and nothing would ever get done. That seems to be what you are missing. You have doubted intelligence in NK and Iran. When a country (such as NK, Iran) has reasons to hide what's happening, you will almost always have intelligence that is doubted by some. You need to look at the whole of the intelligence, both doubted and confirmed and make a decision based on that.

It's not so much that I can't. It's more that I don't want to. So, if you want to know why a majority of intelligence analysts and agencies believed that Iraq had WMD, ask them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
buck said:
Remove the doubted intel of nearly any major decision, and nothing would ever get done. That seems to be what you are missing. You have doubted intelligence in NK and Iran. When a country (such as NK, Iran) has reasons to hide what's happening, you will almost always have intelligence that is doubted by some. You need to look at the whole of the intelligence, both doubted and confirmed and make a decision based on that.

It's not so much that I can't. It's more that I don't want to. So, if you want to know why a majority of intelligence analysts and agencies believed that Iraq had WMD, ask them.
Click to expand...

Right, we don't act on material we doubt, which is why no one acted before. And if we want to act, and not be honest we use doubted intel, pretend it is prue, and act.

And the intel concerning NK has already been admitted to as false, that we really didn't know what we saisd we knew. Supposition, guessing, is simply not the same as actual fact or evidence. And we should not act on a guess.

And the intel agencies have spoken. They did not believe Saddam had an active program. They did not believe growing and gathering. Like most, they believed he had some left over wmds, and that he was not inclined to use the left overs, if they were still opperational (they mostly weren't btw), unless we invaded. If Bush were honest, and telling the truth, this is what he would have said becasue that is what the non-doubted intel said.
 
Boo Radley said:
Right, we don't act on material we doubt, which is why no one acted before. And if we want to act, and not be honest we use doubted intel, pretend it is prue, and act.

And the intel concerning NK has already been admitted to as false, that we really didn't know what we saisd we knew. Supposition, guessing, is simply not the same as actual fact or evidence. And we should not act on a guess.

And the intel agencies have spoken. They did not believe Saddam had an active program. They did not believe growing and gathering. Like most, they believed he had some left over wmds, and that he was not inclined to use the left overs, if they were still opperational (they mostly weren't btw), unless we invaded. If Bush were honest, and telling the truth, this is what he would have said becasue that is what the non-doubted intel said.
Click to expand...

Here, go take it up with this guy. I'm sure with all of your years of experience, you can correct him and show him the error of his ways.

https://www.cia.gov/news-informatio...ts/press-release-archive-2003/pr11282003.html

Fundamentally, the Intelligence Community increasingly will be in danger of not connecting the dots until the dots have become a straight line.
Click to expand...

The NIE judged with high confidence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 km limit imposed by the UN Security Council, and with moderate confidence that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
buck said:
Here, go take it up with this guy. I'm sure with all of your years of experience, you can correct him and show him the error of his ways.

https://www.cia.gov/news-informatio...ts/press-release-archive-2003/pr11282003.html
Click to expand...

You should actually read it, as it doesn't dispute me. Again, it is not the NIE I have fault with. it is the president's portral of it, his lie. The intel does not say growing and gathering. Does not say there were stockpiles, and does not say Saddam was working with al Qaeda. Bush did, or his people did, and Bush did not express the doubts in the intel.
 
Boo Radley said:
The intel does not say growing and gathering. Does not say there were stockpiles.
Click to expand...

Yeah... right... They didn't believe Iraq had, and was developing, banned weapons, including WMDs.

The only government in the world that claimed that Iraq was not working on, and did not have, biological and chemical weapons or prohibited missile systems was in Baghdad.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
buck said:
Yeah... right... They didn't believe Iraq had, and was developing, banned weapons, including WMDs.
Click to expand...

Read your article. They did not claim Saddam was gorwing and gathering. Bush did. You're own article says there was nothing new it the NIE. Again, as I have said. Only Bush and his people used the doubted intel and treated as if it were accepted.
 
Boo Radley said:
Read your article. They did not claim Saddam was gorwing and gathering. Bush did. You're own article says there was nothing new it the NIE. Again, as I have said. Only Bush and his people used the doubted intel and treated as if it were accepted.
Click to expand...

You are right, it is not claimed that he was "Growing and Gathering". Instead it simply states that they had high confidence that Saddam was working on biological and chemical weapons. It further states that it was believed that he had bioilogical and chemical weapons.

It's the same thing, just worded differently. Feel free to argue it with him.

