Compare and Contrast

However, there have been reports that they did tell the White House.

Still waiting on proof.

Their offices knew.

And again, still waiting on proof.

I don''t think I''ll let this one go. You entire argument is predicated in these two assertions. So let''s have your source.

Not that is matters. Absolute worst case, the Administration took suspect information (remember, the Niger documents weren''t shown to be forgeries until after the SOTU) and used it to bolster a case that Iraq was developing WMD''s. And Iraq was. I''ve never heard you dispute this fact. Please state now if you think that Saddam was not planning on continuing his nuclear program.

There''s a lot of false information out there. Remember the tens of thousands of antiquities looted? Oops, turns out it was less than 50 pieces. Should we be getting false information from our leaders? Of course not. But democrats lie constantly about issues of race, hunger, poverty, and the economy. They do it to garner votes and gain personal power. George Bush may have had a detail wrong, but was absolutely correct in his overall case about Iraq. Good enough for me.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Here''s the most revealing thing in your entire post and one that which nobody here has answered. IF EVEN THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD DOUBTS ABOUT IT, WHY WAS IT MENTIONED IN THE STATE OF THE UNION?

I believe ralcydan covered this: Cheney had doubts after the State of the Union address.

If you look at the size of the facilities that the U.S. used in support of its atomic weapons program through the mid-fifties, you''ll see that while they are large, they are not monstrous.

They''d still be obvious to American spy satellites.

But you weren''t talking about American spy satellites -- you were talking about civilian satellites.

Big difference.

And the old sites were; otherwise Ilan Ramon and his flight of Israeli fighters wouldn''t have had anything to bomb in the early ''80s, nor would American forces during Desert Storm.

Osirak was a known facility. Like Hoover Dam or the FBI Building in downtown D.C. The French built it, its existence was not a secret.

You don''t need satellite photos for navigation. Just a map and a compass (or a GPS).

But given the current outcry over North Korea and Iran''s nuclear program, would it not have been reasonable to assume that the US, with its dozens of satellites and constant aircraft overflights, would have noticed something going on in regards to nuclear weapons?

About as reasonable as assuming that if the U.S. intelligence community believes there are WMDs in Iraq, they must have noticed something.

I mean, come on. You can''t have it both ways: CIA, NSA and DIA can''t be so incompetent as to totally miss the mark on WMDs and still be so whiz-bang smart that they can smell a North Korean nuke half a world away.

Only one person can be so simultanteously brilliant and naiive at once, and that''s apparently Hillary Clinton, based upon her book.

What are the chances that the list is complete?

Fairly complete, I''d say. The facilities used here were all large, industrial buildings, not Winnebagoes of Death and not holes in the desert. A nuclear program isn''t something that is that easily concealed.

Ok, and you base this upon...what? What you would like to believe?

Fair is fair, after all. If you''re going to quibble about my sources:

If you''re trying to convince me, please try using sources that aren''t biased.

...then at least afford me the common courtesy of citing some sources at all when you make such assumptions.

And the fact they had a minor uranium mining operation going brings up an interesting point. If they could mine the stuff themselves, why would they bother going to Africa to buy it?

Why do we rely on the Middle East for so much oil if we have some in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska?

Simple: cost. While Iraq may have uranium deposits, they may not be as rich or high-quality as those found elsewhere. In Africa, labor may be cheaper, or the quality of material make make processing less expensive, or both.

Local uranium mining probably took place as a backup plan in the event that foreign sources of uranium disappeared.

That is just a guess, but it''s at least as valid an assumption as others presented in this thread.

a) John Q. Public is not an imagery analyst and b) commercial imagery does not yet provide the level of detail required to do such analysis.

You could try looking here.
...
I wouldn''t call Global Security.org ""John Q. Public.""

No, but I wouldn''t put them in the same league as imagery analysts employed by the United States government. I''m sure GlobalSecurity.org has some ex-government analysts working for them, as well as some smart folks who never have been employed outside of the private sector.

That said, they still don''t have the resources available to them: be it raw data, processing equipment, or additional intelligence to fuse with the imagery to provide a more complete picture of what is going on.

If you''re trying to convince me, please try using sources that aren''t biased. I doubt the Rumsfeld-led DoD would dare put out a report that wouldn''t support their position. And report that is ultimately attributed to a reporter for a right-wing Israeli newspaper is hardly impartial.

Soooo...everything the DoD puts out must be propaganda? We cannot believe anything they say?

The second link in question was to a publication in the Phillipines, which passed on a news item by Agence France-Presse. If you''re going to scoff at the original source of the report, then you should scoff at the French and Philipino press for passing on that information!

If nothing else, if you are going to call my sources into question, try and provide some rationale as to why. Merely dismissing reports due to the possible politics of their source is as narrow-minded as dismissing the words of a politician just because you disagree with their politics....something I believe which has been brought up in this forum previously, under another topic.

And, quite honestly Rat Boy, I''m not trying to convince you. Your posts here clearly indicate that you a) hate George Bush, b) hate Republicans, c) dislike everybody in the current Administration and upper echelons of the Government and d) consider both to be nothing but liars and frauds worth nothing else than your utter contempt.

In short, you have demonstrated an unwavering devotion to bashing all that is Bush, uncritically acceptive of anti-American and anti-Bush sources of information, and undeniably inflexible when it comes to other points of view.

I consider my role here to be that of ""equal time"", to counter the endless parade of posts both you and Mex make about the stories of the day which all could be summarized simply with ""BUSH IS EVIL!""

*shrug*

I''m now off on a tangent and I would prefer to keep this civil, but I''m calling it as I see it. Some of us consider this a debate, others seem to consider it a holy war.

"Rantage" wrote:

I believe ralcydan covered this: Cheney had doubts after the State of the Union address.

Why did it take six months for it to be commented on if an official explanation could be offered up so easily.

But you weren''t talking about American spy satellites -- you were talking about civilian satellites.

Big difference.

Needless to say, a facility that size could be seen from orbit by a civilian satellite. Surf the links I provided for you for some nice pictures of the nuclear processing facilities in North Korea.

