Confirmed: Final WMD report blames intelligence agencies

[dannybin1742]

How about this one . . . Germany, France, and Russia were right?!

true that................go freedom fries (how dumb of an idea was that)

 

[phillyTIM]

man, anyone else notice how sparse the bush apologists are within this thread? hmmm...go figure 😉

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
man, anyone else notice how sparse the bush apologists are within this thread? hmmm...go figure 😉

They are probably sitting back and watching the Anti-Bush blowhards having yet another butt-slapping c-jerk, for the hundred gazzillionth time in this forum.

:yawn:

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
man, anyone else notice how sparse the bush apologists are within this thread? hmmm...go figure 😉

They are probably sitting back and watching the Anti-Bush blowhards having yet another butt-slapping c-jerk, for the hundred gazzillionth time in this forum.

:yawn:

Yeah, it's a shame it cost thousands of Iraqi lives, 1500 US service people, $300B, and global respect for a great nation. Personally, I would have preferred free Internet pr0n.

 

[conjur]

No wonder the Propagandist and his toadies loved Chalabi so much. He's as delusional as they are!


Iraqi exile says U.S. report on intelligence before war clears him of criticism
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/12143.html

The head of the Iraqi exile group that provided prewar intelligence to the United States on Iraq's weapons programs said Friday a U.S. report cleared him of earlier criticism _ even though the report accused his sources of providing false information to the U.S. government.

In a statement, Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, or INC, praised the U.S. presidential commission report released Thursday, saying it cleared his group's controversial role before the war.

"We welcome this report as a vindication," Chalabi said. "We have consistently stated that the INC played a very small role in U.S. intelligence reporting on Saddam's" weapons of mass destruction.

The report said high-level U.S. intelligence assessments on Iraq's weapons relied, in part, on information from two defectors connected to the Iraqi National Congress. Both were later determined to be lying.

However, the two INC sources were not central to the intelligence community's faulty prewar judgments, the report said.

"In fact, over all, CIA's post-war investigations revealed that INC-related sources had a minimal impact on pre-war assessments," the report says.

So, Chalabi feeds pathological liars to the DIA and feels vindicated? 😕

 

[razor2025]

so... where's CsG? I guess when the facts stacks up against him, he just hides in his corner along with his "right-wing" buddies.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: razor2025
so... where's CsG? I guess when the facts stacks up against him, he just hides in his corner along with his "right-wing" buddies.

Last visited on: 03/28/2005 08:57 PM


He doesn't post up here as much as he used to.

 

[Promethply]

Common guys, the WMD reason was just a pretext :disgust:

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

doubts on weapons dismissed

On the telephone that night, a senior intelligence officer warned then-CIA Director George J. Tenet that he lacked confidence in the principal source of the assertion that Saddam Hussein's scientists were developing deadly agents in mobile laboratories.

"Mr. Tenet replied with words to the effect of 'yeah, yeah' and that he was 'exhausted,' " according to testimony quoted yesterday in the report of President Bush's commission on the intelligence failures leading up to his decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.

I'm tired of all these "exhausted" people that refuse to do their friggin' jobs!

Tenet told the commission he did not recall that part of the conversation. He relayed no such concerns to Powell, who made the germ- warfare charge a centerpiece of his presentation the next day.

I wonder if they asked him, "so when told your primary source was unreliable . . . what was your response?"

In scores of additional cases involving the country's alleged nuclear and chemical programs and its delivery systems, the commission described a kind of echo chamber in which plausible hypotheses hardened into firm assertions of fact, eventually becoming immune to evidence.

Uhh, that's a description of the Bush administration.

Leading analysts accepted at face value data supporting the existence of illegal weapons, the commission said, and discounted counter-evidence as skillful Iraqi deception.

The lack of simple reason and logic is baffling amongst people that are "allegedly" expert intelligence analysts. We would have been better served by the clerk at the DMV.

One WINPAC analyst -- identified previously in The Washington Post as "Joe," with his surname withheld at the CIA's request -- responded by bypassing the Energy Department's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the nation's only major center of expertise on nuclear centrifuge technology. Joe commissioned a contractor to conduct tests of his own design, then rejected the contractor's results when they did not meet his expectations.

Now if this guy hasn't been canned, there's something horribly wrong with the notion of accountability. No Child Left Behind is suppose to help Johnny read but at least he's not a moron.

Within weeks of the tubes' interception, the report said, Energy Department experts told the CIA that they matched precisely the materials and dimensions of an Italian-made rocket called the Medusa, a standard NATO munition. They also pointed out that Iraq was building copies of the Medusa and declared a stockpile of identical tubes to U.N. inspectors in 1996.

