New Documents - Saddam hid WMD

aps said:

OMG, GySgt, I cannot believe that you think this kind of joke is okay. Wow. You're worse than I thought you were.

I can already predict your reaction to the following set of facts:

(1) The Senate Intelligence Committee makes a determination that Bush exaggerated the intelligence.

Click to expand...

Since the Senate Intelligence Committee has already made a determination and it was that the evidence was not exacggerated or influenced why do you ask a specious question. The proper question is to YOU, what is your reaction to the actual findings of the committee, that the Bush adminsitration did not pressure anyone or influence the intelligence?

(2) We lose the war in Iraq.

Click to expand...

Since we won the war, what is YOUR reaction. And since we are winning the peace, what is YOUR reaction? Specifically the vote for the interim council and the vote for the constitution (both things I note that your side said would never happen) and the up coming elections (again your side said would never happen), what is YOUR reaction?


And what is YOUR reaction to all the documents we are finding in Iraq?

Like these

• Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs

• Ricin research and improvement

• Memo from the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)

• Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team

• Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment

What are your thoughts about these?

Stinger said:

Not really, what does that have to do with the reality I posted? Perhaps all those who keep claiming as fact that Saddam had no WMD and had no intention of having or that Bush lied should refrain in view of the evidence still coming forth.

Click to expand...

Wow, Stinger, you didn't take a shot at me. Cool. Okay, okay, I admit that the reason I posted that was to show how Bush made a joke in very bad taste.

Bless me, father, for I have sinned.......

aps said:

Wow, Stinger, you didn't take a shot at me. Cool. Okay, okay, I admit that the reason I posted that was to show how Bush made a joke in very bad taste.

Bless me, father, for I have sinned.......

Click to expand...

You could just answer his question. Here it is again.

What is your reaction to the actual findings of the committee, that the Bush adminsitration did not pressure anyone or influence the intelligence?

Stinger said:

Since the Senate Intelligence Committee has already made a determination and it was that the evidence was not exacggerated or influenced why do you ask a specious question.

Click to expand...

Despite the persistent ubiquitousness of this talking point, the SSCI has yet to investigate whether or not Team Bush et al "hyped" the intel. They have not yet addressed whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information.

Stinger said:

The proper question is to YOU, what is your reaction to the actual findings of the committee, that the Bush adminsitration did not pressure anyone or influence the intelligence?

Click to expand...

This assertion is essentially a dodge of the actual issues.
The Bush Admin set up their own intel-cherry-picking groups outside of the USIC, namely the Office of Special Plans and the Policy Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group. These groups, along w/ the Office of the Veep received direct reports from the Iraqi National Congress's Information Collection Program. [Yes, the same group that was run by a known Iranian agent, Aras Karim Habib, who later facilitated Chalabi's transmission of classified national security info from the Bush Admin to the Iranians about how we had broken their code. For some reason, the US Intel Community didn't trust the INC or their ICP, but Team Bush decided they were okey-dokey. Of course Powell later characterized the info they provided as incorrect and "deliberately misleading."] Since these groups were outside of the USIC, to explain that there's been no evidence re the influencing of the USIC misses the point.

Btw, the USIC considers the question re Team Bush's impact on the intel reporting from the USIC to still be open.

Simon W. Moon said:

Me too. The consensus of the US Intel Community was that and is that there was no collaborative nor operational relationship between Hussein and Hussein. So what's there left to debate? Are the various talking heads more knowledgable or just as knowledgable of a source than the US Intel Community's consensus judgment?

Click to expand...

Where do you get that idea? What "consensus" and elaborate on the "collaborative". Are you suggesting there were absolutely no contacts between Saddam and his agents with Alqaeda or other terrorist groups? That there is no evidence at all that Saddam did not want to not only start engagement with but to further his engagments with terrorist groups including Alqaeda? That there were absolutely no plans, in the beginning stages or further along, on either side to work together?

Stinger said:

Where do you get that idea?

Click to expand...

Multiple sources. Here's a pretty straightforward one:

Stinger said:

Are you suggesting there were absolutely no contacts between Saddam and his agents with Alqaeda or other terrorist groups? That there is no evidence at all that Saddam did not want to not only start engagement with but to further his engagments with terrorist groups including Alqaeda? That there were absolutely no plans, in the beginning stages or further along, on either side to work together?

