NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok It looks like my thread got deleted! I don't know why so I'm posting it AGAIN!!! I have full right on here to post this and I will post it because this report debunks most of what the anti-bush, anti-war crowd has said regarding Uranium and Terror Ties!

Here is the link for that report!

http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf

Now lets keep this debate only to the intel report and leave all the Anti-Bush, anti-war antics out of this. If you have something reasonable to say, you can say it but any inflamatory comments will be ignored. By that I mean anti-bush retoric and anti-war retoric!

Thank you for you time.

Bump Bump Bump!

Does it debunk it or does it simply contradict it with facts derived from reports full of big black strips? I cant read it because right now my connection is buggin. But even if it does debunk it, I dont think it would take much of the steam out of the Mainstream left assertions. Mainstream persusasions dont get debunked, they arent extreme, that is the point of them.

Conspiracy is a term that gets thrown around far too much, few really knows what it means when they use it. You have simply ued it as a slur to insult your opponents.

Does it debunk it or does it simply contradict it with facts derived from reports full of big black strips? I cant read it because right now my connection is buggin. But even if it does debunk it, I dont think it would take much of the steam out of the Mainstream left assertions. Mainstream persusasions dont get debunked, they arent extreme, that is the point of them.

Conspiracy is a term that gets thrown around far too much, few really knows what it means when they use it. You have simply ued it as a slur to insult your opponents.

I wish i could say your wrong but the mainstream is insistant that Bush lied when this report indicated that the CIA lied to Bush! Joe Wilson lied about his wife's involvement in getting him the job to go to Niger and it debunks his statement that Iraq never purchased Yellowcake Uranium, which the Iraqis did and tried to get more! Thus Hussein was in violation of UN Resolutions by doing so.

This report also supported the terror ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda! Yea no operational ties but NO ONE has ever said that they did. Just support!

Okay that report is over 500 pages

maybe you could show us where your "evidence" is.

So it was all justified but on small specific technicalities.

Okay that report is over 500 pages

maybe you could show us where your "evidence" is.

Hey it does make for interesting reading! LOL! As for the conclusions, I'll get to those if my sis doesn't first!

Nah, it still wasn't justified.. nor was it legal under international law. Listen, these were politicians who did this report, headed by a Republican. I say beware.. If you want the closest thing to the truth we're probably ever going to get, I suggest reading the 9-11 commission report instead. They were not acting politicians and while yes, still headed by a republican.. probably the most impartial report out thus far. All of them also granted were appointed by Bush.. however, we are never going to know the truth any way of what Bush did. One thing is fairly obvious as any person with an IQ over 40 can figure out. Bush knew a lot more then they will ever admit to.

Nah, it still wasn't justified.. nor was it legal under international law. Listen, these were politicians who did this report, headed by a Republican. I say beware.. If you want the closest thing to the truth we're probably ever going to get, I suggest reading the 9-11 commission report instead. They were not acting politicians and while yes, still headed by a republican.. probably the most impartial report out thus far. All of them also granted were appointed by Bush.. however, we are never going to know the truth any way of what Bush did. One thing is fairly obvious as any person with an IQ over 40 can figure out. Bush knew a lot more then they will ever admit to.

Well since when did the US give up its soveriegnty to the UN? Not that I can recall. Under international law, we have a right to defend ourselves, As such we were justified in going in based on Hussiens terror ties, based on the Russians TELLING BUSH that HUSSEIN PLANNED terror attacks AGAINST US! We were justified under UN RESOLUTIONS that Hussein violated. And yes he did violate them especially when he bought uranium from Niger and tried to get more! Under UN resolutions, the UN was obligated to go back to war with Iraq. You may claim it was illegal but under UN resolutions, we were morally obligated to go in and remove Hussein. We followed through on UN resolutions, why didn't France, Germany, Russia do this? Because of their OIL TIES to Hussien. France promised to support a SECOND RESOLUTION and didn't! That is why US is pissed at the French.

This intel report from the Senate clearly spells it all out. Yes we didn't find major stockpiles of WMD and what we have found is old but according to the ISG, can still cause massive harm if used against people. The Senate report proves Hussein's Terror ties though liberals can't see it because they've always claimed Iraq was a side show. Clearly its not! This report shows where the Intel's fault was! It was in human intelligence. Humans on the ground getting this stuff.

Well since when did the US give up its soveriegnty.

It didn't, but the last time I checked.. not only do YOUR laws mean nothing outside of your own borders.. but you also happen to be a signatory member to those international treaties. If you want to be a rogue nation, fine, sign away from the treaties, until then, you're legally bound by them. End of freaking story!

The right to defend oneself is all well and good, but sending your troops to a place other than yourself for defence is pushing the line. Its murky territory because you could just conquer everybody on the grounds that they "could" perhaps one day be your enemy.

By definition the war was not justified. The war was "JUSTIFIED" to the western world on the grounds that Iraq could slip Bio weapons to terrorists. No one really gave much thought to UN resolutions or Humanitarian Records They were hardly mentioned by Heads of state and only mentioned in debates after people got sick of arguing about the WMD.
Because they didnt need to mention anything else. The WMD was it. Sure Un resolutions and Humanitarian records are good rational justifications, but you can hardly muster support to make a sacrifice if its not nessicary. People may have been sympathetic, but ultimately they wouldn't care. Why the hell should they? Sure its depressing, but nothing moreso than everything else on the Six O'clock news. And the media wouldnt stay interrested that long anyway. Aterall there are unavenged violations of international law all over the planet. Why single out a bombed out Wasteland. You have got to have an immeadiate threat to get people to defend themselves.

(From an unofficial Interview with Goering during Nuremburg)

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would
some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that
he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the
common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the
leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have
some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the
United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always
be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is
tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any
country."

I wish i could say your wrong but the mainstream is insistant that Bush lied when this report indicated that the CIA lied to Bush! Joe Wilson lied about his wife's involvement in getting him the job to go to Niger and it debunks his statement that Iraq never purchased Yellowcake Uranium, which the Iraqis did and tried to get more! Thus Hussein was in violation of UN Resolutions by doing so.

This report also supported the terror ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda! Yea no operational ties but NO ONE has ever said that they did. Just support!

I'm sorry , are we reading the same report?

How exactly does this "debunk the uraniun issue"?

I just read through that section, and it is verydetailed on where the intelligence came from , how it was processed, and how it came to be dismissed. It also clearly shows how each and every Bush speech got vetted and how the exact wording on this issue modified over time as the intelligence fell into a state of it being rejected.

That culminated in October prior to the Cincinatti speech when the CIA vetted it the line regarding this was removed, the reson cited being that "The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded, and the other mine cited by the source is under the control of the French". (pg 56)

So the CIA was expressing their doubts about this intel to Bush's handlers. And also it states where this intel was described in less than glowing terms to Congress and the SSCI. And yet somehow this line got re-inserted back into the state of the union address and invoked as being a hard fact indicating part of a reconstituted program.

The CIA did not lie about that to George. He was told to drop talking about it because it was unreliable. He used it anyway to convey the image of a mushroom cloud over US cities to rally the country to war.

Which one was being dishonest? GW or the CIA?



As to your assertion that Saddam HAD purchased uranium - yes he had. In the 80s! When he had a reactor. The leftover inventory was in storage at the Tuwaitha site, known by the UN, and subject to regular inspections to ensure that it was all still there. And it always was. This can not in any way be construed as any sort of violation of UN Resolutions or as an attempt to pursue WMD after the Gulf war. No evidence I can see in that report proved any real attempt to purchase more.


Nice try though.



Regarding Ambassador Wilson, page 39 also states that he had previously travelled to Niger on the CIA's behalf, so he had a relationship dealing with Niger for such purposes. It also states that he was going to Niger anyway, so he would have been a logical candidate. The fact that his wife had mentioned that he was going to be in Niger and could ask some questions may have helped tap him for this job, but it does not indicate that she was the original person who "got him the job" doing things for the CIA in Niger. I should also point out that she IS A CIA AGENT. And aparently a good one until she got outed. So it is entirely possible that she never told her husband that she had mentioned his name first. The comments support that fact in that apparenlty she came to him later and made the request on the CIA's behalf once he was chosen. Spy's are rather good at compartmentalizing things, and I don't think she chatted about her day with her husband in the same way most spouses do. She couldn't. So calling him a liar is rather unfair without more corroberation that he a) knew that she had mentioned his name given that he had intended to go to Niger anyway, and b) I would have to look up to see if he was specific about his wife getting him the job about dealing with Niger for the CIA in general, or this one trip in particular.

