• 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.

Time To Put Up Or Shut Up

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Bush lied.
Iraq was a mistake.
Bush misled America.
Bush lied.
Iraq was a mistake.
Bush misled America.
Bush lied.
Iraq was a mistake.
Bush misled America.
Bush lied.
Iraq was a mistake.
Bush misled America.
Bush lied.
Iraq was a mistake.
Bush misled America.






Just checking. It looks like repeating the same lies over and over really doesn't make them true. Why can't Democrats grasp this? Either offer something other than stupid conspiracy theories and hysterics or shut the Hell up with these phony smears.
 

mikeey

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
776
Reaction score
93
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well said m8, could not put it better than that.


mikeey
 

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
How many of these threads will it take?

My case is still unrebutted, let alone refuted. Here is the most recent iteration of the "You can't prove Bush lied" thread.

Bush Lied: The Evidence
Would you like me to present it again?
Or would be just as happy to read what has already been written?

The Bush Admin presented information that they had every reason to know was false. KKConservative took refuge in the implication that the Admin was merely ignorant and failed to execute their due diligence regarding the most serious affair of a nation. Incometence in this matter is hardly better than mendacity, but it is an out from the charge of perfidy.

Enjoy.
 

oldreliable67

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

I owe you a response to an exchange we were having this past Friday afternoon. I was away for the weekend, and it slipped my mind until I saw this thread and your last post.

Before getting back to that exchange, though, I want to ask about the Kerr Report, here, that you have referenced on a couple of occassions. Specifically, their final conclusion,

"The intelligence world is one of ambiguity, nuance, and complexity.
Dealing with these elements is difficult in the world intelligence serves,
where success or failure is the uncomplicated measure by which the
Intelligence Community is judged. The controversies over Iraq intelligence
can be expressed in the contrast between these two worlds: carefully crafted national intelligence that ultimately failed in its singular mission to
accurately inform policy deliberations.
[emphasis added] This report, the results of over two years of review and consideration, reflects the same contrast. On the one hand, it recognizes the enormous efforts undertaken, the long hours and the intense debate. On the other hand, it describes failures and weaknesses that cannot be ignored or mitigated.

Failures of collection, uncritical analytical assumptions and
inadequate management reviews were the result of years of well-intentioned
attempts to do the best job with the resources provided. Decisions were
made and the potential risks weighed, but the outcome on important issues
proved unacceptably bad
[emphasis added]."


You say that Bush lied, yet the report that you hold out as supporting that assertion, speaks in terms of the IC failing in its mission to accurately inform policy deliberations. You have also stated that, "I should believe the conclusions of the US Intelligence Community" (here).

Moreover, the tone of the Kerr Report supports Cheney's scribbled note in the margin of one of the DoD reports to the effect that, "This is better than that crap the CIA sends over."

Perhaps you can tell me why you think these positions and the Kerr Report conclusions are not contra-indicated?
 

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:
Before getting back to that exchange, though, I want to ask about the Kerr Report, here, that you have referenced on a couple of occassions. Specifically, their final conclusion,
"The intelligence world is one of ambiguity, nuance, and complexity. Dealing with these elements is difficult in the world intelligence serves, where success or failure is the uncomplicated measure by which the Intelligence Community is judged. The controversies over Iraq intelligence can be expressed in the contrast between these two worlds: carefully crafted national intelligence that ultimately failed in its singular mission to accurately inform policy deliberations. [emphasis added] This report, the results of over two years of review and consideration, reflects the same contrast. On the one hand, it recognizes the enormous efforts undertaken, the long hours and the intense debate. On the other hand, it describes failures and weaknesses that cannot be ignored or mitigated.

