In another thread, a great bit of talk is going on about intelligence briefings given to Bush and Kerry leading up to the coming election. The idea is that one or the other may have a better idea of what is really going on in Iraq and the War on Terror.
One side argues that Bush, being Commander in Chief, has daily briefings and updates that Kerry isn't privy to. The other side rails that Kerry, as a presidential candidate, does receive updates and briefings on par with Bush's, so that whoever is elected has a fair picture of what is going.
The US Intelligence community has been in shambles for some time now, with 9/11 being the exclamation point. Either they didn't have the info, or most likely, the vital info was passed over as not being concrete enough.
Before that ever happened, however, bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization bombed the USS Cole and US embassies in Africa. Based in the Sudan, with training camps in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was making its first big forays into this war. And we knew, then, where they were and what they were planning. So, we sent some cruise missiles and pretty much wrote it off. And somehow, even with the Sudanese government saying, well, come get him, we paused. And Osama moved quite some distance from Sudan to Afghanistan. No one caught him, no one saw this ghost move.
Then, 9/11. Then we invaded Afghanistan and managed to not catch Osama, no matter how many folks came forward with information. We couldn't move fast enough. We couldn't penetrate the Afghan wilderness or the Pakistani frontier. He slipped through our fingers, and probably quite easily.
Then we get into Iraq, based very, very much on the report that Saddam had WMDs and wasn't going to be afraid to use them for much longer. Intelligence estimates were that he had the capabilities, probably had the stockpiles, and he had the wherewithal to get them into the hands of those who would make use of them.
Then, we invaded, toppled his government and searched. And searched. And searched. To no avail. There hadn't been a monster under the bed, just a mouse that roared.
Our intelligence failed, again, spectacularly. And we look bad to the whole world. Bush looks bad for pushing the war on flimsy evidence. Cheney looks bad because of Haliburton no-bid contracts. Powell loses stature in the world because of his UN efforts before the war, stature he had once nobly earned. Kerry looks bad, along with Edwards, because they both cast votes to go ahead with the invasion.
So now, we look at what our leaders are given as a world picture, what they receive as intelligence briefings. Neither candidate is an idiot, no matter what anyone says. Neither candidate has a cabinet of stooges serving with them or waiting in the wings. Neither candidate wants any harm, whatsoever, to come to their country and countrymen.
But they are having to act on the information they are given. And that information, as has been shown publicly and globally, is neither accurate, valuable or timely. The information, either by design or neglect, has been greatly corrupted.
Heaven help us, whoever gets elected. If the most powerful man in the world can't get a true and unvarnished picture of the most important global issues of the day, how can he lead?
And if the president, whoever it will be, can't get the truth, then what chance do we, the little people, ever have of getting even a shred of it?
And won't it be our blood that gets spilled? Either as soldiers or as victims of a terrorist's bomb?
[ October 12, 2004, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"And if the president, whoever it will be, can't get the truth, then what chance do we, the little people, ever have of getting even a shred of it?"
See, I believe the president CAN get the truth. But first he has to care enough about the truth to demand it.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Great post. I agree with what you say to a "T".
Of course I have my own view as to what kind of ineptitude occurred during Clinton's administration in response to being attacked on our home soil and abroad.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
And reward the truth.
Picture this. You are an intelligence operative who has information that goes against teh President's stated policies. You have information that states there are no chemical weapons trucks in Iraq, as the President is claiming.
Do you tell him? Yes.
Then you hear about an ambassador given a mission by the president to investigate Iraq's nuclear program. When this ambassador reports that there is no such program, the ambassador's wife's cover as an intelligence operative if blown to the public.
Your cover is all that separates you from an early grave.
Do you take what may be a hint? Do you risk your life or change your report, dropping the information the President doesn't want to hear?
I don't believe that the President is that vindictive or sloppy with intelligence information. But somebody in the white house is.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Look, while the reports say Saddam didn't have the weapons, they also say that everybody thought he did. Even his own generals.