Click to expand...

Umm... no. I'm suggesting that as far as the USIC could tell and can tell no operational or collaborative relationship existed between Hussein and al-Qa'ida.

Simon W. Moon said:

Despite the persistent ubiquitousness of this talking point, the SSCI has yet to investigate whether or not Team Bush et al "hyped" the intel. They have not yet addressed whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information.

Click to expand...

Give me an example of a "hyped" intel. What authoritative body found any evidence of "hyped" intel? What intelligence agency has come forth and said it's intelligence was "hyped" What exactly is "hyped" intelligence in the first place?

This assertion is essentially a dodge of the actual issues.
The Bush Admin set up their own intel-cherry-picking groups outside of the USIC, namely the Office of Special Plans and the Policy Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group.

Click to expand...

So what? Probably a good idea to have someone else evaluate what "US intel community" was saying. But by the sound of things these were planning agencies not analyist.

These groups, along w/ the Office of the Veep received direct reports from the Iraqi National Congress's Information Collection Program. .....................

Click to expand...

Yes intelligence is a dirty business and the different agency's compete and complain.

Btw, the USIC considers the question re Team Bush's impact on the intel reporting from the USIC to still be open.

Click to expand...

"impact"?

The fact remains, most of what we knew and believed in the Clinton years through the Bush years was true and was actionable. And more and more evidence of such appears everyday.

So back to the list of working documents the ISG is working on, are they merely instructions of how to wrap a turbin as some have intimated or do they support what the ISG has said all along, Saddam was more dangerous than were had thought.

Stinger said:

Give me an example of a "hyped" intel.

Click to expand...

Team Bush's assertions that an operational or collaborative relationship existed between Hussein and al-Qa'ida.

Stinger said:

What authoritative body found any evidence of "hyped" intel?

Click to expand...

Despite the persistent ubiquitousness of the talking point that this has been investigated by such a body, the only one that has been authorized to do so is the SSCI. The SSCI has yet to investigate whether or not Team Bush et al "hyped" the intel. They have not yet addressed whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information.

I'm getting deja vu sort of feeling.

Stinger said:

What intelligence agency has come forth and said it's intelligence was "hyped" What exactly is "hyped" intelligence in the first place?

Click to expand...

The US Intelligence Community has said that In the case of al-Qa'ida, the constant stream of questions aimed at finding links between Saddam and the terrorist network caused analysts take what they termed a “purposely aggressive approach” in conducting exhaustive and repetitive searches for such links. Despite the pressure, however, the Intelligence Community remained firm in its assessment that no operational or collaborative relationship existed. Yet, despite this Team Bush made assertions that an operational or collaborative relationship existed between Hussein and al-Qa'ida.

deja vu all over again

Stinger said:

So what? Probably a good idea to have someone else evaluate what "US intel community" was saying. But by the sound of things these were planning agencies not analyist.

Click to expand...

Well, as I said they were conduits for intel that had been already debunked or evaluated as unreliable or, in some cases, deliberately misleading that came from a program (run by an Iranian agent) that was judged as untrustworthy. I'm not sure why you think this is such a good idea, but to each his own I suppose.

Stinger said:

"impact"?

Click to expand...

The actual phrasing was "climate of policy-level pressure and expectations." "Whether or not this climate contributed to the problem of inconsistent analytic performance, however, remains an open question."

Stinger said:

So back to the list of working documents the ISG is working on ...

Click to expand...

The ISG has disbanded.

GySgt said:

Well, what was the point? From what I gathered, it was about how governments should be. It's way too much to read on the Internet. It's something I would print out and take to the field with me to read.

Click to expand...

Are you deployed now?

It's more what governments ARE rather than should be. And knowing what a thing is, will then allow one to better use it.

KCConservative said:

You could just answer his question. Here it is again.

What is your reaction to the actual findings of the committee, that the Bush adminsitration did not pressure anyone or influence the intelligence?

Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't believe it. Here is an article upon which I base my disbelief:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/05/1054700335400.html?oneclick=true

But I am willing to accept their determination as long as they cover "part 2" of their investigation.