Failures of collection, uncritical analytical assumptions and
inadequate management reviews were the result of years of well-intentioned attempts to do the best job with the resources provided. Decisions were made and the potential risks weighed, but the outcome on important issues proved unacceptably bad [emphasis added]."
oldreliable67 said:
You say that Bush lied, yet the report that you hold out as supporting that assertion, speaks in terms of the IC failing in its mission to accurately inform policy deliberations. You have also stated that, "I should believe the conclusions of the US Intelligence Community" (here).
The report says that the IC screwed the pooch on the WMD angle but hit the mark on the aQ-Hussein angle. The fact that they got it wrong on the WMD angle has no real bearing on the fact that the Admin was saying somethings re the aQ-Hussein angle that were in direct contradiction to what was coming out of the IC.
So, yes, I'm willing to believe that the IC screwed the pooch on the WMD angle. If you will notice I've not pursued that much if any. I have made a point to point out that what the Admin was benig told by the IC was at direct odds w/ what the electorate was being told by the Admin.

oldreliable67 said:
Moreover, the tone of the Kerr Report supports Cheney's scribbled note in the margin of one of the DoD reports to the effect that, "This is better than that crap the CIA sends over."
What did intelligence items did the Kerr report say were a better product than what the IC was producing? AFAICT, the item to which you're referring Cheney scribbling on was even more alarmist and even more wildly off the makr than what was coming out of the IC. Given that the items coming out of the DoD civilian appointees' offices were even more wrong and that they were the basis for the parts of the aQ-Hussein bit that the Admin got wrong, I really don't see how you could reasonable say that "the tone of the Kerr Report supports" the idea that these folks who were even more wrong were right.
Could you explain how the report shows that the items coming folks who were even more alarmist and wildly off the mark were "..better than that crap the CIA sends over," using the word 'better' to mean 'more accurate 'as opposed to meaning 'more conducive to Cheney's preconceived biases'?

oldreliable67 said:
Perhaps you can tell me why you think these positions and the Kerr Report conclusions are not contra-indicated?
Contra-indicated by what?
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Contra-indicated by what?
You state that one should believe the conclusions of the IC. But the Kerr Report, in which you apparently place great faith, says that the IC community:

> failed in its singular mission to accurately inform policy deliberations, and

> Decisions were made and the potential risks weighed, but the outcome on important issues proved unacceptably bad.

So what conclusions should we draw?
 

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:
You state that one should believe the conclusions of the IC. But the Kerr Report, in which you apparently place great faith, says that the IC community:

> failed in its singular mission to accurately inform policy deliberations, and

> Decisions were made and the potential risks weighed, but the outcome on important issues proved unacceptably bad.

So what conclusions should we draw?
That the IC is composed of humans and is fallible, why do you ask? I assumed that this information was a given in this discussion. Was I incorrect in this assumption?
Further, the failure that is referenced is re the WMD angle. So, again, I ask, "So what?"
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"So what?"
At the very least, the suggestion of a double standard. A willingness to overlook the mistakes of a favored group but not those of a non-favored group.

That is so what.
 

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:
At the very least, the suggestion of a double standard. A willingness to overlook the mistakes of a favored group but not those of a non-favored group.

That is so what.
Why do you think that I've "overlooked" the USIC's mistakes? AFAICT, my posts are very aware of the mistakes.

Even if I did, it doesn't change the fact that the Admin was telling the electorate things that were in direct contradiction to the info from the USIC re the aQ-Hussein relationship. That's he point. That the differences between the USIC presentation re WMD and the Admin's re the same are much smaller than the ones re the aQ-Hussein relationship is pretty much immaterial to the point.

Do you have anything that rebuts the fact that the Admin presented a picture of the aQ-Hussein relationship that was contradictory to what they were being told by the USIC?
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why do you think that I've "overlooked" the USIC's mistakes? AFAICT, my posts are very aware of the mistakes.
To repeat,

You state that one should believe the conclusions of the IC. But the Kerr Report, in which you apparently place great faith, says that the IC community:

> failed in its singular mission to accurately inform policy deliberations, and

> Decisions were made and the potential risks weighed, but the outcome on important issues proved unacceptably bad.

Thats why.

anything that rebuts the fact that the Admin presented a picture of the aQ-Hussein relationship that was contradictory to what they were being told by the USIC?
To repeat, a doc that you sourced pertaining to the Senate Intelligence Committee said in the Q&A session,

"In the above dialogue, the witness's qualifications--"in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now"--were intended to underscore that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal builds."