Again - nice try.

I don't have time to do the reading on your terror ties right now.

But you're 0-for-2 so far in my books.

-Z-

I'm sorry , are we reading the same report?

How exactly does this "debunk the uraniun issue"?

I just read through that section, and it is verydetailed on where the intelligence came from , how it was processed, and how it came to be dismissed. It also clearly shows how each and every Bush speech got vetted and how the exact wording on this issue modified over time as the intelligence fell into a state of it being rejected.

That culminated in October prior to the Cincinatti speech when the CIA vetted it the line regarding this was removed, the reson cited being that "The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded, and the other mine cited by the source is under the control of the French". (pg 56)

So the CIA was expressing their doubts about this intel to Bush's handlers. And also it states where this intel was described in less than glowing terms to Congress and the SSCI. And yet somehow this line got re-inserted back into the state of the union address and invoked as being a hard fact indicating part of a reconstituted program.

The CIA did not lie about that to George. He was told to drop talking about it because it was unreliable. He used it anyway to convey the image of a mushroom cloud over US cities to rally the country to war.

Which one was being dishonest? GW or the CIA?



As to your assertion that Saddam HAD purchased uranium - yes he had. In the 80s! When he had a reactor. The leftover inventory was in storage at the Tuwaitha site, known by the UN, and subject to regular inspections to ensure that it was all still there. And it always was. This can not in any way be construed as any sort of violation of UN Resolutions or as an attempt to pursue WMD after the Gulf war. No evidence I can see in that report proved any real attempt to purchase more.


Nice try though.



Regarding Ambassador Wilson, page 39 also states that he had previously travelled to Niger on the CIA's behalf, so he had a relationship dealing with Niger for such purposes. It also states that he was going to Niger anyway, so he would have been a logical candidate. The fact that his wife had mentioned that he was going to be in Niger and could ask some questions may have helped tap him for this job, but it does not indicate that she was the original person who "got him the job" doing things for the CIA in Niger. I should also point out that she IS A CIA AGENT. And aparently a good one until she got outed. So it is entirely possible that she never told her husband that she had mentioned his name first. The comments support that fact in that apparenlty she came to him later and made the request on the CIA's behalf once he was chosen. Spy's are rather good at compartmentalizing things, and I don't think she chatted about her day with her husband in the same way most spouses do. She couldn't. So calling him a liar is rather unfair without more corroberation that he a) knew that she had mentioned his name given that he had intended to go to Niger anyway, and b) I would have to look up to see if he was specific about his wife getting him the job about dealing with Niger for the CIA in general, or this one trip in particular.

Again - nice try.

I don't have time to do the reading on your terror ties right now.

But you're 0-for-2 so far in my books.

-Z-


Your a liberal anyway and will try to twist things to suit your need! I don't know what report YOUR reading but the evidence is clear about Hussein's ties to terror! Clear on Intel Failures! Clear on Hussein's UN Violation regarding purchasing Uraniun! Now please start QUOTING the report that you disagree with! I need to see what page and paragraph you are referring too!

And you talk about me and facts!

As for Joe Wilson, I never denied that he did have those ties however he claimed that his wife didn't have anything to do with his appointment and the Senate said it was FALSE and that she did! As for buying it in the eighties, HE DID IT IN THE LATE NINETIES TOO!! that is in the report as well! I guess you missed that because it didn't comply with your way of thinking!

can you say "pwned"? lol j/k

nice one Zepp.

Can't wait for the terror ties update.

Indeed. All his points were specific technicalities. Now He's grasping for straws.

Your a liberal anyway and will try to twist things to suit your need!

Hahaha, indeed *pwned* (I love my husband)

You just got told girl... and at least my husband cited the exact pages for people to go look for themselves, instead of your sweeping general statements..

Zeppistan - I will never regret the day I married you. Get her baby. :fluffle:

This report also supported the terror ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda! Yea no operational ties but NO ONE has ever said that they did. Just support!

Really?

Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor
2/5/2003
"There is no question in my mind about the al Qaeda connection. It is a connection that has unfolded, that we're learning more about as we are able to take the testimony of detainees, people who were high up in the al Qaeda organization. And what emerges is a picture of a Saddam Hussein who became impressed with what al Qaeda did after it bombed our embassies in 1998 in Kenya and Tanzania, began to give them assistance in chemical and biological weapons." [Source: Larry King Live transcript]


C Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor
Date: 9/28/2003
"No one has said that there is evidence that Saddam Hussein directed or controlled 9/11, but let's be very clear, he had ties to al-Qaeda, he had al-Qaeda operatives who had operated out of Baghdad." [Source: Meet the Press transcript]


Bush, George - President
Date: 9/26/2002
“You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam.” [Source: White House Web site]


Cheney, Dick - Vice President
Date: 9/14/2003
“There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s.” [Meet the Press transcript]


Cheney, Dick - Vice President
Date: 9/14/2003
"With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack..." [Source: Meet the Press transcript]


Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor
Date: 9/7/2003
"And there was an Ansar al-Islam, which appears also to try to be operating in Iraq. So yes, the al Qaeda link was there." [Source: Fox News Sunday transcript]


Cheney, Dick - Vice President
10/9/2003
"[Hussein] also had an established relationship to al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases and making conventional bombs." [Source: Boston Globe]


Woolsey, James - Former CIA Director
3/28/2004
"But in this case, [Richard Clarke] got locked into the view early on that there was nothing ever, no contacts of any kind between al Qaeda and governments such as Iraq. And so I think he ignored some of the clear evidence that George Tenet spread out before the Senate in 2002 about Iraqi training of al Qaeda in poisons, gases and explosives." [Source: Fox News transcript]


Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor
3/9/2003
"Now the al-Qaeda is an organization that's quite disbursed and --and quite widespread in its effects, but it clearly has had links to the Iraqis, not to mention Iraqi links to all kinds of other terrorists." - [Source: CBS Face the Nation, reprinted in Waxman database]


Cheney, Dick - Vice President
1/30/2003
"His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us." [Source: White House Web site]

Powell, Colin - Secretary of State
1/26/2003
"The more we wait, the more chance there is for this dictator with clear ties to terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, more time for him to pass a weapon, share a technology, or use these weapons again." [Source: Waxman database]

Cheney, Dick - Vice President
1/22/2004
"There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." [Source: NPR Interview quoted in LA Times]




A question for you if you really think that nobody ever made that claim. Why did President Bush send a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11.” ?


But, best of all, after all that:

Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor
3/22/2004
“The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.” [Source: CNN Web site]


Hey - even Colin has the integrity to correct himself from:

2/5/2003
"I want to bring to your attention today [to] the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network... al-Qaida affiliates based in Baghdad now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for Saddam's network, and they have now been operating freely in [Baghdad]." [Source: DOS Web site]

To:
"I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection" between Iraq and al-Qaida. - Colin Powell, 1/9/04

Your a liberal anyway and will try to twist things to suit your need! I don't know what report YOUR reading but the evidence is clear about Hussein's ties to terror! Clear on Intel Failures! Clear on Hussein's UN Violation regarding purchasing Uraniun! Now please start QUOTING the report that you disagree with! I need to see what page and paragraph you are referring too!

And you talk about me and facts!

As for Joe Wilson, I never denied that he did have those ties however he claimed that his wife didn't have anything to do with his appointment and the Senate said it was FALSE and that she did! As for buying it in the eighties, HE DID IT IN THE LATE NINETIES TOO!! that is in the report as well! I guess you missed that because it didn't comply with your way of thinking!

First you ask him to quote the page and paragraph in the report because (insert sarcasm here) clearly as a liberal he is twisting the evidence in this report to suit his needs.

But then in your own last paragraph you state Saddam purchased uranium in the late nineties and that this is in the report yet you fail to provide a quote yourself. Does this mean you are also (more sarcasm) a liberal twisting the evidence to suit your needs?

Oh, and before I get accused of "twisting things" again, here is the letter to congress if you do not believe me:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html


March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH


Why bring that up as one of only two points (i.e. 50% of his argument) to justify the war on Iraq when he has since admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11?

What? No reply from Formal or her brother? I mean it's not like Formal isn't online.. I suppose she has to go read some more propaganda to respond.. perhaps the Republican party didn't give her instructions for the truth in her "How to be a good sheep" manual... :D

I guess she didn't think that anyone would take her up on the request to read the report.....


Silly girl.


