Hillary Clinton appears to suggest Russians are 'grooming' Tulsi Gabbard for third-party run

[woolfe9998]

But of course intelligence agencies get things wrong sometimes. If they didn’t they would be doing their countries a disservice by playing it way too safe.

The evidence indicates that without Russian interference in US affairs we probably wouldn’t have Trump. That seems like some pretty serious business to me.

A point of clarification on "intelligence agencies getting things wrong" because I think this is something most people do not realize. Our IC didn't get the WMD's in Iraq wrong. They were told by several Iraqi expats about them. They didn't believe what they were being told, and wrote that in their reports. Then the Bush White House decided to present these allegations as fact. It was the pols who were dishonest, not IC personnel.

 

[fskimospy]

A point of clarification on "intelligence agencies getting things wrong" because I think this is something most people do not realize. Our IC didn't get the WMD's in Iraq wrong. They were told by several Iraqi expats about them. They didn't believe what they were being told, and wrote that in their reports. Then the Bush White House decided to present these allegations as fact. It was the pols who were dishonest, not IC personnel.

I would not agree, the conclusion of the US intelligence community was that Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction programs as shown by the NIE whose principal conclusions I linked earlier. An NIE is considered the authoritative judgment of US intelligence as a whole and its findings were very clear and they were very wrong. This wasn't as a result of pressure from the Bush Administration either, at least not directly, as the NIE wasn't even requested by Bush, it was requested by the Senate.

Here's a copy of the least redacted version available and the key judgments start on page 5 of the report. They got WMDs in Iraq wrong.

https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/iraq/iraq-wmd-nie-01-2015.pdf

The most important takeaway from the Bush Administration's rush to war with Iraq is that they simply didn't give a shit what the intelligence community thought. They never bothered to request an NIE and had clearly made the decision to invade before it was even completed. They also issued a stream of false statements or statements that the IC thought were not supported by the evidence like links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda as well as work on a nuclear program, but that doesn't change the fact that the intel community got it wrong on this one.

 

[pmv]

A point of clarification on "intelligence agencies getting things wrong" because I think this is something most people do not realize. Our IC didn't get the WMD's in Iraq wrong. They were told by several Iraqi expats about them. They didn't believe what they were being told, and wrote that in their reports. Then the Bush White House decided to present these allegations as fact. It was the pols who were dishonest, not IC personnel.

Well, here we had the "dodgy dossier", composed, allegedly, from the comments of a Baghdad taxi driver and some grad student thesis cribbed from the internet.

Fact is the intelligence services produce a constant torrent of 'stuff', a great deal of it drivel, and what is constructed out of that 'stuff' is largely driven by politics. Ultimately, at the top end, the intelligence services produce things saying what those in charge want to be said. That doesn't mean those further down the chain don't have a grasp of the truth or possess useful information. But at the top it gets mixed up with the needs of politics.

 

[woolfe9998]

Well, here we had the "dodgy dossier", composed, allegedly, from the comments of a Baghdad taxi driver and some grad student thesis cribbed from the internet.

Fact is the intelligence services produce a constant torrent of 'stuff', a great deal of it drivel, and what is constructed out of that 'stuff' is largely driven by politics. Ultimately, at the top end, the intelligence services produce things saying what those in charge want to be said. That doesn't mean those further down the chain don't have a grasp of the truth or possess useful information. But at the top it gets mixed up with the needs of politics.

What I'm saying, quite directly, is that the IC didn't really do anything wrong there. They were obligated to interview Iraqi expats who were describing things allegedly going on in Iraq. They did so, and noted in their reports that these expats had strong motives to lie. The problem was that the Bush admin. was determined to utilize the statements which were transcribed and summarized as justification for a war they had already decided to pursue, so the appointed Director of the CIA literally deleted all the notations about the poor credibility of the sources because that is what the White House wanted. The work of the IC wasn't wrong; it was misrepresented to the public.

You argued earlier that we should be skeptical of IC conclusions because of the Iraq WMD issue but I don't think a full understanding of the history leads to that conclusion. The conclusion that it leads to is that the professionals have been doing their jobs. Frankly, I don't see how what occurred then has anything to do with whether we can trust the work the IC has done in relation to Russian interference today. If anything, this time, it's the opposite, where the pols in power are at odds with the professionals. Between the two, history teaches who we should trust more.

 

[ivwshane]

Not really - while the Bush administration didn’t care about what our intelligence agencies had to say and had already decided on war the agencies still created an NIE that largely concluded Iraq was pursuing WMDs.

Key Judgments: Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction

declassified excerpts from an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, released July 18, 2003

fas.org

Looks like I was correct. The bush admin did indeed stretch the truth and relied on information the IC wouldn't have.

