POLL:Did the CIA stop gathering intel on Iraq after 1998

[charrison]

 

[sandorski]

Probably not, but how reliable(especially in retrospect) could that Intel be?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Probably not, but how reliable(especially in retrospect) could that Intel be?

How reliable could it have been before?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
Probably not, but how reliable(especially in retrospect) could that Intel be?

How reliable could it have been before?

We know that the CIA was receiving Intel from UN Inspectors, so I would say that the Intel *was* probably quite reliable.

 

[burnedout]

If one reads other threads, one may get the impression that the CIA never gathered intel any at all.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
Probably not, but how reliable(especially in retrospect) could that Intel be?

How reliable could it have been before?

We know that the CIA was receiving Intel from UN Inspectors, so I would say that the Intel *was* probably quite reliable.

So before 1998, the CIA only had one source of intel on Iraq. IF that is the case, the entire agency needs to be disbanded....

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
Probably not, but how reliable(especially in retrospect) could that Intel be?

How reliable could it have been before?

We know that the CIA was receiving Intel from UN Inspectors, so I would say that the Intel *was* probably quite reliable.

So before 1998, the CIA only had one source of intel on Iraq. IF that is the case, the entire agency needs to be disbanded....

According to Tenent, Intel usn't a sure science. That's probably why that prior to the Dub becoming President we never launched a Preemptive war just based on Intel. TO me the travesty is how Dub's Administration presented the Intel to the American People and the World as if it was unrefutable facts.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
Probably not, but how reliable(especially in retrospect) could that Intel be?

How reliable could it have been before?

We know that the CIA was receiving Intel from UN Inspectors, so I would say that the Intel *was* probably quite reliable.

So before 1998, the CIA only had one source of intel on Iraq. IF that is the case, the entire agency needs to be disbanded....

According to Tenent, Intel usn't a sure science. That's probably why that prior to the Dub becoming President we never launched a Preemptive war just based on Intel. TO me the travesty is how Dub's Administration presented the Intel to the American People and the World as if it was unrefutable facts.

NOt much differently than before a little 4 day bombing run in 1998. Many of the same things were said.

 

[Insane3D]

Many of the same things were said.

They were? I think you are a little foggy on the specifics.

It's amazing how now the justification for the war is what...but Clinton did it too?

 

[freegeeks]

who needs an intelligence agency when you can just google a 12 year old student transcript from the internet
copy it in a shiny Powerpoint slide and present it before the Security Council as facts and evidence.

Combine that with a nice 3D rendered image of a WMD truck and you have all the evidence you need to go to war.

I'm extremely professional in using search engines (I know everything about Boolean expressions), maybe I should apply for MI6 or the CIA.

The dossier -- titled "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation" -- sparked outrage after it was discovered that parts of it were copied from a 12-year-old thesis by an American student.

link

how much credibility do you have left with stunts like that?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
Probably not, but how reliable(especially in retrospect) could that Intel be?

How reliable could it have been before?

We know that the CIA was receiving Intel from UN Inspectors, so I would say that the Intel *was* probably quite reliable.

So before 1998, the CIA only had one source of intel on Iraq. IF that is the case, the entire agency needs to be disbanded....

According to Tenent, Intel usn't a sure science. That's probably why that prior to the Dub becoming President we never launched a Preemptive war just based on Intel. TO me the travesty is how Dub's Administration presented the Intel to the American People and the World as if it was unrefutable facts.

NOt much differently than before a little 4 day bombing run in 1998. Many of the same things were said.

SO that justifies going to War over dodgy Intel?

 

[etech]

Which parts were copied?

I haven't looked into this but it is common to include background into a research paper.

So before I comment futher I'll wait until I can do some research and see if the copied parts were the parts applicable to the past.

freegreeks, you have commented on this so you must have done your research. Which parts of the report were copied? What did they pertain to?

 

[chess9]

Red:

Quit it already! I want to say that stuff.

But, yeah, ditto everything Red said.

-Robert

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: etech
Which parts were copied?

I haven't looked into this but it is common to include background into a research paper.

So before I comment futher I'll wait until I can do some research and see if the copied parts were the parts applicable to the past.

freegreeks, you have commented on this so you must have done your research. Which parts of the report were copied? What did they pertain to?

Look for the transcript from Powell during his presentation, at one point he is referring to the UK intelligence

the Brits copied page 6-16 from the 19 page transcript. And the funny part has still to come. They even copied the typographical errors.

Some quotes for the lazy

It's quite striking that even Marashi's typographical errors and anomolous uses of grammar are incorporated into the Downing Street document. For example, on p.13, the British dossier incorporates a misplaced comma:

"Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri as head"..

Likewise, Marashi's piece also states:

"Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri as head"..

The other sources that are extensively plagiarised in the document are two authors from Jane's Intelligence Review: Ken Gause (an international security analyst from Alexandria, Virginia), "Can the Iraqi Security Apparatus save Saddam" (November 2002), pp.8-13.

Sean Boyne, "Inside Iraq's Security Network", in 2 parts during 1997.

None of the sources are acknowledged, leading the reader to believe that the information is a result of direct investigative work, rather than simply copied from pre-existing internet sources.

There are two types of changes incorporated into the British document.

Firstly, numbers are increased or are rounded up. So, for example, the section on "Fedayeen Saddam" (pp.15-16) is directly copied from Boyne, almost word for word. The only substantive difference is that Boyne estimates the personnel of the organisation to be 18,000-40,000.

