logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Was Bush misled by the Intelligence?, An analysis of the Intelligence
Kuni
post Dec 11 2005, 08:09 PM
Post #1


*****
Century Mark

Group: BANNED
Posts: 135
Member No.: 5,280
Joined: July-18-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



IPB Image

The SIC Report contains this little tidbit about an Intelligence Report that the Administration got in the summer of 2002.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra...chapter12-c.htm
(U) The Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI) directed that Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship be published on June 21, 2002, although it did not reflect the NESA's views. CTC's explanation of its approach to this study and the analysts' differing views were contained in the paper's Scope Note, which stated:

(U) This intelligence assessment responds to senior policymaker interest in a comprehensive assessment of Iraqi regime links to al-Qa'ida. Our approach is purposefully aggressive in seeking to draw connections, on the assumption that any indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements could carry great dangers to the United States.

(U) We reviewed intelligence reporting over the past decade to determine whether Iraq had a relationship with al-Qa'ida and, if so, the dimensions of the relationship.

[BLACKED OUT] Our knowledge of Iraqi links to al-Qa'ida still contains many critical gaps [DELETED]



Now this tells us a couple of things. First that Bush was told that they were throwing in everything including the kitchen sink, with the ‘purposefully aggressive’ statement, into the report. Secondly, that they didn’t really know what the &$%# they were talking about with their ‘many critical gaps’ disclaimer.

So how do we know Bush was misled? Let’s look at some of his statements, but first, let’s look at a portion of the “Interpreting a Murky Relationship” from June 21, 2002 that the SIC Report failed to mention.

June 21, 2002 CIA report, “Iraq and al-Qa'ida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship,” starts with: “In the past several years, Iraq reportedly has provided specialized training to al-Qa’ida in explosives and assistance to the group’s chemical and biological weapons programs, although the level and extent of this training assistance is not clear.


And it shows us what part the [BLACKED OUT] and [DELETED] parts from the above extract from the SIC Report contained.

Our knowledge of Iraqi links to al-Qa'ida still contains many critical gaps because of limited reporting [BLACKED OUT] and the questionable reliability of many of our sources."

And finishes with:

“The CBRN Angle. The most ominous indications of Iraq-al-Qa’ida cooperation involve Bin Laden’s chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) ambitions. Although Iraq historically has tended to hold closely its strategic weapons experts and resources, Baghdad could have offered training or other support that fell well short of its most closely held secrets. [BLACKED OUT] of Iraq or Iraqi nationals in al-Qa’ida CBRN efforts, but we cannot determine which, if any of these Iraqi nationals Baghdad directed.


And now for the parts of the October 2001 NIE that Bush got to see.

The October 2, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's Continuing WMD Programs, states:
As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training and support are second-hand or from sources of varying reliability. The most conspicuous pattern in the reporting is of al-Qa’ida enduring interest in acquiring chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) expertise from Iraq. [BLACKED OUT] suggest the involvement of Iraq or Iraqi nationals in al-Qa’ida’s CBW efforts. We cannot determine however, how many of these Iraqi nationals were directed by Baghdad or how many of the reported plans for CBW training or support were actually realized.

None of the hundreds of al-Qa’ida members captured during Operation Enduring Freedom report having been trained in Iraq or by Iraqi trainers elsewhere, but given interest over the years in training and expertise from outside sources, we cannot discount reports of such training entirely.



Entirely? They could not discount the claims 100%. Interesting comment. And let’s not forget the “We cannot determine however, how many of these Iraqi nationals were directed by Baghdad or how many of the reported plans for CBW training or support were actually realized.” comment; they could not determine even One. Interesting.

Now let’s see what Bush did with the “We don’t know” and “we can’t be 100% sure that there is nothing there” comments. But first I should mention another Document that has just had portions declassified.

[URL=levin.senate.gov/newsroom/ supporting/2005/DIAletter.102605.pdf]Ditsum No. 044-02[/URL]:
In February 2002, when al-Libi’s claims about chemical and biological weapons training were first reported in the Intelligence Community, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) issued DITSUM # 044-02 containing al-Libi’s claims and the following comment:

“This is the first report from Ibnal-Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida’s CBRN efforts. However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqi’s involved, the CBRN material associated with the assistance, and the location where training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers. Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.

Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”


So now we have: “We don’t know”, “we’re not sure, but were almost 100% sure nothing is there”, and “the one guy we tortured some info out of, is lying about the training”.

