Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
And what specific statement by "Team Bush" asserted an operational relationship.
Simon W. Moon said:
There were multiple instances of claims of training etc.
I have asked twice now for the SPECIFIC statement "Team Bush" asserted of an operational relationship. Operational being an OPERATION, not provide support. I'm still waiting.
AFAICT, as used, the word means sharing resources toward a common goal.
Ok here, this from a letter sent on Oct. 7, 2002, by the CIA's director to the then-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Bob Graham, George Tenet and part of their report:
"We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."
That's what the CIA was telling the adminsitration and the congress. That's exactly what the adminsitration was saying in their statements. So much for you claim that there was a consenus in the intelligence community that there was no relationship or collaboration between Saddam and terrorist groups including Al qaeda.
Here is from Tenet's testimony
There is evidence that Iraq provided al Qaeda with various kinds of training--combat, bomb-making and [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear] CBRN. Although Saddam did not endorse al Qaeda's overall agenda and was suspicious of Islamist movements in general, he was apparently not averse, under certain circumstances, to enhancing bin Laden's operational capabilities. As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training are [redacted] from sources of varying reliability.
Or as Laurie Mylroie in the Oct. 19 edition of the New York Sun, "an 11-page document [found in Iraq and] dated Jan. 25, 1993, lists various organizations with which Iraqi intelligence maintained contacts. It recommends 'the use of Arab Islamic elements which were fighting in Afghanistan and now have no place to go and who are currently in Somalia, Sudan and Egypt.' Saddam approved the suggestion, with the order to 'concentrate on Somalia.' " At the time, the network that would become known as al Qaeda was among the "Arab Islamic elements" operating in these countries.
Of as Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard writes
"The Senate report summarized the findings on Iraqi Intelligence support for terrorism this way: "The CIA provided 78 reports, from multiple sources, [redacted] documenting instances in which the Iraqi regime either trained operatives for attacks or dispatched them to carry out attacks....Iraq continued to participate in terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s." No wonder the Clinton administration cited Iraqi support for terrorism as one of the main reasons that Saddam Hussein's regime posed a threat to the United States."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/339finwc.asp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
... 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.
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.
Then why do you argue otherwise here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
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.
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
"Yet in its report of 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq?s weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities. The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same conclusion, finding no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community?s pre-war assessments of Iraq?s weapons programs. . . . [A]nalysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments."
COMMENTARY December 2005* *Who Is Lying About Iraq?* /Norman Podhoretz
this Team Bush made assertions that an operational or collaborative relationship existed between Hussein and al-Qa'ida.
The first you have yet to show an example the second see above.
There's no "new commission." Please make an effort to keep up. The SSCI is a standing body w in the US Senate.
Oh then please excuse me, then why do we need "new" hearings. Try not to dodge this time.
Originally Posted by Stinger
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?
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?
Since the consensus was that Saddam and Al qaeda were working to further thier relationship, Again I note the dodge on your part and your inablilty to cite a spcific instance.
Or should we go about saying that there is such a relationship when there's not reliable evidence to support the assertion?
Ok here, this from a letter sent on Oct. 7, 2002, by the CIA's director to the then-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Bob Graham, George Tenet:
"We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."
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.
So I ask again if you agree there was then why do you argue otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
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.
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.
So what about the dates, you complain that the WH estabished a group to oversee the intelligence coming into them but that is exactly what was clamored for afterwards but both sides of the isle. And yes they report to the WH and are constantly called before the congress to report and testify, in the end they report to the congress too.
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":
However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqi's [sic] involved, the CBRN materials associated with the assistance, and the location where the training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more ikely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers.
Are you making the factual claim that he was the ONLY source for this information? And let's just say for the purpose of discussion he was, well that's fine in hindsite, but as I have proven above that is NOT what the adminsitration was being told, it is NOT what the congress was being told at the time the decissions were made.
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.
Well climates are fine for weathermen and impacts for NASCAR, let's stick with specifics instead of semantics.
