Faulty Intelligence?

[Pastor Larry]

Apparently not. You are revising history. It wasn't clear to you in late 2001 that Saddam didn't have WMDs. You had no way of knowing. The intelligence reports that Clinton had, that Gore had, that Bush had, the Kerry had, that the UN had, that the IAEA had, all said that he had them. And you certainly did not know more than they did, in spite of whatever opinion of your own knowledge you might have.

 

[The Galatian]

I thought it was true. I never really considered the possibility now expposed by the Inspector General's report; Bush siimply promoted any intelligence reports that tended to support the existence of WMD, and withheld or suppressed any that showed they no longer existed.

Now you may argue that we were foolish enough to believe what Bush was telling us. But that's not the issue, is it?

 

[El_Guero]

President Clinton led the way with the intelligence.

He stated that had he been president at the time, he would have invaded Iraq.

Saddam Hussein admitted that he wanted the WMD's just days before the invasion.

You thought it was true - so of course the president of the US led the invasion that you wanted.

Now you think that you can take it back just like you would to Walmart . . .

To late.

I thought it was true. I never really considered the possibility now expposed by the Inspector General's report; Bush siimply promoted any intelligence reports that tended to support the existence of WMD, and withheld or suppressed any that showed they no longer existed.

Now you may argue that we were foolish enough to believe what Bush was telling us. But that's not the issue, is it?

 

[Daisy]

Clinton thought it warranted air strikes, but that wasn't the subject of the issue about who agreed on what.

Air strikes are not all out war on a sovereign nation. Who agreed upon has little to do with manufactured intelligence on the build up to the war against Iraq.

That wasn't the topic.

The topic is the report on bad intelligence that led to the invasion. I posted the topic, so I think I know what the topic is. It is more than a little presumptuous for you to lecture the Opening Poster on what the topic is.

The report says (copied from your quote) Bush and other administration officials warned that Hussein had stockpiles of banned biological and chemical weapons. And Clinton, Gore, Kerry, et al agreed.

The first paragraph of that same quote is: The report says that Feith's office "developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and Al Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community."

And the last paragraph: The alleged caches of weapons have not been found, and the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda.

Is that clear?

The report is clear to me.

 

[El_Guero]

Yes, air strikes are an all out war on a sovereign nation . . .

At least that is what I think . . .

So has everyone since, 8 September 1941.

Air strikes are not all out war on a sovereign nation. Who agreed upon has little to do with manufactured intelligence on the build up to the war against Iraq.

The topic is the report on bad intelligence that led to the invasion. . . .

And as to your bad intelligence that led you and the other 80% of the Americans to support this war, I thought it was a mistake.

But, once the round is down range, you cannot put it back into the casing.

The rubicon was crossed. And we must fight the war that 80% of America voted for.

 

[The Galatian]

This issue is not whether or not we should continue fighting. The issue is whether or not Bush lied to us by withholding any intelligence that didn't fit his objectives.

And now the Pentagon's inspector general has revealed that he did.

He misled Americans and he misled Congress and our allies, many of whom are now angry and mistrustful of the United States. He's needlessly killed thousands of our troops and wasted untold billions of dollars on his personal vendetta against Saddam. His own intelligence people now say that his war has made the United States more vulnerable to terrorism. He's done grave damage to American security.

And you wonder why so many of those people who formerly supported him, now detest him?

 

[Terry_Herrington]

So has everyone since, 8 September 1941.

What happened on September 8, 1941?

If you are talking about the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was December 7,1941.

 

[El_Guero]

Terry,

I am still waiting for you to say something intelligent, honest, and conservative a second time!

You would be close if you hadn't performed the mistake that this premise is guilty of: Truth often has multiple viewpoints - December 8th, 1941 was the day that they Japanese Attacked Pearl Harbor - December 7th, 1941 was the day that America was attacked.

Same event - two different points of view - accross a little thing called a date line.

:thumbs:

What happened on September 8, 1941?

If you are talking about the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was December 7,1941.