The CIA asked the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center for an analysis of the tubes but withheld the information about the Medusa and the 1996 discovery. The Army analysts said, among other things, that no known rocket used that particular aluminum alloy -- disregarding not only the Medusa but also the U.S.-built Hydra rocket.

Is there a moron quota in government? Does every agency have a minimum number of career idiots?

In fact, the more Curveball's credibility came into question, the more his allegations were used to bolster the case for war, the report said.

I wonder if Curveball has a SS reform plan as well? I believe he floated the idea of diverting trillions to the stock market and then borrowing trillions to cover the cost. Sounds like a winner to me.

 

[Jhhnn]

I doubt that "Joe" has been canned, at all, BBD- he probably got a commendation and a raise when Goss took over the Agency.... the guy delivered just the kind of intelligence required to fit into the "Find Me A Way" agenda expressed by Bush 3 weeks into his presidency...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I doubt that "Joe" has been canned, at all, BBD- he probably got a commendation and a raise when Goss took over the Agency.... the guy delivered just the kind of intelligence required to fit into the "Find Me A Way" agenda expressed by Bush 3 weeks into his presidency...

That reminds me of how the architects (Tenet) and middle management (Bremer) of the Iraq debacle were honored for their "service." The Bush legacy appears pretty secure.

 

[judasmachine]

we all know the game, you don't do anything in public office unless you have a scapegoat if it goes bad. anyone who believes otherwise is either naive, or stupid.

 

[conjur]

(Missing email on PTB rush to war)


A Wicked Curveball
No judgments on Iraq were changed due to political pressure, the report said. But just how hard did the commission look?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7369843/site/newsweek

When a Senate panel released a report last year on the disastrously bad intelligence on Iraq, it included an intriguing e-mail that showed how intensely the administration was looking for damning evidence against Saddam. The e-mail, written by a senior CIA official, addressed a debate that the agency's analysts were having about Curveball, an erratic Iraqi emigre who claimed to have seen Saddam's supposed mobile biological-weapons labs. The CIA had evidence that Curveball was a shameless fabricator months before Secretary of State Colin Powell cited the Iraqi's reports before the United Nations. But in the Feb. 4, 2003, e-mail?written a day before Powell's U.N. appearance?the senior CIA official sharply rebuked one of those skeptical analysts. "Keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say and that the Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about," the CIA official wrote...

...Yet the new panel conspicuously omitted the "Powers That Be" e-mail that appeared in the Senate report. In fact, commission leaders seemed to not even know of its existence. "What e-mail are you talking about?" Judge Lawrence Silberman, the chairman, testily responded when asked by a NEWSWEEK reporter why it wasn't included in the report. "I'm mystified." Two hours later, after NEWSWEEK supplied the panel with a copy of the e-mail from the Senate report, a commission spokesman explained that the panel was aware of it but chose not to include it because its contents were already known. But its absence from the report raises questions of whether the Silberman panel may have "cherry-picked" evidence to exclude anything politically embarrassing to the "Powers That Be." Not so, says the White House. A senior official says the report lays to rest any notion that the administration lied or falsified intelligence. "People now understand that what we were saying publicly is what we were being told privately," the official said.

*cough*bullsh!t*cough*


Impeach these fvckers!! :|

 

[Yellow Dog]

weasle and coward Bush refuses to accept any blame, but god damnit, he is THE COMMANDER AND CHIEF, and he does not have the privledge of shirking responsibility.

 

[Yellow Dog]

Originally posted by: Condor
Lets talk about anti-american liberals that have killed thousands because they give the enemy the hope in American weakness that keeps them fighting and killing long after they would have given up.

Hey fool, that is an urban legend started by your government.

 

[StageLeft]

I'd say more A than anything else, though there was also some X, which is that proponents had good reason to believe there were WMDs, and THEN started looking more seriously at war, though I'm sure there was a lot of working backwards. I still hope and like to believe that bush was not malicious or deceitful in all of this, but clearly the primary reason for this war has been, at least so far, utterly baseless. Not so much as a little cache somewhere of WMD. They may be found in the future (in or our of iraq), but that's looking increasingly unlikely.

Americans have so much put into this already that many are unwilling to admit that the primary reason for going to war did not exist.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'd say more A than anything else, though there was also some X, which is that proponents had good reason to believe there were WMDs, and THEN started looking more seriously at war, though I'm sure there was a lot of working backwards. I still hope and like to believe that bush was not malicious or deceitful in all of this, but clearly the primary reason for this war has been, at least so far, utterly baseless. Not so much as a little cache somewhere of WMD. They may be found in the future (in or our of iraq), but that's looking increasingly unlikely.