This means Saddam was posturing. He was the kid walking around spreading rumors he had a gun in his backpack to look dangerous and cool.
He got his bluff called, because we thought we could even beat the hand he was bluffing he had. That doesn't make anyone a foolish poker player.
Or a liar.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Or less than dilligent in their persuit of truth.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
It doesn't make you a liar for saying he had WMDs. It does make you a liar if you claimed you KNEW he had WMDs, though. If it's merely an "estimate" that he has WMDs, you should call it an estimate, not a known fact.
And yes, we had bad information, but we could have gotten better information, had we given the weapons inspectors the time they requested rather than rushing to war. It was fairly clear even at the time that Bush was more concerned with justifying his war than finding out the truth. If he was truly diligent in looking for the truth, he would have given the weapons inspectors the time they said they needed to ascertain that truth.
[ October 12, 2004, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
EDIT: To Dan_Raven: That is the biggest load of "conspiracy theory" b.s. I have ever heard. Bend the truth a little further and you might even be able to find evidence for little green men on Mars.
Here's a better scenario:
Picture this, you are the President of the most powerful country in the world.
Your intelligence committee is rated the best in the world by a FAR margin.
Your intelligence committee informs you that based on ALL historical evidence, ALL current actions by the Iraqi government, and all information they can obtain currently that they believe Iraq has WMD's.
Then you ask the British Intelligence who confirms the same thing.
Then the French and Germans say the same thing.
The only dissenters are the Russians who don't believe they have WMD's (it's because they are illicitly trading with Iraq and aren't about to admit that).
EDIT: Not to mention the defectors themselves who claimed to be part of the WMD's development programs.
Hmmm. 75% of the citizens of your country are FOR invading Iraq based on the minimal intelligence available to the public.
What do you do as Commander in Chief?
Bush acted on the intelligence he was given and in accord with the wishes of his people at the time.
Since then, there have been quite a few "Yahoos" to use someone elses phrase, who claimed he "lied" and more incredibly, that he "knew" more than every intelligence committee in the world somehow.
Wow, how dare a President step up and take charge. We needed at LEAST 8 more years of interrupted inspections and also UN lifting of trade sanctions and basic "nothingness".
I do believe in 16 years we might have been able to ascertain that he didn't have WMD's, maybe even sooner, but that would of course be reason for sanctions stopping him from acquiring them had been lifted.
And he didn't want to persue WMD's once sanctions were lifted did he?
[ October 12, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
You are right.
Everyone thought he had WMD.
I did, because my President assured me in every speech for 6 months or more that Saddam Hussein had WMD.
Now everyone admits that they were wrong, that Hussein did not have the WMD we thought, that we were fooled by an expert.
Everyone but two people.
There are still two people out there who are crossing the country saying, "Vote for me because I saved us from the WMD and the terrorist Saddam Hussein."
Well, that is not a real quote. His stump speech goes more, "I had a tuff choice, take the word of a dictator, or save my country." and "He could have developed chemical and biological weapons and he could have given them to terrorists, so the war is justified." There is a lot of could haves to go to war on.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
C, I didn't say that President Bush lied about his knowledge. I said that the leaking of the CIA operative's name, by someone in the Bush Whitehouse, was a deterent from anyone in the intelligence community presenting evidence that was against Presidential policy.
He should have done something, said something, made some official statement to let his people know that he demands all the info, not just that which supports his actions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
doc, the simple truth is this: Bush lied, and was less than diligent in pursuit of the truth. Now, he and his people believed they had reason to believe otherwise, that the truth they knew was simply truer than the facts they'd obtained so far, and therefore felt that their deceptions would ultimately prove justified; in fact, they still believe that their deceptions are justified by other events and causes for war. But that doesn't mean they were exactly interested in accuracy in the first place, because they weren't.
[ October 12, 2004, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No intelligence information is ever going to be perfect. That's just a sad fact of the world we live in. However, there are methods to increase the confidence we can put in our intelligence.
