• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

CIA Director Testimony Shows Iraq Intel Manipulated For War

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The lost testimony of George Tenet before congress in February 2001, which was never before released, has now been found and released to the public. Tenet explicitly states that Iraq posed no threat to the US or Iraq's neighbors. From the article:

Tenet told Congress in February 2001 that Iraq was “probably” pursuing chemical and biological weapons programs but that the CIA had no direct evidence that Iraq had actually obtained such weapons. However, such caveats as “may” and “probably” were removed from intelligence reports by key members of the Bush administration immediately after 9/11 when discussing Iraq.
This is pretty damning evidence, and backs up what the Downing Street Memos say - That the intel was actually being "fixed" around the desire to go to war.

Article is here.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
danarhea said:
The lost testimony of George Tenet before congress in February 2001, which was never before released, has now been found and released to the public. Tenet explicitly states that Iraq posed no threat to the US or Iraq's neighbors. From the article:



This is pretty damning evidence, and backs up what the Downing Street Memos say - That the intel was actually being "fixed" around the desire to go to war.

Article is here.
There are CIA employees who quit because they felt the intelligence was being manipulated. Where are these people? Why are they not speaking out? Apparently, these people said that when Cheney would not get the answer he wanted, he asked for them to continue looking.

Time will tell whether the Bushies altered intelligence. Restore honesty and integrity to the White House? My a$$........
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Tenet explicitly states that Iraq posed no threat to the US or Iraq's neighbors.
Apparently you didn't read the source document itself. It seems that you were content to read rawstory's article, which leaves a lot to be desired in terms of objectivity.

For example, from the same document that rawstory selectively quotes, there is also this...

"UNSCOM reported to the Security Council in December 1998 that Iraq also continued to withhold information related to its CW program. For example, Baghdad seized from UNSCOM inspectors an Air Force document discovered by UNSCOM that indicated that Iraq had not consumed as many CW munitions during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s as had been declared by Baghdad. This discrepancy indicates that Iraq may have hidden an additional 6,000 CW munitions."

And this...

"In 1995, Iraq admitted to having an offensive BW program and submitted the first in a series of Full, Final, and Complete Disclosures (FFCDs) that were supposed to reveal the full scope of its BW program. According to UNSCOM, these disclosures are incomplete and filled with inaccuracies. Since the full scope and nature of Iraq's BW program was not verified, UNSCOM assessed that Iraq continues to maintain a knowledge base and industrial infrastructure that could be used to produce quickly a large amount of BW agents at any time, if needed. "

As well as...

"We believe that Iraq has probably continued low-level theoretical R&D associated with its nuclear program. A sufficient source of fissile material remains Iraq's most significant obstacle to being able to produce a nuclear weapon."

Link to source doc.

Reading the source doc paints a bit of a different picture, doesn't it?

Remember the source: rawstory.com is slanted to appeal to those who tend to agree with a certain point of view. And thats ok, its part of the attraction and usefulness that the internet provides us. But we should all remember the predilictions of the sources when perusing them, whether the sources are liberal, conservative, Repub, Dem, NRA, anti-this or whatever. Take nothing at face value; read the source docs; above all, remain skeptical.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
oldreliable67 said:
Apparently you didn't read the source document itself. It seems that you were content to read rawstory's article, which leaves a lot to be desired in terms of objectivity.

For example, from the same document that rawstory selectively quotes, there is also this...

"UNSCOM reported to the Security Council in December 1998 that Iraq also continued to withhold information related to its CW program. For example, Baghdad seized from UNSCOM inspectors an Air Force document discovered by UNSCOM that indicated that Iraq had not consumed as many CW munitions during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s as had been declared by Baghdad. This discrepancy indicates that Iraq may have hidden an additional 6,000 CW munitions."

And this...

"In 1995, Iraq admitted to having an offensive BW program and submitted the first in a series of Full, Final, and Complete Disclosures (FFCDs) that were supposed to reveal the full scope of its BW program. According to UNSCOM, these disclosures are incomplete and filled with inaccuracies. Since the full scope and nature of Iraq's BW program was not verified, UNSCOM assessed that Iraq continues to maintain a knowledge base and industrial infrastructure that could be used to produce quickly a large amount of BW agents at any time, if needed. "

As well as...

"We believe that Iraq has probably continued low-level theoretical R&D associated with its nuclear program. A sufficient source of fissile material remains Iraq's most significant obstacle to being able to produce a nuclear weapon."

Link to source doc.

Reading the source doc paints a bit of a different picture, doesn't it?

