Terry_Herrington
New Member
Daisy said:
I believe this is the core problem with the Bush Administration.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Faulty Intelligence?
- Thread starter Daisy
- Start date
- Status
I believe this is the core problem with the Bush Administration.
Feith morphed Tenet's "our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability" into a "mature symbiotic relationship".carpro said:
Under the guise of analysis, he created an intelligence product - based on what? Feith was supposed to analyse the intelligence, not make up intelligence of his own:
Feith did not provide the most accurate analysis - that's his job, to provide analysis. Inaccurate and inconsistent with what the real intelligence reports concluded.
poncho
Well-Known Member
"As the Bush administration began assembling its case for war, analysts across the U.S. intelligence community were disturbed by the report of a secretive Pentagon team that concluded Iraq had significant ties to Al Qaeda," Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes write for the LA Times.
The article continues, "Analysts from the CIA and other agencies 'disagreed with more than 50%' of 26 findings the Pentagon team laid out in a controversial paper, according to testimony Friday from Thomas F. Gimble, acting inspector general of the Pentagon."
<snip>
The dueling groups sat down at CIA headquarters in late August 2002 to try to work out their differences. But while the CIA agreed to minor modifications in some of its own reports, Gimble said, the Pentagon unit was utterly unbowed.
"They didn't make the changes that were talked about in that August 20th meeting," Gimble said, and instead went on to present their deeply flawed findings to senior officials at the White House.
The work of that special Pentagon unit — which was run by former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith — is one of the lingering symbols of the intelligence failures leading up to the war in Iraq.
SOURCE
The article continues, "Analysts from the CIA and other agencies 'disagreed with more than 50%' of 26 findings the Pentagon team laid out in a controversial paper, according to testimony Friday from Thomas F. Gimble, acting inspector general of the Pentagon."
<snip>
The dueling groups sat down at CIA headquarters in late August 2002 to try to work out their differences. But while the CIA agreed to minor modifications in some of its own reports, Gimble said, the Pentagon unit was utterly unbowed.
"They didn't make the changes that were talked about in that August 20th meeting," Gimble said, and instead went on to present their deeply flawed findings to senior officials at the White House.
The work of that special Pentagon unit — which was run by former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith — is one of the lingering symbols of the intelligence failures leading up to the war in Iraq.
SOURCE
Daisy said:
So where is the proof he "altered" intelligence?
A different analysis of the intelligence available is not "altering" intelligence.
That's what intelligence analysts do, draw their own conclusions from the data available. They are under no obligation to agree with other analysts.
You are spreading a falsehood.
The Galatian
Active Member
By now, carpro, everyone has it figured out. Well, almost everyone.:laugh:
2 Timothy2:1-4
New Member
Daisy said:
Here si a link ot Hillary's speech when she voted to give the President authorization:
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
snipet:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."
Here are some other comments made through the years:
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
Wouldn't it be great if we, as mere humans, had the power to gather all the facts we desired on a given subject, sort out the significant from the meaningless, always deduce the full capabilities and true intentions of others, and accurately predict the future?
Wouldn't it be great if we, given the former and also as mere humans, could then know exactly what course of action should be taken to alter the course of that future to meet our needs without any errors, mistakes, loss of life or limb, or even the slightest inconvenience?
Wouldn't it be great if we, given the former and also as mere humans, could then know exactly what course of action should be taken to alter the course of that future to meet our needs without any errors, mistakes, loss of life or limb, or even the slightest inconvenience?
Dragoon68 said:
That would be something, wouldn't it?:thumbs:
Unfortunately, this is the real world with a leader taking all available intelligence and arriving at a decision he alone can make.
What all this is really about is politicians who don't want to take responsibility for their own actions and votes by claiming they were "misled". If they really think they were, they are either blind or stupid. People that fall for their act have to be placed in the same category.
The Galatian
Active Member
Too bad he didn't tell the whole truth about it. As his own pentagon inspector general reports on the manipulation of intelligence by former Bush undersecretary Douglas Feith:
"The actions, in our opinion, were inappropriate, given that all the products did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the intel community, and in some cases were shown as intel products," he said.
Gimble also said that Feith made "adjustments" in his findings, depending on the audience.
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/62771
"The actions, in our opinion, were inappropriate, given that all the products did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the intel community, and in some cases were shown as intel products," he said.
Gimble also said that Feith made "adjustments" in his findings, depending on the audience.
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/62771
2 Timothy2:1-4
New Member
The Galatian said:
The truth is that for every report there is some dissent. Wading through all of that is daunting I'm sure. There is nothing substantial or even impressive about dissent that was not considered. Chances are there were reports from different agencies that went the other way that were not mentioned or considered. When you get input from many sources this is what happens. But it sure gives fodder for the left and the news agencies. But that was redundant.
The Galatian
Active Member
Systematically suppressing any intelligence that doesn't agree with what the president wants, is not "dissent."
We now know, from Bush's own people, why we were misled.
Problem was, he went with the dissent which had little basis instead of with the concensus of his own top intelligence agency. Why?2 Timothy2:1-4 said:
Even worse, the dissent was presented as the intelligence without noting that the actual intellingence disagreed. Again, why?
The Galatian
Active Member
Barbarian observes:
Systematically suppressing any intelligence that doesn't agree with what the president wants, is not "dissent."
Well, that's a testable claim. Let's take a look:
Colin Powell cited statements from Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qaeda prisoner to “prove” Saddam Hussein had trained al-Qaeda members to use bio and chem weapons. Powell cited this in his speech to the UN.
But we now know:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 - A high Qaeda official in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.html?ex=1288933200&en=5a216116a0310ce1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Remember, the “yellowcake” scam? Bush cited a document supposedly “proving” Saddam was seeking uranium from an African nation?
But we now know:
The deputy director of the CIA, testifying before Congress, is asked about British reports of Iraqi uranium procurement from Africa and says "we don't think they are very credible." The president plans to give a speech in Cincinnati mentioning the African uranium, but the CIA suggests the passage be removed. George Tenet personally calls the White House to tell them the "reporting is weak." Despite this, references to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium continue to show up in CIA documents.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_07/004430.php
Bush & Co. repeatedly suggested that Saddam Hussein had substantial connections to al-Qaeda. He said, after the war, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." Cheney climed the evidence was "overwhelming." But we now know:
Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm
Bush said:
We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html
But he actually knew:
On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.
A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html
There's a lot more. Would you like to see some more?
Systematically suppressing any intelligence that doesn't agree with what the president wants, is not "dissent."
Well, that's a testable claim. Let's take a look:
Colin Powell cited statements from Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qaeda prisoner to “prove” Saddam Hussein had trained al-Qaeda members to use bio and chem weapons. Powell cited this in his speech to the UN.
But we now know:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 - A high Qaeda official in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.html?ex=1288933200&en=5a216116a0310ce1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Remember, the “yellowcake” scam? Bush cited a document supposedly “proving” Saddam was seeking uranium from an African nation?
But we now know:
The deputy director of the CIA, testifying before Congress, is asked about British reports of Iraqi uranium procurement from Africa and says "we don't think they are very credible." The president plans to give a speech in Cincinnati mentioning the African uranium, but the CIA suggests the passage be removed. George Tenet personally calls the White House to tell them the "reporting is weak." Despite this, references to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium continue to show up in CIA documents.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_07/004430.php
Bush & Co. repeatedly suggested that Saddam Hussein had substantial connections to al-Qaeda. He said, after the war, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." Cheney climed the evidence was "overwhelming." But we now know:
Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm
Bush said:
We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html
But he actually knew:
On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.
A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html
There's a lot more. Would you like to see some more?
- Status