• 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: Iraq & aQ, “no operational or collaborative relationship existed”

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
CIA's Kerr Report: Why Iraq WMD Intel Was Faulty

Iraq didn't get enough attention because the CIA was busy combating terrorism and WMD proliferation.




From the recently publicly released Kerr Report p5

Issues for the Intelligence Community
29, July 2004
... Iraq was not the only significant intelligence problem facing the Community in the years immediately preceding the war. Counter terrorism and counter proliferation were given higher priority ...
More bureaucratic drollery no doubt.
Least ways, I'm rflmao.

It's a great read for any Iraq war buff. I'll post a link to a c&p-able version as soon as I get done generating it.
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: CIA's Kerr Report: Why Iraq WMD Intel Was Faulty

A few days before Bush launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom," ElBaradei revealed that the US had relied on fabricated documents to support its Niger claim. This revelation raised the ire of Bush, who had included the false Niger assertion in his state of the union address in order to whip up support for his impending illegal invasion of Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101105I.shtml

here is the real reason it was faulty my friend

http://www.rense.com/general67/stock.htm
Cheney's Halliburton
Stock Rose 3,281%
Executive Intelligence Review
10-12-5

(EIRNS) -- Halliburton stock options held by Dick Cheney rose 3,281% since October, 2004,according to figures compiled by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), reports rawstory website today.

The options were worth $241,498, now they are worth $8 million.

In a Sept. 15 statement, as Halliburton was getting no-bid contracts for repairs following Hurricane Katrina, Lautenberg said that Cheney should divest himself of these Halliburton holdings.

"Halliburton has already raked in more thant $10 billion from the Bush-Cheney administration for work in Iraq, and now they are being awarded some of the first Katrina contracts. It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it.''
oil for profits atrocities in the name of all that is holly what is wrong America
Peace can only come When america leaves iraq not before

http://www.rense.com/general67/stock.htm
 
Last edited:

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: CIA's Kerr Report: Why Iraq WMD Intel Was Faulty

Canuck said:
here is the real reason it was faulty my friend

http://www.rense.com/general67/stock.htm
Cheney's Halliburton
Stock Rose 3,281%
Executive Intelligence Review
10-12-5
If this is true, it may well demonstrate a conflict of interest for Cheney; however, it does not offer an explanation of how the Intelligence Community's Iraq WMD intel came to be faulty.
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: CIA's Kerr Report: Why Iraq WMD Intel Was Faulty

president knew before he even pic ked chaney that it would be a conflict of interest and why Haliburton got all the sweet heart deals

the reasons for war has always been profits always

no it doesnt answer your original question I didnt see any replies to your post
soI thought I would come in with this at least its food for thought


I always thought it was the exiled Iraq leader that fed them,info.
Isreal
both sources have something to gain here
 
Last edited:

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: CIA's Kerr Report: Why Iraq WMD Intel Was Faulty

The report's not gotten much "legs" yet. Just five stories when this link was posted.

But here's a sampling:

Report: Intel analysts pressured to find al-Qaida, Saddam links
MarineTimes.com
October 14, 2005

Intelligence analysts were under heavy administration pressure before the Iraq war to find links between Saddam Hussein’s government and al-Qaida, causing them to take a “purposely aggressive approach” to the issue, according to a newly declassified CIA report.
The analysts never found such ties and remained firm in their conviction that “no operational or collaborative relationship existed,” the report said.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.[/FONT]
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
For the folks who still have their doubts about the lack of a meaningful and significant relationship between Saddam and aQ: the CIA says that despite purposely aggressive, exhaustive and repetitive searches no operational or collaborative relationship existed between Saddam and al-Qa'ida.

I know this won't be enough for some folks. For you folks, I ask, "What would it take to convince you?"

Intelligence and analysis on Iraq: Issues for the Intelligence
Community (html)
(scanned pdf)p11
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.
The report says that this was the IC assessment and is still their position despite purposely aggressive, exhaustive and repetitive searches for such a relationship.
All of Team Bush's cacophonous din to the contrary was made in spite of the Best Information Available at the Time.
 
Last edited:

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: CIA's Kerr Report: Why Iraq WMD Intel Was Faulty

Simon W. Moon said:
If this is true, it may well demonstrate a conflict of interest for Cheney; however, it does not offer an explanation of how the Intelligence Community's Iraq WMD intel came to be faulty.

who cares what the CIA said !THE world ,you know the other 95% of the earth's population ,through the UN said you have no case againts IRAQ .your own CONGRESS investigates ,and said no grounds for war on IRAQ.

If America continues to act like a bad boy
we the other 95% of people of the earth may have to take matters in our own hands one day

All the," we are the best and better then all the rest attitude "better stop,
or there well may be a spanking in it for the USA.
Already many countries shun US currency many more will join the call
you bring it on yourselves.
the rest of the world will make USA look like a banana Republic that it really is
heed the world's message or suffer the consequences
they are dire indeed
 
Last edited:

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...
15 May 2001, Powell testified before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Senator Bennett: Mr. Secretary, the U.N. sanctions on Iraq expire the beginning of June. We've had bombs dropped, we've had threats made, we've had all kinds of activity vis-a-vis Iraq in the previous administration. Now we're coming to the end. What's our level of concern about the progress of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs?

Secretary Powell: The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.

So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful. We have not been able to get the inspectors back in, though, to verify that, and we have not been able to get the inspectors in to pull up anything that might be left there. So we have to continue to view this regime with the greatest suspicion, attribute to them the most negative motives, which is quite well-deserved with this particular regime, and roll the sanctions over, and roll them over in a way where the arms control sanctions really go after their intended targets -- weapons of mass destruction -- and not go after civilian goods or civilian commodities that we really shouldn't be going after, just let that go to the Iraqi people. That wasn't the purpose of the oil-for-food program. And by reconfiguring them in that way, I think we can gain support for this regime once again.

When we came into office on the 20th of January, the whole sanctions regime was collapsing in front of our eyes. Nations were bailing out on it. We lost the consensus for this kind of regime because the Iraqi regime had successfully painted us as the ones causing the suffering of the Iraqi people, when it was the regime that was causing the suffering. They had more than enough money; they just weren't spending it in the proper way. And we were getting the blame for it. So reconfiguring the sanctions, I think, helps us and continues to contain the Iraqi regime.
29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer:
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simon,

Thats an interesting link. Thanks very much for posting it. One comment early on in the report caught my eye,

As a result the analysis, although understandable and explainable, arrived at conclusions that were seriously flawed, misleading, and even wrong.
This seems to be consistent with factcheck.org's conclusions. If you remember, factcheck.org responded to the 2004 Dem ad campaign featuring a 'They Lied' theme. referring to some of the same intel community conclusions studied by the Kerr report. After their investigation, factcheck.org concluded that although the particular information that the administration was using incorrect, it was information that they believed to be true at the time and was based on the information available to them at the time. Therefore, factcheck.org concluded that they were not lying and that the Dem ad was disengenuous.

http://factcheck.org/
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
oldreliable67 said:
This seems to be consistent with factcheck.org's conclusions. If you remember, factcheck.org responded to the 2004 Dem ad campaign featuring a 'They Lied' theme. referring to some of the same intel community conclusions studied by the Kerr report. After their investigation, factcheck.org concluded that although the particular information that the administration was using incorrect, it was information that they believed to be true at the time and was based on the information available to them at the time. Therefore, factcheck.org concluded that they were not lying and that the Dem ad was disengenuous.
http://factcheck.org/
Regarding which issue?
 
Top Bottom