Osirak was a known facility. Like Hoover Dam or the FBI Building in downtown D.C. The French built it, its existence was not a secret.

Neither were the sites in your links or mine. All are in the public record.

You don''t need satellite photos for navigation. Just a map and a compass (or a GPS).

But you do need photography for target recognition, especially in crowded urban areas, such as several facilities destroyed in Deserts Storm and Fox.

About as reasonable as assuming that if the U.S. intelligence community believes there are WMDs in Iraq, they must have noticed something.

Obviously they didn''t, otherwise we''d have that Mirage fighter that could supposedly spray chemical weapons like a crop duster in our possession.

I mean, come on. You can''t have it both ways: CIA, NSA and DIA can''t be so incompetent as to totally miss the mark on WMDs and still be so whiz-bang smart that they can smell a North Korean nuke half a world away.

Again, they obviously did. The US knows exactly where the North Koreans are producing these weapons; Clinton Administration officials admitted they had Air Tasking Orders all drawn up for a massive air campaign against the DPRK in the mid-90s.

Only one person can be so simultanteously brilliant and naiive at once, and that''s apparently Hillary Clinton, based upon her book. :lol:

Hillary Clinton is the worst person since Alger Hiss to call herself a Democrat. The party would be better off without her.

Ok, and you base this upon...what? What you would like to believe?

I''d like to believe that this war was justified. I''d like to think that 200 people died for their country''s safety and protection. I''d like to think I and my family are safer because of this campaign. Unfortunately, recent developments don''t make think so.

[quote]Simple: cost. While Iraq may have uranium deposits, they may not be as rich or high-quality as those found elsewhere. In Africa, labor may be cheaper, or the quality of material make make processing less expensive, or both.

Local uranium mining probably took place as a backup plan in the event that foreign sources of uranium disappeared.

That is just a guess, but it''s at least as valid an assumption as others presented in this thread.[quote]

Not logical, given that the web sites you and I cited all said that these mines were heavily used in uranium mining. It would be easier, and less obvious to the international community, to mine their own uranium rather than go outside the country and get it. And obviously they didn''t.

No, but I wouldn''t put them in the same league as imagery analysts employed by the United States government. I''m sure GlobalSecurity.org has some ex-government analysts working for them, as well as some smart folks who never have been employed outside of the private sector.

That said, they still don''t have the resources available to them: be it raw data, processing equipment, or additional intelligence to fuse with the imagery to provide a more complete picture of what is going on.

I''ll refer you to their About page. That being said, why is it with all these intelligence gathering tools that the US couldn''t find any concrete proof of WMDs? Sure, they might have found existence of a current program, but it could have easily been leftover from before the Gulf War.

Soooo...everything the DoD puts out must be propaganda? We cannot believe anything they say?

These are the same people being accused of not telling the truth to the US public; it is assinine to believe one thing they said and dismiss another as a lie.

I also call their report into question after reading this. You''ll need to pay to see the whole article, but it goes on to describe how Donald Rumsfeld, unsatisfied with what the CIA had discovered, created his own intelligence analysis group within the Pentagon to find the evidence he was looking for. Don''t you find something inherently wrong with an intelligence group with a mandate to seek out only what will help their cause rather than the truth?

The second link in question was to a publication in the Phillipines, which passed on a news item by Agence France-Presse. If you''re going to scoff at the original source of the report, then you should scoff at the French and Philipino press for passing on that information!

But, in the end, it all goes back to the one reporter from the right-wing Israeli paper. Then there''s the fact the report never got commented on elsewhere, but I''ll save that for...

If nothing else, if you are going to call my sources into question, try and provide some rationale as to why. Merely dismissing reports due to the possible politics of their source is as narrow-minded as dismissing the words of a politician just because you disagree with their politics....something I believe which has been brought up in this forum previously, under another topic.

I''ve already described why we can''t rely on your first report. If you could provide a similar link from a completely independent organization with the exact same conclusion, I''d be glad to read it. As for the second, I''ve also described why we shouldn''t regard it. This site that it mentioned has never, ever been mentioned outside of those reports nor has it ever come up in any CENTCOM, Pentagon, or White House briefing. There are a lot of red-herring reports during war; this is just one of them.

And, quite honestly Rat Boy, I''m not trying to convince you. Your posts here clearly indicate that you a) hate George Bush, b) hate Republicans, c) dislike everybody in the current Administration and upper echelons of the Government and d) consider both to be nothing but liars and frauds worth nothing else than your utter contempt.

In short, you have demonstrated an unwavering devotion to bashing all that is Bush, uncritically acceptive of anti-American and anti-Bush sources of information, and undeniably inflexible when it comes to other points of view.

I consider my role here to be that of ""equal time"", to counter the endless parade of posts both you and Mex make about the stories of the day which all could be summarized simply with ""BUSH IS EVIL!""

You know, I''m finally sick and tired of people assuming that because I don''t like this aspect of the current Republican presidency, I must be some liberal whacko out to destroy America. Let me outline where I stand:

* I support the military. I also support spending increases to replace aging weapons technology and pay increases to personnel. I have supported a local organization of mothers who''s children are currently serving overseas in Iraq with no word on when or if they''ll come home. I don''t support the current missle defense system; more research is needed to make it a viable defense against nuclear missles.

* I support some aspects of the Republican stimulus package, specifically towards small businesses. I don''t support tax cuts that only benefit the wealthy and large corporations.

* I support a policy of laissez faire in regards to the markets, but not if criminal acts are being conducted.

* I support the ban on partial birth/late-term abortions. However, the entire concept of abortions should not be decided by men; it is a woman''s choice whether or not to ban it.

* I am a firm believer in the Second Amendmant and own several firearms. However, I don''t believe private citizens have the right to own military weapons. If they want them, they can join the Army.

* I support the ban on human cloning. Such science is beyond what God/Nature intended and I frankly don''t believe humanity right now has the wisdom to utilize it properly.

* I believe what Bill Clinton did five years ago was wrong, DEAD wrong. He not only hurt several women, he also hurt his family, which is completely unforgiveable in my Catholic eyes. He also betrayed the trust of the American people and got exactly what was coming to him.