Now let’s go look at what Bush said? Not yet, we still have to deal with the 1998 “Indictment” that many are claiming proves that Clinton must also have lied.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...004Jun16_2.html
. . . Patrick J. Fitzgerald, now a U.S. attorney in Illinois, who oversaw the African bombing case, told the commission that reference was dropped in a superseding indictment because investigators could not confirm al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq as they had done with its ties to Iran, Sudan and Hezbollah. The original material came from an al Qaeda defector who told prosecutors that what he had heard was secondhand. . .


So now we have: “We don’t know”, “we’re not sure, but were almost 100% sure nothing is there”, “the one guy we tortured some info out of, is lying about the training”, and “Clinton’s Justice Department didn’t confirm it either”.

Now let’s look at what Bush said.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030206-17.html
“Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.” Source: President Bush: World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003)


Notice the “Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training” comment? The Intelligence obviously did not say that; it said that it can’t prove that comment and we’re almost 100% sure it’s not true.


And let’s not forget the January 29, 2003 CIA report, the one that came out about a week before Bush’s comment in question, called; “Iraqi Support for Terrorism”

January 29, 2003 CIA report, "Iraqi Support for Terrorism"

Iraq-al-Qa’ida Training:

After contacts the [BLACKED OUT] reporting touches most frequently on the topic of Iraqi training of al-Qa’ida. Details on training range from good reports {BLACKED OUT] varying reliability, often the result of long and opaque reporting chains or discussions of future intentions rather than evidence of completed training. The general pattern that emerges is of al-Qa’ida enduring interest in acquiring CBW expertise from Iraq.

There have been fewer reports of al-Qa’ida receiving conventional terrorist training from Iraq after Bin Laden relocated to Afghanistan in 1996, possibly because Bin Ladin’s needs were less in this area. [BLACKED OUT]

Some of the most ominous suggestions of possible Iraqi-al-Qa’ida cooperation involve Bin Ladin’s CBW ambitions. Although Iraq historically has guarded closely its strategic weapons information, experts, and resources, Baghdad could have offered training or other support to al-Qa’ida. [BLACKED OUT]

Most of the reports do not make clear whether training initiatives offered by Iraqi’s or discussed by the two sides remained in the planning stages or were actually implemented.

In about half of the reports, we cannot determine if the Iraqi nationals mentioned had any relationship with the Baghdad government or were expatriate or free-lance scientists or engineers.

At least [BLACKED OUT] of the reports appear based on hearsay:

[BLACKED OUT] of the reports are simple declarative accusations of Iraqi-al-Qa’ida complicity with no substantiating detail or other information that might help us corroborate them.



So we have Bush saying that “Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training”; yet a week before, the Intelligence was still saying, we can prove that claim.


So given the above: Was Bush misled by the Intelligence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Lek
post Feb 1 2006, 06:07 PM
Post #41


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 136
Member No.: 5,768
Joined: January-11-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



[QUOTE]In a speech on November 11, the president made his strongest comments to date on the subject: "Baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will." In reply to Ted.

Agreed. But what about "well founded cririticism"? I hear much of "not looking back" and/or "reviewing how we got here can be debated forever! The question is where do we go from here?"

I couldn't disagree more with either or both. "Those not knowing history...are bound to repeat past errors", holds true even if history is only 2 minutes old. I see innumerable errors, and for me, the direction we go from here is first to back up, fix these errors and then do a clean restart:

1. What realy are the needed actions of a "war on terror" (has it even been defined?)

2. War is both local and global, offensive and defensive! What is the defense on the street (local US, offensive {the best defense is a good offense, etc>} and defensive) anywhere, right now?

3. What are the rest of the terrorist "targets" that Bush thought were "too much for us to hear"? (I know a lot of them, do you?)

4. Sure panic happens! The deal is to learn to handle panic, not to avoid needed information for us "lowly citizens", just cuz it might cause panic!

5. Uncle Sam, please fill in for me the "war actions needed" starting from my front yard, and ending at a distant "terrorist camp. I see some of the latter, but almost nothing from there to my yard.

6. If Mr. Terror reads about Al Capone and decides he likes those tactics, where will the best response be? In Iraq?

7. Pulling out (of an Iraq) may concern "image makers" about signaling "lack of will". But does it not possibly show "basic war smarts in not continuing a dumb action"?

8. Does not the present Iraq war show only a lack of "basic war smarts in not continuing a dumb action"?

Seriously submitted---Lek
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Feb 1 2006, 07:44 PM
Post #42


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
lek
1. What realy are the needed actions of a "war on terror" (has it even been defined?)


