Hubris: Selling The Iraq War

[Boo Radley]

So what you are saying is, it was faulty intelligence? Or are you saying the Fieth manufactured this intelligence?

If the Fieth's office did not manufacture it, then exactly what is your point?

When you used people like Chalibi and his heroes in error, a man who already betrayed us once, you are tainting the information. Call that whatever you want to call it, but don't say the administration wasn't involved in the intel.

 

[Grim17]

When you used people like Chalibi and his heroes in error, a man who already betrayed us once, you are tainting the information. Call that whatever you want to call it, but don't say the administration wasn't involved in the intel.

Tell me exactly what evidence on Iraq's nuclear program came from Feith's office, and explain how they "created" it... OK?

Let's see those links to your evidence too please

 

[Boo Radley]

Tell me exactly what evidence on Iraq's nuclear program came from Feith's office, and explain how they "created" it... OK?

Let's see those links to your evidence too please

I'll get you links later, as I always do, but you might start with Judith Miller. Nearly all the inaccurate intel came from the three I keep mentioning. Chalabi worked with Fieth and Wofowitz. There misinformation made it into the NIE despite the fact the CIA didn't trust him. He worked through Fieth and Wofowitz. Some even claim there work was for Iran, trying to get us to fix their problem. But I'll leave that for another day.

 

[Grim17]

I'll get you links later, as I always do, but you might start with Judith Miller. Nearly all the inaccurate intel came from the three I keep mentioning. Chalabi worked with Fieth and Wofowitz. There misinformation made it into the NIE despite the fact the CIA didn't trust him. He worked through Fieth and Wofowitz. Some even claim there work was for Iran, trying to get us to fix their problem. But I'll leave that for another day.

Bla bla bla.... You need to back up your bull.

So prove that the Bush adminisrtation played mind tricks on the IC as you claim, and were responsible for the flawed intelligence on Iraq's nuclear program...

I just love watching you run around in circles, knowing full well you can't back up your claims... It's quite entertaining on one level, but very sad on another watching an American use falsehoods to attack his own government, all in the name of partisan politics.

 

[pbrauer]

Tell me exactly what evidence on Iraq's nuclear program came from Feith's office, and explain how they "created" it... OK?

Let's see those links to your evidence too please

Annals of National Security: Selective Intelligence : The New Yorker

Snip
A Pentagon adviser who has worked with Special Plans dismissed any criticism of the operation as little more than bureaucratic whining. “Shulsky and Luti won the policy debate,” the adviser said. “They beat ’em—they cleaned up against State and the C.I.A. There’s no mystery why they won—because they were more effective in making their argument. Luti is smarter than the opposition. Wolfowitz is smarter. They out-argued them. It was a fair fight.

They persuaded the President of the need to make a new security policy. Those who lose are so good at trying to undercut those who won.” He added, “I’d love to be the historian who writes the story of how this small group of eight or nine people made the case and won.”

​

According to the Pentagon adviser, Special Plans was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States.

snip​

Chalabi stands by faulty intelligence

 

[Grim17]

Annals of National Security: Selective Intelligence : The New Yorker

Snip
A Pentagon adviser who has worked with Special Plans dismissed any criticism of the operation as little more than bureaucratic whining. “Shulsky and Luti won the policy debate,” the adviser said. “They beat ’em—they cleaned up against State and the C.I.A. There’s no mystery why they won—because they were more effective in making their argument. Luti is smarter than the opposition. Wolfowitz is smarter. They out-argued them. It was a fair fight.

They persuaded the President of the need to make a new security policy. Those who lose are so good at trying to undercut those who won.” He added, “I’d love to be the historian who writes the story of how this small group of eight or nine people made the case and won.”

​

So you are posting a story about evidence of Saddam's ties to al qaida, in response to my post about the IC's beliefs about Iraq's nuclear program.... All I can say is...

LMMFAO

 

[pbrauer]

So you are posting a story about evidence of Saddam's ties to al qaida, in response to my post about the IC's beliefs about Iraq's nuclear program.... All I can say is...

LMMFAO

Why didn't you quote my whole post? LMMFAO LMMFAO

 

[Grim17]

Why didn't you quote my whole post? LMMFAO LMMFAO

None of it has squat to do with what I'm discussing here Pete.