* I have voted for or wanted to vote for Republican candidates for political office. I voted for Dan Lungren to be California governor in 1998. I voted for John McCain to be president in 2000. I would have voted for Dick Riordan to be governor last year had he stuck around and I will vote for any other candidate other than Gray Davis in the recall election as it will no doubt happen.

* I support the president''s plan for aid to Africa, however I think the US could afford to spend a bit more. I also think the Administration could make it possible for generic AIDS drugs to be made so that Africans suffering from that plague could have access to affordable medicine.

* I support sending peace keepers to Liberia. This will go a long way to repairing the US''s image across the world by helping to end human bloodshed in that country. I only wished that the Administration would have been willing to something, anything, to end the killings in the Congo. Or Rwanda, for that matter.

* I support Colin Powell. He is perhaps the best thing to happen to the Republican Party since Abe Lincoln vowed to keep the US whole. If he had one flaw, it is that he is too humble to seek higher office. He would have easily defeated Gore in 2000 and might have been able to defeat Clinton in 1996. Unfortunately, he''s fallen victim to factions within the Administration that either don''t like him or don''t support his position on world affairs. I genuinely fear that these factions will drive him out of his current office, and this would probably be the worst thing to happen to the Republican Party in a long time.

* I supported the concept of removing Saddam Hussein from power. This man executed more people in his reign than all the states of the Union combined in the same time period. He used chemical weapons against the Iranians. He used them against the Kurds. He might have used them in the first Gulf War, at least that was the theory. He sponsored an assassination plot against George H.W. Bush. He has sent funds to Palestinian suicide bombers. However, he was not behind 9-11, nor was ever involved with al-Qaeda and Osama bin Ladin. Simply put, both monsters hated each other with a passion. Bin Ladin considered Saddam to be a Stalinist infidel. Saddam considered bin Ladin to be a religious zealot and a threat to his position. I do not agree that going to war with Iraq was a component in the War on Terror. I do not believe that the Iraqis had an active nuclear weapons program. I do not believe that an already ailing army was a threat to the stability of the Middle East. I finally do not believe that if he had any WMDs left after air strikes and inspections that they were much of a threat to the US. The causus belli for this war was not just, in my opinion. However, when American lives were on the line in combat, I supported the quick and victorious resolution to the conflict. Do the ends justifiy the means here? That all depends on what the means really were.

* I do not support any effort to curtail the homosexual lifestyle, and I strenuously oppose Senator Bill Frist''s attempt to place a Constitutional ban on gay marriages. These matters should be left to the states, but I also think no church or religious groups should be forced to recognize a legally-recognized homosexual marriage.

* I oppose John Ashcroft. His personal views on topics do not fall in line with the current national beliefs. His PATRIOT Act is an affront to our democracy. As Ben Franklin said, ""Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."" If the price of my safety is my freedom, then my safety just isn''t worth the cost.

* I oppose this new, politically active Hollywood. Although they have a right to have an opinion and should NOT be black-listed for it, it''s a rather tiring display. I frankly get sick of these people who seem to not be only against the Administration (nothing wrong with that), but with America as well. It''s no wonder you see American celebrities moving out of the country.

* I oppose massive ""peace"" demonstrations that do nothing but cause mischief and crime. Stopping traffic and smashing storefronts is not civil disobedience or discourse.

* I opposed the so-called ""Axis of Weasel,"" especially after they refused to help in Iraq following the toppling of the Ba''ath Regime. If their goals were truly so noble, they would''ve contributed to the welfare of the Iraqi people without hesitation.

* I strongly oppose Donald Rumsfeld. He seems to me to be the next Robert McNamara; a steely-eyed intellectual who thinks he knows better than his military subordinates. Take the allegations laid out in an article or two which said that Rumsfeld ignored advice from several generals to commit more ground troops to the war, saying that Rumsfeld wanted to prove that such a war could be fought with less troops. I find that attitude astonishing. The reason you fight a war is to win. Holding back like that is dangerous and can result in many deaths. And perhaps it did. There is also the report from Bob Woodward''s Bush at War that on September 12, 2001, Rumsfeld suggested that the US should attack Iraq as the first military action after 9-11. That is so horribly wrong it makes you wonder about his integrity.

* I also strongly oppose Rumsfeld''s subordinate, Paul Wolfowitz for the same reasons, but also because he seemed to have an unhealthy obssession with how the Gulf War ended. He thought that the US should have continued to drive to Baghdad, Coalition be damned. That would have been a reckless act and it would have completely turned the region upside down needlessly. I agree that Saddam should have been removed from power, but not like that. Nor like how he was removed now (more specifically, the reason why he was removed).

* I oppose Dick Cheney, for many of the reasons I oppose Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. I question his integrity in awarding the rebuilding contracts in Iraq to his old company, Haliburton, which he still holds stake in, although he can''t touch it until he leaves office. I also question his integrity in regards to the sealing of documents relating to meetings he held with key industry leaders to discuss an energy policy. Not only could it relate to energy policy as it relates to California (and as a citizen of that state, I''d like to know if his actions have needlessly costed my family and I money) but also to this nation''s foreign policy. I am disquieted by reports that while he ran Haliburton, he negotiated to build a pipeline in Afghanistan with the Taliban, an acknowledge human rights abuser and harborer of the 9-11 terrorists and their leadership.

* More and more, I oppose George W. Bush. Leaving aside the misgivings I had for him in early 2000, his actions months after 9-11 worry me. Before even considering the will of the American people or the international community, he proclaimed ""f*ck Saddam, we''re taking him out"" in March of 2002. He has increasingly ignored the advice of what are perhaps his best advisors in favor of some of his worst advisors. His flippantness and candor aren''t called for in his current line of work, with his recent ""Bring it on"" being the worst example of word choice in recent memory. This latest scandal is symptomatic of a larger problem, one that will hopefully be revealed sooner rather than in a tell-all book 20 years from now. If getting him out of office means losing someone like Colin Powell, then so be it. It''s not like Powell was exerting much influence over the president these days.