Well lets see. How about tracking down the AQ folks who killed 3,000 Americans and would love to kill the rest of us. Do you really think we are not doing this or that it hasn’t been “defined”? Next root out terrorist organizations and their money supply anywhere they can be found and prevent “states” from harboring them as was the case in Afghanistan.


QUOTE
7. Pulling out (of an Iraq) may concern "image makers" about signaling "lack of will". But does it not possibly show "basic war smarts in not continuing a dumb action"?

8. Does not the present Iraq war show only a lack of "basic war smarts in not continuing a dumb action"?


Why is it a “dumb action”?? Saddam never complied with a single resolution, used and possessed WMD and refused to prove he had destroyed same as he “claimed”.

The “dumb action” was the UN not dealing with this outlaw regime and enforcing its own Resolutions. We now know that several countries on the Security Council were “influenced” by OFF money and the promise of future contracts but this does not change the facts.

This post has been edited by Ted: Feb 1 2006, 07:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kuni
post Mar 18 2006, 01:23 AM
Post #43


*****
Century Mark

Group: BANNED
Posts: 135
Member No.: 5,280
Joined: July-18-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Now we can now add the captured Documents the Pentagon just released, to corroborate Our Own Intelligence Reports; which were posted at the start of the Thread.

They show that Saddam and his Intelligence/Security apparatus was concerned about al-Qaeda being in Iraq. Some Links/Ties that is; DOH! If Saddam had not been concerned; his Intelligence Agencies would not have “suspected” and look for the suspects.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597217/posts
The Bush administration Wednesday night released the first declassified documents collected by U.S. intelligence during the Iraq war, showing among other things that Saddam Hussein's regime was monitoring reports that Iraqis and Saudis were heading to Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks to fight U.S. troops. . .

. . . Many were in Arabic – with no English translation – including one the administration said showed that Iraqi intelligence officials suspected al-Qaeda members were inside Iraq in 2002.

The Pentagon Web site described that document this way: "2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaeda Members in Iraq. Correspondence between IRS members on a suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist group . . .



Someone tried pointing out here: http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...02&#entry184102

That “ Now, once a fully autocratic government like Saddam's confirms the presence of people in the country whom it doesn't want in the country, how much time do you think it would waste booting them out (or taking them out)? If the Iraqi authorities did not act on the confirmation of this information, then it would indeed suggest some form of working relationship between Baghdad and al-Qaeda.

But fails to mention that these Documents are from 2002. And that time was long after many of the alleged Ties/Links.


So it would appear that ALL the claims regarding Saddam and al-Qaeda appear to be false; as that if there were Ties/Links, Saddam would know, and issue papers to these individuals so that they could travel where they were supposed to unmolested.

Or at the least, he would know they were in Iraq. And he would be welcoming his Allies, not wonder who and what they were. DOH!


Nor would: “the Fedayeen Saddam received news of a rumor that 3,000 volunteers from Iraq and Saudi Arabia had traveled to Afghanistan to fight with the Mujahideen against the US. This letter is a request to investigate the rumor to determine whether it is true.”
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents...-00004500-0.pdf

If there were Ties/Links, Saddam would have armed those who were going the Afghanistan and not investigate “Rumors”.



You can find some of the Documents that the Pentagon is releasing, here: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Mar 20 2006, 05:52 PM
Post #44


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
That “ Now, once a fully autocratic government like Saddam's confirms the presence of people in the country whom it doesn't want in the country, how much time do you think it would waste booting them out (or taking them out)? If the Iraqi authorities did not act on the confirmation of this information, then it would indeed suggest some form of working relationship between Baghdad and al-Qaeda.”
They show that Saddam and his Intelligence/Security apparatus was concerned about al-Qaeda being in Iraq. Some Links/Ties that is; DOH!


In a recent History Channel documentary on the last Gulf War one commander recounts the hardest fight he had in the push to Baghdad and that was 100 KM south of the city. It was a compound of “foreign fighters” who put up one hell of a fight. They were all out of country folks and heavily armed.

Regardless, as the tapes imply, if Saddam had a desire to hand off some of his WMD to AQ folks (or anyone else) so that he could hurt the US while keeping his country out of it, there are lots of ways to do it.

IMO Saddam had plenty of retained WMD and lots of options on using them if he so desired. We know AQ people were in and out of Iraq from time to time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Mar 20 2006, 09:44 PM
Post #45


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



There is a CNN special presentation called "Dead Wrong" which has aired a few times. It discusses the intelligence and so-called evidence that was available during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. It points out that then Secretary of State Colin Powell presented all the evidence the U.S. had when he spoke to the United Nations.