 

[Daisy]

Yes, air strikes are an all out war on a sovereign nation . . .

At least that is what I think . . .

So has everyone since, 8 September 1941.

The Siege of Leningrad? You're comparing selective, limited retalitory airstrikes to the seige of a city?

And as to your bad intelligence that led you and the other 80% of the Americans to support this war, I thought it was a mistake.

I never supported this war. It wasn't my bad intelligence, it was the intelligence Bush presented to Congress and the world.

But, once the round is down range, you cannot put it back into the casing.

The rubicon was crossed. And we must fight the war that 80% of America voted for.

The war was not voted on by the people, but by our representatives, as you know.

We can fight the war and investigated its making at the same time.

 

[carpro]

This issue is not whether or not we should continue fighting. The issue is whether or not Bush lied to us by withholding any intelligence that didn't fit his objectives.

And now the Pentagon's inspector general has revealed that he did.

The Inspector General's report revealed no such thing.

But cling to that illusion if it makes you feel better.

 

[Daisy]

Terry,

I am still waiting for you to say something intelligent, honest, and conservative a second time!

Snarky, snarky.

You would be close if you hadn't performed the mistake that this premise is guilty of: Truth often has multiple viewpoints - September 8th, 1941 was the day that they Japanese Attacked Pearl Harbor - September 7th, 1941 was the day that America was attacked.

Same event - two different points of view - accross a little thing called a date line.

:thumbs:

Um, you're a few months off there, EG. (linkie)

If you're going to be snotty, you should at least be right - or you give everyone a good horse laugh

 

[El_Guero]

We now know that saddam's leadership lied to him to keep him from killing him.

The American led blockade had prevented his people from carrying out his orders.

What I do not understnad is why American liberals would rather trust saddam and then lie to make the American President look like he is lying. Why not quit changing history and just go with the fact that saddam was the responsible party? Why not believe that he chose to lie to America knowing that he held the loosing hand?

He was stupid enough to attempt to assassinate an American President .. .

He was stupid enough to try to develop a nuclear program and artillery program so that he could nuke iran and israel . . .

 

[El_Guero]

Mistakes are not the same thing as lying.

And when your intelligence is based upon trusting people like plame and her husband that divulge classified information for political gain, and saddam lying to the press, and saddam's generals encouraging the USA to dispose their despot - you are gonna make mistakes.

And conspiracy theorists are gonna have a field day . . . because their fear of the truth is greater than their fear of telling a lie.

 

[El_Guero]

Did I really right that?

:laugh:

Snarky, snarky.

Um, you're a few months off there, EG. (linkie)

If you're going to be snotty, you should at least be right - or you give everyone a good horse laugh

 

[Daisy]

Did I really right that?

:laugh:

No, not yet.

 

[Daisy]

We now know that saddam's leadership lied to him to keep him from killing him.

Yep, and vice versa - his generals were surprised to learn on the eve of the invasion that there were no WMDs.

The American led blockade had prevented his people from carrying out his orders.

It may be clear in you head what you mean, but you'll have to fill in the details if anyone else is going to follow - which orders?

What I do not understnad is why American liberals would rather trust saddam and then lie to make the American President look like he is lying.

The explanation is simple - they don't. Who trusted Saddam? No one, as far as I know.

Which American liberals are lying? This report is not a lie and I doubt the inspector general of the Pentagon qualifies as a liberal; he may be, but you'd have to offer some evidence.

Why not quit changing history and just go with the fact that saddam was the responsible party?

He bears some responsibility, but he didn't declare war on the US and launch a pre-emptive strike.

Why not believe that he chose to lie to America knowing that he held the loosing hand?

He said he didn't have the weapons and he let the inspectors back in. I suspect he wanted the world, especially his immediate neighbors, to believe he was still the power to be reckoned with in order to keep the Kurds and Shi'ites in line. He gambled that they were the greater threat than the US.

He was stupid enough to attempt to assassinate an American President .. .

And he got bombed for it.

He was stupid enough to try to develop a nuclear program and artillery program so that he could nuke iran and israel . . .