One of the things that upsets many people about the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq war is how they alienated people with dissenting opinions. Colin Powell, especially, was relegated to the outside of the decision making process, only to be brought in when they needed his integrity (like the speech he gave before the U.N., the one that tipped American opinion (including mine) to believing that we had to invade Iraq and which Secretary Powell has since admitted was built on flimsy evidence) and after the crap had hit the fan.
We know plenty about the decision making process, some of it specifically how it relates to Presidential decisions (see here) and the groupthink that it seems that the Bush Administration engaged in (e.g. "you're either with us or against us") has usually led to poor reality testing and decision making. You need to listen to people with different perspectives than you. When people you should trust, like Colin Powell, or the various military leaders who disagreed with Donald Rumsfeld, or Canada and Australia, are saying "We don't think what you're doing is a good idea." you at least listen to what they have to say, instead of appointing mindguards to keep the objections they are raising from entering the decision making process.
Some of my friends are heavily into the ABB crowd and when I (who believed the things the government was saying) made the case for why we needed to go to war, many of them agreed that, if what I was saying was accurate, we probably should go to war, but that the Bush administration must be lying or at least very incorrect about this info. It turns out they were right. That's a huge problem, that, for a period of time, you could do pretty well at predicting what was accurate by automatically assuming that the things the White House was saying were incorrect. And now, looking back on it, there are many cases where it is clear that they were incorrect because they refused to question whatever flimsy piece of evidence or even conjecture supported the worldview they wanted to have.
No doubt we have some major institutional problems in our intelligence services, but I refuse to believe that it is that bad, that they are incapable of, for example, determining the two mobile trailers that Colin Powell made so much of in his speech before the U.N. had nothing to do with mobile weapons factories and were instead easily verified as the hydrogen processing utilities, sold to Iraq by a British company (who kept very good paper work about this), that the Iraqis claimed they were.
Like I said, no intelligence gathering is ever going to be perfect, but something like that (and many other intelligence gaffes) shows not a failure of capability, but rather a failure of direction.
I don't really bleieve that things will get that much better if John Kerry is elected. Besides being a member of the Senate Intelligence commitee that allowed this information twisting and ignoring to happen, he and the plans he has been touting don't strike me as being big on reality testing. Unless people are willing to stand up for the principles here, I don't think we're going to see our intelligence services used correctly.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:doc, the simple truth is this: Bush lied, and was less than diligent in pursuit of the truth.
The only simple truth is that if you dislike Bush than he lied about WMDs. If you like Bush, then he had faulty information and made a mistake about WMDs, something which he has admitted to--in so many words.
He hasn't said "I made a mistake invading Iraq," because that would be a monstrously valuable soundbite to the John Kerry Campaign. And as Commander in Chief, that sort of statement would destroy the morale of the troops on the ground in Iraq.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So what you're saying, FT, is that Bush is lying, but it's for the sake of the children? Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Doc, the simple truth is that Tom just lied in claiming Bush lied. Therefore using his logic, we shouldn't believe what he said.
Factcheck.org's killing of Tom's argument is found here and quoted for convienience:
quote: Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.
The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.
Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.
A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.” A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke. Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger . Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium. None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.
But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.
Do you accept those facts Tom?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Sopwith,
Well stated. I agree with most every point.
However, though I don't believe that GWB is stupid, neither do I believe that he is very smart. I also believe that he has been pushing an agenda to invade Iraq. For whatever reason, "People for a New American Century" have gotten it into their heads that Iraq is to be invaded (or, "was," since now we've done it).
Either intentionally, or because his people screened him from the details of the truth, or because he couldn't handle the details of the truth, GWB invaded Iraq.
Is it oil? Is it trying to gain control of some larger aspect of the Mid-East oil markets? Is it to improve access to oil, reduce prices, increase prices (and therefore profits, for the Bush family and friends)? Is it to help bring about the second coming of Christ?
