http://www.dodig.osd.mil/IGInformation/archives/Unclass Executive Summary.pdf
http://www.dodig.osd.mil/IGInformation/archives/OUSDP-OSP Brief.pdf
http://www.dodig.osd.mil/IGInformation/archives/OUSDP-OSP Brief.pdfThe Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy [OUSD(P)] developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision makers.It seems they showed senior decision makers "some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community" "as intelligence products" when they were not.
While such actions were not illegal or unauthorized, the actions were, in our opinion, inappropriate given that the products did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community and were, in some cases, shown as intelligence products.
Here's the rub, these actions were not unauthorized.
Who authorized the OSP to show "senior decision makers" "alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship" as though they were products of the intelligence community?
While such actions were not illegal or unauthorized, the actions were in our opinion, inappropriate given that the intelligence assessments were intelligence products and did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community. This condition occurred because of an expanded role and mission of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from policy formulation to alternative intelligence analysis and dissemination.
The Deputy Secretary of Defense direction made the action authorized; however, we believe the actions were inappropriate because a policy office was producing intelligence products and was not clearly conveying to senior decision-makers the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community.
You've been saying all along the intelligence agencies all thought the same thing. This clearly indicates that they didn't!Originally posted by TOT:
A) You said "all," the intelligence this report was specifically in relation to the AQ Saddam links.
B) Where exactly does it say that anyone was lying? For the life of me I can't find that anywhere.
Strange how you try to use something as proof that the government went out of their way to issue a disclaimer about when they released this information.Originally posted by TOT:
C) Somebody ought to inform the DOD about DOCEX that proves conclusively that their was infact an AQ Saddam relationship and it was collaborative.
U.S. releases pre-war Iraqi goverment documents
...the administration "has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translation."
Stinger, you gotta warn me when you start spewing bullshit like this! I almost didn't have time to pull up my pant legs before your sewage post rolled on by!
Anyone who says Hussein was a threat is the biggest ***** on the planet. Because what you're saying is that a country that was bombed back to the stone age, that barely has running water and electricity, that is a population of goat herders, that is 9000 miles away with no navy, is a threat to the most technologically advanced military the world has ever seen.
S.h.i.t, it only took a 100 hours to beat'em the first time...
People that think Iraq was a threat either have an agenda their manifesting or they have chicken-little syndrome.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[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."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . 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 redefine 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."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"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. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Sorry to take the wind out of your sails CD, but I'm not a Democrat!Originally posted by Cold Dirt:
I see a whole lot of ******s........all with D's by their names.......so that must make you a ***** too........
btw boy, why dont we sit down a talk about the threat Saddam and his military was.....it may of only been a 100 hours for ******s like you that was sitting on your fat *** while real men like me were fighting in 90 plus degree heat....with lead flying all over the place.......
You've been saying all along the intelligence agencies all thought the same thing. This clearly indicates that they didn't!
Strange how you try to use something as proof that the government went out of their way to issue a disclaimer about when they released this information.
The Administration won't even say whether this is authentic or not, TOT. What do you know that they don't?
Ya, it confirmed a fraud!Originally posted by TOT:
Ya DOCEX confirms the Feith memo.
Ya, it confirmed a fraud!
Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show
By ELI LAKE
Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 24, 2006
CAIRO, Egypt - A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show - March 24, 2006 - The New York Sun
Not according to the official government findings...Originally posted by TOT:
No it comfirmed the Saddam AQ collaborative relationship.
What do you have to say to this?REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
INTELLIGENCE ON POST WAR FINDINGS ABOUT
IRAQ'S WMD PROGRAM AND LINKS TO TERRORISM AND
HOW THEY COMPARE WITH PREWAR ASSESSMENTS
September 8, 2006
B. Misstating and Manipulating the Intelligence to Justify Preemptive War
Links to September 11 and al Qaeda
Our investigation has found that President Bush and members of his Administration made numerous false statements regarding linkages between Iraq and the September 11 attacks, and also may have sought to manipulate intelligence to support these statements. This includes misstatements concerning general linkages between Iraq and al Qaeda; an alleged meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi Intelligence officials; and allegations that Iraq was training al Qaeda members to use chemical and biological weapons. With regard to general linkages between Iraq and al Qaeda, members of the Bush Administration ignored at least five separate reports from within their own Administration, including:
- a report shortly after September 11 prepared by Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke finding no connection with Iraq that was “bounced back,” with his superiors saying “wrong answer . . .. Do it again.”