So? He was unable to develop a nuclear programme after Bush I put him out of commission. Iran was far closer to have nuclear capabilities than Iraq; Israel has had them for decades.


What has any of that to do with Feith's office presenting "alternative" intelligence about Saddam's weapons and relationship to al Qaeda?

 

[El_Guero]

Yep, and vice versa - his generals were surprised to learn on the eve of the invasion that there were no WMDs.

. . . .

And so . . . you knowing what we all know - the faulty intelligence came from the enemy blame the President of the USA . . .

Personally, if I knew the enemy was the culprit, I wouldn't even blame you much less the President of the USA.

Guess we have differing standards of guilt and integrity.

 

[Daisy]

And so . . . you knowing what we all know - the faulty intelligence came from the enemy blame the President of the USA . . .

Faulty intelligence did come from the "enemy" (pre-invasion, could Iraq be considered the "enemy"?), but good intelligence came from our own intelligence agencies. This good intelligences was, um, adjusted and turned into faulty intelligence.

Should the President have relied on the best intelligence the CIA had, intelligence supplied by the enemy or the "alternative" pov? The President can be blamed for egregious lack of judgement.

I haven't seen any evidence that Saddam said he was working with or protecting al Qaeda.

Personally, if I knew the enemy was the culprit, I wouldn't even blame you much less the President of the USA.

The "enemy", if by enemy you mean Iraq, is not the culprit in this case.

Guess we have differing standards of guilt and integrity.

I noticed.

 

[poncho]

Exhibit A.
Downing Street memos.

Exhibit B.

President Bush said: "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."

Speaking to Channel 4 News, Mr Sands said:

"I think no one would be surprised at the idea that the use of spy-planes to review what is going on would be considered. What is surprising is the idea that they would be used painted in the colours of the United Nations in order to provoke an attack which could then be used to justify material breach. Now that plainly looks as if it is deception, and it raises some fundamental questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law."

SOURCE

Exhibit C.

Saddam Hussein "is just the immediate justification for a wider role in middle eastern affairs". PNAC. Rebuilding America's Defenses. Page 14.

Exhibit D. Flashback to 1962.

These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage.

Exhibit E. Flasback to Iran 1953.

Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government.

In case you don't understand what happened in Iran in 1953. To make a long story short, our "leaders" used a false flag terror campaign to overthrow the Iranian government because Iran wanted to control it's own resources. How dare they?

Then there is the neocon's "Strausian philosophy".

"Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical (in Strauss's view) because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them."

The intell was fixed and we were going to go to war even if Bush and Blair had to use a false flag op to start it. Wouldn't be the first time deception and false flags were used to take America to war and/or overthrow another government.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Air strikes are not all out war on a sovereign nation. Who agreed upon has little to do with manufactured intelligence on the build up to the war against Iraq.

So the evidence was good enough to bomb a little but not a lot?

But that's not really the point, now, is it? As I pointed out, the issue is that the "faulty intelligence" was believed by more than Bush. It was believed by those who came before him, and by those in other nations.

Don't confuse things.

The topic is the report on bad intelligence that led to the invasion. I posted the topic, so I think I know what the topic is. It is more than a little presumptuous for you to lecture the Opening Poster on what the topic is.

It is not presumptuous at all, when you change the topic that i addressed. The topic I addressed was that the intelligence Bush used was the same intelligence that Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and others all agreed on. It may have been faulty, but it was believed by many more than Bush who saw it.

The first paragraph of that same quote is: The report says that Feith's office "developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and Al Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community."

And the last paragraph: The alleged caches of weapons have not been found, and the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda.

So? That's not the point I was addressing. If you are going to address me, then address the point I made. It is a little presumptous for you to lecture me on the point I made, while ignoring it.

The report is clear to me.

Great. Now try paying attention to the thread.

... Seriously, I have been a little smart aleck just having some fun here. But please pay attention to what I said. I was not talking about the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. I was talking about the reports of the existence of WMDs. They were believed by all.