All have been proposed. All make sense, based on Bush's stated opinions on religion, the Middle East, and based on his behavior while busy profiting from his bankrupting of Harken Oil, and from his days spent sleeping around with Kenneth Lay of Enron.
I can no longer (not that I really ever did) give President Bush the "benefit of the doubt." With the recent report stating that Iraq had NO WMD, Bush and Cheney changed their reasons for going to war as an effort to thwart Hussein's INTENT to create WMD. They allowed themselves the right to attack on PERCEIVED INTENT. Well, now, so do I.
--Steve
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. Somehow my "Bush lied" appears to have become "Bush lied about this specific example." I don't recall saying anything of the kind.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
That's only 16 words. Bush has built an entire war on the repeated claims that we knew Saddam had WMDs. That is where the lying was (and continues to be.)
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
What? He has stated since then that even knowing he didn't have WMD's was the right thing to do.
Perhaps you are missing him saying that, or maybe not listening...but he has stated it. Repeatedly. So has his administration.
Are you looking for them to say they DIDN'T believe he had WMDs? Because that would be a lie since he clearly believed (as did pretty much all intelligence committes) that he did. And with very, very good reason on all fronts.
Perhaps Tom you can show us where Pres. Bush lied like I showed how Kerry lied just a week ago on Flu Vaccines.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I agree that since we found no WMDs, he did flip-flop about whether the WMDs were the main reason for war. However, at the beginning, he did base the argument for the war on his claims that we knew Iraq had WMDs. That entire state of the union speech, for instance, was dedicated to getting the point across that we knew Saddam had WMDs and we knew he was an immediate threat - and thus is one of many examples of when Bush lied to us.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: That's only 16 words. Bush has built an entire war on the repeated claims that we knew Saddam had WMDs. That is where the lying was (and continues to be.)
Absolutely wrong and false. First part in error. WMD's were only PART of the reason for "Iraqi: Freedom" and I just gave you a hint. Read his speeches when the War began (remember he came on TV from the Oval office to announce the invasion? What did he say then? Hmmmm do you know?)
Second part is that he has repeatedly said, as has the administration that knowing that he didn't have WMD's he would do it again.
Did you miss the admission there?
Gotta hate it when you call someone a liar, and then we find out who really is lying.
I would be more than happy to show you how Kerry is a liar as well but I doubt that would make a difference.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: I agree that since we found no WMDs, he did flip-flop about whether the WMDs were the main reason for war.
HINT: Since you missed the last one.
The Mission is called Iraqi: Freedom not WMD search and it called that for a reason.
Here let's try another approach. Why is the Mission called "Iraqi Freedom"?
Do you know?
Can you maybe...guess?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
And that too is another thing he may have lied about - his reasons for going to war. He CLAIMED we were going to war over WMDs or as part of the war on terror, then later it was revealed he wanted to go to war anyway - simply to free Iraqis.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: That entire state of the union speech, for instance, was dedicated to getting the point across that we knew Saddam had WMDs and we knew he was an immediate threat - and thus is one of many examples of when Bush lied to us.
OMG I'm talking to a brick wall that can't define what a "lie" is.
I'm not suprised though.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
The mission was called Iraqi: Freedom from the beginning, so quit lying.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I think we've acertained just "who" the liar is. Now since you think Bush should "own up to it" I'm calling you out as well.
Own up to it.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I've already owned up to Bush being a liar... but the question is, will you?
[ October 12, 2004, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I'll take that as a "I like my lies".
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: So whoever came up with that name was already aware that Bush was lying about WMD. That doesn't change anything.
Bush never lied about WMDs. That's a fact regardless of how much you dislike it. But there's no law saying you can't continue to believe that lie and spread around.
I love how lefties hate facts.
They hurt their arguments so badly and make them look SO bad.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
What would it take to prove to you that Bush lied about either WMDs or his reasons for going to war? What piece of evidence would you want?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
What will it take for you to accept the fact that he didn't? Because showing you the facts obviously doens't work.
Bring up his Oval Office speeches when we invaded.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
When speaking without knowing the whole truth, we are all apt to be liars.
When acting without the whole truth, we are all apt to be wrong.
When living in a society where veracity is only in the details, we are all apt to be victims.
It's nice to see a few folks caught on to this: that the problems with this scene are behind the scene. It's also not too surprising when some folks swell into the story with stories of why their candidate didn't lie on way or the other.
Just like in the intelligence community, there's so much plausible deniability.
"That's not what I said, here's what I really meant."
"I didn't know as much then as I do now, even though I acted as if I did back then."
It's both sides, and it's more of the same. Keep arguing over who was wrong, rather than finding out why they were wrong in the first place.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Doh another Factcheck.org lie killer! (not that you will read the facts of course. But someone who likes them might)
You gotta hate these because they COMPLETELY show who is really lying:
quote:Even the 9-11 comissioners don't agree about whether their staff contradicted the Bush administration.
June 22, 2004 Modified: September 10, 2004 eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version
Summary
The staff of the The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission) issued a statement June 16 saying it found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." It also said "contacts" between al Qaeda and Iraq "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
Whether or not that contradicts the Bush administration's stated reasons for invading Iraq is a matter of interpretation, however. Some say it does, but even the Democratic vice chair of the commission says he sees no discrepancy.
It's a matter of record that Bush and Cheney repeatedly accused Saddam Hussein of aiding al Qaeda terrorists and providing them a base, but stopped short of accusing him of aiding the September 11 attacks specifically. What's less clear -- even to commissioners -- is whether the commission investigators meant to dismiss only the possibility that Saddam aided the 9/11 attacks, or meant to rebut the idea of any "collaborative relationship" with al Qaeda.
In any case it's not the commission's final word on the matter. The full commission's final report isn't due until July 26.
Doh! Doh! Doh!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
People seeking to understand why the operation was named "Iraqi Freedom" could do worse than to read this document, which regards the selection and use of mission "codenames" in the modern era:
BTW, Chad, your article doesn't say what you seem to think it says. Perhaps you should read it again?
[ October 12, 2004, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Hmmm, there's this Zarqawi Al Qaida guy in Iraq, who WAS in Afghanistan but went to Iraq before the war started while Sadaam was in power. Some of his buddies were detained by the Iraqi Police. Sadaam PERSONALLY intervened to have them released....
Naw, there's no connection between Al Qaida and Iraq.
(Iraq and 9/11 is a different story, but Bush and Cheney never claimed it had a hand in it...ever. It's on Factcheck.org btw as I quoted above. Liberals gotta hate the killing of that lie.)
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hey Tom, I'll bite. You said Bush lied, but not specifically what you were referring to. You said that Chad rebutted something you weren't claming.
What lie(s) were you referring to specifically with that statement? Or was it a general pattern and if so on what particular issues.
AJ
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
If you can provide the texts of the administration's major speeches leading up to the Iraq war and there are no references to any certain knowledge on our part of Iraq having WMDs, and show that each speech as a whole is not designed to give the impression that we knew Iraq had WMDs, and show that there are no documents that should have led the president to believe the things he was saying were inaccurate, then I'll admit he was not lying about our proof of their WMD program.
However, you will not be able to, because here are actual quotes in which the lies are direct:
quote:"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." -Dick Cheney
quote:"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction." -Colin Powell
quote:"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -Bush
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I just see Bush and Kerry both standing there with stinking, loaded diapers, and neither one wants to admit they crapped their own pants.
And the intelligence community is hiding in the corner, it's own diapers full, waving its hands in protest, proclaiming, "Nope, I've got a clean one over here, too!"
Some adult, somewhere, is going to have to come home and change all the dirty diapers.
This place is beginning to smell a little rotten.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Oh...you almost had it Xapo, until that last one by Bush that clarifies it was all based on the...
Dum, dum, dum!
Intelligence.
Awwwww....It was a nice try though. And as shown by my FactCheck.org posts if the intelligence was wrong, he wasn't lying, those providing the intelligence were.
It was a nice try though. But all you've proved is that the intelligence was flawed. Which we already accept.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:It's a matter of record that Bush and Cheney repeatedly accused Saddam Hussein of aiding al Qaeda terrorists and providing them a base, but stopped short of accusing him of aiding the September 11 attacks specifically. What's less clear -- even to commissioners -- is whether the commission investigators meant to dismiss only the possibility that Saddam aided the 9/11 attacks, or meant to rebut the idea of any "collaborative relationship" with al Qaeda.
In any case it's not the commission's final word on the matter. The full commission's final report isn't due until July 26.
That's a good question. Let's see the commission's latest conclusions:
quote: Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Laden or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States.
But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. (p.66)
Oh and so you don't miss it, I'm going to post it AGAIN!
quote: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -Bush
Ok let's break it down to elementary terms shall we?
"Intelligence gather by this and other governments"
Wow, that's what I have been saying all along...THANKS for proving me right.
"leaves no doubt"
Based on the intelligence being correct...it did. But if that intelligence is false then there is a doubt.
"Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
According to the intelligence it did (not to mention historical actions).
BTW, did you know Xapo that Sadaam had used WMD's in the past?
Just wondering if that fact escaped you. I guess it was wrong to believe intelligence from the world's best intelligence organizations, coupled with the fact that he had actually USED them in the past.
What were we thinking right?
This is so amusing. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Oh...you almost had it Xapo, until that last one by Bush that clarifies it was all based on the...
Dum, dum, dum!
Intelligence.
He said the intelligence was sufficient to conclude there was "no doubt" Iraq had WMDs, which is false. He was pretending he had a certainty which no piece of intelligence claimed to have, and which the lack of WMDs in Iraq proves none of the intelligence did have. Thus, he may have merely been mistaken when he said that Iraq had WMDs, but he was blatantly lying when he said there was no doubt.
Well, either that or he doesn't understand the difference between an estimate and a proven fact - and I'm assuming he's at least smart enough to know that.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
hahaha so Vwiggin thanks for backing me up unintentionally. So we know that Iraq OFFERED OBL assylum in Iraq, but because we found no evidence they collaborated on 9/11 itself (which bush and cheney never claimed anyways if you "check your facts" hint hint) we know what?
That he contacted them in 1999 and offered to help with assylum.
So if John Kerry meets with Osama bin Laden and offers assylum, as long as they don't "agree" to any terms, then that's just fine and dandy?
Bwahahahahaha.
Oh....this is getting better and better all the time.
BTW did any of you know that Sadaam actually paid THOUSANDS of dollars to the families of suicide bombers in Israel?
But that isn't supporting terrorists....if you are a liberal.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
No Xapo, it proves the intelligence was bad. That and nothing left.
Keep trying to tie it to him, but it just keeps failing.
I already made a kick butt analogy, but I'll post it again.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Umm, so Cstrohman...
If Bush's intelligence organizations have consistently provided him with faulty information or overlooked critical information, we're not supposed to hold Bush responsible?
The Intelligence community blew it on 9/11. And then they handed him evidence that turned out to be false.
And Bush, in turn, handed it to us and the rest of world and sold it as God's Own Truth. At that point, it doesn't matter who told him what, because he told us it was the truth.
Repeating a lie told to you doesn't make you truthful. At worst, it makes you a liar. At best, it makes you an accomplice.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
If I go watch Fahrenheit 9/11 and then come out to claim I have intelligence that leaves "no doubt" that Bush is lazy and stupid, would I be lying, or would I be an innocent misled by some faulty intelligence?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
If I believe I have something wrong so I go to a doctor, and he says I have a cancerous tumor. Then I go to another and he says the same thing. And another and he says the same thing. And another, etc. I even have a History of cancer in my family. In fact 2 years before I had a family member die of cancer suddenly and unnexpectedly.
So I go tell my family members that I have a cancerous tumor. The majority agree I should have it operated on.
So I decide to go and have the operation. After the operation it is found out that the tumor was benign.
Did I lie to my family?
Who lied then? Who is responsible for the lie?
Should I have had the tumor removed anyways?
That is the way I see Iraq/Sadaam/Intelligence/Bush.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
You would be misled.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
If you say it is certain you have a cancer and the doctors merely said the evidence suggests you likely do, then you lied.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
And if you say you are going in to have a cancer removed, and then when none is found, claim you would have had the operation anyway even if you knew you had no cancer, you are either lying now or lied before.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:Chad: hahaha so Vwiggin thanks for backing me up unintentionally. So we know that Iraq OFFERED OBL assylum in Iraq, but because we found no evidence they collaborated on 9/11 itself (which bush and cheney never claimed anyways if you "check your facts" hint hint) we know what?
You're welcome Chad.
quote:Chad's reference from Factcheck.org: "It's a matter of record that Bush and Cheney repeatedly accused Saddam Hussein of aiding al Qaeda terrorists and providing them a base..."
9/11 Commission: "But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. (p.66)."
The Commission's conclusion clearly goes beyond the 9/11 attacks. The commission clearly states that there was no evidence showing any collaborative operational relationship had resulted from the contacts between Iraq and al Queda.
[ October 12, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If Bush's intelligence organizations have consistently provided him with faulty information or overlooked critical information, we're not supposed to hold Bush responsible?
The Intelligence community blew it on 9/11. And then they handed him evidence that turned out to be false.
If only it were these simple. The Bush administration set up a special intelligence group within the department of defense that was specifically tasked to make the case for invading Iraq. Rumsfield then used the failures of 9/11 as a tool to coerce intelligence agencies to produce evidence against Saddam Hussein. The Bush administration announced their case against Husseing before the intelligence commitee even released their report. The details can be found in the book "Die Lügen des Weißen Hauses. Wie die Regierung Bush die Welt täuscht." by Hans Leyendecker.
I'm sorry that the reference is in Germany but I have not been able to find it in English translation. I have searched but have not yet found anyone who refutes his claims.
What's more, well known that Cheney, Rumsfield and other members of the Bush administration had been calling for a war against Saddam Hussein since the mid nineties. There reasoning was that this was the best way for the US to maintain control in a strategically important region. You can read their ideas the project for a new american century website.
The Bush administration was not the victim of bad intelligence. They are the perpetrators.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: So we know that Iraq OFFERED OBL assylum in Iraq, but because we found no evidence they collaborated on 9/11 itself (which bush and cheney never claimed anyways if you "check your facts" hint hint) we know what? ... BTW did any of you know that Sadaam actually paid THOUSANDS of dollars to the families of suicide bombers in Israel? But that isn't supporting terrorists....if you are a liberal.
Chad Cheney did claim on "meet the press" that Saddam was involved in 9/11, NBC played it after the VP debate to refute Cheny's claim that he never did.
Most of us (including liberals) probably know that Saddam paid families of suicide bombers.
So has the King and Crown Prince of Saudia Arabia. When is the invasion scheduled?
[ October 12, 2004, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Most of us (including liberals) probably know that Saddam paid families of suicide bombers.
Not quite. We are aware that Saddam offered to pay families of suicide bombers. There is no evidence that he ever paid anyone. In face, all the evidence confirms that no payments were ever made.
This is a case of typical strongman tough talk which no one ever expected him to follow through on. Kind of like when Rush Limbaught says " I'll give $10,000 to anyone who can prove me wrong on this."
[ October 12, 2004, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:we know that Iraq OFFERED OBL assylum in Iraq.
Exactly how do we know this. The 9/11 report does not support this claim. The 9/11 report indicates that there was once a meeting scheduled between top Al Qaida operatives and some high level official from Iraq but that the meeting never took place because Iraq pulled out. I have not seen any credible source offering evidence that Iraq offered Bin Laden assylum or that there were any negotiations between Iraq and OBL regarding assylum.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
TheRabbit didn't read the last page of the thread that quoted the 9/11 commission.
He also promulgated the lie that some conspiracy of Bushies got their heads together to figure out a way to "pin it on Sadaam".
Which is hilarious when alot of info came from foreign intelligence such as Britain, Australia, etc.
Even Kerry and Edwards are not dumb enough to claim such in their campaigns since evidence and fact would leave them "hung out to dry".
The Book in German is a perfect example of "I don't know what the hell I'm doing, but I'm going to write a book about it".
That you bought a foreign written book by someone who has NO inside information in the United States and BELIEVED it is not my problem, but yours.
By the way, you can find it in the "fiction" area of your local bookstore's catalogue.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: The 9/11 report does not support this claim.
It's part of the 9/11 report. An actual part. Read the last page.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
OK, Rabbit, I'll take your word on that. Revised:Most of us (including liberals) probably know that Saddam publicly said he would pay families of suicide bombers.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
OK, I've read the entire executive summary of the 9/11 commision report, there is no mension of Iraq in the 35 page summary.
I've read selected parts of the full 584 page report. The word assylum is never used in the report. The last page is foot notes. The last page of the text says nothing about Iraq of Saddam Hussein so I did a search on Iraq and read every reference to Iraq. The one that comes closest to supporting your claim is as follows.
quote:Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.
The footnote to this paragraph reads
quote:76. CIA analytic report,“Ansar al-Islam:Al Qa’ida’s Ally in Northeastern Iraq,” CTC 2003-40011CX, Feb. 1, 2003. See also DIA analytic report,“Special Analysis: Iraq’s Inconclusive Ties to Al-Qaida,” July 31, 2002; CIA analytic report,“Old School Ties,” Mar. 10, 2003.We have seen other intelligence reports at the CIA about 1999 contacts. They are consistent with the conclusions we provide in the text, and their reliability is uncertain. Although there have been suggestions of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda regarding chemical weapons and explosives training, the most detailed information alleging such ties came from an al Qaeda operative who recanted much of his original information.Intelligence report, interrogation of al Qaeda operative,Feb. 14,2004.Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any such ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM and Zubaydah, 2003 (cited in CIA letter, response to Douglas Feith memorandum,“Requested Modifications to ‘Summary of Body of Intelligence Reporting on Iraq–al Qaida Contacts (1990–2003),’” Dec. 10, 2003, p. 5).
The overall consensus of the commision is that although there had been communication between Al-Qaida and top Iraqi officials, there was no link between the two, no evidence that any actions had been taken as a result of the communications and no aid was given to A-Qaida by Iraq.
[ October 12, 2004, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:By the way, you can find it in the "fiction" area of your local bookstore's catalogue.
Really? Show me.
If the best critique of my source is that its German so it can't be true, then I rest my case.
Quite seriously, I was loaned a copy of the book by a friend while I was working in Germany last summer. I found it quite intriguing because, contrary to your accusation, it was written by a noted investigative journalist with excellent connections and is well footnoted. Not only that, it is consistent with reports from CIA and military intelligence people that have been published in the mainstream US media. It also contains key information on the timeline which I was able to confirm through other sources. I would give more details but unfortunately, I no longer have a copy of the book.
Since I read it, I have been searching for any serious critique of the claims made in the book. I haven't been able to find anything more substantial than the pathetic rant CS gave here. Because the book isn't available in English translation, I suspect that most of the conservative pundits in the US have avoid mentioning it. No reason to call it to peoples attention. If you are aware of any serious critiques to this book, please direct me to them.
Until then, I must conclude that this book reports a story that is consistent with streams of reports coming from the US intelligence community.
[ October 12, 2004, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Oh, and by the way, I'm a she not a he.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*hugs The Rabbit*
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
And if you insist that you have cancer, and your doctor says, "I have a test here that shows you have cancer, but it's wrong," and your second opinion says, "Nope, no cancer," and you still have the operation anyway...what does that make you?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)