I notice from the previous post in this thread the statement:
QUOTE
IMO Saddam had plenty of retained WMD and lots of options on using them if he so desired. We know AQ people were in and out of Iraq from time to time.
I am glad that the statement was qualified with "IMO" because it seems that a lot of people had that same opinion and that it was ultimately their opinions that brought about the undeclared war, not an overwhelming amount of evidence regarding WMDs, yellowcake uranium, or a tolerated presence of al Qaeda in Iraq.

It is hard to say that Bush was particularly "misled" by the intelligence when he used it so effectively to work his will on this country. I still remember a poll that was taken where people mistakenly believed that Iraq was involved in the 9/11/2001 attacks because Mr. Bush would speak of Iraq and of 9/11 in almost the same breath. He still does it from time to time in his speeches. While he may somehow not have been purposely manipulative (by some stretch of the imagination) in purveying this error, I would consider it a mistake to consider him totally innocent of any intention to advance this thinking to his benefit.

What I want to know is, now that Saddam Hussein has been a prisoner for some time, now that there is widespread radioactivity in areas bombed with depleted uranium missiles, now that there are more deaths of American servicepeople every day than during the height of the invasion, what happened to our search for the alleged architect of the attacks on the United States, Osama bin Laden?

If the undeclared war on Iraq wasn't a sidetrip from Bush's "war on terror", I don't know what is. And if Mr. Bush thinks otherwise, could it be, as according to Gail Sheehy, that he really has Attention Deficit Disorder? hmmm.gif

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Mar 20 2006, 09:46 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kuni
post Mar 23 2006, 01:18 AM
Post #46


*****
Century Mark

Group: BANNED
Posts: 135
Member No.: 5,280
Joined: July-18-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



http://www.juancole.com/
Thursday, March 16, 2006

Saddam Was Trying to Capture Zarqawi

The Bush administration repeatedly made the presence in Iraq of Abu Musab Zarqawi a pretext for invading the country and overthrowing Saddam Hussein. They implied that he was a client of Saddam and that Saddam had arranged for hospital care for him.


Newly released documents from the captured Iraqi archives show that Saddam had put out an APB for Zarqawi and was trying to have him arrested as a danger to the Baath regime!

However, one of the documents, a letter from an Iraqi intelligence official, dated August 17, 2002, asked agents in the country to be on the lookout for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and another unnamed man whose picture was attached. '

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Mar 24 2006, 07:54 PM
Post #47


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
PE
It is hard to say that Bush was particularly "misled" by the intelligence when he used it so effectively to work his will on this country

As I have posted numerous times there was at the time of the invasion mountains of evidence that Saddam made used, retained and planed to make more WMD. (NOT an opinion) If Saddam truly did not have WMD then all the worlds intel agencies, the UN and nearly all Democrats were dead wrong. The only difference with Bush was that he, after 9/11, decided he would not just let Iraq off the hook.



QUOTE
PE
now that there is widespread radioactivity in areas bombed with depleted uranium missiles


There is no such thing as “depleted uranium missiles”. Depleted uranium bullets, fired from A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft were used to destroy Iraqi tanks in Gulf I and II and leave only trace contamination that is easily cleaned up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Mar 25 2006, 08:07 AM
Post #48


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 24 2006, 02:54 PM)
QUOTE
PE
It is hard to say that Bush was particularly "misled" by the intelligence when he used it so effectively to work his will on this country

As I have posted numerous times there was at the time of the invasion mountains of evidence that Saddam made used, retained and planed to make more WMD. (NOT an opinion) If Saddam truly did not have WMD then all the worlds intel agencies, the UN and nearly all Democrats were dead wrong. The only difference with Bush was that he, after 9/11, decided he would not just let Iraq off the hook.



QUOTE
PE
now that there is widespread radioactivity in areas bombed with depleted uranium missiles


There is no such thing as “depleted uranium missiles”. Depleted uranium bullets, fired from A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft were used to destroy Iraqi tanks in Gulf I and II and leave only trace contamination that is easily cleaned up.
*



I suggest you check out this link:

U.S. stocking uranium-rich bombs?

and this link:

Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets

and this link by the same writer, with diagrams and names of the missiles:

Depleted uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War

and this link:

Depleted uranium in bunker bombs: America's big dirty secret

And after you check these links, please tell me how radioactivity can be eliminated from the soil--I'm dying to find out. I'm sure the Japanese would love to know as well. From the third link I listed:

QUOTE
Described as the Trojan Horse of nuclear war, depleted uranium is the weapon that keeps killing. The half-life of Uranium-238 is 4.5 billion years, the age of the earth. And, as Uranium-238 decays into daughter radioactive products, in four steps before turning into lead, it continues to release more radiation at each step. There is no way to turn it off, and there is no way to clean it up. It meets the US Government’s own definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction.