George Tenet and John McLaughlin picked the very people in the National Intelligence Council ... who had a very hard line on all of these issues.

So three or four key people were picked to write this estimate that was a fraud; I don't know how else to describe that National Intelligence Estimate. It should be fully released. I don't know why they're protecting sources and methods because the sources were obviously specious or flawed in one way or another. The methodology, obviously, was a disgrace. And it should be studied; it should be part of the national understanding of how we went to war. ...

Analysis - The October '02 National Intelligence Estimate | The Dark Side | FRONTLINE | PBS

It was a document that contained, in my judgment, more grist for debate than people understand. If you added up the number of pages in it that contained alternative views or dissenting opinions, it would probably come to at least 10, some say 15, depending on who you count as a dissenter. While it was clear in its conclusions about Saddam possessing chemical and biological weapons, there were dissents clearly expressed on the nuclear program.

The State Department dissented in a major way, and the Department of Energy, it is not often realized, had three full pages of dissents on the role of aluminum tubes, expressing the skepticism that they were intended for centrifuge and therefore for uranium enrichment. There were dissents also on things like the potential for unmanned aerial vehicles [UAVs] to be used for disseminating biological weapons. The Air Force expressed that dissent and dissents on other issues.

 

[woolfe9998]

I would not agree, the conclusion of the US intelligence community was that Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction programs as shown by the NIE whose principal conclusions I linked earlier. An NIE is considered the authoritative judgment of US intelligence as a whole and its findings were very clear and they were very wrong. This wasn't as a result of pressure from the Bush Administration either, at least not directly, as the NIE wasn't even requested by Bush, it was requested by the Senate.

Here's a copy of the least redacted version available and the key judgments start on page 5 of the report. They got WMDs in Iraq wrong.

https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/iraq/iraq-wmd-nie-01-2015.pdf

The most important takeaway from the Bush Administration's rush to war with Iraq is that they simply didn't give a shit what the intelligence community thought. They never bothered to request an NIE and had clearly made the decision to invade before it was even completed. They also issued a stream of false statements or statements that the IC thought were not supported by the evidence like links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda as well as work on a nuclear program, but that doesn't change the fact that the intel community got it wrong on this one.

The problem is that the NIE didn't match the reports which were made by the ground level analysts because it stripped out all their doubts about the credibility of the sources. This decision was made at the top by political appointees.

Read the book Fiasco by WaPo reporter Thomas Ricks. It lays out what happened in considerable detail, and utilizes extensive inside sources. Many of these analysts were shocked when Bush addressed Congress and treated the existence of these WMD's as fact, as if they had never expressed serious doubts in their reports. These are the people who actually interviewed the sources.

My overarching point is that then, as now, there is a difference between the careerist professionals and the political appointees like Tenet. The main difference is that then, the public wasn't aware of the disagreement between the two.

 

[fskimospy]

Looks like I was correct. The bush admin did indeed stretch the truth and relied on information the IC wouldn't have.

Analysis - The October '02 National Intelligence Estimate | The Dark Side | FRONTLINE | PBS

Right, but if you read what people are saying there they're saying the same thing I told you - the IC got it wrong. As I already mentioned the NIE wasn't hot on Saddam's nuclear program but it listed several key conclusions with high confidence about the presence and ongoing production of chemical and biological weapons.

 

[ivwshane]

Right, but if you read what people are saying there they're saying the same thing I told you - the IC got it wrong. As I already mentioned the NIE wasn't hot on Saddam's nuclear program but it listed several key conclusions with high confidence about the presence and ongoing production of chemical and biological weapons.

No they said the counterpoints to such claims were either redacted or at the back of the report. The authors of the NIE put emphasis on what they wanted the report to say. They also said some of the data was relying on old data, why? Because the UN inspectors which was the IC's main source of information was removed from Iraq.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/13/the-pre-war-intelligence-on-iraq-wrong-or-hyped-by-the-bush-white-house/

 

[Victorian Gray]

The same security agencies we were constantly told 'knew' that Iraq had WMDs? I don't put much credence in them.

And while I'm quite sure the Russians have engaged in such meddling (and am all in favour of it being revealed where it has happened), I haven't seen convincing evidence that it has been the decisive factor in determining the course of politics in those countries.

The extreme emphasis on the all-powerful Putin strikes me as an attempt at a diversion from the continuing failures of centrism.

For fucks sake, nobody is claiming that Russian interference has been the determining factor of *anything*. But there damn well is a lot of actual proof that it's been happening and happening in a big way and in a lot of countries and for more than a few years.

But hey, fight the straw to your heart's content.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem is that the NIE didn't match the reports which were made by the ground level analysts because it stripped out all their doubts about the credibility of the sources. This decision was made at the top by political appointees.

