• 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!

Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

  • Total voters
    102
pbrauer said:
Watch his posts, he just proclaims things to be true or false, he never provides any evidence. He may be what he said he was, but that doesn't mean his claims are true.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Even if they were true - I am not believing them until he shows unbiased proof.
 
What does the 96 page report say that the 25 page report doesn't?

Sheik Yerbuti said:
It was not the same intelligence information.

I'm amazed that even after 10+ years, there are still people who live in some alternate universe where they continue to believe that nonsense, even though it has been thoroughly debunked over and over again.

Here is the report given to Bush, others in his administration with the proper clearance, and to members of Congressional intelligence committees:

96 page NIE

And here is the report given to the other 95% of Congress:

25 page NIE

Do you really think a 25 page report IS THE SAME as a 96 page report?? :screwy
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
None of your narrative about the forged documents is accurate.
Click to expand...

Here's the report all this information comes from:

Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq

Submit your corrections here:

U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

When I see the Senate Intelligence Committee update their report with your recommendations, then I weill accept your findings. Until then, sit down and stfu with your nonsense that the official record is wrong. :roll:
 
MSgt said:
There has to be some measure of trust. Defaulting to mistrusting somebody's stated credentials only serves to allow you to stand by your idea of things.
Click to expand...
No, there does not have to be any level of trust where verification is lacking. If one cannot argue with verifiable facts, then they are showing up to gunfight with a rock (not even a knife). I've seen people on forums like these make all sorts of claims, only to undermine their own BS claims months later by unwittingly posting contradictory statements because they can't remember their own lies.

I believe what I can see. Not what some anonymous person in an anonymous chatroom in cyberspace claims is real even though it can't be seen.

There is too much evidence corroborating the history of those forged documents for his bullxit nonsense about unknown classified intel to even be considered in a debate about the matter.

The documentation on enough of the matter has been declassified and made public.

Despite his lies to the contrary, those forged documents were not proven to be forgeries "immediately." Despite his lies to the contrary, those forged documents were included in CIA reports. Despite his lies to the contrary, those forged documents raised questions (which prove there were not known to be fake at the time) that came from as high up as the vice president's office.

Anybody losing an argument they don't want to lose can claim anything in an anonymous chatroom in a vain attempt to salvage their drowning position, but don't expect people to "trust" them and accept it as gospel.
 
JC Callender said:
What does the 96 page report say that the 25 page report doesn't?
Click to expand...

For example ...

The 96 page classified NIE read:

Iraq is developing medium-range ballistic missile capabilities, largely through foreign assistance in building specialized facilities, including a test stand for engines more powerful than those in its current missile force. We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD. (pg. 7)​

Compared to the 25 page White Paper that was given to some 95% of Congress, read:

Iraq is developing medium-range ballistic missile capabilities, largely through foreign assistance in building specialized facilities. (pg. 2)​

Completely extracted was the admission that our intelligence agencies "possessed low confidence in their ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD".

... in another example ...

The 96 page classified NIE read:

Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs. (pg. 5)​

Compared to the 25 page White Paper that was given to some 95% of Congress, read:

Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. (pg. 5)​

Completely extracted was the admission of how "we lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD." And there are many sush examples like this one when reviewing the two documents side by side.

... in another example ...

Under a section titled, "Low Confidence," on page 9 of the 96 page classified NIE, it read:

  • When Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction.

  • Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the US Homeland.

  • Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida.
​

... that entire section was left out of the 25 page White Paper that was given to some 95% of Congress.

Needless to say, there are 71 pages of differences between the two documents. No one in their right mind could say those whose security clearance would only allow them access to the 25 page White Paper ... had the same information Bush had.
 
pbrauer said:
Uninformed about what?? I am not impressed with you pulling rank Jack, just because you were there doesn't mean diddilt-**** to me.

Greetings from Starbucks.
Click to expand...

As you wish. I have tried to point you in the right direction.
 
MSgt said:
Very nice. I'd love for you to be my neighbor. I always saw the CIA in my post military career, but family screwed that up. I only had a brief encounter with CIA officials in twenty years.

As for "uninformed," most are when quoting public knowledge of government events.
Click to expand...

Knew lots of fine Marines over the years. Thanks.
 
DA60 said:
Yeah, and I was GWB's personal assistant.

Some nameless/faceless guy on an internet chat forum claims to be such and such and you honestly expect me to believe it?

Man, you sure assume a ton of naivety.
Click to expand...

I don't really care what you believe, and I'm aware of the inherent credibility issue. I've done what I can to point people in the right direction.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Here's the report all this information comes from:

Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq

Submit your corrections here:

U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

When I see the Senate Intelligence Committee update their report with your recommendations, then I weill accept your findings. Until then, sit down and stfu with your nonsense that the official record is wrong. :roll:
Click to expand...

I have tried to point you in the right direction. What you do from that point is your business.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
I don't really care what you believe, and I'm aware of the inherent credibility issue. I've done what I can to point people in the right direction.
Click to expand...

You're aware of it - yet you still expected people to trust the word of a nameless/faceless guy on a chat forum?

For a supposed CIA department head, that's awfully naive, imo.

And 'Naive' is not a word I often associate with the CIA.

Just sayin'...
 
DA60 said:
You're aware of it - yet you still expected people to trust the word of a nameless/faceless guy on a chat forum?

For a supposed CIA department head, that's awfully naive, imo.

