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
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 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.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).
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.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."
Contra-indicated by what?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?
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?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?
"So what?"
Why do you think that I've "overlooked" the USIC's mistakes? AFAICT, my posts are very aware of the mistakes.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.
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?
I truly don't understand.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.
And, as I previously replied: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."
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.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:Source: the link you provided in the "Bush Lied: the Evidence" thread.
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]."
it does not say that Hussein and aQ were in cahoots.
What time period do you interpret "will increase" to address? To you, does it apply to the past? The present? or the future?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.
Interesting. I can't wait to hear this explanation.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.Red_Dave said:wouldnt the lack of w.m.ds serve as sufficient evidence that bush lied?
"growing indications of a relationship with al- Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase,"
the relationship primarily involved [emphasis added] ten years of failed attempts to work out a 'safe haven' agreement,
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.
Simon W. Moon said:You have to show that the Admin knew there were none at the time they said there were some.
Still doesn't address what I specifically posted which was about an operational / collaborative relationship.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.
oldreliable67 said:But then you acknowledge an existing relationship with,
Thus, my conclusion that you have contradicted yourself.
Please note that the reporting of "senior level contacts" is characterized as "solid."oldreliable67 said:Further, the Senate Q&A very explicitly refers to more than a mere safe haven agreement, to wit...
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: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.
AFAICT, this is the same story I've been telling all along.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...!'?
It's just your sighting that's gone wobbly. The target is fixed.oldreliable67 said:Simon, this is getting to be too much of a moving target for my old bones.
Whatever pleases you.oldreliable67 said:I think I'll just do something I learned from my time in Vietnam: declare victory and withdraw.
I certainly agree. If I wanted to have a flame fest and discuss my fellow posters I'd go to usenet.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!
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?