Stinger said:

Since the Senate Intelligence Committee has already made a determination and it was that the evidence was not exacggerated or influenced why do you ask a specious question. The proper question is to YOU, what is your reaction to the actual findings of the committee, that the Bush adminsitration did not pressure anyone or influence the intelligence?

Click to expand...

Ahhh, this is the Stinger that I know and umm, tolerate…...

Well, if the entire Senate Intelligence Committee agreed to do a "part 2" to its report, my question is not specious. Maybe to you it is.

Since we won the war, what is YOUR reaction. And since we are winning the peace, what is YOUR reaction? Specifically the vote for the interim council and the vote for the constitution (both things I note that your side said would never happen) and the up coming elections (again your side said would never happen), what is YOUR reaction?

Click to expand...

We have won the war? That’s news to me. I will say that I am happy that there have been very positive things happening in Iraq. I hope that we are able to establish a democracy there, but when a Marine of 37 years says that the war cannot be won, I am going to accord his assessment much more probative value than some punks who never served their country during wartime. Further, Murtha has excellent contacts at the Pentagon. I am guessing that he is speaking so that they don't have to.

And what is YOUR reaction to all the documents we are finding in Iraq?

Like these

• Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs

• Ricin research and improvement

• Memo from the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)

• Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team

• Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment

What are your thoughts about these?

Click to expand...

My thoughts are that I will let the experts decide what they mean.

aps said:

My thoughts are that I will let the experts decide what they mean.

Click to expand...

Yet in post #85, you chose to disregard even the experts. Which is it, aps?

KCConservative said:

Yet in post #85, you chose to disregard even the experts. Which is it, aps?

Click to expand...

The experts being the Senate Intelligence Committee? I don't deem them to be experts. Just because they determine that the Bushies did not influence the intelligence doesn't mean that I have to accept that answer. Right? I can look at the same evidence as they did and have a different opinion.

libertarian_knight said:

Are you deployed now?

It's more what governments ARE rather than should be. And knowing what a thing is, will then allow one to better use it.

Click to expand...

No. This new unit I'm at is in Virginia and is a higher HQ underneath Quantico and the Pentagon where I mostly review orders, troop movements, intel reports, and such. Booooooring. It has it's pros and cons though. I am taking advantage of the break.

Simon W. Moon said:

Team Bush's assertions that an operational or collaborative relationship existed between Hussein and al-Qa'ida.

Click to expand...

And what specific statement by "Team Bush" asserted an operational relationaship. And I note you did not give me your working definition of "collaborative" and did not answer my question as to whether you are asserting there was NO relationship, NO contact, NO discussion, NO wanting to futher a relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. So your very broad assertion remain just that an assertion which flies in the face of the findings of the investigative bodies.

Despite the persistent ubiquitousness of the talking point that this has been investigated by such a body, the only one that has been authorized to do so is the SSCI. The SSCI has yet to investigate whether or not Team Bush et al "hyped" the intel.

Click to expand...

Define "hyped" and give me anything, any reason, any sliver of evidence that any intelligence report that the CIA, DIA, NSC, FBI et al gave to them that was later "hyped". Or is this just a fishing expedition, which if it is is a total waste of time. Each one of those agencies was free to declare their reports were hyped at the time the adminsitration made any statements and certainly had the forum to do so in front of the 911 commission and the SSCI. None did.

They have not yet addressed whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information.

Click to expand...

Why do they need a new commission to do that. They have had the intelligence reports in front of them for years, they would have no problem getting the public statements (since I guess they did not listen to them in the first place). And since the statements of the Bush administration were no different from those of the Clinton administration was it "hyped" back then too?

The US Intelligence Community has said that In the case of al-Qa'ida, the constant stream of questions aimed at finding links between Saddam and the terrorist network caused analysts take what they termed a “purposely aggressive approach” in conducting exhaustive and repetitive searches for such links.

Click to expand...

Since when did the "US Intelligence Community" speak as one voice? And getting agreesive in finding a link is a far cry from "hyping" or lying isn't it. And can you site an instance where a direct order from the White House influenced the conclusion of any agency?

Despite the pressure, however, the Intelligence Community remained firm in its assessment that no operational or collaborative relationship existed. Yet, despite this Team Bush made assertions that an operational or collaborative relationship existed between Hussein and al-Qa'ida.