(Gause similarly estimates 10-40,000). The British dossier instead writes "30,000 to 40,000".

A similar bumping up of figures occurs with the description of the Directorate of Military Intelligence.

The second type of change in the British dossier is that it replaces particular words to make the claim sound stronger. So, for example, most of p.9 on the functions of the Mukhabarat is copied directly from Marashi's article, except that when Marashi writes of its role in: "monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq"

This becomes in the British dossier: "spying on foreign embassies in Iraq".

Similarly, on that same page, whilst Marashi writes of the Mukhabarat: "aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes" - the British dossier renders this as: "supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes".

Further examples from the section on "Fedayeen Saddam" include how a reference to how, in Boyne's original text, its personnel are "recruited from regions loyal to Saddam", referring to their original grouping as "some 10,000-15,000 'bullies and country bumpkins.'" becomes in the British government's text a reference to how its personnel are: "press ganged from regions known to be loyal to Saddam" ... "some 10,000-15,000 bullies."

go here for a full read how the intelligence community not only copied work from that student but also used COPYRIGHTED work from other authors (Jane's Intelligence Review) and how the govt. manipulated certain words and numbers so that they appeared "stronger.

It's hilarious, just check it yourself

this whole charade alone is very damaging. If you go to a civil court with stuf like and present this as evidence the judge will kick you out and probably will slam you also with a baseball bat on your head - but hey it's OK to use this to go to war. The thing that bother me the most is that everything I posted was already known just a few days after Powells presentation before the UN and way before the war itself BUT NOBODY SEEMED TO CARE

This is clear manipulation of informaton - what are the motives behind this???
if the WMD evidence was so overwhelming (as stated by the Brits and the USA) why would you need to plagiarise stuf?
is it maybe because you have nothing else?

so many questions, so few answers

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I said this in another related thread.


You never go to war because of intel.

If Tenet said just one truthful thing it was that you are never as right or wrong as you believe.

Intel is not just graded on quantity, but timeliness and quality (a few other factors as well)

Intel is not like vision, with which you can aim, fire, and hit the correct target. It is more like the sense of hearing. It is imprecise, and more, it is impossible to be certain how far off the mark you are. If you closed your eyes and fired at a target, you not only are likely to miss, but risk the chance of doing damage uncalled for. This is one reason you do not use intel to justify policy. There are many other considerations. I think Bush misunderstood that, and more and more, I think Cheney and his partner Rumsfeld let him.

 

[Spencer278]

Did the CIA stop gathering intel on iraq after 1998(desert fox)?

Of course the CIA didn't stop gathering intel. Someone had to tell bush where the oil was in Iraq.

 

[tnitsuj]

They apparently stopped gathering human intel. They were relying on electronic means, defectors, and dissidents. The defectors and dissidents have been proven to be basically worthless.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I said this in another related thread.


You never go to war because of intel.

If Tenet said just one truthful thing it was that you are never as right or wrong as you believe.

Intel is not just graded on quantity, but timeliness and quality (a few other factors as well)

Intel is not like vision, with which you can aim, fire, and hit the correct target. It is more like the sense of hearing. It is imprecise, and more, it is impossible to be certain how far off the mark you are. If you closed your eyes and fired at a target, you not only are likely to miss, but risk the chance of doing damage uncalled for. This is one reason you do not use intel to justify policy. There are many other considerations. I think Bush misunderstood that, and more and more, I think Cheney and his partner Rumsfeld let him.

thinking like that is why "intel" that pearl harbor would be attacked was ignored with obvious result. "intel" in the case of "aim fire, and hit the correct target" would be provided by a spotter who directs fire to the target.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You know that the note of concern about Pearl Harbor was ignored because the teletype was out and it was sent by letter carrier right?


BTW, lets go forward to Cuba.

If we had attacked like the Joint Chiefs wanted, the worse case scenario would be that Cuba launched, and intel said their missles were of very limited range. They would take out just Florida and a bit more. You and I would be perfectly safe assuming we lived outside that area right? Must be that way, because that is what the intel said.

 

[CaptnKirk]

? ? ?

 

[DealMonkey]

The CIA over-relied on UNSCOM for intel from Iraq up until 1998. Thereafter, they relied primarily on electronic intercepts and information from Iraqi defectors (I think someone else mentioned that too). The problem the Bushies have is what Tenet elaborated on, you're never totally right or totally wrong in the intel biz. In this case it seems we were further towards the totally wrong side of the scale. Instead of characterizing the intel as our best educated guess, the Bushies characterized it as WE KNOW what's going on in Iraq. The truth of the matter is they really didn't know anything.

 

[jahawkin]

I can't believe this faux outrage over the CIA coming from the right. Their goal is to rewrite history and show the CIA misleading the Bush admin. into war through their bad intelligence. A perfect scapegoat for the administration to cleanse their hands for their preemptive war. Just blame the CIA!!
Forget about Cheney's unprecedented visits to the CIA in 2002 to "oversee" things, forget about the Office of Special Plans that Cheney and Rumsfeld created because the intelligence coming from the CIA (in 2002) was supposedly underrepresenting the threat Iraq poses.
That's right, all this business about WMD stockpiles and "we know he has them because we know where they are," the CIA was at fault for tricking Bush and Co. into believing their intelligence fantasies.