And 'Naive' is not a word I often associate with the CIA.

Just sayin'...
Click to expand...

I am under no illusions on that score. Just remember this exchange as the issue in question evolves in the future.
 
As to your second example "We lack specific information....", the 25 page report says, in the sentence right before what would be the full statement of the 96 page report that "Baghdad's vigorous concealment efforts have meant that specific information on many aspects of Iraq's WMD programs is yet to be uncovered". Does that sound that much different from the original 96 page report?

This is the first of your examples that I've gone over. Are they all going to be this weak?


Sheik Yerbuti said:
For example ...

The 96 page classified NIE read:

Iraq is developing medium-range ballistic missile capabilities, largely through foreign assistance in building specialized facilities, including a test stand for engines more powerful than those in its current missile force. We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD. (pg. 7)​

Compared to the 25 page White Paper that was given to some 95% of Congress, read:

Iraq is developing medium-range ballistic missile capabilities, largely through foreign assistance in building specialized facilities. (pg. 2)​

Completely extracted was the admission that our intelligence agencies "possessed low confidence in their ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD".

... in another example ...

The 96 page classified NIE read:

Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs. (pg. 5)​

Compared to the 25 page White Paper that was given to some 95% of Congress, read:

Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. (pg. 5)​

Completely extracted was the admission of how "we lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD." And there are many sush examples like this one when reviewing the two documents side by side.

... in another example ...

Under a section titled, "Low Confidence," on page 9 of the 96 page classified NIE, it read:

  • When Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction.

  • Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the US Homeland.

  • Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida.
​

... that entire section was left out of the 25 page White Paper that was given to some 95% of Congress.

Needless to say, there are 71 pages of differences between the two documents. No one in their right mind could say those whose security clearance would only allow them access to the 25 page White Paper ... had the same information Bush had.
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
I am under no illusions on that score. Just remember this exchange as the issue in question evolves in the future.
Click to expand...

What exchange?

All I know is you claimed to be attached to the CIA at one time.

No offense, but I stop reading your post after that (and I had not read any of them before that) until you replied to me.

I tend to just read the OP, comment (sometimes), reply to any replies to my comment and usually skip through almost all of the other posts.
 
DA60 said:
What exchange?

All I know is you claimed to be attached to the CIA at one time.

No offense, but I stop reading your post after that (and I had not read any of them before that) until you replied to me.

I tend to just read the OP, comment (sometimes), reply to any replies to my comment and usually skip through almost all of the other posts.
Click to expand...

Fine. Carry on.
 
JC Callender said:
As to your second example "We lack specific information....", the 25 page report says, in the sentence right before what would be the full statement of the 96 page report that "Baghdad's vigorous concealment efforts have meant that specific information on many aspects of Iraq's WMD programs is yet to be uncovered". Does that sound that much different from the original 96 page report?

This is the first of your examples that I've gone over. Are they all going to be this weak?
Click to expand...

There's 71 pages of differences. Those were just among the first few I came across.

I notice you didn't even respond to the section of "low confidence" at all. I gather that means you don't think that part is "weak."

Still, what the differences reveal is a) Most of Congress did NOT have the same information Bush and others with his clearance had; and b) the watered down White Paper removed the ambiguity and uncertainties contained in the full NIE.

The reason being -- to dupe Congress for votes.
 
pbrauer said:
How is it that you know the British Niger claim is true, whereas, the CIA doesn't give it much credence?
Click to expand...
Why are you even entertaining the notion this guy is who he says he is? He didn't even know about the forged documents and instead, used them to attack Wilson with a rightwing talking point. :roll:
 
ChrisL said:
This is totally normal after a war.
Click to expand...

You ignore this war was totally due to a mistake on the part of Dick and Bush. There was no WMD, or link to the terrorists that attacked on 9/11. We rained hell down on their country unnecessarily, any you just say this is "totally normal!"


You have a lot different idea of what is totally normal than most people.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
I think you are putting your own spin on what I say.

The inability to acknowledge the impact the invasion had on the Iraqis, and the inability to accept that it is now well known that people died because politicians from anglo speaking countries lied is what blinds you to the fact that you have swallowed a whole lot of spin, hook line and sinker.
Click to expand...

I totally speak "anglo".
 
pbrauer said:
How is it that you know the British Niger claim is true, whereas, the CIA doesn't give it much credence?
Click to expand...

It is a very complicated story, the explanation of which would be inappropriate in this forum.
 
The "low confidence" section didn't need to be in the 25 page report, it's what everyone was discussing at the time. Don't you think Clinton, Kerry, Biden, and the many others asked the simple questions posed in the "low confidence" section before agreeing to the Iraq Resolution?

Sheik Yerbuti said:
There's 71 pages of differences. Those were just among the first few I came across.

I notice you didn't even respond to the section of "low confidence" at all. I gather that means you don't think that part is "weak."

Still, what the differences reveal is a) Most of Congress did NOT have the same information Bush and others with his clearance had; and b) the watered down White Paper removed the ambiguity and uncertainties contained in the full NIE.

The reason being -- to dupe Congress for votes.
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
It is a very complicated story, the explanation of which would be inappropriate in this forum.
Click to expand...

Well that's par for the course, it seems as though you never back up anything you say. If you are what you say you are, then in my opinion you are an idiot for revealing it, because what posters see is a person (you) who is unquestionable, one never knows whether you are stating fact or an opinion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom