T1B

mvscal wrote:Well...if you say so.

Avi, you are such a fucking joke!

The row over the use - or misuse of intelligence - in the run-up to the Iraq war reignited today when a watchdog concluded that top Pentagon officials wrongly insisted on a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.

The Pentagon's acting inspector general, Thomas Gimble, told the senate armed services committee that the office headed by Douglas Feith, formerly the number three man at the defence department, took "inappropriate" actions in pushing the al-Qaida connection not backed up by America's intelligence agencies.

A half-dozen former CIA agents investigating prewar intelligence have found that a secret Pentagon committee, set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in October 2001, manipulated reams of intelligence information prepared by the spy agency on the so-called Iraqi threat and then delivered it to top White House officials who used it to win support for a war in Iraq.

More than a dozen calls to the White House, the CIA, the National Security Council and the Pentagon for comment were not returned.

The ad-hoc committee, called the Office of Special Plans, headed by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and other Pentagon hawks, described the worst-case scenarios in terms of Iraq's alleged stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and claimed the country was close to acquiring nuclear weapons, according to four of the CIA agents, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the information is still classified, who conducted a preliminary view of the intelligence.

The agents said the Office of Special Plans is responsible for providing the National Security Council and Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and Rumsfeld with the bulk of the intelligence information on Iraq's weapons program that turned out to be wrong. But White House officials used the information it received from the Office of Special Plans to win support from the public and Congress to start a war in Iraq even though the White House knew much of the information was dubious, the CIA agents said.

Wrong, Avi--it's CIA agents and a top pentagon official. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Yes, clever...until it promptly turned into a catastrophe. And of course the British are all just a bunch of libtard puppets, right?

A highly classified British memo, leaked in the midst of Britain's just-concluded election campaign, indicates that President Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by summer 2002 and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.

The document, which summarizes a July 23, 2002, meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair with his top security advisers, reports on a visit to Washington by the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service.

The visit took place while the Bush administration was still declaring to the American public that no decision had been made to go to war.

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable," the MI-6 chief said at the meeting, according to the memo. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," weapons of mass destruction.

The memo said "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Yeah, it's called a "smoking gun." So...you like being bounced around like a basketball? You're some kind of twisted masochist? That is, you don't dare actually dispute any of the specific claims--besides the typical attempt at a quick dismissal. And you imply what..? That MI6 is somehow in the service of Al Gore? You are a fucking joke!

Categorical bullshit. You can see right in front of you--and by all means research it--that MI6, the most sophisticated intelligence agency in the world flatly stated that Chimp 'n Cheney manipulated the data to fit their pre-set objective. And the same by the pentagon Inspector General. These aren't merely my conclusions. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Nice try , Finder, but Spinoza had better teeth.

Well, first deal with their statement about Cheney's manipulation of the facts. That's the issue. That's the hanging offense.

No, we've established no such thing. And you've established nothing but your sheer weasel factor, which is off the scale. The assessment you cite was issued a couple years before the revelation of the Cheney gang's manipulation effort--on its blind surge to war. You're a total fucking joke. And Cheney and PNAC and all of these demented neocons need to be arrested and held accountable in the Hague, etc.

Consider this carefully, you pathetic Rove Monkey bitch: from 2004

Downing Street's determination to use intelligence to bolster its case for war against Iraq provoked a fierce debate in Whitehall last autumn.

Many in the intelligence community, including MI6 and GCHQ, the government's eavesdropping centre, were against publishing a dossier spelling out their assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

They were concerned that MPs and journalists would say the dossier, which was sanitised, contained little that was new. They feared there would be demands for the disclosure of more intelligence-based information.

Above all, they were concerned that Downing Street would use the intelligence agencies to justify a pre-emptive strike against Iraq in the face of widespread opposition at home. Downing Street needed intelligence for political reasons.

The intelligence community's worst fears about this unprecedented use of their information were fully realised. The dossier may have been based on intelligence as Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's communications chief, insisted yesterday; the question was how the words were used and dressed up.

In the foreword to the dossier Mr Blair said it "discloses that [Saddam's] military planning allows for some of the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them".

What the dossier actually says is that "intelligence indicates that the Iraqi military are able to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so".

Yesterday, Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "That was said on the basis of security service information - a single source, it wasn't corroborated." Intelligence officials said yesterday that whether the claim came from a single source, or many, was a red herring.

What mattered was the reliability of the source. That claim, like all the others in the dossier, was based on intelligence assessments with all the caveats that implies. In this case, it was based on the assumption - which now seems highly unlikely - that Saddam's forces had drums of chemical or biological weapons close to missile batteries.

Intelligence is an imprecise art but Downing Street wanted certainty to back up its case for war. The intelligence agencies' anger was heightened in February when another "intelligence" dossier put out by Downing Street contained information lifted from academic sources and included a plagiarised section written by an American PhD student.

Compilers of the documents included members of Mr Campbell's staff and the Coalition Information Centre, a propaganda body set up in the Foreign Office. Intelligence officials, including John Scarlett, chairman of Whitehall's joint intelligence committee, were reported to be furious. It was a "serious error", a Whitehall source said yesterday.

What makes you think you get anything simple and clear? You're a weaselly Rove Monkey. Read and digest the information provided and stop pretending to have anything to stand upon. You're a fucking joke.

Tom In VA wrote:To be honest, I always remembered them referring to Saddam's links with Al Queda and the broader support for terrorism he provided. He did in fact provide material support to Palestinian bombers. If you find me a direct quote where it was explicitly stated that Cheney, Bush or Rumsfeld thought Saddam had anything to do with 9-11, I'll stand down on that point.

Is this good enough for you?

As for your brainswashed comment. Brainwashed by what ?

Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, mvscal, do you want me to go on?

LTS TRN 2 wrote: pretend you know what you're talking about.

Finally..you post something about which you are an expert in.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, mvscal, do you want me to go on?

don't forget us
/s/

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The memo said "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." [/b]

The memo included a thrice-removed accounting of what Bush was thiking. Second, the popular liberal interpretation of that particularly statement ignores the question of whather "fixing" meant falsifying intelligence or merely gathering the intelligence and facts to justify a policy action...hardly a scandalous thing.

BTW - the memo you're referring to was the Downing Street memo. Notice how your lifted passage doesn't attribute that statement to the MI-6 chief? Ever wonder why? Because it was not his accounting. That statement about fixing intelligence and facts around a policy" was included in a set of meeting minutes recorded by a foreign policy aide based on his impressions of the impressions of British cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to in the US about what they thought Bush was thinking.

The best part about this little episode is that nearly identical language that appeared in the devastating ( ) "leaked" Downing Street Memo appeared in the London Observer two days before the Memo was "leaked".

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

As for your brainswashed comment. Brainwashed by what ?

Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, mvscal, do you want me to go on?

So Rush, Fox News and mvscal have the ability to brainwash people, but Rev Wright doesn't?

interesting.

Sirfindafold wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

As for your brainswashed comment. Brainwashed by what ?

Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, mvscal, do you want me to go on?

So Rush, Fox News and mvscal have the ability to brainwash people, but Rev Wright doesn't?

interesting.

You mean this Rev Wright...when asked whether he had talked to Obama?

"Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office. ...

"They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. ... I said from the beginning: He's a politician; I'm a pastor. He's got to do what politicians do."

LOL!

JMak wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The memo said "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." [/b]

The memo included a thrice-removed accounting of what Bush was thiking. Second, the popular liberal interpretation of that particularly statement ignores the question of whather "fixing" meant falsifying intelligence or merely gathering the intelligence and facts to justify a policy action...hardly a scandalous thing.

BTW - the memo you're referring to was the Downing Street memo. Notice how your lifted passage doesn't attribute that statement to the MI-6 chief? Ever wonder why? Because it was not his accounting. That statement about fixing intelligence and facts around a policy" was included in a set of meeting minutes recorded by a foreign policy aide based on his impressions of the impressions of British cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to in the US about what they thought Bush was thinking.

The best part about this little episode is that nearly identical language that appeared in the devastating ( ) "leaked" Downing Street Memo appeared in the London Observer two days before the Memo was "leaked".

I don't know from under which rock you've crawled, but you're just as phony as Avi, and just as hollow. I mean...what are you suggesting? That Cheney and the neocons weren't committed to attacking Iraq, period, regardless of what fake intelligence they would base their fear mongering on, and which accurate analysis they would ignore and attempt to smear? Are you somehow presuming to dismiss the various inside officials--both in Britain and America--who point out exactly when, where, who, and why this deliberate manipulation and distortion of intelligence took place? You pathetic ankle-biters are an embarrassment, really.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:I don't know from under which rock you've crawled, but you're just as phony as Avi, and just as hollow. I mean...what are you suggesting? That Cheney and the neocons weren't committed to attacking Iraq, period, regardless of what fake intelligence they would base their fear mongering on, and which accurate analysis they would ignore and attempt to smear? Are you somehow presuming to dismiss the various inside officials--both in Britain and America--who point out exactly when, where, who, and why this deliberate manipulation and distortion of intelligence took place? You pathetic ankle-biters are an embarrassment, really.

No reasonable reading of my comments would conclude that I was suggesting anything about Cheney's motivations or those of the neocons (whoever they might be in your little mind). I merely noted that the memo you were referring to was a thrice removed accounting of an individual's impression of someone else's impression of yet someone else's impression of what unnamed Bush administration officials were thinking.

That doesn't exactly inspire confidence or any notion of reliability.

You characterize it as fake intelligence, yet, the Bush administration reached precisely the same conclusions about Iraqi wmd's and wmd programs as did the Clinton administration. Why or how? Because the Bush administration was looking at the very same intelligence estimates and data that the Clinton administration saw, too. Why or how? Because the intelligence didn't fuckin change from one admin to another. But maybe you think the Clinton administration was also a neocon cabal, too?

JMak wrote:
No reasonable reading of my comments would conclude that I was suggesting anything about Cheney's motivations or those of the neocons (whoever they might be in your little mind). I merely noted that the memo you were referring to was a thrice removed accounting of an individual's impression of someone else's impression of yet someone else's impression of what unnamed Bush administration officials were thinking.

That doesn't exactly inspire confidence or any notion of reliability.

You characterize it as fake intelligence, yet, the Bush administration reached precisely the same conclusions about Iraqi wmd's and wmd programs as did the Clinton administration. Why or how? Because the Bush administration was looking at the very same intelligence estimates and data that the Clinton administration saw, too. Why or how? Because the intelligence didn't fuckin change from one admin to another. But maybe you think the Clinton administration was also a neocon cabal, too?

you forgot the "Clinton also wanted regime change in Iraq" talking point

the fact is the United States would like to see regime changes in lots of countries (Iran, Syria, North Korea) but desiring regime change and invading a country are two completely different things...Clinton favored funneling money to the opposition in Iraq in an effort oust Hussein....I've never heard anybody suggest that Clinton ever seriously considered invading Iraq in an effort to acheive that desired regime change....

Bush took the intel, hyperexaggerated it to indicate that Iraq posed an imminent "threat" to the United States, put Colin Powell in front of the UN, put Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney in front of the public with all of this hyperexaggerated intel for the dog and pony show, and we were off and running

an example of hyperexaggerated intel was the whole "Iraq is acquiring aluminum tubes that could be used in centrifuges for producing weapons grade nuclear material" when in fact he had a report that the above noted aluminum tubes were not of the quality needed for use in centrifuges-yet, he chose to use that info, which he knew to be pure unadulterated bullshit, to bolster his claims in the run-up to war....if that's not skewing intel, what would you call it?

Felix wrote:you forgot the "Clinton also wanted regime change in Iraq" talking point

Talking point or not, it's a reasonable point if someone is going to argue that Bush was so gung-ho on regime change. The fact is that it was formal and established US foreign policy well before Bush was elected and that Clinton (with overwhelming congressional support) policy was predicated on the very same factors that Bush justified military action.

the fact is the United States would like to see regime changes in lots of countries (Iran, Syria, North Korea) but desiring regime change and invading a country are two completely different things...Clinton favored funneling money to the opposition in Iraq in an effort oust Hussein....I've never heard anybody suggest that Clinton ever seriously considered invading Iraq in an effort to acheive that desired regime change....

An effort which failed and an effort which appeared anemic and pathetically weak in the aftermath of 9/11. Do you believe that the perception following 9/11 that Hussein's continued wmd development and continued support for terrorism (as it was believed then and during the Clinton administration) wasno longer tolerable was unreasonable or an illegitimate position to hold? I don't. It was quite reasonable given not only 9/11, but Cole, embassy bombings, barracks bombings, etc.

Bush took the intel, hyperexaggerated it to indicate that Iraq posed an imminent "threat" to the United States,

Back to reality, the Senate concluded that no intel was manipulated and that no pressure was brought to bear on intel analysts. Additionally, only John Edwards and Jon Rockefeller, both Democrats, characterized Iraq as constituting an "imminent" threat. Bush characaterized Iraq as a growing threat, a dangerous threat, a grave threat...the very same characterizations that Clinton and a majority of Congress used to describe Iraq.

In sum, the intel didn't change between Clinton and Bush, the ultimate objective of regime change didn't change, only the policy to achieve that established US foreign policy changed.

You can argue that that policy was unwise, unnecessary, or otherwise, ill-conceived, but please do not lie about what Bush did.

put Colin Powell in front of the UN, put Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney in front of the public with all of this hyperexaggerated intel for the dog and pony show, and we were off and running

Funny how the intel was precisely the same as the previous eight years and was more conservative than, say, the Germans whcih that same year put Iraq on an even more aggressive path towards producing a nuke than US intel estimates. But, again, facts do not matter, do they?

an example of hyperexaggerated intel was the whole "Iraq is acquiring aluminum tubes that could be used in centrifuges for producing weapons grade nuclear material" when in fact he had a report that the above noted aluminum tubes were not of the quality needed for use in centrifuges-yet, he chose to use that info, which he knew to be pure unadulterated bullshit, to bolster his claims in the run-up to war....if that's not skewing intel, what would you call it?

Wow! Now that ^^^ is bullshit.

First, the "report" you're citing was the now-famous NIE.

Second, Bush didn't abuse the intel about those aluminum tubes, he accurately presented the overwhelming consensus of 16 intelligence groups involved in drafting that NIE..

Third, the intelligence estimates regarding the Iraqi nuke program were agreed to by 15 of 16 intelligence agencies (See here: http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html ). The one exception was the State Department's intel group and that disagreement was over one specific aspect of the nuke program estimates in that now-famous NIE, i.e., the aluminum tubes. So, you're arguing that Bush hyperexaggerated intelligence about the aluminum tubes when, in fact, he was accurately restating the overwhelming consensus of the intelligence experts? Please explain.

Lastly, notice, too, that while the State Dept intel group disagreed with specific tube aspect, it still "believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities."

JMak wrote:
Wow! Now that ^^^ is bullshit.

no it's not....the report he had was developed by Energy Department experts...their report cited the following regarding the aluminum tubes:

1. TOO NARROW -- Smaller centrifuges are too inefficient to enrich enough uranium for bombs.

2. TOO THICK -- The Iraqi tubes were more than triple the thickness of U.S. and early Iraqi centrifuge rotors, shown in actual size. They would work better if ground down, which is difficult to do with precision. Manufacturing them to the correct specifications would make much more sense.

3. TOO SHINY -- The Iraqi tubes had a glossy anodized finish unsuitable for centrifuge rotors. Such finishes could react with uranium gas and cause corrosion.

4. TOO LONG -- To work in a centrifuge, the Iraqi tubes would have to be cut down to about one-third their original length. Not making them to centrifuge specifications would have meant needless extra modifications.

SUITED FOR ROCKETS -- The tubes were an exact match for the rocket bodies that the Iraqis were manufacturing at the time. The rockets could be fired from the ground or helicopters .

(Sources by David Albright, Institute for Science and International Security; Senate Intelligence Committee; Department of Energy; International Atomic Energy Agency)(pg. 25)

that was the report that Bush had, prepared by experts on nuclear centrifuges, yet I recall that the aluminum tube song and dance was one of the centerpieces of the Bush Administrations argments for invasion

why would he choose to ignore the opinions of these experts and instead rely on the conclusions of a "committee"

why are you defending these honks.....the Iraqi war has been an unmitigated disaster

First, as to the preceding administration's similar consensus about Saddam's "threat," yes the Clinton folks were totally on board with AIPAC, JINSA, etc., in beating the drums for war against Iraq (and Iran). No surprise. The "Pearl Harbor" so craved by PNAC on 9/11 allowed the Cheney 'N Chimp (unelected) cabal to move ahead. As for the international agencies seeming to be in lock step, well they were in fact far more circumspect than the war-mongering American vice-president and his seething aides (Feith, etc). The preposterous sources upon which they based their most damming convictions are a total joke as we now know--the ludicrous "curve ball" fellow who was apparently a Chalabi flunky, and the college paper as well ("a fine paper" said Colin Powell)--but this only tells half the story of this treasonous deceit. The most sleazy actions by the neocons in fomenting this illegal and grossly immoral invasion was the methodical undermining and smearing of legitimate intelligence sources that contradicted the preformed conclusions of Cheney and his vile ilk.

Again, you've just crawled out from under some rock--and you don't really have a take--just an attempt to confuse a very clear scenario. So...what the fuck do you actually believe? That it was somehow justified? Somehow necessary? Somehow not a total disaster? Little slime balls like you seem to enjoy being annoying ankle-biters. What's with that?

Felix wrote:no it's not....the report he had was developed by Energy Department experts...their report cited the following regarding the aluminum tubes

So what do we have here? We have the DoE's analysis and State's subsequent concurrence with said analysis and then we have the analysis and judgments of the CIA with the concurrence of the majority of intel agencies participating in the NIE process.

At worst what we have here is division in the intel community. Bush asserting that such aluminum tubes could be used as centrifuges based on what is at worst divided conclusions about their use hardly qualifies as "hyperexaggerating" the intelligence.

that was the report that Bush had, prepared by experts on nuclear centrifuges, yet I recall that the aluminum tube song and dance was one of the centerpieces of the Bush Administrations argments for invasion

One of the centerpieces? You mean there can be multiple centerpieces? Doesn't that mean there was no centerpiece at all?

Why would the amdiistration make those tubes a centerpiece when there were some disagreement about their potential use when he had all 16 participating intel agencies concluding that Iraq was pursuing a nuke weapons program? That makes no sense. Hence, that's why the tubes were not a primary argument. Tere were four of those, well, four factors, wmds, terrorism, human rights violations, and violating the ceasefire and UN resolutions enforcing that ceasefire.

why would he choose to ignore the opinions of these experts and instead rely on the conclusions of a "committee"

What committee are you talking about?

Who says Bush ignored anything? Is it not possible that the DoE presented an alternative view and State concurred with and that Bush went with the overwhelming consensus instead? Of course it is...that's what happened. Not sure why you call that ignoring some opinions. I guess in your fantasyland there's no room for judgment.

why are you defending these honks.....the Iraqi war has been an unmitigated disaster

I'm not defending them. I'm arguing against ignorant comments posted in this thread.

Why do insist on playing games with these issues?

Edited to keep Van from OJ'ing me...errr, fix the quoting f-up.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:First, as to the preceding administration's similar consensus about Saddam's "threat," yes the Clinton folks were totally on board with AIPAC, JINSA, etc., in beating the drums for war against Iraq (and Iran). No surprise. The "Pearl Harbor" so craved by PNAC on 9/11 allowed the Cheney 'N Chimp (unelected) cabal to move ahead. As for the international agencies seeming to be in lock step, well they were in fact far more circumspect than the war-mongering American vice-president and his seething aides (Feith, etc). The preposterous sources upon which they based their most damming convictions are a total joke as we now know--the ludicrous "curve ball" fellow who was apparently a Chalabi flunky, and the college paper as well ("a fine paper" said Colin Powell)--but this only tells half the story of this treasonous deceit. The most sleazy actions by the neocons in fomenting this illegal and grossly immoral invasion was the methodical undermining and smearing of legitimate intelligence sources that contradicted the preformed conclusions of Cheney and his vile ilk.

Again, you've just crawled out from under some rock--and you don't really have a take--just an attempt to confuse a very clear scenario. So...what the fuck do you actually believe? That it was somehow justified? Somehow necessary? Somehow not a total disaster? Little slime balls like you seem to enjoy being annoying ankle-biters. What's with that?

Oh, one of those truther people, eh? :doh:

My take is that your thinking is a total disaster. You exploit this war against terrorism to further your own little anti-semitic fantasyland nonsense. Good luck with that.

JMak, please refrain from C&P-ing every damn thing to which you wish to respond. If you're going to C&P the whole damn thing then it must mean there are specific points in those long C&Ps which you wish to address. If so, then address them, one by one.

If not, i.e., you're ignoring most of it, then don't C&P most of it.

Merely posting a two sentence summary response to a forever-long C&P'd post is completely pointless, and pretty fucking annoying.

TIA

Van wrote:JMak, please refrain from C&P-ing every damn thing to which you wish to respond. If you're going to C&P the whole damn thing then it must mean there are specific points in those long C&Ps which you wish to address. If so, then address them, one by one.

If not, i.e., you're ignoring most of it, then don't C&P most of it.

Merely posting a two sentence summary response to a forever-long C&P'd post is completely pointless, and pretty fucking annoying.

TIA

He has a valid point.

Shut up. You knew someone was going to do it.

Python wrote:

Van wrote:JMak, please refrain from C&P-ing every damn thing to which you wish to respond. If you're going to C&P the whole damn thing then it must mean there are specific points in those long C&Ps which you wish to address. If so, then address them, one by one.

If not, i.e., you're ignoring most of it, then don't C&P most of it.

Merely posting a two sentence summary response to a forever-long C&P'd post is completely pointless, and pretty fucking annoying.

TIA

He has a valid point.

Shut up. You knew someone was going to do it.

And the smart money would've been on you.

Damn shame I bet the farm on Curveball.

JMak wrote: I'm arguing against ignorant comments posted in this thread.

Why do insist on playing games with these issues?

nobody is playing games with issues.....he had the report, but apparently he felt the CIA knew more about centrifuge development than the people that actually work with them..insofar as multiple centerpieces, absolutely there can be more than one.....Nigerian yellowcake (which he knew was pure bullshit), aluminum tubes that the Department of Energy concluded were most likely for missile construction....and who knows what other information they fudged on the run-up to invasion....

the plain fact is that he had information that would make almost any rational person step back and say "hey, maybe we'd better scrutinize this a little more closely before I commit our military and billions upon billions of dollars to invading a country and overthrowing the government"

JMak wrote:
Oh, one of those truther people, eh? :doh:

My take is that your thinking is a total disaster. You exploit this war against terrorism to further your own little anti-semitic fantasyland nonsense. Good luck with that.

Exploiting the "war against terrorism"? "Anti-semitic fantasyland"? 'Scuse me, but with the heart of the Arab world under occupation by an Israeli driven fake war, I'd say the entire disastrous enterprise is nothing but "semitic"--though what kind of "fantasy" you're referring to is very unclear--like all your niggling. Good luck to all of us. What rock was that again?...the one from under which you've crawled?

Van wrote:JMak, please refrain from C&P-ing every damn thing to which you wish to respond. If you're going to C&P the whole damn thing then it must mean there are specific points in those long C&Ps which you wish to address. If so, then address them, one by one.

Ah, shit, I f'ed up the quoting feature. My apoliogies.

Felix, you are playing games. That's the only explanation why you and others cherry-pick data, i.e., point to the DoE, despite any inherent knowledge of your own on the subject matter, and declaring that the DoE is the final word. I'm quite certain that had the DoE concluded differently, you wouldn't give a f@#$ what he DoE had to say on the matter. The DoE had an alternative conclusion regarding the tubes. BFD! The fact remains that even while acknowledging that alternative conclusion, the State Dept still agreed with the overwhelming consensus among the entire intel community that Iraq was pursuing nuke weapons. In other words, there was no general disagreement regarding Iraq's pursuit of a nuke weapon and the disagreement there was related to minor details.

BTW - you can only have one centerpiece, otherwise you just have multiple pieces with the same value/importance. There were everal key judgments upon which the administration based its Iraq-wmd argument. Had you read the NIE I cited before you'd have known that. In fact, I'm sure you already knew that. But you choose to cherry pick data.

Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate
High Confidence:

• Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
  
  We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
  
  Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.
  
  Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grad fissile material

Moderate Confidence:

• Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009.

Oh, and also, on the yellowcake...how could Bush or we know it was BS when Joe Wilson himself reported to the CIA that officials in Niger believed that an Iraqi trade rep approached them with a commercial trade idea that those officials believed meant yellowcake? Joe Wilson did not disprove those 16 words...he verified them.

the plain fact is that he had information that would make almost any rational person step back and say "hey, maybe we'd better scrutinize this a little more closely before I commit our military and billions upon billions of dollars to invading a country and overthrowing the government"

What information was this, armchair? And how do you know it was not further scrutinized? Answer: you do not.

Oh, and just imagine the uproar had Bush administration officials questioned the reliability, credibility, and validity of the intel analysis? Ooops, they did and the folks on the left cried "manipulation," "pressure," etc.

Look, this fact remains...you stated that Bush hyperexaggerated intel. I demonstrated that he clearly did not. I asked you to follow-up...you've refused. Game.

Thanks for the confirmation, LTS.

JMak wrote: Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.

so what you're saying here is that they knew Iraq was expanding their weapons programs, this just weren't detecting any of them..there were inspectors on the ground and Iraq wasn't going to do a god damn thing as long as those inspectors were there....

Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.

of course they didn't and I specifically remember Rumsfeld stating that they KNEW EXACTLY where they were-north south, east, and west of Tikrit

Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grad fissile material

fuck dude, I could make a nuclear weapon in months if I had the weapons grade material-you could too
here's the link http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-To-M ... 3392.shtml

so are we going to attack everyone that could make an atomic weapon if they had the nuclear material necessary?

Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009.

or maybe 2010 or possibly by 2012-of course, that would be entirely dependent on them acquiring the material necessary

Oh, and also, on the yellowcake...how could Bush or we know it was BS when Joe Wilson himself reported to the CIA that officials in Niger believed that an Iraqi trade rep approached them with a commercial trade idea that those officials believed meant yellowcake? Joe Wilson did not disprove those 16 words...he verified them.

There was a single source on that report and absolutely no corroboration of any kind. On 20 November 2001, the Director General of Niger's French-led consortium said "there was no possibility" that Niger had diverted any of the 3,000 tons of yellowcake produced in its two uranium mines. On 5 February 2002, the CIA issued another intelligence report from the same foreign government service. This report included more detail and indicated that the agreement between Iraq and Niger totalled 500 tons of uranium a year.

Two qualifiers in the original CIA report were unchanged in the second report: there was no additional source which would corroborate any of the claims. There was no evidence that countered the Nigerian denial.

What information was this, armchair? And how do you know it was not further scrutinized? Answer: you do not.

a sole source for the reported yellow-cake, a Nigerian denial that it was impossible, and the CIA was never able to find any corroborative evidence, yet there it was in Bush's speech as to why we had to invade immediately

Oh, and just imagine the uproar had Bush administration officials questioned the reliability, credibility, and validity of the intel analysis? Ooops, they did and the folks on the left cried "manipulation," "pressure," etc.

[/quote]

they didn't question the credibility of anything that supported their position, as evidenced by the entire yellow-cake hooey and the whole aluminum tubes assertion....the department of energy TOLD them they weren't suitable for centrifuge development, yet there they were in Bush's dog and pony show in the run-up to attack...Bush alleged that Iraq had "trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making" and had maintained "high-level contacts that go back a decade." I'm still trying to figure out where this bullshit came from. And, as this thread has already stated, Cheney admitted there were no ties between Iraq and Al Queda-so Bush simply made this shit up, there's no other conclusion one can reach.

When Rumsfeld testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee, he told senators that knew where a fraction of Iraq's banned weapons were. He also stated that a "good many are underground and deeply buried," and indicated that ground forces were required to destroy them. That statement flat out contradicted the intelligence they had at the time that no such facilities were known to exist. Again, he simply made that shit up.

so there are three clear examples of the Bush Administration either exaggerating or making shit up in their run-up to invasion

Felix wrote:so what you're saying here is that they knew Iraq was expanding their weapons programs, this just weren't detecting any of them..there were inspectors on the ground and Iraq wasn't going to do a god damn thing as long as those inspectors were there....

No. I didn't say that? The NIE had High Confidence that Iraq was continuing and expanding its wmd programs and that our intel services could not detect some of these programs. You know, the Iraqi's hiding some of their programs. I guess in your little mind it's not possible to be confident of something and at the same time acknolwedge that you cannot detect the full extent of that something.

of course they didn't and I specifically remember Rumsfeld stating that they KNEW EXACTLY where they were-north south, east, and west of Tikrit

And here you go playing games. After the fact we didn't find what we thought was there. However, when the NIE was produced, the intel services had high confidence in that Iraq possessed these weapons and missiles. I love how you play games like this. Accuse Bush of hyperexaggerating intel by relying on data found after the fact.

fuck dude, I could make a nuclear weapon in months if I had the weapons grade material-you could too
here's the link http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-To-M ... 3392.shtml

Again, it doesn't change the fact that the entire US intel community had high confidence in this estimate. I guess Bush was supposed to just divine otherwise? So much for your hyperexaggeration accusation.

so are we going to attack everyone that could make an atomic weapon if they had the nuclear material necessary?

No. And, of course, this wasn't the Bush administration justification. But you know this. Why do you play games like this?

or maybe 2010 or possibly by 2012-of course, that would be entirely dependent on them acquiring the material necessary

And this is supposed to what? That's right. Nothing. Your nit-picking doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming consensus among US intel services was a high confidence that Iraq was continuing with these wmd programs and moderate confidence that Iraq was on the oath to developing nukes provided he could obtain the necessary ingredients. You cannot debate this, argue this, or otherwise deny this.

There was a single source on that report and absolutely no corroboration of any kind. On 20 November 2001, the Director General of Niger's French-led consortium said "there was no possibility" that Niger had diverted any of the 3,000 tons of yellowcake produced in its two uranium mines. On 5 February 2002, the CIA issued another intelligence report from the same foreign government service. This report included more detail and indicated that the agreement between Iraq and Niger totalled 500 tons of uranium a year.

So what? The British conclusion was "attempting to purchase enriched uranium." Joe Wilson confirmed that and that remains true whether Iraq successfully purchased the material. You cannot debate, argue, or otherwise deny this.

a sole source for the reported yellow-cake, a Nigerian denial that it was impossible, and the CIA was never able to find any corroborative evidence, yet there it was in Bush's speech as to why we had to invade immediately

Wow, how many spins can you do in one post.

The assertion was an attempt to purchase. You keep spinning this as a claim of an actual purchase.
Bush did not argue that we needed to invade immediately. In fact, he was building a case and coalition from late summer 02 through early 2003. That's not a rush to war and that 03 SOTU was not a first-time case for war.

they didn't question the credibility of anything that supported their position, as evidenced by the entire yellow-cake hooey and the whole aluminum tubes assertion....the department of energy TOLD them they weren't suitable for centrifuge development, yet there they were in Bush's dog and pony show in the run-up to attack...Bush alleged that Iraq had "trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making" and had maintained "high-level contacts that go back a decade." I'm still trying to figure out where this bullshit came from. And, as this thread has already stated, Cheney admitted there were no ties between Iraq and Al Queda-so Bush simply made this shit up, there's no other conclusion one can reach.

Spinning so more? Sould we move this to the Spin Forum?

Cheney acknowledged no connection between Iraq and 9/11. The administration never argued that in the first place. The administration argued that given 9/11 happened we could no longer tolerate Hussein. Pretty easy to understand notwithstanding the monumental lefty effort to spin otherwise. Hell, Cheney answer "no" on Meet the Press in 2001 when directly asked about an Iraqi connection/complicity. And then answered no, again, in 2003 on Meet the Press. My goodness, years later and you people are still lying.

When Rumsfeld testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee, he told senators that knew where a fraction of Iraq's banned weapons were. He also stated that a "good many are underground and deeply buried," and indicated that ground forces were required to destroy them. That statement flat out contradicted the intelligence they had at the time that no such facilities were known to exist. Again, he simply made that shit up.

Given your penchant for attributing bogus comments to people and totally spinning what people have stated, I'll insist you provide a record of those comments.

Good luck.

so there are three clear examples of the Bush Administration either exaggerating or making shit up in their run-up to invasion

No such examples were provided. Your fanstasyland twisting of words/statements are readily apparent. For example, pushing that argument that Bush asserted Iraq had purchased yellowcake from Niger. He didn't. That much is very clear. Then you argue from that false premise and try to suggest Bush was lying. He was not. You're the guy hyperexaggerating the statements and comments of others.

JMak wrote:
No such examples were provided. Your fanstasyland twisting of words/statements are readily apparent. For example, pushing that argument that Bush asserted Iraq had purchased yellowcake from Niger. He didn't. That much is very clear. Then you argue from that false premise and try to suggest Bush was lying. He was not. You're the guy hyperexaggerating the statements and comments of others.

shit dude, learn how to use the quote function or give it up

of course Bush exaggerated it....Rumsfeld never said we THINK he may have WMD's based on the intel we've received, but of course that kind of statement would have slowed the "Attach Iran" machine that was already steaming full speed ahead....insofar as Rumsfeld's completely untrue statement about buried bunkers, it's a part of the Congressional minutes.....he said it

look, you seem to want to ignore the fact that your government took this country to war under highly questionable pretenses and very shaky evidence....even if the evidence was solid that Hussein possessed these WMD's there is simply no substantive argument that he posed any immediate danger to the US......

honestly, do you feel safer because we invaded Iraq?

JMak, you're totally bullshitting and you're caught dead to right. Look, the good folks at PNAC (which made up a significant number of Chimp ' Cheney cabinet members) would have said anything to get the war launched. This is beyond dispute. For example, the leading "expert" in that group, Richard Perle, actually suggested quite seriously that Saddam had his "chemical weapons labs" on trucks permanently roving the Iraqi highways!! Seriously. And the sources for the "WMD development" was based on a Chalabi hack known as "curve ball," which was the sort of source that any legitimate intelligence procedure would promptly disqualify. In fact they tried, but PNAC just steamrolled right over it.

Again, aside from your snippets of derisive smear (totally unsupported), what is your actual take? So far all you offer is tedious quibbling as to semantics concerning issues which have all been settled. There is no question that Cheney and co manipulated info to fit their clear intention. None. Similarly, there is no question that the invasion and subsequent occupation was horribly botched. None. And there is no question that the claims of Perle and PNAC were dead wrong. None. So why are you wasting time hashing it out? What the fuck are you? Are you...defending Cheney? I know it can be difficult to actually form an opinion--aside from merely quibbling, etc.--but you might actually try it sometime.

mvscal wrote:
Guess what? He wasn't supposed to be building missiles either, dumbfuck.

Iraq was allowed to build missiles with a maximum range 150 km Under UN Resolution 687.

want to take another swing?

mvscal wrote:He didn't pay much attention to that resolution either, you dong-slurping chimp. Wasn't 687 the resolution which required him to completely inventory, catalog and destroy all of his WMD programs under our direct supervision?

How did that work out?

You sure are selective when it comes to hiding under the UN's skirt.

Just take a position and stand on it, you fucking baby. You Americans completely lack resolve. No wonder you're so wishy-washy.

mvscal wrote:He didn't pay much attention to that resolution either, you dong-slurping chimp. Wasn't 687 the resolution which required him to completely inventory, catalog and destroy all of his WMD programs under our direct supervision?

apparently he did, Bush just didn't want to believe it
sure Hussein was being uncooperative, but his retention of power in Iraq was fully dependent on the Irani people believing he still possessed them....that was a big deterrent to any potential civil uprising against him....