Remember the source: rawstory.com is slanted to appeal to those who tend to agree with a certain point of view. And thats ok, its part of the attraction and usefulness that the internet provides us. But we should all remember the predilictions of the sources when perusing them, whether the sources are liberal, conservative, Repub, Dem, NRA, anti-this or whatever. Take nothing at face value; read the source docs; above all, remain skeptical.

:doh He got you there Dan, I have told you time and again about taking these sources with a huge grain of salt, but you continue to trust them, I don't know why?:confused:

Wait, I do know why, you can't stand Bush, or neo-cons, and sometimes are blinded by that hatred.;)
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So it comes right back to...."we think you might be a threat to someone eventually...so we are goping to blow you up".

I am sorry but, I honestly expect far more than paranoid speculation from my leadership before they commit people to a War. More and more....no matter how much I wish to deny that I fell for it, I must admit to thinking we were justified in this war.....I am ashamed at my own ignorance, and disgusted by my leaders.

Its a very sad time for America.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
tecoyah said:
So it comes right back to...."we think you might be a threat to someone eventually...so we are goping to blow you up".

I am sorry but, I honestly expect far more than paranoid speculation from my leadership before they commit people to a War. More and more....no matter how much I wish to deny that I fell for it, I must admit to thinking we were justified in this war.....I am ashamed at my own ignorance, and disgusted by my leaders.

Its a very sad time for America.

Oh come now sir, millions are free, a brutal dictator and his regime are in jail, and there is change in the air in the M.E, don't be so damned hard on yourself.;)


Actually, when you look at the last ten years, I don't think we have done anything this great with our power and wealth, we should be proud, it's a shame your "leaders" have you questioning that.
 
Last edited:

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
danarhea said:
The lost testimony of George Tenet before congress in February 2001, which was never before released, has now been found and released to the public. Tenet explicitly states that Iraq posed no threat to the US or Iraq's neighbors. From the article:



This is pretty damning evidence, and backs up what the Downing Street Memos say - That the intel was actually being "fixed" around the desire to go to war.

Article is here.

That's all they are for the most part (again, not all politicans fall into this category, just most of them), politicans are just a bunch of dishonest, backstabbing, lying crooks heh heh. Clinton was, Bush is. Democrat or republican, it makes no difference, most of them are crooks.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Deegan said:
:doh He got you there Dan, I have told you time and again about taking these sources with a huge grain of salt, but you continue to trust them, I don't know why?:confused:

Wait, I do know why, you can't stand Bush, or neo-cons, and sometimes are blinded by that hatred.;)
:lol: It's starting to look more and more like dana "manipulates the information" in his posts to bash the president.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
oldreliable67 said:
Apparently you didn't read the source document itself. It seems that you were content to read rawstory's article, which leaves a lot to be desired in terms of objectivity.

For example, from the same document that rawstory selectively quotes, there is also this...

"UNSCOM reported to the Security Council in December 1998 that Iraq also continued to withhold information related to its CW program. For example, Baghdad seized from UNSCOM inspectors an Air Force document discovered by UNSCOM that indicated that Iraq had not consumed as many CW munitions during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s as had been declared by Baghdad. This discrepancy indicates that Iraq may have hidden an additional 6,000 CW munitions."

And this...

"In 1995, Iraq admitted to having an offensive BW program and submitted the first in a series of Full, Final, and Complete Disclosures (FFCDs) that were supposed to reveal the full scope of its BW program. According to UNSCOM, these disclosures are incomplete and filled with inaccuracies. Since the full scope and nature of Iraq's BW program was not verified, UNSCOM assessed that Iraq continues to maintain a knowledge base and industrial infrastructure that could be used to produce quickly a large amount of BW agents at any time, if needed. "

As well as...

"We believe that Iraq has probably continued low-level theoretical R&D associated with its nuclear program. A sufficient source of fissile material remains Iraq's most significant obstacle to being able to produce a nuclear weapon."

Link to source doc.

Reading the source doc paints a bit of a different picture, doesn't it?

Remember the source: rawstory.com is slanted to appeal to those who tend to agree with a certain point of view. And thats ok, its part of the attraction and usefulness that the internet provides us. But we should all remember the predilictions of the sources when perusing them, whether the sources are liberal, conservative, Repub, Dem, NRA, anti-this or whatever. Take nothing at face value; read the source docs; above all, remain skeptical.
Incidentally, I found a different version of the report on the CIA website. I haven't had time to see what's different, or even figure out why, but the language used (if not the statements themselves) are different.

[URL="http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bian_feb_2001.htm#4] The first posted doc From the FAS website [/URL]

[URL="http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2002.html#4] the CIA website doc [/URL]

Like I said, I haven't had a chance to read it, but I wondered why I declassified CIA report wasn't on the CIA servers, so checked and found slight discrepancies, I will read them later, at work now...
 
Top Bottom