OK Formal, I gave two page numbers to support my statements. not a lot perhaps, and sory if I didn't include exact quotes all over the place. But that pdf is a set of page images so you can't "select text", and frankly I don't have the time or inclination to retype large segments of it.

Now - I did not find any statement that Saddam had indeed purchased uranium in the late 90s, but I will admit that I am at work so I only skimmed the section on Uranium over my lunch break. I read most of it, but some sections that did not seem promising I did not focus on. You state that this is a documented fact and you accuse me of having read it, but of deliberately ignoring that fact as it does not meet my "agenda".


If you are correct can you please point to the page where it is located in which case I will conceed the point.

Otherwise, I hope you will be equally honest in this debate and admit that your claim is not supported.


Thank you.

-Z-

awww and I was hoping to hear some rebuttal too. Even after this thread I have seen FD spreading the same mis-information on other threads.

I guess she didn't think that anyone would take her up on the request to read the report.....


Silly girl.


OK Formal, I gave two page numbers to support my statements. not a lot perhaps, and sory if I didn't include exact quotes all over the place. But that pdf is a set of page images so you can't "select text", and frankly I don't have the time or inclination to retype large segments of it.

Now - I did not find any statement that Saddam had indeed purchased uranium in the late 90s, but I will admit that I am at work so I only skimmed the section on Uranium over my lunch break. I read most of it, but some sections that did not seem promising I did not focus on. You state that this is a documented fact and you accuse me of having read it, but of deliberately ignoring that fact as it does not meet my "agenda".


If you are correct can you please point to the page where it is located in which case I will conceed the point.

Otherwise, I hope you will be equally honest in this debate and admit that your claim is not supported.


Thank you.

-Z-

Terrorism Conclusions:

First paragraph after Conclusion number 9:

While in the case of Iraq's link to terrorism, the final analysis has proven, thus far, to have been accurate and not affected by a lack of relevent source or operational detail

After Conclusion 11: 2nd Paragraph:

"In some cases, those interviewed stated that the questions had forced them to go back and review the intelligence reporting, and that during the exercise they came across information overlooked in the initial readings. The Committee found that the process-the policymakers probing questions-actually improved the Central Intelligence Agency's(CIA) products. The review revealed that the CIA analysts who prepared Iraqi Support of Terrorism made careful, measured assessments which did not overstate or mischaracterize the intelligence reporting upon which it was based."

Niger Conclusions:

Conclusion 12: "Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence."

Conclusion 13: The report on former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal,

In another part of the report, on PDF page 57-"On March 25, 2002, the DO issued a third and final report from the same '[foriegn] government service.' The report said that the 2000 agreement by Niger to provide uranium to Iraq specified that 500 tons of Uranium per year would be delievered in" and the rest is blacked out!

On PDF page 60= "On September 24, 2002 the British Government published a white paper on Iraq's WMD stating "there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

I'll post more later!

Niger Conclusions:

Conclusion 12: "Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence."


sure, that covers it as being reasonable until October of '02. At that point, the CIA received the forged documents, determined that they were false, and as I pointed out out from page 56 they then requested that it be removed from Bush's speech in Cincinati.

That is October of '02.

When he was told that they had determined that this was no longer deemed credible intel. Told his team to remove it from a speech.

Still, on January 28, 2003 - THREE MONTHS LATER - he again raised tha claim in his state of the union address when he stated:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. "

source: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/


By this point, this statement is no longer deemed to be a reasonable one according to this conclusion, nor was it considered credible by the CIA.


Conclusion 13: The report on former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal,



Again, note the timeline. I have never claimed that this statement was deliberately made falsly except in the State of the Union address as part of the build up to war. Again you are dealing with what was known much earlier than that date


In another part of the report, on PDF page 57-"On March 25, 2002, the DO issued a third and final report from the same '[foriegn] government service.' The report said that the 2000 agreement by Niger to provide uranium to Iraq specified that 500 tons of Uranium per year would be delievered in" and the rest is blacked out!


Again, this was discarded in October. You really have completely missed the point.

On PDF page 60= "On September 24, 2002 the British Government published a white paper on Iraq's WMD stating "there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa."


*yawn* still with the timeline.

I point out in rebuttal that on page 54 :

"On October 2 the deputy DCI testified before the SSCI. Senator John Kyl asked the deputy DCI if he had read the British white paper and whether he disagreed with anything in it. The deputy DCI testified that "the one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about Iraw seeking uranium from various African locations. We've looked at those reports and don't think they are very credible"

(note: the SSCI is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence)

The British Report was wrong. That is also clearly stated in the recently released Butler Report. The CIA knew that in October of '02, and told the president when they told his team to remove references to it from his speech in Cincinati, and told Senators that same fact at the same time.

Now why didn't any senators in the SSCI point that out when Bush repeated this in the State of the Union address? Perhaps you should check the list of members of the SSCI and ask them that pointed question. Bush stated something that they had already been told probably wasn't true by the intelligence community, and none of them said a damn word!



Anyway, you call ME someone who will spin things to my favour when you are the one pulling out intermediate findings, skipping where they are rebutted in that same report, and present them here as the final facts?

For the LAST TIME:

The intel that believed Iraq had made a contract to purchase uranium was debunked by the CIA in October of 2002. IT NEVER HAPPENED! And people were TOLD that - including Bush's speechwriting team. Yet it was put back into the State of the Union address three months later. At that point - it was a lie because it was known to be untrue, and this had been stated to Bush's team and the SSCI three months prior.


And you say that I didn't read the whole thing and am exluding points to make my case?

sheesh!

Now will you please give up this falacy that Saddam did in fact purchase uranium after the first Gulf War? That WAS your claim. Because so far your "proof" is a discredited British report that has rejected by everybody.

Once again - either show proof that Iraq did, in fact, purchase uranium or concede the point.

(Note: perhaps before you stick to this bogus "fact" you should read Tenents statement on how it should never have been included in the State of the Union address because it was NOT TRUE, however it gets excused as a bureaucratic screwup where this portion of the speech was not propler vetted. Odd how that report shows speech after speech where the text around this "fact" is repeatedly changed as the intel comes in and is discredited, but somehow it slipped through on the most important speech of the year, and none of Bush's team who had been told to remove it months earlier batted an eye at that fact, and GW himself aparently never questioned how one of his big talking points slipped in and out of his speeches, and never followed up on that. very odd...

anyway, Tenents statement can be read right here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/944614/posts

The last line of paragraph one says all you need to know: "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president. ")


(note to anyone reading this - if you wonder why my rebuttal from page 54 seems to precede her statement about the British report - she is using the pdf file page numbers. I actually use the REAL page numbers. The table of contents etc suck up 10 pages before we start with the page with the number one on the bottom. Her "pdf page 60" is page 50 of the report, and over the next seveeeeral pages they show how the CIA determined that the British report was incorrect. She apparently stopped reading at that point.)

Dont worry Formal, you can still hide behind the links to terror. Im surprised the report used such a "Malleable" word as linked.

Dont worry Formal, you can still hide behind the links to terror. Im surprised the report used such a "Malleable" word as linked.

Well if the Senate stated that he had terror ties, then he had terror ties. The evidence that Hussein had terror ties is unquestionable!

Here is the SSCI conclusions on pressuring for those that claim he did it!

TERRORISM PRESSURE CONCLUSIONS

Conclusion 102: The Committee found that none of the analysts or other people interviewed by the committee said they were pressured to change their conclusions related to Iraq's links to terrorism. After 9/11, however, analysts were under trememdous pressure to make correct assessments, to avoid missing a credible threat, and to avoid an intelligence failure on the scale of 9/11. As a result, the Intelligence Community's assessments were bold and assertive in pointing out potential terrorist links. For instance, the June 2002 Central Intelligence Agency assessment Iraq and al-Qaeda: Interpreting a Murky Relationship was, according to its Scope Note, "purposefully agressive" in drawing connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda in an effort to inform policymakers of the potential that such a relationship existed. All of the participants in the August 2002 coordination meeting on the September 2002 version of Iraqi Support for Terrorism interviewed by the Committee agreed that while changes where made to the paper as a result of the participation of Two Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy staffers, their presence did not result in changes to their analytical judgements.

Well if the Senate stated that he had terror ties, then he had terror ties. The evidence that Hussein had terror ties is unquestionable!


Please, are you conceding that your claim that this reports states that Iraq did in fact purchase uranium after the first gulf War was wrong?