And further...

"Regarding Senator Bayh's question of Iraqi links to al- Qa'ida, Senators could draw from the following points for unclassified discussions:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al- Qa'ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade.

"Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al- Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent US military action [emphasis added]."


Source: the link you provided in the "Bush Lied: the Evidence" thread.
 

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:
To repeat,
You state that one should believe the conclusions of the IC. But the Kerr Report, in which you apparently place great faith, says that the IC community:
> failed in its singular mission to accurately inform policy deliberations, and
> Decisions were made and the potential risks weighed, but the outcome on important issues proved unacceptably bad.
Thats why.
I truly don't understand.
Are you implying that I've said that the USIC is infallible, or something?
And, even if I did, how does that changed the fact that the USIC said Hussein was unlikely to attack the Us and that he and aQ were not in cahoots?
oldreliable67 said:
To repeat, a doc that you sourced pertaining to the Senate Intelligence Committee said in the Q&A session,

"In the above dialogue, the witness's qualifications--"in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now"--were intended to underscore that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal builds."
And, as I previously replied:

Nowhere in this paragrpah does it mention Hussein attacking the US. Since it does not mention attacking the US I'm unclear as to how it could be a contradiction to the assertion that Hussein was unlikely to attack the US. Further, it does not say that Hussein and aQ were in cahoots.
So what exactly is it contradicting?

oldreliable67 said:
And further...

"Regarding Senator Bayh's question of Iraqi links to al- Qa'ida, Senators could draw from the following points for unclassified discussions:
Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al- Qa'ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade.
"Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al- Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent US military action [emphasis added]."
Source: the link you provided in the "Bush Lied: the Evidence" thread.
Nowhere in this excerpts does it mention Hussein attacking the US. Since it does not mention attacking the US I'm unclear as to how it could be a contradiction to the assertion that Hussein was unlikely to attack the US. Further, it does not say that Hussein and aQ were in cahoots.
So what exactly is it contradicting?
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
it does not say that Hussein and aQ were in cahoots.
"growing indications of a relationship with al- Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase,"

...fooled me. Sounds very much like a statement of a relationship (e.g., 'in cahoots') with al Qa'ida.
 

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:
"growing indications of a relationship with al- Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase,"
...fooled me. Sounds very much like a statement of a relationship (e.g., 'in cahoots') with al Qa'ida.
What time period do you interpret "will increase" to address? To you, does it apply to the past? The present? or the future?

IMHO, it addresses the future. YMMV. If, one can willingly accept the idea that "will increase" refers to a future point in time, then it does not contradict the idea that no operational or collaborative relationship existed or even exists.

Also, given that the relationship primarily involved ten years of failed attempts to work out a 'safe haven' agreement, there's prob'ly quite a bit of room for growth before we get to an operational or collaborative relationship.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
wouldnt the lack of w.m.ds serve as sufficient evidence that bush lied?
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Red_Dave said:
wouldnt the lack of w.m.ds serve as sufficient evidence that bush lied?
Interesting. I can't wait to hear this explanation.
 

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
Red_Dave said:
wouldnt the lack of w.m.ds serve as sufficient evidence that bush lied?
You have to show that the Admin knew there were none at the time they said there were some.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"growing indications of a relationship with al- Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase,"
How 'bout using the statement in its entirety instead of empasizing just one word?

> "growing indications of a relationship" suggests an existing relationship. Nothing here suggests a relationship at some time in the future; to the contrary, it suggests an existing relationship, i.e., something can't grow if it doesn't already exist.

> "will increase" suggests that something that exists will grow in the future.

But then you acknowledge an existing relationship with,

the relationship primarily involved [emphasis added] ten years of failed attempts to work out a 'safe haven' agreement,
Thus, my conclusion that you have contradicted yourself.

Further, the Senate Q&A very explicitly refers to more than a mere safe haven agreement, to wit...