Read the book Fiasco by WaPo reporter Thomas Ricks. It lays out what happened in considerable detail, and utilizes extensive inside sources. Many of these analysts were shocked when Bush addressed Congress and treated the existence of these WMD's as fact, as if they had never expressed serious doubts in their reports. These are the people who actually interviewed the sources.

My overarching point is that then, as now, there is a difference between the careerist professionals and the political appointees like Tenet. The main difference is that then, the public wasn't aware of the disagreement between the two.

I mean I've personally discussed the Iraq NIE with someone who worked on it so I feel like I have at least a decent understanding of the process where it was made.

Yes, I agree that the Bush administration exaggerated the confidence of the intelligence community or in some cases downright fabricated things. As I said though, they never gave a shit about what the intelligence community thought anyway. That doesn't change the fact that the IC issued a number of high confidence conclusions on biological and chemical weapons that were flat out wrong. Yes, there was political pressure to make those findings but intelligence is never insulated from political pressure and the fact that some analysts were disputing the findings isn't special, that's almost always the case.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Hillary still seeing Russians. It's awesome that the only person with documented evidence of using information from the Russians is going around calling everyone else Russian assets. Hillary can't be the Democrat President so no Democrat will be President. Love it.

(The above is brought to you by the Ministry of Culture and Public Enlightenment.)

 

[fskimospy]

No they said the counterpoints to such claims were either redacted or at the back of the report. The authors of the NIE put emphasis on what they wanted the report to say. They also said some of the data was relying on old data, why? Because the UN inspectors which was the IC's main source of information was removed from Iraq.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/13/the-pre-war-intelligence-on-iraq-wrong-or-hyped-by-the-bush-white-house/

No I'm sorry that's incorrect and your article supports my position. The fact that the Bush Administration went beyond what the intelligence said and minimized dissenting viewpoints in it in no way changes the fact that the IC's principal conclusions were still wrong. Those conclusions were made with 'high confidence' which is the highest level of confidence made in an intelligence estimate. If the caveats were so significant then the judgments shouldn't have been made with high confidence.

So did Bush and his associates lie about Iraq's WMD programs? Yes. Were our intelligence agencies wrong about Iraq's WMD programs? Also yes.

 

[woolfe9998]

I mean I've personally discussed the Iraq NIE with someone who worked on it so I feel like I have at least a decent understanding of the process where it was made.

Yes, I agree that the Bush administration exaggerated the confidence of the intelligence community or in some cases downright fabricated things. As I said though, they never gave a shit about what the intelligence community thought anyway. That doesn't change the fact that the IC issued a number of high confidence conclusions on biological and chemical weapons that were flat out wrong. Yes, there was political pressure to make those findings but intelligence is never insulated from political pressure and the fact that some analysts were disputing the findings isn't special, that's almost always the case.

I don't know that it was "some analysts." The sources of information here were 4 or 5 Iraqi expats who spoke to analysts about these WMD's. All had obvious motives to lie. One wanted to take Saddam Hussein's place after the US deposed him. Others had family members tortured and killed by Hussein and wanted his head on a pike. According to Ricks, these sources were not believed by the analysts who interviewed them and these serious doubts were noted in their written reports. These doubts were removed from the analysis when it got the level of preparing the NIE because that is what the Bush admin wanted.

We're seeing this problem with the work of careerists being corrupted and distorted by pols at the top right now with Trump's State Department in relation to Ukraine. Now as then, it isn't the work of careerists that is the problem.

I know it's tempting to look at this as a failure of "the IC," because the NIE was literally the official report of our IC, but there is both a professional and a political component when it gets to that level and I think it's important that people understand the distinction.

Also, consider this. We have been saying that the Bush admin lied about the WMD's for years. But if this really was bad work on the part of the professionals, then Bush didn't lie at all, right? He was merely misled. Do you think that is a fair and reasonable assessment of what happened?

 

[ivwshane]

No I'm sorry that's incorrect and your article supports my position. The fact that the Bush Administration went beyond what the intelligence said and minimized dissenting viewpoints in it in no way changes the fact that the IC's principal conclusions were still wrong. Those conclusions were made with 'high confidence' which is the highest level of confidence made in an intelligence estimate. If the caveats were so significant then the judgments shouldn't have been made with high confidence.

So did Bush and his associates lie about Iraq's WMD programs? Yes. Were our intelligence agencies wrong about Iraq's WMD programs? Also yes.