You accused me of twisting facts and stated unequivocably that I was wrong. I would like the satisfaction of a statement from you that YOU were wrong.

your exact words:

Your a liberal anyway and will try to twist things to suit your need!


You made it a personal attack by accusing me of being missleading, lying and of excluding facts due to an agenda, and worse yet accused me of a personal lack of integrity based entirely on my political bent. I have demonstrated that it was in fact you doing this, although I am willing to accept that you honestly beleived your assertion, but that you did not fully read that section.

So - will you admit your error? Or not?

I think you know that it would be the honest thing to do.

-Z-

Here is the SSCI conclusions on pressuring for those that claim he did it!

TERRORISM PRESSURE CONCLUSIONS

Conclusion 102: The Committee found that none of the analysts or other people interviewed by the committee said they were pressured to change their conclusions related to Iraq's links to terrorism. After 9/11, however, analysts were under trememdous pressure to make correct assessments, to avoid missing a credible threat, and to avoid an intelligence failure on the scale of 9/11. As a result, the Intelligence Community's assessments were bold and assertive in pointing out potential terrorist links. For instance, the June 2002 Central Intelligence Agency assessment Iraq and al-Qaeda: Interpreting a Murky Relationship[i] was, according to its Scope Note, "purposefully agressive" in drawing connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda in an effort to inform policymakers of the potential that such a relationship existed. All of the participants in the August 2002 coordination meeting on the September 2002 version of [i]Iraqi Support for Terrorism interviewed by the Committee agreed that while changes where made to the paper as a result of the participation of Two Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy staffers, their presence did not result in changes to their analytical judgements.

Excuse me? A statement that the report was deliberately worded in a "purposefullly agressive" manner in order to infor policymakers of the potential that such a relationship existed is your smoking gun proof?

"potential" does not equate to a statement of fact.

I kinda like the way Colin Powell put it:

"I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection" between Iraq and al-Qaida. - Colin Powell, 1/9/04

Yes, it was believed that a link might have existed. That is hardly proof.

-Z-

Well if the Senate stated that he had terror ties, then he had terror ties. The evidence that Hussein had terror ties is unquestionable!


Let's read your quote...

After Conclusion 11: 2nd Paragraph:

"In some cases, those interviewed stated that the questions had forced them to go back and review the intelligence reporting, and that during the exercise they came across information overlooked in the initial readings. The Committee found that the process-the policymakers probing questions-actually improved the Central Intelligence Agency's(CIA) products. The review revealed that the CIA analysts who prepared Iraqi Support of Terrorism made careful, measured assessments which did not overstate or mischaracterize the intelligence reporting upon which it was based."


The statement only says that the report did not mischaracterize the intelligence reporting on which it was based. It does NOT state that the intelligence was verified or actually correct.

As I have clearly shown as we looked into the beleifs about the uranium purchase, intelligence estimates require verification and are oftentimes eventually dismissed.

Like the belief about uranium.
Like the belief about retained stockpiles of tonnes of chemical weapons.
Like the belief about mobile WMD labs

This "conclusion" in no way states that Iraq DID have ties to terror, only that in this case the CIA adequately presented the best intelligence available to it at that time.

Try again.

-Z-

IRAQI LINKS TO TERRORISM CONCLUSIONS

Conclusion 90: The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment that Saddam Hussein was most likely to use his own intelligence operatives to conduct attacks was reasonable, and turned out to be accurate.

Conclusion 91: The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment that Iraq had maintained ties to several secular Palestinian terrorist groups with the Mujahidin e-Khalq was supported by the intelligence. The CIA was also reasonable in judging that Iraq appeared to have been reaching out to more effective terrorist groups, such as Hizzballah and Hamas, and might have intended to employ such surrogates in the event of war.

Conclusion 92: The Central Intelligence Agency's examination of contacts, training, safehaven, and operational cooperation as indicators of a possible Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was a reasonable and objective approach to the question.

Conclusion 93: The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts didn't add up to a formal relationship.

Conclusion 94: The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably and objectively assessed in Iraqi Support for Terrorism that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaeda were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons.

Conclusion 95: The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment on safehaven-that al-Qaeda or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish Control, was reasonable.

Conclusion 96: The Central intelligence Agency's assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaeda attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise (and I never said that Iraq was complicit so don't bash me on this one)

Conclusion 97: The Central Intelligence Agency's judgment that Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might deploy terrorists with a global reach- al-Qaeda-to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was reasonable. No information has emerged thus far to suggest that Saddam did try to employ al-Qaeda in conducting terrorist attacks.

Conclusion 98: The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment on Iraq's links to terrorism were widely disseminated, though an early version of the CIA assessment was disseminated only to a limited list of cabinet members and some subcabinet officials in the Administration.

Still waiting for the admission that you were wrong on the Uranium Formal....


C'mon - is it so hard to admit it when you make a mistake?

Still waiting for the admission that you were wrong on the Uranium Formal....


C'mon - is it so hard to admit it when you make a mistake?

I was half wrong half right!

I have come to an inescapeable conclusion formal. you do not know how to interpret bureaucratese. I admire you for taking the time and effort to follow up on this. Most people here DO just spout what the hear in sound bites and can't be bothered to do their own research. The level of effort someone your age has put into this is admirable.

But let me help...

For starter, refer back to my previous post where I point out quite clearly that a statement that a given report was an honest presentation of the intelligence known at that time is in no way a statement in support of the actual veracity of the intelligence.

Which is to say, that an honest presentation was made, but that the underlying facts are in no way explicitly given credence.


IRAQI LINKS TO TERRORISM CONCLUSIONS

Conclusion 90: The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment that Saddam Hussein was most likely to use his own intelligence operatives to conduct attacks was reasonable, and turned out to be accurate.


Using your own intelligence people in military operations is not terrorism. The CIA and DIA were in early in both Afghanistan and Iraq. That does not equate to the US being "terorists"


Conclusion 91: The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment that Iraq had maintained ties to several secular Palestinian terrorist groups with the Mujahidin e-Khalq was supported by the intelligence. The CIA was also reasonable in judging that Iraq appeared to have been reaching out to more effective terrorist groups, such as Hizzballah and Hamas, and might have intended to employ such surrogates in the event of war.


"Might have intented" is interesting. Let's all play the guessing game! And I have always acknowledged and deplored Saddams ties to Palestinian Insurgent groups, however I do not consider them to be international terrorist organizations that threaten the US. They are specifically in revolt against Israeli occupation using abhorent tactics. The Israelis are not always much better.


Conclusion 92: The Central Intelligence Agency's examination of contacts, training, safehaven, and operational cooperation as indicators of a possible Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was a reasonable and objective approach to the question.


Again: an examination of facts being a "reasonable and objective approach" makes sense. It does not state what the veracity of the results of that examination was.


Conclusion 93: The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts didn't add up to a formal relationship.


Nice of you to add that one! No formal relationship. rather shooting yourself in the foot here....


Conclusion 94: The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably and objectively assessed in Iraqi Support for Terrorism that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaeda were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons.


Again, commenting that the tradecraft was a good idea. No comment on the conclusions.


Conclusion 95: The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment on safehaven-that al-Qaeda or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish Control, was reasonable.


Sure - it was reasonable. But was it correct in regards to Baghdad? It doesn't say does it? The pressence of the group under Kurdish control once again has no bearing on any complicity by Saddam. He had no influence on that region thanks to the no-fly zone.


Conclusion 96: The Central intelligence Agency's assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaeda attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise (and I never said that Iraq was complicit so don't bash me on this one)


Once again, showing that the senate agrees that there was no complicity. But you argue that there "were ties"


Conclusion 97: The Central Intelligence Agency's judgment that Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might deploy terrorists with a global reach- al-Qaeda-to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was reasonable. No information has emerged thus far to suggest that Saddam did try to employ al-Qaeda in conducting terrorist attacks.


Right - it was a reasonable possibiltiy that the CIA was correct to consider and point out. It never happened. Again, this only gives good marks to the CIA for doing decent analysis and covering bases. It can not be used as a statement of fact to support any ties to Al Qaeda, nor that Saddam ever considered this option.


Conclusion 98: The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment on Iraq's links to terrorism were widely disseminated, though an early version of the CIA assessment was disseminated only to a limited list of cabinet members and some subcabinet officials in the Administration.


Yes, the CIA sent out reports.

We all agree that they do a lovely job at writing things up in well formatted pages, that they choose apropriate fonts, and that that their colour scheme is divine!