 

[Boo Radley]

Bla bla bla.... You need to back up your bull.

So prove that the Bush adminisrtation played mind tricks on the IC as you claim, and were responsible for the flawed intelligence on Iraq's nuclear program...

I just love watching you run around in circles, knowing full well you can't back up your claims... It's quite entertaining on one level, but very sad on another watching an American use falsehoods to attack his own government, all in the name of partisan politics.

Oh, finding links that the faulty intel came from Chalabi, which included nuclear, chemical, and bioslogical is easy. You could do it. But I'm looking for those that spell out the exact intel better. I will need more time than my ducking in and out as I'm doing currently. But I've always came back and given you a link Grim. But if I were you, I'd start with Judith Miller, more to a general overview of Chalabi, see who he worked with (hint: fieth and Wofolwitz), and read their comments CIA comments about how he was responsible for the bad intel. Then try synthesizing, reasoning, and thinking critically.

 

[Grim17]

Then try synthesizing, reasoning, and thinking critically.

Here's your "critical thinking" Boo... At the beginning of 2001, most collectors, analysts and managers within the intelligence community believed that:

* The Iraqi government was determined to one day covertly reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.
* Iraq was capable of hiding a nuclear weapons program because they had done so before.
* They would invest a great deal of time and effort to conceal that program when they did reconstitute it.
* Because inspections ceased, they could rapidly accelerate their effort to produce nuclear weapons.
* Iraq might have already begun reconstitution since '98, even though they had no evidence to substantiate it.

Then starting in March of that year, the following bits on new intel comes in:

1. The dual use aluminium tubes Iraq had purchased in March of 2001.
2. The reports in 2001 of attempted procurement of magnets and balancing machines by Iraq between 1999 and 2001.
3. Reports of Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from countries in Africa.
4. Reports of efforts to reconstitute their nuclear cadre (get their team of nuclear scientists together again)
5. Reports of activity at suspect sites.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can easily deduce, those new reports made it quite easy for the IC to determine that Iraq had reconstituted their nuclear program, and that belief had nothoing to do with what the administration may or may not have believed, or wanted to do conserning Iraq.

That's a no-brainer Boo... Yet your politics just won't let you accept it.

 

[pbrauer]

Oh, finding links that the faulty intel came from Chalabi, which included nuclear, chemical, and bioslogical is easy. You could do it. But I'm looking for those that spell out the exact intel better. I will need more time than my ducking in and out as I'm doing currently. But I've always came back and given you a link Grim. But if I were you, I'd start with Judith Miller, more to a general overview of Chalabi, see who he worked with (hint: fieth and Wofolwitz), and read their comments CIA comments about how he was responsible for the bad intel. Then try synthesizing, reasoning, and thinking critically.

James Moore: How Chalabi and the White House held the front page | World news | The Guardian

"I had no reason to believe what I reported was inaccurate," Miller told me. "I believed the intelligence I had. We tried really hard to get more information and we vetted information very, very carefully." A few months after the aluminum tubes story, a former CIA analyst explained to me how simple it had been to manipulate the correspondent and her newspaper.​

​

"The White House had a perfect deal with Miller," he said. "Chalabi is providing the Bush people with the information they need to support their political objectives, and he is supplying the same material to Judy Miller. Chalabi tips her on something and then she goes to the White House, which has already heard the same thing from Chalabi, and she gets it corroborated. She also got the Pentagon to confirm things for her, which made sense, since they were working so closely with Chalabi. Too bad Judy didn't spend a little more time talking to those of us who had information that contradicted almost everything Chalabi said."​

​

Long after the fact, Miller conceded in her interview with me that she was wrong about the tubes, but not that she had made a mistake. "We worked our asses off to get that story," she said. "No one leaked anything to us. I reported what I knew at the time. I wish I were God and had all the information I had needed. But I'm not God ... All I can rely on is what people tell me." Sadly, America's sons and daughters were sent off to war wearing the boots of a widely disseminated lie.​

EDIT:

Judith Miller's WMD reporting - New York Times war reporting - Hunt for WMD

 

[Grim17]

James Moore: How Chalabi and the White House held the front page | World news | The Guardian

Information from an anonymous "former CIA analyst"... Nothing like an anonymous source story to fit your narrative, right Pete?