Americans have so much put into this already that many are unwilling to admit that the primary reason for going to war did not exist.

Arguably, that's the true crime and ultimate injustice. A great nation . . . once great . . . has gone to war on ENTIRELY wrong premises. Who gets the blame? Anonymous "analysts" at "take your pick" intelligence agency. I just cannot picture GHWBush taking "slam dunk" as proof. Certainly not Clinton, Carter, Ford, JFK (after getting burned on BOP) . . . even Reagan probably would have asked a probing question or two. But how did we reward Moron43? He gets re-elected . . . granted his opposition resembled a fence post.

It's abundantly obvious that MANY of the PNAC ilk have been clamouring for trouble for more than a decade. Once returned to power, they carried out their agenda . . . and they were going to do it by any means necessary.

My questions are simple . . . where is all the evidence that couldn't be revealed b/c it would compromise sources? Hello George Bush . . . hello Tony Blair? Where is all the evidence that couldn't be revealed b/c it would tip off Saddam's regime and his allies? Hello Donald Rumsfeld . . . hello Condilizard Rice (hmm she's gone missing of late)? Where is all the evidence that would be found after securing Iraq? Hello FoxNews . . . hello Aznar/Berlusconi?

France, Russia, and China sat on the sidelines b/c even though they thought Saddam "might" have some WMD. They rightfully believed his program wasn't much of a threat. Germany sat on the sidelines based on principle but considering they "handled" Curveball . . . is it really all that surprising that Schroeder so vigorously opposed the war? I mean . . . he had NOTHING to lose and everything to gain regardless of the choice made by Bush.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Americans have so much put into this already that many are unwilling to admit that the primary reason for going to war did not exist.

That's probably true for some. IMO, others simply refuse to admit it because of a certain weird loyalty to this administration/Bush. Some here remind me of the bizaare Davidian type behavior we witness in cults. It's kind of difficult to put into words, but, for many here, Bush is the epitome of all that is right and is beyond reproach.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'd say more A than anything else, though there was also some X, which is that proponents had good reason to believe there were WMDs, and THEN started looking more seriously at war, though I'm sure there was a lot of working backwards. I still hope and like to believe that bush was not malicious or deceitful in all of this, but clearly the primary reason for this war has been, at least so far, utterly baseless. Not so much as a little cache somewhere of WMD. They may be found in the future (in or our of iraq), but that's looking increasingly unlikely.

Americans have so much put into this already that many are unwilling to admit that the primary reason for going to war did not exist.

pre-war intelligence claims needed to be proved wrong. actual searches were required, free of any monitors and onerus supervision. the u.n. concluded in december 2002 that the iraqis first step to prove their good faith was another step back. they submitted an 11,000 thousand page report the u.n. second insepction team had disavowed as lies. read butler's book about the backstory to this original report when iraq first tried to submit it in 1998.

in essence, as far as i have ever read, dr. kay has never withdrawn the validity of his finds of october 2003 nor has he ever gone back on his testimony given in january 2004 when he basically stated that iraq had violated res 1441 many times over through their continuous lies and evasions.

this last report simply reiterates what dr. kay said in his final report, that there were no wmd and the intelligence itself was grossly wrong. nobody can be blamed unless there is any evidence that people lied and willfully and deliberately deceived the public on the intelligence itsellf. given the basic fact that numerous other nations came to similar conclusions (some more dire than the u.s. - i.e. gemany's bnd) obviates the possibility of lies but does open up the dam for conspiracy-mongerers, hence the liberal's feeding frenzy.

 

[dannybin1742]

Fair enough. I do not seek to be pronounced as credible by you or anyone else on this forum, it matters not. My words and their content (like everyone elses) are free to be interpreted (or missinterpreted, or ignored, etc.) as the reader will. I regard all posts here as stand alone, and no profile is necessary or needed by me.

As for "context" vis-a-vis Killing and the Bush administration--I had invoked a Christian ethic--the same one that, at least some in the Bush administration choose to invoke so often.

For example, Matthew to name one (I'll leave it up to you if a "profile" is required for Matt.)...