What does that have to do with supporting your case?


Look Formal, I have no doubt that the intelligence that Osama approached Saddam and that a couple of meetings took place is correct. But you extendign that to their bein "ties" is simply not supported. If Pablo Escobar had contacted the US and asked for a meeting to try and negotiate some things, the DEA would have met with him. That does not imply complicity with Pablo on the part of the US government, but rather the correct course of action to talk to bad people when they make the offer to see if you can't get a handle on their intentions.

And if you think that the US hasn't sat down with terrorist groups and insurgent groups in attempts to broker peace deals - you are deluding yourself. They have done it repeatedly with groups like the IRA, Hamas, and so on and so on.... are those "formal ties to terror" by the US?

No. of course not.

Pointing to Saddam doing the same damn thing with a major terrorist in his region and calling it "official ties" in a perjorative sense has not been supported by any intel that I have seen. IF you have it, I would like to see it - in which case I will concede that I was wrong in this case.

So far though, I agree with Colin Powell on this one.

-Z-

I was half wrong half right!

So far, in my books, you're 0-for-3.

Your claim that Iraq HAD purchased uranium after the first gulf war? 100% wrong. Thank you for admitting it - even if you won't go so far as to retract your statement that I am a liar who spins things to my own ends.

Your statement that Ambassador Wilson lied? Not supported.

Your statement that this report "proves" Saddam's "ties to terror" - not seeing it yet.


-Z-

Well Zeppistan. It is clear to me that you don't know that the Intel is never always accurate! The SSIC absolved Bush of Pressuring and stated that Hussien had Terror Ties. Just because you interpret your way doesn't make your way right. Everything can be interpreted to suit eachother's needs. Amazinly enough, no Democrat has attacked the Terror Conclusions in this report! Why? Because it was inescapable, has this report has shown, to be accurate.

The only thing that the Democrats can probably hang Bush on, and its a stretch, is Weapons of Mass Destruction. That is the only thing that the Democrats as well as the News Media have been hammering away at and ignoring the rest of this report!

How do I know this? Because I've seen it! I've watched other networks broadcast this and they only focused on the WMD charge being false. If that is the only one they are focusing on, doesn't that tell you something? Yes it was the primary charge -Z- not denying it was. I myself have thought it was a weak charge so i'm not going to argue that. However, the Terror Charges is inescapably true. al-Qaeda ties are inescapably true according to this report! That is why no one is attacking the CIA or Bush on these charges. Unless CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News (and yes they have slammed Bush) have been slamming Bush, and believe me I watch Fox News all the time and so far, both sides they had on when discussing this haven't done that, I haven't seen it.

You may ignore this if you wish but it happens to be true. No Media outlet has slammed Bush on what he said about Hussein's Terror Connections! This report also Absolves Bush of Pressuring CIA Agents. That is straight out of the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman's mouth backed up by the CIA memos! Most people now agree that he didn't pressure them.

Well Zeppistan. It is clear to me that you don't know that the Intel is never always accurate! The SSIC absolved Bush of Pressuring and stated that Hussien had Terror Ties. Just because you interpret your way doesn't make your way right. Everything can be interpreted to suit eachother's needs. Amazinly enough, no Democrat has attacked the Terror Conclusions in this report! Why? Because it was inescapable, has this report has shown, to be accurate.

The only thing that the Democrats can probably hang Bush on, and its a stretch, is Weapons of Mass Destruction. That is the only thing that the Democrats as well as the News Media have been hammering away at and ignoring the rest of this report!

How do I know this? Because I've seen it! I've watched other networks broadcast this and they only focused on the WMD charge being false. If that is the only one they are focusing on, doesn't that tell you something? Yes it was the primary charge -Z- not denying it was. I myself have thought it was a weak charge so i'm not going to argue that. However, the Terror Charges is inescapably true. al-Qaeda ties are inescapably true according to this report! That is why no one is attacking the CIA or Bush on these charges. Unless CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News (and yes they have slammed Bush) have been slamming Bush, and believe me I watch Fox News all the time and so far, both sides they had on when discussing this haven't done that, I haven't seen it.

You may ignore this if you wish but it happens to be true. No Media outlet has slammed Bush on what he said about Hussein's Terror Connections! This report also Absolves Bush of Pressuring CIA Agents. That is straight out of the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman's mouth backed up by the CIA memos! Most people now agree that he didn't pressure them.

Excuse me?

You are saying that I'M the one who doesn;t understand that intel is not always correct?

You take the cake!

Let me refresh your memory on how you started this thread:


I wish i could say your wrong but the mainstream is insistant that Bush lied when this report indicated that the CIA lied to Bush! Joe Wilson lied about his wife's involvement in getting him the job to go to Niger and it debunks his statement that Iraq never purchased Yellowcake Uranium, which the Iraqis did and tried to get more! Thus Hussein was in violation of UN Resolutions by doing so.

This report also supported the terror ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda! Yea no operational ties but NO ONE has ever said that they did. Just support!


You repeatedly show quotes that say the CIA's analysis and presentation was correct at the time, but you claim that the CIA lied. This is not stated anywhere in this report even if facts evenually turned out to be incorrect.

Just so you know - a lie is an intentional misrepresentation - not an statement honestly made that turns out later to have been incorrect.

You claimed that this report states that Joe Wilson lied which is not supported

You claimed that this report showed conclusively that Iraq had purchased uranium in the 90s when no such thing happened.

You claimed that this report proved ties to terror, and I have systematically pointed out how your "proof" is no such thing.

Now you repeat that statement but you cannot back it up.

YOU wanted to debate this report and your assertions on what it contains.

I have disproven every single one of your claims.

Why haven't democrats "attacked the Terror Conclusions in this report"? Because the conclusions that you point to DO NOT CONCLUDE THAT A RELATIONSHIP EXISTS! Perhaps they are rather fond of that conclusion.


You are proving yourself to be a very dishonest debator. You make assertions, and when they get disproven your only fallback position is to personally attack the people that prove you wrong.


shame on you.

Believe what you will Zeppistan! However, I think i'll take the Senate Report for what it says. They have more experience in this matter than you do!

Since you claim that this report doesn't conclusively say it exists, which has been stated time and time again that they did on media networks and by the Bush administration that Hussien had Terror Ties, the media should be jumping on that part too and they're not! Hussein had terror ties!

It did debunk Joe Wilson. It proved conclusively that Iraq tried to purchase Uranium! Joe Wilson said they didn't! To me that proves that Joe Wilson Lied. He also lied that his wife didn't have anything to do with his posting where a memo came out in this report stating that she recommended him. Lie number two.

As for the Terror Ties, as stated before, he had them. He support Hizzbolah and Hamas. Giving thousands of dollars as reward, not compensation, to the widows of Homicide Members. That is on public Record by the way.

I'll go back and read the report more thoroughly however and when I find something, I'll post it here!

Until then Zeppistan, I'll leave you with this word of advice. Stick to your job in Canada because obviously you have little experience in deciphering intel just like I have little to none myself. I leave that to the experts and the experts have stated that he had terror ties, tried to buy uranium and trained al-Qaeda and harbored them as well.

Believe what you will Zeppistan! However, I think i'll take the Senate Report for what it says. They have more experience in this matter than you do!

Since you claim that this report doesn't conclusively say it exists, which has been stated time and time again that they did on media networks and by the Bush administration that Hussien had Terror Ties, the media should be jumping on that part too and they're not! Hussein had terror ties!

It did debunk Joe Wilson. It proved conclusively that Iraq tried to purchase Uranium! Joe Wilson said they didn't! To me that proves that Joe Wilson Lied. He also lied that his wife didn't have anything to do with his posting where a memo came out in this report stating that she recommended him. Lie number two.

As for the Terror Ties, as stated before, he had them. He support Hizzbolah and Hamas. Giving thousands of dollars as reward, not compensation, to the widows of Homicide Members. That is on public Record by the way.

I'll go back and read the report more thoroughly however and when I find something, I'll post it here!

Until then Zeppistan, I'll leave you with this word of advice. Stick to your job in Canada because obviously you have little experience in deciphering intel just like I have little to none myself. I leave that to the experts and the experts have stated that he had terror ties, tried to buy uranium and trained al-Qaeda and harbored them as well.


Believe what I will? why thank you! I will. And it is amazing how so far this report has substantiated my beliefs. But NOT yours!

Still with the uranium?

You ARE a glutton for punishment.



I look forward to your quotes. And maybe, just maybe, you will also learn to carry on a debate in a civil manner. As to my ability to decipher this report - clearly I have demonstrated my ability far better than you given that you keep pulling out quotes that in no way support your position.


I will grant you your assertion that the evidence in this report does not support the assertion that the President presonally leaned on members of the CIA to doctor intelligence. However since I have never made that claim in the first place it really doesn't bother me.

Because it seems clear from the report that what was disseminated by the CIA was given WITH caveats that were excluded by members of this administration when they stated to the public that the intelligence was true and "without doubt".

I eagerly await the second half of this report that shall detail how the administration dealt with the intelligence they received and how they presented it to the public. I am sure that it will make for some interesting reading :)

I have come to an inescapeable conclusion formal. you do not know how to interpret bureaucratese. I admire you for taking the time and effort to follow up on this. Most people here DO just spout what the hear in sound bites and can't be bothered to do their own research. The level of effort someone your age has put into this is admirable.

But let me help...

For starter, refer back to my previous post where I point out quite clearly that a statement that a given report was an honest presentation of the intelligence known at that time is in no way a statement in support of the actual veracity of the intelligence.

Which is to say, that an honest presentation was made, but that the underlying facts are in no way explicitly given credence.

I'll give you that but since the senate intel reported that it was accurate lends credence to the fact that it was true. If it wasn't, the Senate Report would've said as such.

Using your own intelligence people in military operations is not terrorism. The CIA and DIA were in early in both Afghanistan and Iraq. That does not equate to the US being "terorists"

I never said that this wasn't so Zeppistan. I just posted what the Intel and what the Senate Committee reported! I know that this conclusion didn't prove that he had terror ties and I never intended it as such.

"Might have intented" is interesting. Let's all play the guessing game! And I have always acknowledged and deplored Saddams ties to Palestinian Insurgent groups, however I do not consider them to be international terrorist organizations that threaten the US. They are specifically in revolt against Israeli occupation using abhorent tactics. The Israelis are not always much better.

The first part of the conclusion was found to be accurate. Hussein maintained ties to Palestian Terrorist Groups. That cannot be overturned. As for reaching out to other groups, yea it is a guessing game and one that cannot be discounted as facts but since nothing was conclusive, we'll never know but the fact that he might have been reaching out is enough. Doesn't prove he had terror ties but the first part does.

Again: an examination of facts being a "reasonable and objective approach" makes sense. It does not state what the veracity of the results of that examination was.

Your right it doesn't! I won't argue with you there. The fact however that the Senate said it was reasonable and objective, to me at anyrate, indicates that some training more than likely took place.

Nice of you to add that one! No formal relationship. rather shooting yourself in the foot here....

You can think that if you which but there isn't going to be a piece of paper announcing that they had formal ties. Yea they hated eachother but they also hate the US! Just because they didn't have formal ties, doesn't mean that they didn't have ties with eachother. Just the mere fact that they met on numerous occassions means that they had sometype of relationship otherwise, they wouldn't have met up.

Again, commenting that the tradecraft was a good idea. No comment on the conclusions.

Thanks for the compliment for me stating that the tradecraft was a good idea. As for conclusions, I just posted what they found. Yea it was problematic part of the report but the senate found it to be reasonably and objectively assessed, lends me to believe that it took place. That is in my opinion

Sure - it was reasonable. But was it correct in regards to Baghdad? It doesn't say does it? The pressence of the group under Kurdish control once again has no bearing on any complicity by Saddam. He had no influence on that region thanks to the no-fly zone.

Unfortunatly, that can be taken two ways. Operatives were in Baghdad and then moved to Kurdish controled area do have bearings on this. The Senate Report found it reasonable so this leads me to believe that this happened.

Once again, showing that the senate agrees that there was no complicity. But you argue that there "were ties"

It stated in an al-Qaeda attack. That doesn't mean that they didn't have ties. I think you confused yourself here because it states that Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaeda attack! I take this to mean that Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda terror attacks, which in my mind is accurate. Does this prove that they didn't have ties? NO!

Right - it was a reasonable possibiltiy that the CIA was correct to consider and point out. It never happened. Again, this only gives good marks to the CIA for doing decent analysis and covering bases. It can not be used as a statement of fact to support any ties to Al Qaeda, nor that Saddam ever considered this option.

But it also doesn't prove that they didn't have ties. Just because we don't know if he ever did this or not, doesn't make it false that they didn't have Ties. I will concede this that it doesn't prove that they did either but previous statements lend me to believe that they did.

Yes, the CIA sent out reports.

For once we agree -Z-. The CIA did send out reports regarding this.

We all agree that they do a lovely job at writing things up in well formatted pages, that they choose apropriate fonts, and that that their colour scheme is divine!

Now that we can agree on as well Zep! But yet the Senate found alot of what the CIA found to be accurate. Some yes they found to be overeggaserated and I applaud the Senate for pointing that out.

What does that have to do with supporting your case?

After stating what I've just said, how does it disprove it? Everything can go both ways but many analysts on Cable News, and I mean CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News believe that this proves the ties between Terror groups and al-Qaeda. Are you saying that they are wrong?


Look Formal, I have no doubt that the intelligence that Osama approached Saddam and that a couple of meetings took place is correct. But you extendign that to their bein "ties" is simply not supported. If Pablo Escobar had contacted the US and asked for a meeting to try and negotiate some things, the DEA would have met with him. That does not imply complicity with Pablo on the part of the US government, but rather the correct course of action to talk to bad people when they make the offer to see if you can't get a handle on their intentions.

And if you think that the US hasn't sat down with terrorist groups and insurgent groups in attempts to broker peace deals - you are deluding yourself. They have done it repeatedly with groups like the IRA, Hamas, and so on and so on.... are those "formal ties to terror" by the US?

No. of course not.

Pointing to Saddam doing the same damn thing with a major terrorist in his region and calling it "official ties" in a perjorative sense has not been supported by any intel that I have seen. IF you have it, I would like to see it - in which case I will concede that I was wrong in this case.

So far though, I agree with Colin Powell on this one.

-Z-

Yes we have talked about PEACE with these groups. However, Hamas is on the State Department's Terror list, as Was Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya(though that might or has already changed), and other nations. If Iraq is on the Terror list, doesn't that mean that they either 1) Supported terror or 2)committed acts of terror?

Also, it went beyond just chatting. Harboring terrorists and treating them. Giving them safehouses in Iraq. Does that sound like mere chatting? I don't think so. To me, this proves a relationship otherwise this wouldn't have taken place.

You still miss the point:

I'll give you that but since the senate intel reported that it was accurate lends credence to the fact that it was true. If it wasn't, the Senate Report would've said as such.

...


Your right it doesn't! I won't argue with you there. The fact however that the Senate said it was reasonable and objective, to me at anyrate, indicates that some training more than likely took place.


In both those cases the Senate only says that these were reasonable avenues of investigation to pursue. It passes NO judgement on the results of that investigation. Drawing a conclusion that it was worth investigating whether or not aliens landed at Roswell can not be viewed as a statement that little green men live in New Mexico.


You can think that if you which but there isn't going to be a piece of paper announcing that they had formal ties. Yea they hated eachother but they also hate the US! Just because they didn't have formal ties, doesn't mean that they didn't have ties with eachother. Just the mere fact that they met on numerous occassions means that they had sometype of relationship otherwise, they wouldn't have met up.


That is not a correct inference. The US routinely meets up with various Palestinian groups. Do they have a "relationship" that in any way could be construed as dangerous to world peace?

Because that is your implication. Saddam could only possibly have sent intelligence officers to meet up with Al Qaeda (at Osama's request by all reports I might add) for nefarious purposes. Not for self interest to see if he needed to worry about self-preservation.

You are welcome to draw your conculsions. I am welcome to disagree. This report does not come down on your side or mine, save that it is pretty clear that there was no formal ties between Saddam and Osama which kinda leans in my direction.

Thanks for the compliment for me stating that the tradecraft was a good idea. As for conclusions, I just posted what they found. Yea it was problematic part of the report but the senate found it to be reasonably and objectively assessed, lends me to believe that it took place. That is in my opinion

again mistaking viewing the procedure as correct with an inference that somethig happened. The Senate Intelligence Committee made no statement to support this wild inference you choose to draw. None.


Yes we have talked about PEACE with these groups. However, Hamas is on the State Department's Terror list, as Was Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya(though that might or has already changed), and other nations. If Iraq is on the Terror list, doesn't that mean that they either 1) Supported terror or 2)committed acts of terror?