 

[Boo Radley]

Here's your "critical thinking" Boo... At the beginning of 2001, most collectors, analysts and managers within the intelligence community believed that:

* The Iraqi government was determined to one day covertly reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.
* Iraq was capable of hiding a nuclear weapons program because they had done so before.
* They would invest a great deal of time and effort to conceal that program when they did reconstitute it.
* Because inspections ceased, they could rapidly accelerate their effort to produce nuclear weapons.
* Iraq might have already begun reconstitution since '98, even though they had no evidence to substantiate it.

Then starting in March of that year, the following bits on new intel comes in:

1. The dual use aluminium tubes Iraq had purchased in March of 2001.
2. The reports in 2001 of attempted procurement of magnets and balancing machines by Iraq between 1999 and 2001.
3. Reports of Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from countries in Africa.
4. Reports of efforts to reconstitute their nuclear cadre (get their team of nuclear scientists together again)
5. Reports of activity at suspect sites.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can easily deduce, those new reports made it quite easy for the IC to determine that Iraq had reconstituted their nuclear program, and that belief had nothoing to do with what the administration may or may not have believed, or wanted to do conserning Iraq.

That's a no-brainer Boo... Yet your politics just won't let you accept it.

I'm sorry, but none of that takes us home to the final wrong conclusions. We needed curveball, al Libi, and Chalabi with his heroes in error. You are the one letting politics blind you.

 

[Boo Radley]

Information from an anonymous "former CIA analyst"... Nothing like an anonymous source story to fit your narrative, right Pete?

It's correct all the same.

 

[Grim17]

I'm sorry, but none of that takes us home to the final wrong conclusions. We needed curveball, al Libi, and Chalabi with his heroes in error. You are the one letting politics blind you.

The hell it doesn't... That new info was more than enough to convince analysts that Saddam reconstituted his nuke program, because it is exactly what they had expected.

 

[Grim17]

It's correct all the same.

An anonymous source always tops the conclusions of several credible investigations, when you live by your political beliefs.

 

[Boo Radley]

The hell it doesn't... That new info was more than enough to convince analysts that Saddam reconstituted his nuke program, because it is exactly what they had expected.

The new inaccurate information was brought from the doubted, distrustful folks from Fieth. Now out it all together.

 

[Boo Radley]

An anonymous source always tops the conclusions of several credible investigations, when you live by your political beliefs.

Everyone uses and accepts anonymous sources. However, the point was we know now that that is an accurate account. We have multiple sources. You are free to verify on your own.

 

[Grim17]

The new inaccurate information was brought from the doubted, distrustful folks from Fieth. Now out it all together.

Bull... Prove it Boo.

 

[iguanaman]

An anonymous source always tops the conclusions of several credible investigations, when you live by your political beliefs.

All right already. I would be willing to agree that Bush was just a complete moron who believed the info from a informer in spite of the fact his code name was "Curveball" of all things. And that his belief that Saddam was behind all the "chatter" that warned of an Alqeada attack was not due to his pigheaded desire to invade Iraq at all costs but just plain ordinary stupidity. The moron excuse is really all Bush has and don't think he isn't using it. There is no law against being a moron and GW plans to milk that fact into a long comfortable retirement.

 

[Boo Radley]

Bull... Prove it Boo.

Your own report says it was inaccurate. So why do you doubt it?

 

[Grim17]

Your own report says it was inaccurate. So why do you doubt it?

Innacurate yes, but a product of the administration, no.

 

[Grim17]

Of the 4 agencies that believed that Iraq had begun reconstitution of it's nuclear program, 3 of them did so mainly based on the duel use tubes, while the other did so based on the magnets and other evidence I listed.

 

[Boo Radley]

Innacurate yes, but a product of the administration, no.

But again, a majority of the misinformation s credited to Chalabi and his heroes in error. He worked with Fieth and Wolfowitz. Explan how they are not part of the administration

 

[Grim17]

But again, a majority of the misinformation s credited to Chalabi and his heroes in error. He worked with Fieth and Wolfowitz. Explan how they are not part of the administration

That is a lie Boo... Read post 1973.