Click to expand...

And I await the specific assertion you claim. And there is a big difference between operational and collaborative, why do you keep piling them together?s Further to that should we have waited until they actually pulled off an operation together or should we have removed the possiblity first? If not are you claiming there is no evidence AT ALL that Saddam and Al Qaeda had any connection AT ALL?

Well, as I said they were conduits for intel that had been already debunked or evaluated as unreliable or, in some cases, deliberately misleading that came from a program (run by an Iranian agent) that was judged as untrustworthy. I'm not sure why you think this is such a good idea, but to each his own I suppose.

Click to expand...

Seems to me there was an outcry for someone to oversee all the intelligence agencies and we got the national director of intelligence out it. But what are you trying to claim that these agencies to reviewed the intelligence changed it and inserted lies?

The actual phrasing was "climate of policy-level pressure and expectations."

Click to expand...

I see so we gone from the Bush administration had a yet to be explained "impact" to creating a "climate" yet the SSCI said they found no evidence that the WH put pressure on anyone.

The ISG has disbanded.

Click to expand...

But the evidence they turned up did not and it is still being looked at and from what has been leaked it looks pretty convincing.

Me>> Since the Senate Intelligence Committee has already made a determination and it was that the evidence was not exacggerated or influenced why do you ask a specious question.

aps said:

Ahhh, this is the Stinger that I know and umm, tolerate…...

Well, if the entire Senate Intelligence Committee agreed to do a "part 2" to its report, my question is not specious. Maybe to you it is.

Click to expand...

The part 2 is suppose to be about how the intelligence was used not whether it was exagerrated or influenced. Quite frankly a waste of time and money, but then it was only agreed to as an appeasement to the Democrats who were mad because they had not been able to get anything on Bush.

We have won the war? That’s news to me.

Click to expand...

The war in Iraq against Saddam yes. You didn't know he was on trial now and that his army and his sons and his requiem had been wiped out?

I will say that I am happy that there have been very positive things happening in Iraq. I hope that we are able to establish a democracy there, but when a Marine of 37 years says that the war cannot be won,

Click to expand...

Why him over all the other long serving Marines who say otherwise? What do you believe the majority of the long serving Marines say? If they disagree then will you change your position on the war?

I am going to accord his assessment much more probative value than some punks who never served their country during wartime.

Click to expand...

We won the war, we are winning the peace. Murtha was wrong, getting out NOW is the last thing we should do. THAT would be losing, THAT would be surrendering.

Further, Murtha has excellent contacts at the Pentagon. I am guessing that he is speaking so that they don't have to.

Click to expand...

Then remind me not to listen to your intuition.

Quote:
And what is YOUR reaction to all the documents we are finding in Iraq?

Like these

• Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs

• Ricin research and improvement

• Memo from the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)

• Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team

• Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment

What are your thoughts about these?

My thoughts are that I will let the experts decide what they mean.

Click to expand...

:rofl what a dodge.

aps said:

The experts being the Senate Intelligence Committee? I don't deem them to be experts. Just because they determine that the Bushies did not influence the intelligence doesn't mean that I have to accept that answer. Right? I can look at the same evidence as they did and have a different opinion.

Click to expand...

OK what is the evidence you are looking at the convinces you, inspite of the conclusions of everyone else who has investigated, that the Bush adminsitration pressured the intelligence agency's to submit phoney and false reports. And be specific. And just who do you deem to be experts?

GySgt said:

No. This new unit I'm at is in Virginia and is a higher HQ underneath Quantico and the Pentagon where I mostly review orders, troop movements, intel reports, and such. Booooooring. It has it's pros and cons though. I am taking advantage of the break.

Click to expand...

Oh, you said 'in the field" I believe. So I was concerned. Enjoy the break, I'm paying for it

Unless of course, you mean the field of mortars and landminds that is the camode. Then, may God be with you and protect you from slippage. wow, spending 6 hours fixing a car, with all the fumes, certainly makes on loopy.

anyway, read it please. I found it most enlightening.

aps said:

Just because they determine that the Bushies did not influence the intelligence doesn't mean that I have to accept that answer. Right?