So, after you calling the CIA liars and arguing that intel can go either way, you now are stating that it is infallible?

interesting.

Also, it went beyond just chatting. Harboring terrorists and treating them. Giving them safehouses in Iraq. Does that sound like mere chatting? I don't think so. To me, this proves a relationship otherwise this wouldn't have taken place.

well, that makes one of you.


This report does not "go both ways", and I am not trying to prove anything from it. YOU are. You stated that certain facts could undeniably be extracted from this report. That was the whole point of your thread - remember? I have proved you wrong on every single one of your counts, or at least pointed out enough rebuttal statements within that same report..

So don't be talking about ME having an agenda to try and use this report to bolster my argument. You started this thread. You stated that certain facts could be extracted from it. You have failed to do so.

Now you are waffling like a Kerry! lol.

Well, I must say that was an interesting read.

Well done Zeppistan :cool:

Its all how you interpret it Zep! I'm sorry if you don't see the merits that every damn political analyst on most of the shows say that i've viewed, if not on all shows, says that this report is mostly a victory for Bush!

This clears Bush of pressuring the CIA! This Clears Bush of lieing about WMD! Everyone agrees on that! Ok Except for the DNC Chairman and maybe a couple of Pundits. Even Kerry isn't attacking Bush on most of these issues! I will trust what the analysts on the shows I watch over you. They have more experience in these matters than you do because they've been there! They state that this proves the Terror Ties that Hussein had with Terrorist groups and most of the analysts agree that it proves that Iraq TRIED to buy yellowcake uranium, a clear violation of UN resolutions.

So whatever you think is your opinion. To me, I believe the analysts, both on TV and in the newspaper, on this issue.

Its all how you interpret it Zep! I'm sorry if you don't see the merits that every damn political analyst on most of the shows say that i've viewed, if not on all shows, says that this report is mostly a victory for Bush!


And they also say that they are awaiting the rest of the report that deals with how Bush and his team handled the information. This report deals with the intelligence gathering side.

This clears Bush of pressuring the CIA!

I already agreed on that point. And didn't care.

This Clears Bush of lieing about WMD! Everyone agrees on that! Ok Except for the DNC Chairman and maybe a couple of Pundits. Even Kerry isn't attacking Bush on most of these issues!


No, everybody does not agree on that. Everybody is waiting for the rest of the report. This report really does not delve into that issue. IT also clearly indicates that it would be incapable of passing varifiable judgemnt on this given that it does not know what the President knew. Look all the way to the back at pages like 501 where it states that the CIA refused to "provide any material written especially for the President" - most noteably his daily briefs.

So - did the CIA lie? The report actually gives pretty good reviews of it's methodolgy in a lot of areas. Including, as I mentioned, where it debunked the uranium claim in October of '02, and where the president's team was told of that and asked to pull it from speeches.

Did Bush lie?

How can we know if we can't be told what he knew?

How does this constitute "proof"?

I will trust what the analysts on the shows I watch over you. They have more experience in these matters than you do because they've been there!


Really? People like rush Limbaugh have spent time in the intelligence community? Perhaps you should watch interviews with respected members of that community like Admiral Turner who completely disagree with your assessment.


They state that this proves the Terror Ties that Hussein had with Terrorist groups


Palestinians - yes. Nobody ever denied that. However this war was supposed to be about terror organizations that threatened the US, and that were global in nature. Not a regional dispute that did not threaten the US. Remember?

Go back and read the state of the union address where the focus was on the gathering danger that saddam would either use the WMD that the US KNEW he had, or give it to terrorists who would use them against the US. It was a danger to the country, and so needed to be addressed.

Do you really think Congress would have approved a war against IRaq in order to stop him paying pensions to the families of suicide bombers in the West Bank?

Get real!

and most of the analysts agree that it proves that Iraq TRIED to buy yellowcake uranium, a clear violation of UN resolutions.


Actually, I have not heard ANYONE state this as fact anymore. Besides you. What I have heard is George Tenent apologize for this appearing in the State of the Union Address because it was incorrect. I already gave the link to that. I also have for you the link to the Meet the Press episode where Dr. Rice agrees that it turned out to be forged intelligence.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/973028.asp?cp1=1

Even the bush team is not claiming that point anymore, and after looking for over a day you have been unable to find any statement in this report that supports this assertion.

Does this not tell you something? And perhaps something about any pundit who still makes this claim?

The CIA has discounted it. Bush's team has discounted it. This report discounts it. The Butler Report in Britain discounts it.

IT NEVER HAPPENED!


So whatever you think is your opinion. To me, I believe the analysts, both on TV and in the newspaper, on this issue.


Sad. You note that the pundits are not in complete agreement. You read the document and cannot come up with a convincing argument on your own from the contents that supports your assertions, but you still want to believe the pundits that happen to support what you want to believe.

Aparently you are incapable of independantly verifying things with your own eyes.

You started this thread with several assertions.

That this report proved the CIA lied.
That this report proved that Wilson lied
That this report proved ties to Al Qaeda
That this report proved Saddam did in fact attemtp to purchase uranium.

You discount the 9-11 commission's evidence to the contrary on the al qaeda issue for no other reason than it goes against your thinking, and choose to accept an analysis of this report that claims to support your position even if you can't find it yourself in the text.

Indeed, you have actually changed your tune as on page one you stated that it proved ties to Al Qaeda. It doesn't. And now you just use the term Ties to Terror. Lame.

I'll have to retract my admiration for your willingness to take the time to read the report. Because you read it, you cannot derive from it an argument that supports your beliefs, so you reject your own inate common sense and decide that a subset of paid pundits who probably didn't bother to read the report that happen to espouse what you want to believe are correct, and that your own eyes and the other pundits are incorrect.

While I may disagree with your politics, I had at least hoped that I had found a truly open minded and inquisistive opponent.

I guess I was wrong.

Now I don't watch Fox.. but I assure you the pundits on CNN & MSNBC are not backing up Formals's assertions.. So, I'm not sure where she gets her info from unless this is what Fox is saying, which truly would not surprise me.

I think Formal is just trolling at this point Zepp. I say so cuz this question was esolved at the end of page two, page three has all been filler.

I think Formal is just trolling at this point Zepp. I say so cuz this question was esolved at the end of page two, page three has all been filler.

Well I have come to the conclusion that if she did indeed read the report.. she did not understand it at all. To read some thing doesn't mean she comprehends it.. which is obvious in her assertions.

so... FormalDances&bros,

you have one congress "report" saying that it was Iraq's fault (or at least you think it says that)...and you have another Congress "comission" that says it was Iran's fault...

You know what?...I dont care what all those "congress"l and "intelligence" reports mean to you...

Cos lately...to me...they dont mean much...

smoke and mirriors...seen trough a foggy window (CNN/FOX)

...fair and balanced...my azz :D

Really? People like rush Limbaugh have spent time in the intelligence community? Perhaps you should watch interviews with respected members of that community like Admiral Turner who completely disagree with your assessment.

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh! I'm talking about former CIA people that actually served in the CIA that have been interviewed. They and those on the Political Ramifications like Dick Morris have said that this clears Bush of lieing on WMD as well as Pressuring the CIA! It also clears Bush on the Terrorism charge which as also been stated a few times. They agree that this report shows that Iraq did support terror as well as train al Qaeda members in non-conventional warfare. Now again, back to my question! Are they wrong in this assessment?

Now I don't watch Fox.. but I assure you the pundits on CNN & MSNBC are not backing up Formals's assertions.. So, I'm not sure where she gets her info from unless this is what Fox is saying, which truly would not surprise me.

Most have Steph! Scaurborough, MSNBC, questioned people on this point and they agree with the report that WMD was eggasterated, Hussein had terror ties to 1) palestinian terror groups (just as bad) and 2) al Qaeda (Which is worse), agreed that Iraq did try to buy Uranium, stated in the Bulter report and by the French Intel Service who gave it to the Brits who inturned gave it to us.

so... FormalDances&bros,

you have one congress "report" saying that it was Iraq's fault (or at least you think it says that)...and you have another Congress "comission" that says it was Iran's fault...

You know what?...I dont care what all those "congress"l and "intelligence" reports mean to you...

Cos lately...to me...they dont mean much...

smoke and mirriors...seen trough a foggy window (CNN/FOX)

...fair and balanced...my azz :D

Iran had no DIRECT LINK to 9/11 according to what was linked. The said leakage also clears Bush! The said leak said he couldn't have stopped it even if he wanted too.