This is where I stand. If need be, I''ll repost this again if I ever get accused of being a whacko, anti-Republican liberal ever again.

Thanks Koesj. I appreciate the lesson. I probably could have looked it up myself, but thanks for taking my outrageous statement and actually turning it into something constructive.

And Ratboy, you pointed out my all-time favorite political phrase: ""plausible deniability"". I just love the sound of it. It has so many applications in every day life.

""Do you know how fast you were going?"" ""Why no officer, I didn''t.""
""Where did you get that lipstick stain?"" ""What lipstick stain?""
""Why do you have so many 1''s and a Gold Club matchbox in your pocket?"" ""My brother must have borrowed my pants""

Good times...good times.

I love how threads like these deteriorate into pseudo-public trials and calls on patriotical questionability and partisan rivalry. Where are the discussions on fundamental issues, questions like whether a president should be allowed to lie in public or how the intrusion of politics in intelligence gathering can mess up priorities. Most of these questions do not involve partisan politics, therefore, statements like ''Tenet fubar''ed cause he is a Clinton appointee'' strike me as total BS. There are bigger and more fundamental issues at stake here than politics, it''s called national security. How do you properly deploy your security assets in order to make the world a safer place? Where does the strategy of pre-emptive operations end? How far can an administration go in pursuit of total security? Even I as a non-American have great concern over these questions as they do not only affect the daily life of US citizens but also the future I and my children will have to live through. Today''s political situation will make a hell of a smaller difference in the long run compared to a nuclear North Korea or tumultous a Middle East. Partisan politics should not interfere with the fundamental questions at stake.

Just a comment, but the press in Mexico is saying outright that the CIA knew for sure that Saddam didn''t have nuclear weapons.

http://canales.t1msn.com.mx/noticias...

This is an article from Proceso, probably the most respected political magazine in the country. They''ve unraveled a lot of frauds by mexican politicians, child prostitution rings and so on.

----
(I just heard a bit by Bill Hicks, about the first gulf war.
""We KNOW they have weapons of mass destruction!""
""Uhh... how do you know?""
""Well... we looked at the receipts..."")

I don''t speak or read Spanish, so I''ll take your word for it. However, no one ever said we thought Saddam had nuclear weapons. We said he was trying to get them.

In October 2002, the Intelligence Community (IC) produced a classified, 90 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's WMD programs. There is a lengthy section in which most agencies of the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. - George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence, July 11, 2003

Does the fact that he was mining uranium, potentially looking for international sources, and hiding the documents and components of his program for later use not convince you of this? If you absolutely believe that Saddam would not try to obtain a nuclear weapon, and that he wasn''t planning on doing so in the future, I would love to hear your reasoning.

* The head of Iraq's pre-1991 centrifuge uranium enrichment program, Dr. Mahdi Shukur Ubaydi, approached U.S. officials in Baghdad and turned over a volume of centrifuge documents and components he had hidden in his garden from inspectors since 1991. Dr. Ubaydi said he was interviewed by IAEA inspectors - most recently in 2002 - but did not reveal any of this.

* Dr. Ubaydi told us that these items, blue prints and key centrifuge pieces, represented a complete template for what would be needed to rebuild a centrifuge uranium enrichment program. He also claimed this concealment was part of a secret, high-level plan to reconstitute the nuclear weapons program once sanctions ended. - From ""CIA Statement on Recently Acquired Iraqi Centrifuge Equipment""

Everyone keeps saying, ""Where are the WMD''s?"" It''s only been 3 months, but this one undisputed find alone shows that Saddam was lying to the inspectors and the world. We found nuclear centrifuge equipment and documents from his earlier nuclear weapons program - a program he was required to destroy. Iraq unequivocably stated that they had no WMD''s or WMD programs. Instead they were hidden for later.

Oh, and Rat Boy:

However, there have been reports that they did tell the White House.

Still waiting on proof.

Their offices knew.

And again, still waiting on proof.

As I stated above, your entire argument is predicated in these two assertions. So let''s have your source.

Before the speech, the crucial conversations between the C.I.A and White House over whether to include the African reference in the State of the Union address were held between Robert G. Joseph, a nuclear proliferation expert at the National Security Council, and Alan Foley, a proliferation expert at the C.I.A., according to government officials.

There is still a dispute over what exactly was said in their conversations. Mr. Foley was said to recall that before the speech, Mr. Joseph called him to ask about putting into the speech a reference to reports that Iraq was trying to buy hundreds of tons of yellowcake from Niger. Mr. Foley replied that the C.I.A. was not sure that the information was right.

Mr. Joseph then came back to Mr. Foley and pointed out that the British had already included the information in a report. Mr. Foley said yes, but noted that the C.I.A. had told the British that they were not sure that the information was correct. Mr. Joseph then asked whether it was accurate that the British reported the information. Mr. Foley said yes.

Source here.

Tenet said CIA officials approved the speech because it was "factually correct" that the British report said Iraq sought uranium from Africa, without taking into account the agency's own serious doubts that the British report was accurate.
"This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address," Tenet said. "This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed."

Source here

Contrast Tenet''s statement with this...

The CIA tried unsuccessfully in early September 2002 to persuade the British government to drop from an official intelligence paper a reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa that President Bush included in his State of the Union address four months later, senior Bush administration officials said yesterday.

And this...

"WE CONSULTED about the paper and recommended against using that material," a senior administration official familiar with the intelligence program said. The British government rejected the U.S. suggestion, saying it had separate intelligence unavailable to the United States.
At that time, the CIA was completing its own classified national intelligence estimate on Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Although the CIA paper mentioned alleged Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from three African countries, it warned that State Department analysts were questioning its accuracy when it came to Niger and that CIA personnel considered reports on other African countries to be "sketchy," the official said.
The CIA paper's summary conclusions about whether Iraq was restarting its nuclear weapons program did not include references to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa.

Both from here.

The CIA had its doubts about the British report and did not include it in their assessment. Still, mention of it ended up in the president''s speech.

Joseph Wilson 4th''s op-ed piece mentions his expressing doubts about the accusations in March of 2002 and that these doubts ""were circulated not only within the agency but also at the State Department and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney."" I find it hard to believe that it went into the Vice President''s office and kept quiet. Obviously it got to Colin Powell, since he didn''t bring it up at the UN in February.

George Tenet confirmed in yesterday''s statment ""that the Wilson findings had been given wide distribution, although he reported that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and other high officials had not been directly informed about them by the C.I.A."" I find it hard to believe that something that circulated was sat on and buried by one junior official. These objections would have had to have been seen by at least NSA Condoleeza Rice.

Sources for both quotes here. Yes, it is an op-ed piece, but one based on factual statments by both men.

As mentioned above, the nuclear proliferation expert for the National Security Council and a CIA official took part in a discussion over the intelligence before the SotU. They agreed to cite the British report since it was ""factually"" accurate to say that the British had the intelligence, despite the doubts that the CIA had over that intel in September of 2002, six months after Wilson went to Niger. And yet it still went in.

Aren''t you all seeing something wrong here? I can''t believe a rational person would dismiss this as an honest mistake, given how widely distributed Mr. Wilson''s doubts were and the reservations the CIA expressed in 2002 to British intelligence over the very same report that President Bush citied three months later. Why was this line about yellow cake left in? What purpose would it serve to cite something that no one in your intelligence agencies trusted? This is shocking and it is disturbing, especially when it implies that someone or a group of someones were willing to let a falsehood like that be asserted by the President of the United States. This is only the beginning of what will be discovered, especially since some members of the Senate Intelligence Committee want a full review of ALL the intel used to justify the war in Iraq. If I were the president, I''d start to worry, especially when you take into consideration declining poll numbers from the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll (Poll data here, including original questions; English translatation here). Here are the highlights:

* Bush''s job approval rating is 59%, down 9 points over the last two weeks

* 52% of those polled view current American casulties as ""unacceptable""

* 70% support keeping troops in Iraq

* 57% view the war in Iraq as justified, down 7 from last poll

* 50% of Americans believe the president intentionally exagerated WMD intelligence; 46% do not. It should be noted that the question was asked BEFORE the recent uranium scandal reached a head.

* 80% fear that the US will get ""bogged down"" in an extended peace keeping mission in Iraq

* 60% feal the war damaged the US''s image overseas

* 50% said feal the war damaged relations with France, Germany, and other nations opposed to the war

* Numbers ran 50-50 as to whether or not the war damaged relations with the Middle East

The numbers in favor of the Administration are on a downward trend while numbers against the Administration are on the rise. While not as sharp as the numbers in the UK, they are indicitive of the ""war-rush"" falling off. Except for that one statistic on whether or not the president exagerated intelligence. The White House should be troubled that half the country thinks you BSed them.

"ralcydan" wrote:

There''s a lot of false information out there. Remember the tens of thousands of antiquities looted? Oops, turns out it was less than 50 pieces.

Actually, 33 items where taken from the display halls, but losses from the store rooms were far worse. At the very least, thousands of items were broken.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A17897-2003Jun20&notFound=true

Nice quotes, Rat Boy. Not one of them is proof that the President lied or even knew about the CIA''s doubts. Infer all you want. I said proof, not inference by someone with an obvious bias. Still waiting on that source.

Now , let''s look at the quotes you did provide:

""C.I.A. was not sure that the information was right""

""The British government rejected the U.S. suggestion, saying it had separate intelligence unavailable to the United States""

All your quotes show is that there was one disputed line in the SOTU, whose wording was resolved by lower level officials. These officials from the NSC and CIA gave the benefit of the doubt to British intelligence who claimed greater knowledge, and worded the line in such a way as to make sure that we didn''t imply more than we knew.

Not one bit of proof that the reports are even false, much less that the President knowingly lied or exaggerated them. There isn''t even proof that the President was aware of the dispute or that the CIA''s doubts. You may think that the government is a model of communicative efficiency, with every conversation repeated to every interested party, but I know better.

As I said, give us a source. Not somebody at the NSC talking to somebody at the NSA. And not more quotes about how the CIA and British intelligence argued about the reports. Show me proof that the President knowingly misinformed the American public.

Even if the President did know about these doubts, and I look forward to a source about this, using intel that isn''t confirmed isn''t exactly lying to the American public. The CIA even allows that the reports might well be true, just that these reports ""did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches"".

British intelligence to this day, stands by their reports, which they say rely on more than the alleged Niger meet and more than the forged documents.

Your inclusion of a page of polling data and your implications for Bush''s political future tell us what your real agenda is. As for me, opinion polls where morons too stupid to hang up on pollsters are fed the answers in the questions are fairly useless. To take one of your polling examples, I, too, am worried that we might get bogged down in Iraq. Now, I don''t think we will. Also, I still wholeheartedly support the President and will help re-elect him, but those weren''t the questions...

Still waiting on the proof that Bush lied.

Edit - Alien Love Gardener, I stand corrected on the number of looted museum pieces. My point was about the unreliability of reported information, and the 7,000 pieces now reported missing or broken is a far cry from the original reports, which I believe put the looting estimates equal to the entire 170,000 piece inventory of the museum.

I think that as a story, this too has been over-emphasized in the big picture. If you have to choose between the freedom of the American people and the entire contents of the Smithsonian, which would you preserve?

Do you have proof that the Clinton Administration obstructed justice with White Water and Travelgate?

Do you have proof that the Clintons were behind the death of Vince Foster?

Do you have proof that the Iraqis were behind the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing?

Do you have proof that the FBI intentionally caused the fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas?

These are all examples of inferences based on facts. There is no line that said ""George Bush talked with George Tenet about Niger"" just like there''s no quote that says ""Saddam Hussein talked with Osama bin Ladin about 9-11;"" politicians are too smart to let any proof of impropriety exist. They all learned that from Watergate. Johnny Mojo loves the term ""plausible deniability"" and so do a lot of politicians. The main goal of presidential aides and advisors is to protect the presidency, even at the risk of their own job. There was one line from George Tenet''s statement that struck me as a wink to the audience:

Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency.