As far as Saddam Hussein having WMDs or any link whatsoever to "9/11":

1) Show me (and the rest of the forum) the WMDs, and
2) Prove the link to 9/11


If you can do these things, you're better than the Bush administration.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Mar 25 2006, 08:40 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Mar 25 2006, 08:32 AM
Post #49


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,200
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 24 2006, 02:54 PM)
The only difference with Bush was that he, after 9/11, decided he would not just let Iraq off the hook.
*

Ted,

Look up a link to the Republican Party’s 2000 Platform. The decision to attack Iraq and Remove Saddam Hussein from power was made long before 9/11/2001. Bush and company trumped up the evidence against Saddam to keep a campaign promise!

Op Cit:
QUOTE
THE DEEPER PURPOSE: G*O*D* [Gold, Oil, and Drugs]

"We must become the owners, or at any rate the controllers at the source, of at least a proportion of the oil which we require." (British Royal Commission, agreeing with Winston Churchill's policy towards Iraq 1913).

Source: Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War

The alleged highjackers on 9/11/2001 were never tied to Iraq by any evidence, only by Bush’s speeches.

We ostensibly went to war in Afghanistan to remove Al Qaeda and to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice in true Texas fashion, Dead or Alive.

I don’t know what the total number of American casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq has climbed to, but I suspect it is rapidly approaching a point, if it has not surpassed it, where we have more dead and injured Americans from Bush’s attempts to seek revenge than we actually lost on 9/11.

And the question is being raised more and more often as to whether the deaths on 9/11/2001 resulted from airline hijackings or from controlled demolitions of the buildings.

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Mar 25 2006, 09:23 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cube Jockey
post Mar 27 2006, 04:53 AM
Post #50


*********
Now with more truthiness

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,799
Member No.: 1,224
Joined: September-16-03

From: San Francisco, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Was Bush misled by the Intelligence?

Actually a new memo, set to hit print tomorrow in the NY Times proves Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq.

QUOTE
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

~snip~

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

~snip~

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.


So basically, not only did Blair and Bush agree no weapons had been found they started talking about ways to escalate the conflict and draw Iraq into it. The rest of this thing reads very close to what actually happened.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jobius
post Mar 27 2006, 07:02 AM
Post #51


*******
Five Hundred Club

Sponsor
September 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 521
Member No.: 5,538
Joined: October-13-05

From: California
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Was Bush misled by the Intelligence?

Yes. The pre-war intelligence included false information about Iraq's current WMD capabilities, missed some of Iraq's actual terrorist ties, and exaggerated other ties that seem to have dried up before the war.

Information about Saddam's links to Osama bin Laden were out of date. The two hadn't been in touch since bin Laden left Sudan in 1996. On the other hand, we seem to have underestimated Iraq's support of Abu Sayyaf, a Philippine Islamist terrorist group that has been linked to Operation Bojinka, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Ramzi Yousef. The BBC story linked above also mentions a planned series of suicide bombings in the West called "Blessed July."

But secular Saddam wouldn't have anything to do with that sort of thing. Right?

QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Mar 26 2006, 08:53 PM)
Actually a new memo, set to hit print tomorrow in the NY Times proves Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq.


Bush knew the current round of inspections hadn't found WMD in Iraq. Show me where the memo "proves Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq." It's not in the story you linked to. The closest thing in it is "Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks."

Did you misread that bit? Or do you believe (and expect us to believe) that doubts about the effectiveness of inspections = "knew there were no WMD in Iraq"?

For Paladin Elspeth and Curmudgen: The U.S. military continues to do extensive research on the effects of depleted uranium. All indications are that its weak radioactivity is not a significant health hazard, even for soldiers who have DU shrapnel embedded in their bodies from the Gulf War. Almost all of DU's harm is caused by its chemical toxicity, which is similar to lead.

DU could be a separate thread (maybe it has been), but anyone who calls it a "nuclear trojan horse" or "nuclear waste" is peddling junk science.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cube Jockey
post Mar 27 2006, 06:46 PM
Post #52


*********
Now with more truthiness

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,799
Member No.: 1,224
Joined: September-16-03

From: San Francisco, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Jobius @ Mar 26 2006, 11:02 PM)
Did you misread that bit?  Or do you believe (and expect us to believe) that doubts about the effectiveness of inspections = "knew there were no WMD in Iraq"?