Well I have come to the conclusion that if she did indeed read the report.. she did not understand it at all. To read some thing doesn't mean she comprehends it.. which is obvious in her assertions.

I do understand the report steph, just because you and your husband don't like what it says, that doesn't mean its false. It is true.

1) CIA eggasterated the WMD charge.

2) Hussein tried to buy Uranium

3) Hussein Supported regional Terror as well as al Qaeda

4) Absolves Bush of lieing!

Since it appears that the Liberals on here don't care about the truth stated in this report, I hereby declare this thread dead and out!

I don't have time to debate today Formal - busy at work, however I should point out some lines that I am sure you noticed - since after all you read the document
:


From Page 490:


Bad intelligence and bad policy decisions are not mutually exclusive - that is, both can exist simultaneously yet quite independant of each other in the same situation. This is true of the US march to war against Iraq. The Bush Administration used the Intelligenc Community's poor intelligence on Iraq's WMD programs to support it's decision to go to war, but just as the Intelligence Community's conclusions were more definte that the information warranted, the urgency expressed by Bush and members of his administration was unsupported even by the faulty intelligence. The Bush Administration compounded the failure of the Intelligence Community by exaggerating the Community's conclusions to the public - an inappropriate course of action that could have occured even had the intelligence been sound.

The Committee's second phase of it's review will hopefully delve more deeply into this issue and detail how policymakers public statements on Iraq's threat to the US did not match the classified intelligence analysis.



Which is to say, it is clear that what the Administration said did not match the intelligence they were given, however this report has not really looked at that yet.

Why?

Because as is noted on page 476

The focal point of the Committee's work and the subject matter of the committee's report was the process - including review by senior members of the Intelligence Community - that led to the publication of the NEI on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in October of '02

You see - this report is not intended to support conclusions such as you (and others) keep trying to insist it does. Soemtimes it makes pointed conclusions on the final evidenc, but in almost all cases it just rates the PROCESS. I kept trying to point that out to you where your "conclusions" were just ratings on whether the Intelligence Community had looked at the right things, but not usually whether the underlying facts and sources were correct.


However, if you need another summary point by one of the members on what he feels happened,

From page 488:

The Senate vote on the resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq was dificult and consequential based on hours of intelligence briefings from Administration and Intelligence officials, as well as on classified and unclassified versions of the NIE. IT was based on our trust that this intelligence was the best our nation's intelligence services could offer, untainted by bias and fairly presented. It WASN'T.


Now, you have changed your tune from where you started with your claims of proven ties to actually purchasing uranium. Proven ties to Al Qaeda. And proving that the administration did not lie. You have already backpedalled on most of those.

Please consider the words noted in the comments by the committee members at the back of the report. They show the limited scope of this report, and their unease with how the members view both the administration and the Intelligence Community's handling of the intelligence.

Needless to say, it is split down party lines - which should also give you some indication on why we view reports by people still in office as more suspect than a truly independant panel such as the 9-11 Commission.

But clearly this is an incomplete document. And as we have discovered you are unable to extract the "proof" from this document that you claim it contains.


Perhaps that should tell you something about the partisan pundits you choose to believe, as opposed to those of us who treat all with equal skepticism adn do our own research to verify things. You will note that I have not gone so far as to try and use this report as a partisan foot ball and claim that it is a new Bible filled with facts. I mostly only refuted your attempt to do this. The only thing it did for me was to add to my suspocions about how the Uranium claims got back into the State of the Union address against all of the better judgement and prior warnings about that intel.

But I can't prove anything on that issue from the contents herein so I won't try. But it sure smells bad with the items noted here.


-Z-

Apparently - I not only don't ahve time to debate, I also don;t have time to spell check. lol.


Ah well, c'est la vie.

Later.

-Z-

And as a final note for today.... please don't challenge me to read any more 500 page reports this week.

Because I'm stubborn and I will!


And one was enough for this month...



lol

1) CIA eggasterated the WMD charge.


I couldn't find eggasterated in the dictionary, maybe because it's Oxford and not Webster's; but I guess you tried to say exagerated or something similar. In which case, it is true, the reports on WMDs were exagerated.


2) Hussein tried to buy Uranium


No, it doesn't say that. It says that it is reasonable to think that Saddam wanted to buy uranium (just as it is reasonable to think that Bush wants to rig the coming election) but there was no evidence that he actually did or tried.


3) Hussein Supported regional Terror as well as al Qaeda


Regional terrorist groups, yes; al Qaeda, no. Was it reasonable to think he might have had ties to al Qaeda, yes. Did he actually? No.


4) Absolves Bush of lieing!


Now you are getting ahead of everybody else. The report doesn't say that Bush lied, but it doesn't say he didn't lie. That's going to be the subject for the second report, coming out after the election (wonder why).


Since it appears that the Liberals on here don't care about the truth stated in this report, I hereby declare this thread dead and out!

Tipical fanatic reaction.

I couldn't find eggasterated in the dictionary, maybe because it's Oxford and not Webster's; but I guess you tried to say exagerated or something similar. In which case, it is true, the reports on WMDs were exagerated.

So excuse my spelling!

No, it doesn't say that. It says that it is reasonable to think that Saddam wanted to buy uranium (just as it is reasonable to think that Bush wants to rig the coming election) but there was no evidence that he actually did or tried.

It says well founded as well as reasonable. Thus in the intelligence community, it normally means its accurate. As such, he did try to buy uranium! A fact backed up by the Butler Report, and no, it didn't debunked the attempted uranium purchase! The Italians back up the Uranium Buying charge as do the French! Also, Niger admitted the fact that an Iraqi delegation came to Niger to buy it. The 9/11 report mentions this too. Three reports, 4 nations plus Niger all say he did. Odds are that he did!

Regional terrorist groups, yes; al Qaeda, no. Was it reasonable to think he might have had ties to al Qaeda, yes. Did he actually? No.

Prove that he didn't have it. According to the SSCI, they found it reasonable and well founded that he had ties with al Qaeda. They also found it reasonable and well founded that he trained them in non-conventional warfare. If this wasn't true, the SSCI would have said as such since they know how to interpret the intelligence. I'll believe them not you.

Now you are getting ahead of everybody else. The report doesn't say that Bush lied, but it doesn't say he didn't lie. That's going to be the subject for the second report, coming out after the election (wonder why).

It cleared him of lieing about WMD and of pressuring the CIA into interpreting the Intel to make a case for the Iraqi War. That is what this report did.

Tipical fanatic reaction.

And that is Typical not tipical.

Why you puttin so much faith in this report?

So excuse my spelling!

No, I really thought eggasterated might be a word, honest. After all I'm not the greatest speller in the world.



It says well founded as well as reasonable. Thus in the intelligence community, it normally means its accurate. As such, he did try to buy uranium! A fact backed up by the Butler Report, and no, it didn't debunked the attempted uranium purchase! The Italians back up the Uranium Buying charge as do the French! Also, Niger admitted the fact that an Iraqi delegation came to Niger to buy it. The 9/11 report mentions this too. Three reports, 4 nations plus Niger all say he did. Odds are that he did!


No, it says the *belief* that he may try to buy uranium was well founded. There is a difference between believing he may try to buy uranium and having evidence suggesting that he actually tried it.


Prove that he didn't have it. According to the SSCI, they found it reasonable and well founded that he had ties with al Qaeda. They also found it reasonable and well founded that he trained them in non-conventional warfare. If this wasn't true, the SSCI would have said as such since they know how to interpret the intelligence. I'll believe them not you.


Again, the belief was reasonable, but no evidence was found that there were actually any links. To conclude that there were ties because no proof was found that there weren't is a logical fallacy, that's why you must prove that somehing exists. So the intelligence community had a well founded reason to investigate ties between the Iraqi government an al-Qaeda, but they found none. Biiiig difference, especially when trying to justify a war.


It cleared him of lieing about WMD and of pressuring the CIA into interpreting the Intel to make a case for the Iraqi War. That is what this report did.


It cleared him of pressuring the CIA, that much is true, but it doesn't make any comments on whether the president used all the intelligence at his disposal, what exactly did he know and why he chose to use it as he did, especially when it comes to WMDs. Remember, that's going to be in the second part of the report.

They will probably find he didn't lie, after all this is a bipartisan report and they won't step on each other tails, but they can still find decisions that are questionable in light of available evidence at the time.


And that is Typical not tipical.

True!

oh but conservatives are usually Christian and belief is more important than facts.