Click to expand...

Oh, I see. You'll believe the evidence which supports your partisan view and ignore all the rest. Got it

aps said:

I can look at the same evidence as they did and have a different opinion.

Click to expand...

You mean like when the president looked at the intel regarding Saddam's WMD and had a different opinion than yours? Interesting.

Stinger said:

OK what is the evidence you are looking at the convinces you, inspite of the conclusions of everyone else who has investigated, that the Bush adminsitration pressured the intelligence agency's to submit phoney and false reports. And be specific. And just who do you deem to be experts?

Click to expand...

Another good question, stinger. I want the same answer. If not the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, then who are your experts, aps? Will you just keep demanding evidence until you find some that supports your personal viewpoint?

Stinger said:

Me>> Since the Senate Intelligence Committee has already made a determination and it was that the evidence was not exacggerated or influenced why do you ask a specious question.

The part 2 is suppose to be about how the intelligence was used not whether it was exagerrated or influenced. Quite frankly a waste of time and money, but then it was only agreed to as an appeasement to the Democrats who were mad because they had not been able to get anything on Bush.

Click to expand...

You think it's a waste of time and money. Okay. I, however, do not.

The war in Iraq against Saddam yes. You didn't know he was on trial now and that his army and his sons and his requiem had been wiped out?

Click to expand...

Yes, in that situation we have won.

Why him over all the other long serving Marines who say otherwise? What do you believe the majority of the long serving Marines say? If they disagree then will you change your position on the war?

Click to expand...

The Marine leaders who are currently serving are not going to disagree with the president in public. What does Murtha have to gain by coming forward? Nothing. He was the recipient of a bunch of attacks. Did you see his reaction? He didn't care. It is clear that he feels strongly that the troops should no longer be in Iraq. He seved in Vietnam during wartime. It is for these reasons that I give a lot of credibility to what he says.

We won the war, we are winning the peace. Murtha was wrong, getting out NOW is the last thing we should do. THAT would be losing, THAT would be surrendering.

Click to expand...

I don't see it that way. And Murtha wasn't saying to bring home the troops immediately. He wants to start a timetable for bringing them home.

Then remind me not to listen to your intuition.

Click to expand...

I will do that.

Quote:
And what is YOUR reaction to all the documents we are finding in Iraq?

Like these

• Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs

• Ricin research and improvement

• Memo from the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)

• Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team

• Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment

What are your thoughts about these?


:rofl what a dodge.

Click to expand...

I honestly do not know what to make of that information. For all you know, documents found are not authentic--you know like the ones that showed Iraq was attempting to buy Uranium from Niger.

Stinger said:

OK what is the evidence you are looking at the convinces you, inspite of the conclusions of everyone else who has investigated, that the Bush adminsitration pressured the intelligence agency's to submit phoney and false reports. And be specific. And just who do you deem to be experts?

Click to expand...

I would need to do some research on this issue to answer your question. I don't have time right now to do that kind of research. When the Senate Intell. Committee was starting their investigation, I read a lot of articles about how frequently Cheney went to the CIA, which is unheard of. I watched a program on the path to war, which I forget the name of, on the Sundance channel. There were former CIA analysts on there talking about feeling pressured. I have not read the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings. Perhaps it would change my mind, although I doubt it.

I would be willing to do the research, but I think it will be a waste of my time because it isn't going to change your mind. If you think I am full of BS, I don't mind.

aps said:

I honestly do not know what to make of that information. For all you know, documents found are not authentic--you know like the ones that showed Iraq was attempting to buy Uranium from Niger.

Click to expand...

Do you have a link supporting your claim that these documents were not authentic? Or is this just an attempt to slide out of this debate gracefully? Maybe we should ask Dan Rather if he knows anything about the documents being forged.

Stinger said:

And what specific statement by "Team Bush" asserted an operational relationaship.

Click to expand...

There were multiple instances of claims of training etc.

Stinger said:

And I note you did not give me your working definition of "collaborative"

Click to expand...

AFAICT, as used, the word means sharing resources toward a common goal.

Stinger said:

... and did not answer my question as to whether you are asserting there was NO relationship, NO contact, NO discussion, NO wanting to futher a relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Click to expand...