I don't think I did, why don't I post it again.

QUOTE
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.


Please do read that first sentence closely. Notice it doesn't say "as a result of inspections" or anything of the like. It simply says they acknowledged that no weapons had been found and that would include any intelligence that was present before this meeting as well.

If you'll recall, in the march to war Bush and others cited very specific things in regard to what Saddam had. This basically confirms that was all a lie. It also confirms that they were willing to consider options to get the war regardless of the evidence backing it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vladimir
post Mar 27 2006, 07:31 PM
Post #53


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Member No.: 4,213
Joined: January-6-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Communist



Was Bush misled by intelligence?

What, is this site so full of right-wing ideologues that this travesty of a question is being seriously debated?

Bush WAS the "intelligence." Bush, Cheney and the top people in the Pentagon pushed the war in spite of the best available information, not because of it. Was Bush misled by the intelligence, what a laugh! Was Bush misled by his own nose?

I well remember standing on the street corners at our weekly anti-war demonstration, leading up to the invasion, and saying to counter-demonstraters there that the so-called intelligence supporting the war was trumped up; that there probably were no weapons of mass destruction; that there was no link with Al Quaeda; that the Administration was totally untrustworthy; that we would not only not be welcomed, but that we would touch of an Iraqi civil war; that war would only kill a lot of people and cost ourselves a lot of money. Was I psychic, or were indeed a large number of Americans and a vast majority of people everywhere else not saying exactly these things?

And on point after point, you know what these counter-demonstrators said? "Bush knows better than you or anyone else. We trust Bush!" I wonder if these trusting idiots still think so highly of their beloved Leader.

Anyway, in that context, it's worse than idiotic to talk about poor, poor little Georgie Bush being misled by those big bad boys down in Langley. It's a total re-write of history.

This post has been edited by Vladimir: Mar 27 2006, 07:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jobius
post Mar 27 2006, 10:09 PM
Post #54


*******
Five Hundred Club

Sponsor
September 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 521
Member No.: 5,538
Joined: October-13-05

From: California
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Mar 27 2006, 10:46 AM)
QUOTE
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.


Please do read that first sentence closely. Notice it doesn't say "as a result of inspections" or anything of the like. It simply says they acknowledged that no weapons had been found and that would include any intelligence that was present before this meeting as well.


I'm sorry, I still think that's a really twisted reading that sentence. Why do you assume it "would include any intelligence" instead of, you know, the unconventional weapons that are actually mentioned in the sentence? Bush and Blair clearly were concerned about WMD, and those concerns weren't much assuaged by statements from people like Hans Blix:
QUOTE(Hans Blix @ December 2002)
The absence of that evidence means, of course, that one cannot have confidence that there do not remain weapons of mass destruction. Evidence would be needed for that purpose and we will continue to look for that in the inspection process.


But perhaps Blix is a "right-wing ideologue," at least in Vladimir's eyes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vladimir
post Mar 28 2006, 01:51 PM
Post #55


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Member No.: 4,213
Joined: January-6-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Communist



QUOTE(Jobius @ Mar 27 2006, 10:09 PM)
But perhaps Blix is a "right-wing ideologue," at least in Vladimir's eyes.
*


Belittling remark removed.

We can scrutinize any number of top-level memos; we can let 10,000 autodidacts, amateur intelligence agents and bloggers armed with English-Arabic dictionaries pore over the recently published batch of intelligence documents; we can construct all sorts of conspiracy theories and hypotheticals; but we will never be able deny that leading up to the war, many Americans and a great majority of people everywhere else, including the governments of France, Germany and several other trusted allies, were saying that there was no adequate case for war. It also turns out -- what a big surprise! -- that an expert reading of all this intelligence does indeed conclude that there were no weapons of mass destruction and no significant Iraqi links to Al Qaeda. Critically, as many well-informed people observed before the war and have observed since, it never made any sense that Saddam Hussein, with his Ba'athist ideology and his overwhelming concern for keeping a tight lid on things in Iraq, would have collaborated in an Al-Qaeda attack on the United States or staged an attack of his own.

Moreover, it is not as if there has not been a river of testimony from people quite high up in Washington that the Administration was hell-bent on war and was doing everything it could to cherry-pick the intelligence and manufacture a case for invading Iraq -- and to suppress, with prejudice, any persons in government pushing a more cautious view.