- a September 21, 2001 classified intelligence 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.”The evidence that members of the Bush Administration sought to manipulate and pressure intelligence officials on this linkage includes Deputy Director of the CIA Richard Kerr’s report that people at the CIA have stated they have been “pushed too hard” on this point and felt “too much pressure; a CIA ombudsman who reported unprecedented “hammering” on this issue; an FBI official who stated that the “Bush administration...was misleading the public in implying there was a close connection between Iraq and al Qaeda” and former CIA Agent Paul Pillar ’s statement that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions that had been already made.”
- a June 21, 2002 CIA report which found “no conclusive evidence of cooperation on specific terrorist operations. ”
- the October 2002 NIE, which gave a“Low Confidence” rating to the notion of “whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with Al Qa ’ida.”
- a January, 2003 CIA report that the “Intelligence Community has no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaida strike. ” Given this record, it is particularly hard to justify Administration statements such as Secretary Rumsfeld’s September 22, 2002 claim that he had “bulletproof” evidence of ties between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Not according to the official government findings...What do you have to say to this?
"This second report in a series of reports coming from a second round investigation into Iraq prewar intelligence comes at a critical juncture. Yet rather than attempt to improve our efforts to combat terrorism and make our country safer, the results of the investiation were calculated to promote a partisan agenda.
For the past two years, rather than pursue our oversight role to ensure that some of the key findings and recommendations of these reports and others were enacted, this committee’s usefulness as an oversight body and as a key element in our national security apparatus has been consumed by a rear-view mirror investigation pursued for political ends.
Simply stated this second series of reports is designed to point fingers in Washington and at the Administration. The conclusions in the reports were crafted with more partisan bias than we have witnessed in a long time in Congress. The “Phase II” investigation has turned the Senate Intelligence Committee, a committee initially designed to be the most bipartisan committee in the Senate, into a political playground stripped of its bipartisan power."
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/documents/iraq_intel060908.pdf
How Bad Is the Senate
Intelligence Report?
very bad.
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/25/2006, Volume 012, Issue 02
According to a report released September 8 by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Saddam Hussein "was resistant to cooperating with al Qaeda or any other Islamist groups." It's an odd claim. Saddam Hussein's regime has a long and well-documented history of cooperating with Islamists, including al Qaeda and its affiliates.
As early as 1982, the Iraqi regime was openly supporting, training, and funding the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization opposed to the secular regime of Hafez Assad. For years, Saddam Hussein cultivated warm relations with Hassan al-Turabi, the Islamist who was the de facto leader of the Sudanese terrorist state, and a man Bill Clinton described as "a buddy of [Osama] bin Laden's."
How Bad Is the Senate <br>Intelligence Report?
So all that pre-invasion hype was a lie after all.
Strange that Hussein would want to help a terrorist organization dedicated to bringing his type of Govt down.
Oh yes, the great urgent perfume sprayer threat posed by Iraq.
Urban Legends Reference Pages: Politics (Words of Mass Destruction)
I see a whole lot of ******s........all with D's by their names.......so that must make you a ***** too........
btw boy, why dont we sit down a talk about the threat Saddam and his military was.....it may of only been a 100 hours for ******s like you that was sitting on your fat *** while real men like me were fighting in 90 plus degree heat....with lead flying all over the place.......
The Senate Report is a load of sh!t and you ought to read the dissenting opinions, so I say this:
And this:
How Bad Is the Senate
Intelligence Report?
very bad.
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/25/2006, Volume 012, Issue 02
According to a report released September 8 by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Saddam Hussein "was resistant to cooperating with al Qaeda or any other Islamist groups." It's an odd claim. Saddam Hussein's regime has a long and well-documented history of cooperating with Islamists, including al Qaeda and its affiliates.
As early as 1982, the Iraqi regime was openly supporting, training, and funding the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization opposed to the secular regime of Hafez Assad. For years, Saddam Hussein cultivated warm relations with Hassan al-Turabi, the Islamist who was the de facto leader of the Sudanese terrorist state, and a man Bill Clinton described as "a buddy of [Osama] bin Laden's."
How Bad Is the Senate <br>Intelligence Report?
You know a lot better than I do that the recruiting standards have been relaxed to the point where certain types of people, who would not normally qualify to be admitted, are in uniform. Those in uniform that commit atrocities are criminals. If they were not in uniform, they'd still be committing atrocities. Because that's the kind of people they are.
I'm also on record saying the majority of troops do their very difficult job as professionally as they can, given the circumstances. I'm also on record saying that I support them by wanting them the hell out of there [Iraq]. I want them out of harms way. I want this war to stop now. I do not believe the bullshit coming out of Washington. This is Bush's war. Not the troops war. They did not decide to go to Iraq. Bush did.