We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Simon W. Moon said:
You have to show that the Admin knew there were none at the time they said there were some.
well they where either lying or somehow fooled into thinking the weapons where there, i cant see how the latter could happen
 

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:
How 'bout using the statement in its entirety instead of empasizing just one word?
> "growing indications of a relationship" suggests an existing relationship. Nothing here suggests a relationship at some time in the future; to the contrary, it suggests an existing relationship, i.e., something can't grow if it doesn't already exist.
> "will increase" suggests that something that exists will grow in the future.
Still doesn't address what I specifically posted which was about an operational / collaborative relationship.
Of course they had a relationship. I've never said otherwise. What's at issue is that the Admin said they had an operational / collaborative relationship when the USIC was maintaining that there was none.

oldreliable67 said:
But then you acknowledge an existing relationship with,
Thus, my conclusion that you have contradicted yourself.
Please show me what I have said that is contradicted.
IIRC, I said that there was not an operational or collaborative relationship. AFAICT, by using the qualifiers of 'operational' and 'collaborative' the mean is different from "any sort of a relationship at all." If using the qualifiers does not make the distinction between an "operational or collaborative relationship" and "any relationship whatsoever," then please accept my apologies. You see i was under the impression that by using qualifiers that I had excluded all other types of relationships from my statement that they did not exist.
You see, when I said that there was no operational nor collaborative relationship I was trying to make a distinction between operational or collaborative relationships and all of the other sorts of relationships that could exist.
Is there better way to do this than specifying an operational or collaborative relationship?
Perhaps if you would quote the exact language that I used we could see how the clarification could be made.
oldreliable67 said:
Further, the Senate Q&A very explicitly refers to more than a mere safe haven agreement, to wit...
Please note that the reporting of "senior level contacts" is characterized as "solid."
The reporting re "safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression" is described as "credible."
Of course neither one of these are "operational" nor "collaborative"
The reporting "that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities," while it does not distinguish if the Iraqi government or private individuals were the source who was being sought, is described as "credible reporting."
Yet, yet, somehow, Mr. Tenet fails to attach a descriptor to the reporting "that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."

Later I'll give you some more hlepful info re this.
 

oldreliable67

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

Your assertions in your various posts have been based on the source docs to which you provided links. In my last post, I demonstrated that your assertions were inconsistent with those very same source docs.

Now you want to change your story to say that 'oh, thats not what I said! What I really said was...operational and collaborative...!'?

Simon, this is getting to be too much of a moving target for my old bones. I think I'll just do something I learned from my time in Vietnam: declare victory and withdraw. ;)
 

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:
Your assertions in your various posts have been based on the source docs to which you provided links. In my last post, I demonstrated that your assertions were inconsistent with those very same source docs.
Actually all you've one is to say they were inconsistent. You have yet to provide the the specific assertions of mine that are inconsistent even though I have politely asked.
oldreliable67 said:
Now you want to change your story to say that 'oh, thats not what I said! What I really said was...operational and collaborative...!'?
AFAICT, this is the same story I've been telling all along.
If I have said otherwise, I'll be more than happy to admit it. All you have to do is present the quote you're looking for.

As I've intentionally used the phrasing found in the latest Kerr Report (operational and colaborative) I have serious doubts that I've said otherwise. But, I freely admit my mind slips sometimes. If you have caught me, then please feel free to expose me.

oldreliable67 said:
Simon, this is getting to be too much of a moving target for my old bones.
It's just your sighting that's gone wobbly. The target is fixed.