Now considering all of that, I think it really is quite remarkable that we have this thread here where we are scratching our heads over whether poor, well-meaning George Bush and Dick Cheney were misled by the intelligence. It is also remarkable that some people here seem to think that the evidence that the Administration aggressively promoted the war IN SPITE of the intelligence needs to be good enough to stand up in a law court before it's accepted. These people are not, unfortunately, on trial for their lives, and the standard of proof applied by most people in such matters is one of reasonable certainty and common sense. On that basis, and in the court of popular U.S. and world opinion, the case has already been tried-- and Bush lost.

This post has been edited by Dontreadonme: Mar 28 2006, 02:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Mar 28 2006, 06:21 PM
Post #56


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
PE
I suggest you check out this link:

U.S. stocking uranium-rich bombs?

U.S. alters nuclear weapons policy
Congress rejects 'bunker busters' for more reliable arms

Lawmakers killed the widely criticized nuclear "bunker buster" concept, which critics regarded as too aggressive, and instead appropriated $25 million for research on what is called the reliable replacement warhead, or RRW.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGIKFV3FK1.DTL


As mentioned the US denies that depleted Uranium is used in bunker busters. All else is speculation. And clean up (of the bullets used against tanks is simple. Identify it, collect it and dispose of it as you would any nuclear waste.


QUOTE
PE
As far as Saddam Hussein having WMDs or any link whatsoever to "9/11":

Not yet but it may come. But remember the connection to 9/11 mistakenly made by some Americans was NOT the reason we went to war and not part of the Intel that lead to war. 1441 was about WMD retained by Iraq. It was about WMD Iraq ADMITTED to having produced.

QUOTE
Curmudgeon
Look up a link to the Republican Party’s 2000 Platform. The decision to attack Iraq and Remove Saddam Hussein from power was made long before 9/11/2001. Bush and company trumped up the evidence against Saddam to keep a campaign promise!

Certainly anyone with a brain would have been concerned about Iraq before 2001 since they never ever lived up to the UN Resolutions our men died to get in place and there were NO inspectors in Iraq after 1998. AND it was suspected by the UN and EVERY intel agency in the world that Iraq maintained WMD and the ability to make more.

The decision by Congress and the Admin. To deal with Iraq by force if necessary came after 9/11. And if you would bother to read what I have posted you will notice I did not post anything Bush said but rather the intel gathered by the Weapons Inspectors in Iraq. If you would like to cite some of that from before we attacked and tell me why it was wrong – fire away!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Mar 29 2006, 02:56 AM
Post #57


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.


CJ’s Link

QUOTE(Jobius @ Mar 27 2006, 02:02 AM)
Bush knew the current round of inspections hadn't found WMD in Iraq.  Show me where the memo "proves Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq."  It's not in the story you linked to.  The closest thing in it is "Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks."


While you are technically correct, Bush certainly didn’t know there were WMD in Iraq.

QUOTE
Most shocking, it reveals that Bush was so desperate to provoke a war that he proposed painting US planes to look like UN aircrafts and flying them low over Iraq in hopes of inciting an Iraqi attack. (Bush to Blair: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.")


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/actnow?pid=57547

The information in the link above leaves me almost speechless. Bush trying to precipitate a war with Saddam Hussein is sort of like a quarterback’s use of an off cadence count to draw opposing linemen into the neutral zone. My analogy fails miserably. In a football game, players walk away to play again next Friday, Saturday or Sunday or maybe next year. In Bush’s war more than 2500 American soldiers, 30,000 Iraqis have died and thousands more American soldiers have been wounded. Our military has been stretched to the limit with other dangers looming and the national treasury raided.

I don’t think it’s even relevant anymore to ask if Bush got faulty intelligence. In my opinion, he wanted to go to war and would have done so regardless of any intelligence he received. The picture emerges of a reckless, borderline criminal, president going to war at all cost.

It may be apocryphal, but Davy Crockett reportedly had a motto: “Be sure you’re right and then go ahead.” It seems Bush went ahead and has spent the last three years trying to prove he was right.

QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 28 2006, 01:21 PM)
Certainly anyone with a brain would have been concerned about Iraq before 2001 since they never ever lived up to the UN Resolutions our men died to get in place and there were NO inspectors in Iraq after 1998.


Does this mean that anyone who doesn’t agree with Bush (or for that matter Ted blink.gif ) don’t have brains?

This post has been edited by BoF: Mar 29 2006, 02:59 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jobius
post Mar 29 2006, 04:10 AM
Post #58


*******
Five Hundred Club

Sponsor
September 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 521
Member No.: 5,538
Joined: October-13-05

From: California
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(BoF @ Mar 28 2006, 06:56 PM)
QUOTE
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.