It's very peculiar you have noted this. I previously provided a plain, clear one word answer of "no" in post #81. Here's a link to help you find it. Good luck.

Stinger said:

So your very broad assertion remain just that an assertion which flies in the face of the findings of the investigative bodies.

Click to expand...

Which ones? I suspect that the as yet unamed "investigative bodies" got their info from the USIC. So, I also suspect that you have misread. But, if you'll provide the quotes and sources, we can all see if you've misread or no.

Stinger said:

Define "hyped" and give me anything, any reason, any sliver of evidence that any intelligence report that the CIA, DIA, NSC, FBI et al gave to them that was later "hyped". Or is this just a fishing expedition, which if it is is a total waste of time. Each one of those agencies was free to declare their reports were hyped at the time the adminsitration made any statements and certainly had the forum to do so in front of the 911 commission and the SSCI. None did.

Click to expand...

Deja vu of a deja vu. Didn't we just do this a moment ago?

The US Intelligence Community has said that in the case of al-Qa'ida, the constant stream of questions aimed at finding links between Saddam and the terrorist network caused analysts take what they termed a “purposely aggressive approach” in conducting exhaustive and repetitive searches for such links. Despite the pressure, however, the Intelligence Community remained firm in its assessment that no operational or collaborative relationship existed. Yet, despite this Team Bush made assertions that an operational or collaborative relationship existed between Hussein and al-Qa'ida.

Stinger said:

Why do they need a new commission to do that.

Click to expand...

There's no "new commission." Please make an effort to keep up. The SSCI is a standing body w in the US Senate.

Stinger said:

Since when did the "US Intelligence Community" speak as one voice? And getting agreesive in finding a link is a far cry from "hyping" or lying isn't it. And can you site an instance where a direct order from the White House influenced the conclusion of any agency?

Click to expand...

I don't know thet exact date. I'm unsure of how exactly to search for it. What does it matter when they began making consensus assessments like they do w/ NIEs?

Stinger said:

And there is a big difference between operational and collaborative, why do you keep piling them together?

Click to expand...

BEcause that's how the USIC put it. It's a quote.

Stinger said:

Further to that should we have waited until they actually pulled off an operation together or should we have removed the possiblity first?

Click to expand...

Or should we go about saying that there is such a relationship when there's not reliable evidence to support the assertion?

Stinger said:

If not are you claiming there is no evidence AT ALL that Saddam and Al Qaeda had any connection AT ALL?

Click to expand...

Why do you ask? I've addressed this very question from you on multiple occcasions. Most recently in this very thread. I"m all for providing sources and upholding my end of the debate, but if you refuse to read and/or remember I'm not willing to spon feed you over and over again. The first few times are my limit.

Stinger said:

Seems to me there was an outcry for someone to oversee all the intelligence agencies and we got the national director of intelligence out it.

Click to expand...

Check you dates and then get back to re the relevance of this.
Second, the groups set up did not report to the USIC. They reported to the WH.

Stinger said:

But what are you trying to claim that these agencies to reviewed the intelligence changed it and inserted lies?

Click to expand...

Like I said before [all over again] in post #79 they used reports and intel that the USIC had determined were unreliable and/or deliberately misleading. No changing necessary.
Consider this DIA report re al-Libi, the source for statements re Iraq and al-Qa'ida traing together on "bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases":

Stinger said:

I see so we gone from the Bush administration had a yet to be explained "impact" to creating a "climate" yet the SSCI said they found no evidence that the WH put pressure on anyone.

Click to expand...

What a major distinction of semantics. Bravo. Good for you. Perhaps the climate had an impact? Perhaps that's just too outlandish to consider.
In any case, I just noted that the report called it an open question.

Stinger said:

But the evidence they turned up did not and it is still being looked at and from what has been leaked it looks pretty convincing.

Click to expand...

You're easily convinced, though. So, meh.

aps said:

I would be willing to do the research, but I think it will be a waste of my time because it isn't going to change your mind. If you think I am full of BS, I don't mind.

Click to expand...

Again with the "I'd prove it, but it wouldn't make a difference" reply.

In my short time on this forum, you have used this excuse quite a few times. I am beginning to think this is your way of conceding a debate. Yuo'd support your claim, if you could.