This strongly implies that he was out of the loop about this detail in the SotU. He may be taking responsibility for those he commands, but it wasn''t his fault.

Add to it Wilson statement where he said he told the Vice President''s office his concerns.

Now, you didn''t expect people to come out and say ""we lied,"" did you? We''ll find a lot more when the Congressional investigation gets going. And if the investigation meets the same frustrations and the 9-11 Comission has, then we''ll learn a lot, too.

Do you have proof that the Clinton Administration obstructed justice with White Water and Travelgate?

Do you have proof that the Clintons were behind the death of Vince Foster?

Do you have proof that the Iraqis were behind the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing?

Do you have proof that the FBI intentionally caused the fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas?

These are all examples of inferences based on facts. There is no line that said ""George Bush talked with George Tenet about Niger"" just like there''s no quote that says ""Saddam Hussein talked with Osama bin Ladin about 9-11

Huh? That''s the lamest way I''ve ever heard of saying, ""No, I don''t have any proof."" Wouldn''t it be easier to just admit you''ve lost the argument? I mean, you can''t prove the report was wrong, and you can''t prove the president knew or even thought it was wrong.

You can infer and read strong implications into anything you want, but don''t get mad because everyone doesn''t make the same leap of conspiracy-driven faith you do.

The administration''s case against Iraq was built over the course of more than a year, in dozens of speeches, white papers, interviews, and presentations. The British report - unverified but not proven false that I''ve seen - represented one sentence of a speech that gave 2 pages of reasons for war. ""A rational person"" would expect that, in all the data and intelligence about Iraq, some things would be wrong. Congratulations, you found one (maybe).

Again, the point of the information was that Saddam had plans to ""go nuclear."" The head of his own nuclear weapons program told us that Saddam planned to ""reconstitute the nuclear weapons program once sanctions ended."" Sounds like Bush had it right in general, even if the Niger detail was wrong.

There isn''t a time limit on dangers or pre-emption. If someone is a threat to us, it doesn''t matter if they are a threat in a week or a decade, we will deal with them.

""A rational person"" would expect that, in all the data and intelligence about Iraq, some things would be wrong. Congratulations, you found one (maybe).

I think that it is important to note that even if the intelligence is wrong, that does not mean that the President or his staff knew it was wrong in advance of the SotU, which I think would be a crucial part of any case is stating that he lied.

I say stuff all the time that I am later proven wrong about. I don''t think that means that I am a compulsive liar. Intent to mislead is vital.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Rantage" wrote:

I believe ralcydan covered this: Cheney had doubts after the State of the Union address.

Why did it take six months for it to be commented on if an official explanation could be offered up so easily.

I don''t know, I don''t work in the Bush Administration. But does it really matter to you? Earlier in this thread, you were literally screaming:

IF EVEN THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD DOUBTS ABOUT IT, WHY WAS IT MENTIONED IN THE STATE OF THE UNION?

But you weren''t talking about American spy satellites -- you were talking about civilian satellites.

Big difference.

Needless to say, a facility that size could be seen from orbit by a civilian satellite. Surf the links I provided for you for some nice pictures of the nuclear processing facilities in North Korea.

Stop. As with the Cheney issue, you try to deflect or change the topic when things don''t go your way. We were talking about civilian satellites and their supposed ability to perform useful analysis of a nuclear facility.

That doesn''t mean just taking a picture of a facility, because assuming that you even have the resolution to determine what the buildings are, you are hard-pressed to make the call as to whether or not the facility is in operation.

Osirak was a known facility. Like Hoover Dam or the FBI Building in downtown D.C. The French built it, its existence was not a secret.

Neither were the sites in your links or mine. All are in the public record.
[/quote]

Once again, you are either ignoring or evading the topic. We were talking about the size of nuclear facilities when you said:

They''d still be obvious to American spy satellites. And the old sites were; otherwise Ilan Ramon and his flight of Israeli fighters wouldn''t have had anything to bomb in the early ''80s, nor would American forces during Desert Storm.

So essentially you have proven my point: Osirak''s location wasn''t a secret and satellite photography wasn''t necessary to guide the Israeli strike on that facility in 1981.

Thank you.

But you do need photography for target recognition, especially in crowded urban areas, such as several facilities destroyed in Deserts Storm and Fox.

Target recognition? No, the guys who pull the triggers don''t need that. The guys at DIA or CIA or <insert 3-letter-agency here> may analyze the imagery...if they determine that it should be a target they make note of its lat-long/UTM and pass it on to the appropriate DoD component. These coordinates are plugged into the Tomahawks/LGBs/bomber navigation system.

The warfighters don''t need to know the color of the shingles on the roof, just whether or not the building at a particular location needs to be destroyed.

And since when are nuclear facilities located in crowded urban areas?

About as reasonable as assuming that if the U.S. intelligence community believes there are WMDs in Iraq, they must have noticed something.

Obviously they didn''t, otherwise we''d have that Mirage fighter that could supposedly spray chemical weapons like a crop duster in our possession.

The fighter in question was a modified MiG-21, I believe. And delivery method != WMD.

I mean, come on. You can''t have it both ways: CIA, NSA and DIA can''t be so incompetent as to totally miss the mark on WMDs and still be so whiz-bang smart that they can smell a North Korean nuke half a world away.

Again, they obviously did. The US knows exactly where the North Koreans are producing these weapons; Clinton Administration officials admitted they had Air Tasking Orders all drawn up for a massive air campaign against the DPRK in the mid-90s.

So you''re saying that we have 100% knowledge of the location of all North Korean nuclear WMDs and WMD-producing facilities? You''re basing this on....what?

And the fact that the U.S. had plans for an air campaign against North Korea in the mid-90s shouldn''t be a surprise. The U.S. has had contingency plans for a war on the Korean peninsula since the Korean War ended. There are military and civilian folks who do nothing but work on such contingency plans.

Not logical, given that the web sites you and I cited all said that these mines were heavily used in uranium mining. It would be easier, and less obvious to the international community, to mine their own uranium rather than go outside the country and get it. And obviously they didn''t.