Instances of operational and collaborative

From the Bush Lied: The Evidence thread:
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=149158&highlight=operational+collaborative#post149158
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=149287&highlight=operational+collaborative#post149287
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=159103&highlight=operational+collaborative#post159103
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=159117&highlight=operational+collaborative#post159117

From the New Documents - Saddam hid WMD thread:
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=150326&highlight=operational+collaborative#post150326
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=153715&highlight=operational+collaborative#post153715
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=153757&highlight=operational+collaborative#post153757
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=154005&highlight=operational+collaborative#post154005
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=155769&highlight=operational+collaborative#post155769
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=155770&highlight=operational+collaborative#post155770

From the Iraq-Al Qaeda Lie Was From Al Qaeda thread:
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=136004&highlight=operational+collaborative#post136004
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=136949&highlight=operational+collaborative#post136949
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=137741&highlight=operational+collaborative#post137741

From the Libby Indicted thread:
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=135040&highlight=operational+collaborative#post135040
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=135637&highlight=operational+collaborative#post135637
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=135641&highlight=operational+collaborative#post135641

From the Saddam & Al-Qaeda thread:
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=128768&highlight=operational+collaborative#post128768

From the Majority of Americans Now Feel Iraq War Wrong
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=124232&highlight=operational+collaborative#post124232
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=126066&highlight=operational+collaborative#post126066
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=126847&highlight=operational+collaborative#post126847

From the My New Bumper Sticker thread:
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=117541&highlight=operational+collaborative#post117541

From the CIA: Iraq & aQ, “no operational or collaborative relationship existed” thread:
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=115574&highlight=operational+collaborative#post115574
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=115681&highlight=operational+collaborative#post115681
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=119835&highlight=operational+collaborative#post119835

oldreliable67 said:
I think I'll just do something I learned from my time in Vietnam: declare victory and withdraw.
Whatever pleases you.
 
Last edited:

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Oldreliable, the claim you mentioned earlier of Iraq training al'Qaeda agents in poisons and bomb making has been discredited. See below for link etc.

I put this together with the help of some of Simon's posts, so thanks Simon!


CONGRESS DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME INTELLIGENCE TEAM BUSH HAD


Example 1:
Presidential Daily Briefs.

Example 2:
Team Bush began making claims about the Iraqi threat several months before Congress received any substantial, updated intelligence analysis.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511080006

Example 3:
Team Bush received information directly from alternative intelligence sources, specifically the since-discredited Office of Special Plans and Iraqi National Congress. The CIA and the State Department were highly skeptical of the intelligence provided by these agencies, yet the information was used by Team Bush to sell the war anyway.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html


TEAM BUSH KNOWINGLY EXAGGERATED THE LINK BETWEEN AL'QAEDA AND IRAQ

Example 1:
Dick Cheney told NBC's Meet the Press that Mohammed Atta's trip to Prague was "pretty well confirmed."

RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20011209.html

The CIA, FBI, and the Czeck government have questioned the report's credibility from the beginning. Cheney denied his own words on CNBC's Capital Report:

BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohammad Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."
CHENEY: No, I never said that.
BORGER: OK.
CHENEY: Never said that.
BORGER: I think that is...
CHENEY: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down.
BORGER: Well, now this report says it didn't happen.
CHENEY: No. This report says they haven't found any evidence.
BORGER: That it happened.
CHENEY: Right.
BORGER: But you haven't found the evidence that it happened either, have you?
CHENEY: No. All we have is that one report from the Czechs. We just don't know.

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/06/18/20040618_022404_flash3.htm

Example 2:
The 9/11 Commission Report found "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al'Qaeda. When the New York Times reported that there was a fundamental split between the Commission and the President, Dick Cheney called the article "outrageous," but then went on to confirm that there is a split between the Commission and the President:

BORGER: But you say you disagree with the commission...
CHENEY:CHENEY: On this question of whether or not there was a general relationship.
BORGER: Yes.
CHENEY: Yeah.
BORGER: And they say that there was not one forged and you were saying yes, that there was. Do you know things that the commission does not know?
CHENEY: Probably.
BORGER: And do you think the commission needs to know them?
CHENEY: I don't have any--I don't know what they know. I do know they didn't talk with any original sources on this subject that say that in their report.
BORGER: They did talk with people who had interrogated sources.
CHENEY: Right.
BORGER: So they do have good sources.
CHENEY: Gloria, the notion that there is no relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida just simply is not true.