Anger and hatred prohibited, not just killing (Matt. 5:21-22)

Contentiousness prohibited (Matt. 5:23-26)

Lust prohibited, not just adultery (Matt. 5:27-28)

Prohibition against oaths (Matt. 5:33-37)

Loving your enemies and turning the other cheek replaces "an eye for an eye" (Matt. 5:38-48)

Do good deeds and pray in secret, not for public reward (Matt. 6:1-6)

Pray not with repetitions, but with the Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6:7-13)

Forgive in order to be forgiven (Matt. 6:14-15)

Fast in secret, not for public reward (Matt. 6:16-18)

Build your treasures in heaven, not on earth (Matt. 6:19-21)

The light of the body follows the eye (Matt. 6:22-23)

Judge not, so that you will not be judged (Matt. 7:1)

Remove the log from your own eye before attending to the speck in another's (Matt. 7:2-5)

Doing toward others as you would want from them is "the Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 7:12)

The narrow, difficult way leads to life; the broad, easy way leads to destruction (Matt. 7:13-14)

Beware of false prophets; by their fruits will you know them (Matt. 7:15-20)

Doing the will of God rather than invoking Jesus is what matters (Matt. 7:21-23)

Who follows this instruction builds a solid foundation and will survive; who does not builds on sand and will be destroyed (Matt. 7:24-27)

man somone just got owned........ how can christians stand behind this president?????

 

[jackschmittusa]

syzygy

nobody can be blamed unless there is any evidence that people lied and willfully and deliberately deceived the public on the intelligence itsellf.

As I recall, when the best scientists at the Energy Department were pressed to conceede that the tubes in question could be re-worked for use in a centrafuge, the response was something like "Well, I guess you could make a Cadillac out of a Volkswagon.". Despite all of their prior objections that the tube were absolutely not not for a nuke program, the CIA concluded that that was their purpose, since maybe it could be done. If that is not a willful distortion, I don't know what is.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Condor
Lets talk about anti-american liberals that have killed thousands because they give the enemy the hope in American weakness that keeps them fighting and killing long after they would have given up.

*cough* I don't normally say this, but you're an idiot.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: maddogchen
I think I understand Ozoned's response. Jhnnn asks "Since when was pre-emptive war an American ideal?" And Ozoned responds that after 9/11 pre-emptive war became an American ideal. And Iraq is a result of a pre-emptive war.

Whats confusing about this? or did I misunderstand what Ozoned said?

No, you aren't confused, it's just the typical leftist twisting of what people say. Pre-emption of a danger came into play when we were attacked. Now this does not mean we can only "pre-emptively" attack those who attacked us - well... because that wouldn't be "pre-emptive" now would it - it'd be reactionary.😉
I find it interesting that the leftists love to bleat their little line about Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11. It's like they don't understand that the WOT is not just Al Queda or the Taliban - it's terrorists or rogue states. Saddam's Iraq was one such entity that fit the bill and needed to be dealt with anyway due to the ongoing '91 war.

CsG

Rogue states such as... Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? China? North Korea? Iran?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Condor
Lets talk about anti-american liberals that have killed thousands because they give the enemy the hope in American weakness that keeps them fighting and killing long after they would have given up.

Anti-American liberals, huh? Well I am Republican and I believe this war was wrong.

I understand your point, but what do you expect us to do? I disagreed with the war before it started. If we had our way, there would have been zero casualties in Iraq. Your way has led to 1500, so I don't know how it is that WE have killed thousands, as you say.

:thumbsup: Another person who would've voted for Bush in 2000 (if I'd been 18) who has opposed this war from the beginning.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
syzygy

nobody can be blamed unless there is any evidence that people lied and willfully and deliberately deceived the public on the intelligence itsellf.

As I recall, when the best scientists at the Energy Department were pressed to conceede that the tubes in question could be re-worked for use in a centrafuge, the response was something like "Well, I guess you could make a Cadillac out of a Volkswagon.". Despite all of their prior objections that the tube were absolutely not not for a nuke program, the CIA concluded that that was their purpose, since maybe it could be done. If that is not a willful distortion, I don't know what is.

while i do beleive you, i also recall that there were experts and some well-informed and experienced people (inlcuding secretary powell) who held different opinions. you seem to treat the people - the dissenters - as the final unerring voice on the issue when that was hardly the case. the tubes example formed one part, albeit not the strongest element, in the huge, very public and well-known case against iraqi non-compliance.

besides, the sentate intelligence committee already concluded that the evidence was not manipulated - july 2004-
washinton post link - sorry if this was already posted.

in fact, the best evidence for iraqi intransigence and non-compliance has been , as always, good ole saddam. he admitted the obvious after his capture as to why he did not cooperate with the various inspection regimes. he wanted wmds, for example, because of strategic interests which in his mind would have been suicidal to surrender. he was always simple to figure out.