Did it occur to you that for a while Iraq didn''t have any external source of uranium, and had to rely on domestic mines?

Consider the fact that the Iraqis certainly didn''t want to march around the world openly asking countries for uranium. The process was undoubtedly slow and intended to be discreet.

Now regarding GlobalSecurity.org...

No, but I wouldn''t put them in the same league as imagery analysts employed by the United States government. I''m sure GlobalSecurity.org has some ex-government analysts working for them, as well as some smart folks who never have been employed outside of the private sector.

That said, they still don''t have the resources available to them: be it raw data, processing equipment, or additional intelligence to fuse with the imagery to provide a more complete picture of what is going on.

I''ll refer you to their About page.

Thank you. I took a look at the qualifications of the staff they listed: only one appears to be a former military/government type, and he taught history at West Point. Quite a few others were involved with the Federation of American Scientists. I didn''t see any references to anybody having worked for the government doing imagery analysis.

I stand by my statement.

That being said, why is it with all these intelligence gathering tools that the US couldn''t find any concrete proof of WMDs?

a) The United States may currently have proof, but revealing that may compromise existing sources and/or methods of intelligence gathering.
b) Intelligence analysis is not the clean, cut-n-dried affair that is depicted in James Bond and Tom Clancy movies. It involves piecing together multiple forms and sources of information, some of which is not obviously related to one another, and most of which has varying levels of confidence attributed to the source. Seldom if ever can you look at a piece of intelligence and say ""yes, I am 100% confident that this information is wholly complete and accurate."" Intelligence analysis is not playing ""Clue"" and determining who murdered the host in the library with the candlestick, and usually the target of your interest is taking steps to avoid or otherwise thwart the gathering of intelligence against them.

And I think I can state this with a great deal of certainty, because I have spent the last 12 years either in or working with the U.S. Intelligence Community.

This is where I stand. If need be, I''ll repost this again if I ever get accused of being a whacko, anti-Republican liberal ever again.

Use bold font, otherwise it might get lost in the other noise.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Huh? That''s the lamest way I''ve ever heard of saying, ""No, I don''t have any proof."" Wouldn''t it be easier to just admit you''ve lost the argument?

Talk to me after Congress investigates this fully. I feel that these latest developments vindicate the belief that the Administration would do anything to justify the war...except try to justify it for the humanitarian reasons, reasons I was willing to back. Like Ulairi said, I don''t care about WMDs, but that was the causus belli offered by the government. Now that''s starting to look a little shaky. If a massive campaign of deception was conducted by the White House, the ends of the war cannot justify the means of bringing it about.

I mean, you can''t prove the report was wrong

If you refer to the Niger report, that has been proven wrong. It was bogus, and the documentation it was based on was forged. Why do you still defend these fakes?

, and you can''t prove the president knew or even thought it was wrong.

However, there is now proof that officials in the CIA and staffers in Vice President''s office, the National Security Council, and possibly the White House knew. President Bush is the leader; he is ultimately responsible for the actions of those under his command. If they committed crimes in his name, he bears the responsibility for those actions.

You can infer and read strong implications into anything you want, but don''t get mad because everyone doesn''t make the same leap of conspiracy-driven faith you do.

I still don''t understand why you insist nothing bad happened. The President, either willingly or unwillingly, told the American people a false story. Don''t you think there should be reprecussions against SOMEBODY?

The administration''s case against Iraq was built over the course of more than a year, in dozens of speeches, white papers, interviews, and presentations.

Which now must come under review. The CIA''s role must come under review. Rumsfeld''s private intelligence review council in the Pentagon must come under review. If there is that much distrust against the abilities of George Tenet and his agents, don''t you think a top-to-down review of the Agency is in order in light of the continuing War on Terror and the President''s policy of Preemption?

] The British report - unverified but not proven false that I''ve seen - represented one sentence of a speech that gave 2 pages of reasons for war.

The Niger angle, of which the British report is based on, has been proven false. Here are a few sources that repeat the falsehood of the document in which much of the case is based around:

""A rational person"" would expect that, in all the data and intelligence about Iraq, some things would be wrong. Congratulations, you found one (maybe).

Why, even after all you''ve seen here about this report do you defend it? If the British have more intel on the matter, as they claimed, why did they not share that intel with their biggest ally in this conflict? Even Parliament, both Labour and Conservative, now doubts the British intelligence.

Again, the point of the information was that Saddam had plans to ""go nuclear."" The head of his own nuclear weapons program told us that Saddam planned to ""reconstitute the nuclear weapons program once sanctions ended."" Sounds like Bush had it right in general, even if the Niger detail was wrong.

There is a difference between wanting nukes and making an earnest attempt to obtain or create them. So far, there is no incontrovertable proof that Saddam Hussein was, as of 2002-2003, conducting a program to manufacture or purchase nuclear weapons.

There isn''t a time limit on dangers or pre-emption. If someone is a threat to us, it doesn''t matter if they are a threat in a week or a decade, we will deal with them.

I got news for you, everybody could conceiveably be a threat to the US in a decade. Do you really want to attack everybody who doesn''t like us? This policy of Preemption is impossible to maintain without accurate intelligence. So far, the intelligence in the first War of Preemption has yet to be proven completely accurate. It would be foolish to launch another such war until the failings of the intelligence community are addressed.

Ratboy, you''ve made a good point. When Rush Limbaugh and company were reading lists about the people connected to Clinton that died and implying that Clinton had something to do with it, especially with the death of Vince Foster, I thought that was really wacky and pathetic.. Republicans were twisting reality in an effort to undermine President Clinton.

http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Cl...

Now, it''s the Democrats turn. I think it is equally wacky to assume that the President was lying to justify the war.

Yes, I must concede he has taken a bit of a hit in the polls. With every news article calling him a liar about the Niger comment, it appears to have had an effect. He is certainly not getting good press. But it doesn''t matter, because as long as Bush is more popular than his opposition, he''s a shoe in for re-election. My God, only one-third of Democrats can even name one candidate, and most of them name Howard Dean, who is unelectable.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...