Directly contradicting the 9/11 Commission Report, President Bush himself has said "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/Bush.alqaeda/

Sounds like Team Bush has information the 9/11 Commission doesn't. Just as quickly, however, a spokesman also said the administration "cooperated fully with the commission," and "the president wants the commission to have the information it needs to do its job." Yeah, right.

Example 3:
In June 2004, Dick Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/

About that time, bin Laden was denouncing Hussein's Baath party as "infedels." Some collaborative link.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/Iraq.Qaeda.link/

Example 4:
Bush said in an October 2002 speech, "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

But the individual who made this claim has retracted it. Since his capture sparked the first debates among the U.S. government over the harsh treatment of prisoners, this allegation was probably made while he was being tortured.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30909-2004Jul31.html

Just about every intelligence agency in the world contends that bin Laden and Sadaam Hussein don't trust each other, and don't even like each other. The only thing they have in common is their resent of America, and even that is for different reasons.


TEAM BUSH KNOWINGLY EXAGGERATED THE THREAT POSED BY IRAQ


Example 1:
The supposed Iraqi defector named "Curveball" told German intelligence agencies about mobile chemical weapons factories in Iraq. German officials said that they had warned American colleagues well before the Iraq war that Curveball's information was not credible - but the warning was ignored. Colin Powell told the UN that the information came from a "solid source."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1184172,00.html

The U.S. has since admitted that Curveball's information was total bullshit.

Example 2:
Condoleeza Rice repeatedly warned about the dangers of waiting for a "smoking gun" to evolve into a "mushroom cloud." But in 2002, CIA director George Tenent told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the probability of Sadaam Hussein initiating an attack on the U.S. was low.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/10/dci100702.html

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief nuclear inspector, told the U.N. Security Council in January 2003 that they still have no "smoking gun" and need more time, perhaps months, to complete their inspections. Obviously they were denied this request and removed by the U.S. two months later.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/

Example 3:
Colin Powell told the UN, "Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, a collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants." and, "When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq."

The training camp is run by a dissident Kurdish Islamic militant group called Ansar al-Islam. This group does have connections to al'Qaeda, but they are utterly opposed to the Iraqi regime under Hussein and has no connection to it whatsoever.

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Anthropology/publications/General_Powell.htm

Example 4:
Bush said in October 2002, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist or individual terrorists"

But declassified portions of a National Intelligence Estimate released by the White House show that at the time of the president's speech, the U.S. intelligence community judged that possibility to be unlikely.

In fact, the estimate shows the intelligence services were much more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al'Qaeda terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his regime were collapsing after a military attack by the United States.

"Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al'Qaeda, . . . already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States, could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct," said one key judgment of the estimate. It went on to say that Hussein might decide to take the "extreme step" of assisting al Qaeda in a terrorist attack against the United States if it "would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/07/21/MN105561.DTL

The issue is not whether anyone believed Iraq had WMD's. The issue is that Team Bush made an absolute, unconditional case. That's what "manipulating the intelligence" and "misleading the public" means. Knowingly exaggerating the case for war by cherry-picking intelligence, using defunct intelligence, and by speaking about ambiguous intelligence in alarming absolutes.
 
Last edited:

oldreliable67

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

Whew! Thats a lot of stuff! Will be back when I've gotten through it all. And thanks for making the effort to gather this all up, organize it and post it.

And Simon, I don't think I've extended those same thanks to you for the same kind of efforts, which I should done some time ago. So, thanks!

IMO, even if one doesn't agree or has reservations and/or questions, this kind of exchange is so much more preferable than the near hysterical rantings and allegations as to ancestry into which a few of the threads and/or topics seem to always degenerate.

Good stuff!
 

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:
IMO, even if one doesn't agree or has reservations and/or questions, this kind of exchange is so much more preferable than the near hysterical rantings and allegations as to ancestry into which a few of the threads and/or topics seem to always degenerate.
Good stuff!
I certainly agree. If I wanted to have a flame fest and discuss my fellow posters I'd go to usenet.

I extend thanks to you as well for your civility, attention and willingness to actually debate.
 
Top Bottom