CJ’s Link

QUOTE(Jobius @ Mar 27 2006, 02:02 AM)
Bush knew the current round of inspections hadn't found WMD in Iraq.  Show me where the memo "proves Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq."  It's not in the story you linked to.  The closest thing in it is "Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks."


While you are technically correct, Bush certainly didn’t know there were WMD in Iraq.


And it's only in that narrow, technical sense that I defend Bush. I've lost track of the number of times some document has been leaked that supposedly "proves" that Bush Lied. CJ's link is just another in a long unpersuasive list. I don't believe Bush knew the WMD claims were false. If he'd known, he wouldn't have put as much emphasis on them in the run-up to the war, or (tinfoil hat mode) he would have planted the weapons after the invasion.

I'm not saying I trust Bush about anything, I'm just saying Hanlon's Razor applies. There was plenty of bad intelligence about Iraqi WMD and terrorist connections. Richard Clarke famously warned the Clinton administration about taking action against the Taliban, writing that "old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad." (p. 134) Was Clarke a right-wing ideologue? No, he was just wrong.

I take your point that Bush should have been more certain before going to war. But there are many ways to be wrong. The CIA thought that Pakistan was years away from developing nuclear weapons, until they tested one. Iraq had a nuclear weapons program in the 1980s, which they failed to disclose to inspectors after the Gulf War. Did they restart the program after inspectors left in 1998? Well, no, it turns out they didn't. But how far should Bush have trusted Iraq's denials?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Mar 29 2006, 04:41 AM
Post #59


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Jobius @ Mar 28 2006, 11:10 PM)
I don't believe Bush knew the WMD claims were false.  If he'd known, he wouldn't have put as much emphasis on them in the run-up to the war, or (tinfoil hat mode) he would have planted the weapons after the invasion.


There is a third alternative. I think Bush thought that the American public would buy into the war if they thought WMD were present in Iraq. I just can't see much public support developing if the original reason had been--deposing a dictator, liberating Iraq and attempting, with futility I would suggest, building a budding democracy in the Middle East.

This post has been edited by BoF: Mar 29 2006, 04:44 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Mar 29 2006, 09:59 AM
Post #60


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Jobius)
For Paladin Elspeth and Curmudgen: The U.S. military continues to do extensive research on the effects of depleted uranium. All indications are that its weak radioactivity is not a significant health hazard, even for soldiers who have DU shrapnel embedded in their bodies from the Gulf War. Almost all of DU's harm is caused by its chemical toxicity, which is similar to lead.
I guess all I can say to this is that I would not want depleted uranium remains in my back yard or embedded in the walls of my house. Would you, especially if you had children?

Would you eat vegetables grown in an area that had been bombed with depleted uranium-coated warheads?

But this is off the subject of the thread.

QUOTE(Ted)
As mentioned the US denies that depleted Uranium is used in bunker busters. All else is speculation. And clean up (of the bullets used against tanks is simple. Identify it, collect it and dispose of it as you would any nuclear waste.

Yeah, right. Just like vacuum cleaning, eh? That's why they wear those suits while they're doing it...Then what do they do with the waste when they collect it in Iraq? Do you think they can suck up all the radioactivity in a given area?

The U.S. government denies it, so all of these other sources must be lying, right?

The U.S. has been denying a hell of a lot these days--yet we have CIA prisons in other countries, a President authorizing spying on his own people, U.S. citizens being denied habeas corpus in Guantanamo, oh, and of course the humane interrogation techniques of Abu Ghraib ala Charles Graner and Lynndie England. Like the X-Files program used to say, "Deny everything..." And we're supposed to just be good little sheep and believe everything this administration tells us? dry.gif

Sure, Bushie Boy was misled. Of course he's incompetent, not devious...that's why the Republicans wanted him at the helm! Poster boy for their agenda, the son of an aristocrat who couldn't run his own companies but was Karl Rove's designated Golden Boy. Yup, must've been everybody else's fault that Bush believed the flawed intelligence that came across his desk--and talk about it at the SOTU address to play upon peoples' fears and desire for revenge after 9/11/2001.

Is that what Republicans choose to believe these days?

EDIT: I read over what is written above, and I wonder at the cynicism contained therein. I didn't use to feel this way about my country's top leaders. Would to God that I could believe in them the way they want us to! It is certainly a pleasanter existence to be able to trust that our leaders only have our best interests in mind and only keep things secret from us to protect us, not out of duplicity or fear of reprisal from an angry citizenry that has felt deceived or betrayed.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Mar 29 2006, 11:25 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 5th, 2021 - 11:20 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.