The NIE doesn't make conclusions, it makes estimate (hence the reason it's called national intelligence estimates). Part of the IC made bad estimates while others in the IC (and depending on the topic, were more qualified to make such judgments, see uranium tube dissents) dissented on those findings.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know that it was "some analysts." The sources of information here were 4 or 5 Iraqi expats who spoke to analysts about these WMD's. All had obvious motives to lie. One wanted to take Saddam Hussein's place after the US deposed him. Others had family members tortured and killed by Hussein and wanted his head on a pike. According to Ricks, these sources were not believed by the analysts who interviewed them and these serious doubts were noted in their written reports. These doubts were removed from the analysis when it got the level of preparing the NIE because that is what the Bush admin wanted.

We're seeing this problem with the work of careerists being corrupted and distorted by pols at the top right now with Trump's State Department in relation to Ukraine. Now as then, it isn't the work of careerists that is the problem.

I know it's tempting to look at this as a failure of "the IC," because the NIE was literally the official report of our IC, but there is both a professional and a political component when it gets to that level and I think it's important that people understand the distinction.

Also, consider this. We have been saying that the Bush admin lied about the WMD's for years. But if this really was bad work on the part of the professionals, then Bush didn't lie at all, right? He was merely misled. Do you think that is a fair and reasonable assessment of what happened?

I wouldn't agree that would be a fair assessment because Bush and Company clearly went far beyond anything the intelligence community presented to them. They clearly lied. That doesn't change the fact that the IC still made a number of judgments that were just wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

The NIE doesn't make conclusions, it makes estimate (hence the reason it's called national intelligence estimates). Part of the IC made bad estimates while others in the IC (and depending on the topic, were more qualified to make such judgments, see uranium tube dissents) dissented on those findings.

I am very aware of what NIEs do, like I said I've personally discussed this NIE with someone involved in creating it. They most certainly make conclusions - that's the whole point. As part of those conclusions they state how likely they consider them to be correct.

 

[JEDIYoda]

The same security agencies we were constantly told 'knew' that Iraq had WMDs? I don't put much credence in them.

And while I'm quite sure the Russians have engaged in such meddling (and am all in favour of it being revealed where it has happened), I haven't seen convincing evidence that it has been the decisive factor in determining the course of politics in those countries.

The extreme emphasis on the all-powerful Putin strikes me as an attempt at a diversion from the continuing failures of centrism.

I don`t see any cows on these forums...….so I hope all that straw tastes good!!

 

[blankslate]

Good thing that's not what is being said then. Why you seem so intent on deliberately misinterpreting the point I have no idea but it's not working very well for you. Maybe stop fighting the straw?

Perhaps you and your ilk purposefully misinterpreted what Hillary said... an asset implies that Tulsi is knowingly co-operating... but hey that's something you all conveniently brush aside.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Perhaps you and your ilk purposefully misinterpreted what Hillary said... an asset implies that Tulsi is knowingly co-operating... but hey that's something you all conveniently brush aside.

I see no misinterpretation. Could you please point out where there was a misinterpretation?
Perhaps your invisible sniper friend can answer....

 

[Victorian Gray]

Perhaps you and your ilk purposefully misinterpreted what Hillary said... an asset implies that Tulsi is knowingly co-operating... but hey that's something you all conveniently brush aside.

My "ilk"? ROFL

I get it, words can be complicated. But you appear to be deliberately misreading/misunderstanding what was said. Hey, you want to live in a conspiracy world, feel free. For most of us the real world is strange enough.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Like I said, you and the others don't understand what was said by Hillary. I don't know if its Hillary hate or just plain stupidity but you, again, prove my point.

Hillary didn't say gabbard was willingly helping the Russians, she said she was being groomed which means her, like you, are unwitting participants. Does that mean I'm saying you are a Russian troll? No. But you certainly are pushing the same crap Russian rolls push.


How does it feel to be used by a foreign government?

Hillary is in no position to make that assessment

 

[blankslate]

I see nothing productive whatsoever in revisiting the 2016 dem primary.

I also see nothing productive in Hillary showing up on a podcast to suggest "theories" seemingly cut from template of an Alex Jones podcast which ends up invariably bringing 2016 up. It would be quite another thing if she also had documents or recordings that supported such "theories" but so far as I know none has been presented.


_____________

 

[JEDIYoda]

My "ilk"? ROFL

I get it, words can be complicated. But you appear to be deliberately misreading/misunderstanding what was said. Hey, you want to live in a conspiracy world, feel free. For most of us the real world is strange enough.

Some people choose to live in a conspiracy world or a make believe world because and it was stated so eloquently -- You Can’t Handle the Truth -- They have issues with the truth!
yet there is another saying that goes -- the truth shall set you free!!

 

[blankslate]

I get it, words can be complicated.

So up your reading comprehension maybe?



_______

 

[blankslate]

yet there is another saying that goes -- the truth shall set you free!!

Yes it could set you free but you choose to disbelieve what Van Jones has laid out buy outright dismissing his statements on CNN... showing that you refuse to be set free by the facts....


__________