And for that, yes, I'd like to see his a.s.s impeached. Our standing around the world would improve if we impeached him. The chances of people getting their heads chopped off would decrease if he was impeached. If we want to properly fight the bullshit war on terror, then we should impeach the President and Vice-President, then charge them both with war crimes and turn them over to an International Court of Law. At which point, this country would re-assume it's position as a great nation once again.
No it comfirmed the Saddam AQ collaborative relationship.
Nor did the US Intel Community.The Senate Intelligence Committee found no evidence of Hussein/Al Queda collaboration. Neither did the 911 Commission
(my emphasis)
Saddam Hussein had another buddy in 1982, the US President. Ronald Reagan supported Hussein militarily and financially in his war against Iran.
Nor did the US Intel Community.
It seems it was just folks like TOT and Stinger who hav been astute enough to find such a relationship.
For starters, about ten posts ago in this very thread:Do you people know the difference between contacts and collaborations? Where have I or TOT claimed a collaborative relationship.
No it comfirmed the Saddam AQ collaborative relationship.
(my emphasis)
Saddam Hussein had another buddy in 1982, the US President. Ronald Reagan supported Hussein militarily and financially in his war against Iran. He also took Hussein's Iraq off our list of terrorist nations. We continued to support him even we knew he used chemical weapons on the Kurds, and on the Iranians.
We had supported Hussein for about 3 decades before the elder President Bush decided he didn't want to any more due to potential oil-flow problems.
Carter wanted Hussein to attack Iran. Reagan backed Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld was all handshakes and smiles when he visited with Aziz during the war, and assured Iraq that we backed them even though publicly we had critized the use of chemical weapons. I'm sure Rumsfeld must have had his fingers crossed though.
Let's discuss the full history of our interaction with Hussein, and not just go back to the 80's, a time convenient for you to talk about.
The Senate Intelligence Committee found no evidence of Hussein/Al Queda collaboration. Neither did the 911 Commission:
"This second report in a series of reports coming from a second round investigation into Iraq prewar intelligence comes at a critical juncture. Yet rather than attempt to improve our efforts to combat terrorism and make our country safer, the results of the investiation were calculated to promote a partisan agenda.
For the past two years, rather than pursue our oversight role to ensure that some of the key findings and recommendations of these reports and others were enacted, this committee’s usefulness as an oversight body and as a key element in our national security apparatus has been consumed by a rear-view mirror investigation pursued for political ends.
Simply stated this second series of reports is designed to point fingers in Washington and at the Administration. The conclusions in the reports were crafted with more partisan bias than we have witnessed in a long time in Congress. The “Phase II” investigation has turned the Senate Intelligence Committee, a committee initially designed to be the most bipartisan committee in the Senate, into a political playground stripped of its bipartisan power."
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/intera...ntel060908.pdf
For starters, about ten posts ago in this very thread:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...confirm-downing-street-memo-4.html#post486439
That wouldn't be the report when UBL asked the Saudi's if they would like for him to "take out" Saddam Hussein?Originally posted by Stinger:
"Last night ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden."
That's cooperation not collaboration on a specific plot, not yet.
All the reports indicate you are FOS!Originally posted by TOT:
That report is bullshit, read the dissenting opinions contained therin:
So drop this bogus argument! You don't have a leg to stand on. You're just lying to the world. But I'm not surprised. Irresponsible people say irresponsible things.Pre-war intelligence gathering under fire
By Julian E. Barnes, Times Staff Writer
2:29 PM PST, February 9, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats assailed Pentagon officials today for insisting to the White House in the months before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein had direct links to Al Qaeda — despite doubts within the U.S. intelligence community.
Defense Department Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble told the lawmakers that he questioned Douglas J. Feith, the influential former undersecretary, about the incident.
Feith was a prime architect of Bush administration policies and presented policymakers with allegations of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda that did not accurately reflect the views of U.S. intelligence agencies.
"He said it was left out because it was critical of the intelligence community," Gimble said.
"It's damn suspicious to me," said Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.). "You're telling the CIA — you're giving them an assessment that disagrees in a number of respects with theirs, but leave out a slide that says that you have fundamental problems with how the intelligence community is assessing information…. You remove it when you're talking to the CIA and then you reinsert it when you present this same assessment to the White House. That's mighty bloody suspicious."
.5% of what? Our total arms export? Were the biggest arms dealer in the world. Over $400 million per year!Originally posted by TOT:
Ya let's, we supplied .5% of foreign weapons to Saddam between 1973 and 1990 mostly consisting of dual use equipment that was converted for military use after we sold it to him, the bulk of his weapons were supplied by the Soviets and the French.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?