Bush is a money making machine. He has raised something like 40 million dollars. He''s expected to raise 200 million dollar just for the Republican Nomination alone.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...

Is about the money, honey. Whether he deserves it or not, get ready for another 4 years of Bush.

Another thing about polls, it''s the way they word them. Your average citizen isn''t as cold and heartless as I am. Of course they are going to say that death of any soldier is unacceptable.

I place the number at 1,000 as a ""politcally acceptable"" number of deaths and I feel I''m being overly sensitive with that number.

"Lawyeron" wrote:

I place the number at 1,000 as a ""politcally acceptable"" number of deaths and I feel I''m being overly sensitive with that number.

Or under-sensitive, depending on how you look at it, especially if someone you know is over there right now.

That''s my point. The poll question is ridiculous and meaningless.

From MSNBC/Washington Post

Okay, now that raises an eyebrow or two. But if you have more than two eyebrows, maybe you have other things to worry about.

I saw the Rice interview on Wolf Blitzer; I think they are now going to try to discredit the Wilson op-ed piece. However, she pretty much said the Post article from today was accurate.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Edit - Alien Love Gardener, I stand corrected on the number of looted museum pieces. My point was about the unreliability of reported information, and the 7,000 pieces now reported missing or broken is a far cry from the original reports, which I believe put the looting estimates equal to the entire 170,000 piece inventory of the museum.

I think that as a story, this too has been over-emphasized in the big picture. If you have to choose between the freedom of the American people and the entire contents of the Smithsonian, which would you preserve?

I got your point, I just thought it was pretty funny that the information you supplied was also false.

As for the second question, I''d pick the freedom, duh. But that''s not the point of the musem story, imo. I''ve no doubt that the the American troops prioritized fairly reasonably in what they chose what to protect, but it still serves to show that they were ill prepared to handle the inital post-war situation.

I''ve no doubt that the the American troops prioritized fairly reasonably in what they chose what to protect, but it still serves to show that they were ill prepared to handle the inital post-war situation.

That''s kind of a blanket statement, and I should know, I make them all the time.

We live and learn, the next country we take over, we''ll bring in the riot squad.

I think Chris Matthews just came up with the best analogy for the best case scenario for the Administraiton: the president is nothing more than Ted Baxter being fed lines by Lou Grant without thinking about what he''s saying or getting the facts checked.

Also, Hardball had a bit on the aluminum tube accusation being baseless, too. More as it gets posted online.

From MSNBC

Key quote:

Bush had made the same argument four months earlier, in September 2002, at the United Nations: "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon," he said.
But Greg Thielmann, a former State Department intelligence expert, told NBC News that he and experts from the U.S. Department of Energy warned months earlier that the tubes were not designed to produce nuclear weapons: "We had high confidence that the aluminum tubes were not intended for the Iraqi nuclear weapons program," Thielmann told NBC News.
Still, Secretary of State Colin Powell showed pictures of the tubes to the United Nations in February, although he said the charge was in dispute.
"The White House in fact made the intelligence look much more damning than it actually was," said Gary Milhollin, a nuclear expert.

Seems like now in the best case, the Administration was the LAPD to Saddam''s OJ: not convinced that there was enough evidence to convict (but there was [best case scenario]), they overplayed, exagerated, and manufactured evidence to frame a guilty man.

More fun, this time from...er...Time. Choice quotes with bolds added by me:

Finally, late in 2001, the Italian government came into possession of evidence suggesting that Iraq was again trying to purchase yellowcake from Niger. Rome''s source provided half a dozen letters and other documents alleged to be correspondence between Niger and Iraqi officials negotiating a sale. The Italians'' evidence was shared with both Britain and the U.S.

When it got to Washington, the Iraq-Niger uranium report caught the eye of someone important: Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney''s chief of staff, Lewis Libby, told TIME that during one of his regular CIA briefings, ""the Vice President asked a question about the implication of the report."" Cheney''s interest hardly came as a surprise: he has long been known to harbor some of the most hard-line views of Saddam''s nuclear ambitions.

When he returned to Washington in early March, Wilson gave an oral report about his trip to both CIA and State Department officials. On March 9 of last year, the CIA circulated a memo on the yellowcake story that was sent to the White House, summarizing Wilson''s assessment. Wilson was not the only official looking into the matter. Nine days earlier, the State Department''s intelligence arm had sent a memo directly to Secretary of State Colin Powell that also disputed the Italian intelligence. Greg Thielmann, then a high-ranking official at State''s research unit, told TIME that it was not in Niger''s self-interest to sell the Iraqis the destabilizing ore. ""A whole lot of things told us that the report was bogus,"" Thielmann said later. ""This wasn''t highly contested. There weren''t strong advocates on the other side. It was done, shot down.""
When the time came to decide whether Bush was going to cite the allegation, the CIA objected"”and then relented. Two senior Administration officials tell TIME that in a January conversation with a key National Security Council (NSC) official just a few days before the speech, a top CIA analyst named Alan Foley objected to including the allegation in the speech. The NSC official in charge of vetting the sections on WMD, Special Assistant to the President Robert Joseph, denied through a spokesman that he said it was O.K. to use the line as long as it was sourced to British intelligence. But another official told TIME, ""There was a debate about whether to cite it on our own intelligence. But once the U.K. made it public, we felt comfortable citing what they had learned.""
The yellowcake affair may have already changed that relationship, for as the casualties mount in Iraq, polls suggest that some of that faith is eroding. Which means the next time Bush tells the nation where he wants to go, it may not be so quick to follow.

Still think nothing bad is going on? Who put this assertion in the SotU? Why did they put it in despite the documented doubts? And if the British, as they claim, have more sources, why did they not share it with their American allies?

Riddle me this: if the Iraq-Africa nuclear statement was missing from the State of the Union address, would we still have gone to war?

Riddle me that: Since we were (with or without domestic and international support [""f*ck Saddam! We''re taking him out!""]) going to war, why bother using shaky evidence in the first place?

Oh no you don''t: I asked first. I''m interested in your answer.