The NIE judged with high confidence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 km limit imposed by the UN Security Council, and with moderate confidence that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. These judgments were essentially the same conclusions reached by the United Nations and by a wide array of intelligence services—friendly and unfriendly alike. The only government in the world that claimed that Iraq was not working on, and did not have, biological and chemical weapons or prohibited missile systems was in Baghdad.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
buck said:
You are right, it is not claimed that he was "Growing and Gathering". Instead it simply states that they had high confidence that Saddam was working on biological and chemical weapons. It further states that it was believed that he had bioilogical and chemical weapons.

It's the same thing, just worded differently. Feel free to argue it with him.
Click to expand...

No, it's really not. Growing and gathering says that he is amassing, successful, and becoming a larger threat. The intel doesn't say that. Also, no one states they believed Saddam didn't have anything. We knew he had some left over wmds, but also knew his ability to store and make was compromised. The NIE reports that as well. And the NIE also reports Saddam was unlikley to use whatever he did have wwihtout us invading.

So, the problem was not the NIE or the CIA, but the lies Bush told.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it's really not. Growing and gathering says that he is amassing, successful, and becoming a larger threat. The intel doesn't say that. Also, no one states they believed Saddam didn't have anything. We knew he had some left over wmds, but also knew his ability to store and make was compromised. The NIE reports that as well. And the NIE also reports Saddam was unlikley to use whatever he did have wwihtout us invading.

So, the problem was not the NIE or the CIA, but the lies Bush told.
Click to expand...

Then you can talk to Stu Cohen and tell him he is wrong. Contrary to what the acting chairman of the NIE in 2006 stated, it was not claimed by all governments, except the one located in Baghdad, that Iraq was developing chem and bio weapons. While you're at it, you can also tell him that the NIE was not, as he claimed, highly confident that Saddam had WMDs.

You can't, as you seem to want to do, only look at the conflicting information. You have to look at the entirety of the information. The entirety of the information, according to Stu, led most of the governments around the world to conclude that Saddam was develping WMD and other banned weapons.

In case you haven't noticed, I really am telling you to take it up with him, because I am not too interested in the conversation anymore. When the NIE chairman states that it was believed by the NIE and most governments that Iraq was developing WMDs and you continue to claim that the NIE didn't say that, I just see little point to continuing....
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
buck said:
Then you can talk to Stu Cohen and tell him he is wrong. Contrary to what the acting chairman of the NIE in 2006 stated, it was not claimed by all governments, except the one located in Baghdad, that Iraq was developing chem and bio weapons. While you're at it, you can also tell him that the NIE was not, as he claimed, highly confident that Saddam had WMDs.

You can't, as you seem to want to do, only look at the conflicting information. You have to look at the entirety of the information. The entirety of the information, according to Stu, led most of the governments around the world to conclude that Saddam was develping WMD and other banned weapons.

In case you haven't noticed, I really am telling you to take it up with him, because I am not too interested in the conversation anymore. When the NIE chairman states that it was believed by the NIE and most governments that Iraq was developing WMDs and you continue to claim that the NIE didn't say that, I just see little point to continuing....
Click to expand...

I have no problem doing that. Someoone saying something is not equal to fact. But Stu is much more careful than eiteher Bush or yourself. He limits his language, as he should. What surprise me is that you don't use the actual NIE, but instead find someone to say or claim something, and somehow think that wins the debate for you.

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.

And you have to look at the assessment of the CIA that Saddam was not likely to hadn off or use any wmds he had with the popssible exacption of if we invaded. So, according to them the threat was greater if we invaded than if we didn't.

And no matter what you're interested in, the problem is not with the intel, but with how the president used it and misrepresented it. neither you nor Cohan actually address that.
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

Intelligence agencies don't simply remove conflicting information. The fact that you think that's what they do is a rather sorry statement.
 
Boo Radley said:
What surprise me is that you don't use the actual NIE, but instead find someone to say or claim something, and somehow think that wins the debate for you.
Click to expand...

Fine. Let's take a look at the NIE, and find out how it doesn't state that it's their assessment that Iraq has active WMD programs.
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.)
Click to expand...

Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons
facilities damaged during
Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and
biological infrastructure under
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Your turn. Go ahead and claim that's not what they are really saying - I know you're going to.
 
buck said:
Fine. Let's take a look at the NIE, and find out how it doesn't state that it's their assessment that Iraq has active WMD programs.






Your turn. Go ahead and claim that's not what they are really saying - I know you're going to.
Click to expand...

Where's your link?
 
buck said:
Intelligence agencies don't simply remove conflicting information. The fact that you think that's what they do is a rather sorry statement.
Click to expand...

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 must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom