Intelligence Quotient

Pages

From CNN/NYTimes

Relevant quote:

Some in the administration are trying to make George Tenet the scapegoat for the affair. But Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of retired spooks, issued an open letter to President Bush yesterday reflecting the view of many in the intel community that the central culprit is Vice President Dick Cheney. The open letter called for Mr. Cheney's resignation.

Original open letter here.

Relevant quote from that (bear in mind it's directed at the president):

There is just too much evidence that Ambassador Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of Vice President Cheney's office, and that Wilson's findings were duly reported not only to that office but to others as well.

Equally important, it was Cheney who launched (in a major speech on August 26, 2002) the concerted campaign to persuade Congress and the American people that Saddam Hussein was about to get his hands on nuclear weapons--a campaign that mushroomed, literally, in early October with you and your senior advisers raising the specter of a "mushroom cloud" being the first "smoking gun" we might observe.

That this campaign was based largely on information known to be forged and that the campaign was used successfully to frighten our elected representatives in Congress into voting for war is clear from the bitter protestations of Rep. Henry Waxman and others. The politically aware recognize that the same information was used, also successfully, in the campaign leading up to the mid-term elections--a reality that breeds a cynicism highly corrosive to our political process.

*snip*

It was a deep insult to the integrity of the intelligence process that, after the Vice President declared on August 26, 2002 that "we know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) produced during the critical month of September featured a fraudulent conclusion that "most analysts" agreed with Cheney's assertion. This may help explain the anomaly of Cheney's unprecedented "multiple visits" to CIA headquarters at the time, as well as the many reports that CIA and other intelligence analysts were feeling extraordinarily great pressure, accompanied by all manner of intimidation tactics, to concur in that conclusion. As a coda to his nuclear argument, Cheney told NBC's Meet the Press three days before US/UK forces invaded Iraq: "we believe he (Saddam Hussein) has reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Mr. Russert: the International Atomic Energy Agency said he dose not have a nuclear program; we disagree?

Vice President Cheney: I disagree, yes. And you'll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of the intelligence community disagree. We know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei (Director of the IAEA) frankly is wrong.

Contrary to what Cheney and the NIE said, the most knowledgeable analysts--those who know Iraq and nuclear weapons--judged that the evidence did not support that conclusion. They now have been proven right.

Adding insult to injury, those chairing the NIE succumbed to the pressure to adduce the known forgery as evidence to support the Cheney line, and relegated the strong dissent of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (and the nuclear engineers in the Department of Energy) to an inconspicuous footnote.

It is a curious turn of events. The drafters of the offending sentence on the forgery in president's state-of-the-union speech say they were working from the NIE. In ordinary circumstances an NIE would be the preeminently authoritative source to rely upon; but in this case the NIE itself had already been cooked to the recipe of high policy.

Joseph Wilson, the former US ambassador who visited Niger at Cheney's request, enjoys wide respect (including, like several VIPS members, warm encomia from your father). He is the consummate diplomat. So highly disturbed is he, however, at the chicanery he has witnessed that he allowed himself a very undiplomatic comment to a reporter last week, wondering aloud "what else they are lying about." Clearly, Wilson has concluded that the time for diplomatic language has passed. It is clear that lies were told. Sad to say, it is equally clear that your vice president led this campaign of deceit.

This accusation is in line with Ambassador Wilson's account. And the only one to not chime in on this at all is...*drumroll*...Dick Cheney, or at least an official from his office.

Now there's the White House stand on not taking this scandal seriously, considering the situation "closed." Conversely, momentum is building for a Congressional inquiry, with public hearings to be held as early as September, if I heard that one TV report right. Will the axe fall on somebody other than George Tenet?

I love the media outrage over non-issues. And no matter how much proof is offered to the contrary, or how much real news is begging for discussion, we keep returning to the same silliness.

Bush''s sentence: ""The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."" is factually true. The British government told us that, and still stands by their statement. Whether they were right or wrong, no lie was told.

Offer proof to the contrary or get over it.

You remind me of a few Democrat friends that thought that a certain scandal would blow over (pun intended) and repeatedly asked for proof. Then they got it and yet they still defended their assinine positions. I fear that if you get the proof you want, you''ll just right it off as a ""vast left-wing conspiracy"" bent on getting the president out of office.

Read the above letter. These former agents and analysts aren''t asking for President Bush''s head on a platter; they want Cheney gone. They want a conservative, Brent Scowcroft, to head an independent investigation into the ""use/abuse"" of intelligence. Are these the requests of mad liberals?

""Get over it"" should be the official slogan for the GOP. It''s the standard response to legitimate questions.

Actually, it would be ''Get Overit Punk''

And, no, that is not the standard response to legitimate questions. It is the standard response after a question has been asked, answered, asked again, answered again, repositioned as a criminal oversight, answered again, made into a ''national crisis'', answered again, harped on by Democratic Presidential candidates struggling to get attention, answered again, made into the central issue of a picture that it (at best) affects on the periphery, and then answered again.

Here''s the difference.

A Republican will say: Prove to me that George Bush lied, and I will be the first to throw him out.

A Democrat will say: Sure Clinton lied, but I don''t care.

It''s interesting that you use the phrase ""vast left-wing conspiracy"" when no Republican says things that stupid. We leave that to Democrats, who claim they are being set up, and then have the DNA rubbed in their faces to show them how foolish they were.

You remind me of a few Democrat friends that thought that a certain scandal would blow over (pun intended) and repeatedly asked for proof. Then they got it and yet they still defended their assinine positions.

You equate the situations to prove your point. One problem - Clinton was a scumbag liar and George Bush isn''t.

edit - oh yeah:

""Get over it"" should be the official slogan for the GOP. It''s the standard response to legitimate questions.

Johnny Mojo didn''t say get over it. He said ""Offer proof to the contrary or get over it."" HUGE difference

But then, ""we like to use misquotes and half-truths"" should be the official slogan of the Democratic party...

And, no, that is not the standard response to legitimate questions. It is the standard response after a question has been asked, answered, asked again, answered again, repositioned as a criminal oversight, answered again, made into a ''national crisis'', answered again, harped on by Democratic Presidential candidates struggling to get attention, answered again, made into the central issue of a picture that it (at best) affects on the periphery, and then answered again.

One would think Vogons were involved. Do we have to feed anyone to the Ravenous Bugblattered Beast of Traal?

But then, ""we only use half of the truth"" should be the official slogan of the Democratic party...

I disagree. That should be the official slogan of everyone closely tied to a particular party. Or everyone with an agenda. Or, pretty much everyone.

Johnny Mojo didn''t say get over it. He said ""Offer proof to the contrary or get over it."" HUGE difference

Yeah, so? I was making an off-handed quip in my own forum. It didn''t really have much to do with Johnny.

Joseph Wilson, the former US ambassador who visited Niger at Cheney''s request, enjoys wide respect (including, like several VIPS members, warm encomia from your father). He is the consummate diplomat. So highly disturbed is he, however, at the chicanery he has witnessed that he allowed himself a very undiplomatic comment to a reporter last week, wondering aloud ""what else they are lying about."" Clearly, Wilson has concluded that the time for diplomatic language has passed. It is clear that lies were told. Sad to say, it is equally clear that your vice president led this campaign of deceit.

For a little perspective:

So, who is this Wilson? He's our man in Niger.

Well, almost. Wilson is a retired State Department official. As charge d'affaires in Iraq in 1990, he was the last American to meet with Saddam. Later, he served as ambassador to Gabon and Sao Tome and Principe. His most important credential for this controversy dates to the mid-1970s, when he served as a diplomat in Niger. In the late 1990s, as an official with President Clinton's National Security Council, he made a return visit to Niger.

These experiences apparently made Wilson America's greatest expert on Nigerien uranium exports.

Maybe a little lesson on Niger is due. According to the CIA:

Niger is a landlocked, mostly desert nation roughly twice the size of Texas. It borders Libya and Algeria. Of 10 million Nigeriens, 80% are Muslims. Only 70,000 hold wage-paying jobs. In 2002, the government budget was $320 million; $134 million came from foreign sources. In 2001, it exported a paltry $246 million in goods; in 1998, uranium accounted for 65% of exports. The rest was concentrated in cowpeas, onions and livestock products.

This was Wilson''s mission:

Wilson arrived there last February. ""I spent the next eight days,"" he writes, ""drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people; current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.""

So, in eight days, he managed to gain enough information that he is confident that there is no way Iraq could possibly be trying to buy uranium from Niger.

On July 11, Tenet issued a statement saying:

""In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn,"" said Tenet. ""He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "˜expanding commercial relations' between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales.""

Or maybe the Iraqis were interested in buying cowpeas.

Of course, it can be argued that the British documents alluding to this same point were discovered to be forged. I acknowledge that. Even if the British stand by their intelligence stating that Iraq was in fact still trying to acquire Uranium.

The problem I see with this whole mess is why the CIA had to rely on a retired State Department official to travel to Niger to double-check British intelligence about Niger's uranium.

If weapons of mass destruction are a significant security risk to the United States, then mines in Africa that produce uranium that can be used in weapons of mass destruction should be significant targets of U.S. intelligence gathering. But apparently they aren''t. And why is that? Because the CIA''s ability to conduct human intelligence throughout the world was scaled back during the mid-90''s.

And is any of that the failure of the current Administration? Of course not. But it sure does give the Democrats and liberal media something to pounce on.

People tend to forget that decisions have consequences. And the people that inherit the consequences aren''t always the same as the people that put the circumstances into motion in the first place. Bush is not responsible for the downturn in the economy, any more than Clinton is responsible for the huge upswing in the 90''s. And yet people insist on attributing blame, usually to the person right in front of them, regardless of actual fault (Except for Reagan. He is still to blame for practically everything, according to the left).

To stay on point of the thread:

I always enjoy reading the opinions of biased people presented as somehow being evidence. Rat Boy, you impugn every bit of information coming out of the DOD as lies spun to manipulate the American people, but post the above without blinking an eye.

Any group who call itself ""Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity"" and complains about the outcome of the midterm elections probably has an agenda. The fact that retired liberal bureaucrats have deduced that the Vice President and President knew and lied about these statements don''t convince me anymore than Rat Boy''s insights.

Prove that the statement in the SOTU was false. To do that, explain why I should ignore British intelligence''s assertions that they have sources beyond ours, and beyond the Niger report. Prove to me that Iraq wasn''t trying to obtain uranium in Africa. Then name names. Give me the line of communication and tell me who said what to whom. Prove to me that those involved knew the British were lying, and chose to use that lie to manipulate the American people.

Elysium,

I love it.

One would think Vogons were involved. Do we have to feed anyone to the Ravenous Bugblattered Beast of Traal?

Not me. My head is covered by a towel. (Boy, I hope I got my geek reference correct.)

Quote:
But then, ""we only use half of the truth"" should be the official slogan of the Democratic party...

I disagree. That should be the official slogan of everyone closely tied to a particular party. Or everyone with an agenda. Or, pretty much everyone.

Unfortunately, that is more true than any of us would like. What I have found though, is that the people who call themselves Liberal tend to react emotionally to issues and latch on to these half-truths as if they were gospel (but not gospel, because gospel is bad). Whereas most people I know that call themselves conservative tend to be fairly cynical and skeptical and try to look beyond the surface soundbite for a deeper meaning.

Something I said to a friend kind of sums this up. Do you know what the difference between a conservative book and a liberal book? Footnotes. Every conservative book I have read that talks facts or evidence backs it up with voluminous evidence. Even Ann Coulter references everything she says. On the other hand, liberal books talk about things (like the environment) that beg for supporting evidence and fail to provide it. Now, this is a general rule. By no means is it inclusive of every book ever written. But it holds up pretty well.

This was Wilson''s mission:
Quote:

Wilson arrived there last February. ""I spent the next eight days,"" he writes, ""drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people; current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.""

So, in eight days, he managed to gain enough information that he is confident that there is no way Iraq could possibly be trying to buy uranium from Niger.

Right. So Nigeriens meeting an envoy from the US government told him there were no plans to sell uranium to Iraq, a US enemy, in violation of UN sanctions? Absolutely shocking! I would expect any illegal plans to collaborate with America''s foes to come immediately into the open, especially given the sodium pentathol-like effects of mint tea. No wonder Wilson''s report sparked such a firestorm. Now that''s intelligence!

We send a retired diplomat on a non-secret mission and he doesn''t come up with anything, and that is the basis for democrats saying there is no connection between Iraq and Africa. Give me a break.

If this Wilson character was such a failure at his job, as you guys are now accusing him of being, why was he sent by the CIA in the first place?

I never said he was a failure. He was sent to corroborate a report and couldn''t. Therefore this intelligence was considered unverified by the CIA and shouldn''t have been used in Presidential speeches. It wasn''t. A specific reference to Niger was removed from the President''s speech in October, because the CIA couldn''t verify the report. A more general statement about Iraq attempting to obtain uranium in Africa, based on British intelligence, was used in the SOTU.

Those are the facts. But that''s not good enough for Bush-haters and conspiracy theorists who insist that the President was lying. All Johnny Mojo and I have pointed out, is that the main reason this came up was Wilson''s report, and that his failure to corroborate is hardly damning evidence considering the circumstances.

If this Wilson character was such a failure at his job, as you guys are now accusing him of being, why was he sent by the CIA in the first place?

Don''t know. Maybe because they had to cut back all of their operatives in Africa and didn''t have anyone else with any connections at all they could send. Maybe he looks smashing in a safari outfit. Maybe they overestimated his capabilities. Maybe after seeing what he came back with, they thought the British Intelligence was more reliable.

But none of that is relevant to the news media. All that matters is they have someone willing to go on the record saying he thinks that the American people were lied too. It is so much easier to capture that in a soundbite, and failures and scandal sell better than intelligent discussion.

There are still too many questions left hanging, though, for anybody to dismiss the allegations with ""case closed.""

* Who put the reference in?
* Who (badly) forged the Niger documents?
* How widely circulated were the CIA''s, State''s, and Wilson''s doubts in the Administration? We know they hit certain offices, we just don''t know who read them.
* Why hasn''t British Intelligence shared its ""other sources"" with the CIA?
* Why didn''t Condi Rice or any other official responsible for fact-checking the SotU remove the statement if didn''t meet their standards for a presidential speech?
* Why did the CIA object to any reference to Africa in October 2002 but withdraw initial objections in January 2003?

Please explain why no specific answers to these questions are reason enough to dismiss this situation out of hand.

Everyone who doesn''t like Bush will over-use this. What this is isn''t a big deal, he said it once. It isn''t the reason we invaded.

Lets investigate it to see if Dicky boy lied and lets not start joining the tin foil hat club.

Please explain why no specific answers to these questions are reason enough to dismiss this situation out of hand.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Why is it incumbent on anyone to produce evidence that they didn''t do something wrong? I thought the whole basis of our justice system is that you have to prove your allegations. Not that the accused has to prove their innocence. Should we dunk them under water for 10 minutes, and if they survive they are obviously witches?

In our wonderful blame-oriented society, this simple pretext, innocent until proven guilty, gets thrown out more and more. Why should Bush, or anyone in his administration have to do more than they did? They admitted that the intel wasn''t crucial to making the case for war, and shouldn''t have been included in the SotU. In my opinion, they didn''t even have to do that. There was and is no evidence of wrongdoing. At worst, it was a human error. Not a malicious conspiracy to move us to war so Bush could get revenge for Dad or any other nonsense.

This is as stupid as an employer having to prove he isn''t racist or sexist in a lawsuit.

The burden of proof is on the plantiff. Not the defendant.

Ratboy, I understand your deisre for answers. All I can say is: get used to disappointment. Prove the point, or get over it until proof surfaces.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Ratboy, I understand your deisre for answers. All I can say is: get used to disappointment. Prove the point, or get over it until proof surfaces.

One would think that you would be curious to know the truth. I guess all you need is for the president to say that it is over and then you''ll drop it. Even though this raises serious questions about our intelligence agencies, whether they were maniuplated by or manipulating the intelligence. It raises questions about the bureaucracy in Washington; obviously one official''s concerns weren''t heeded. Even though it raises questions about the integrity of several members of the Administration; why would somebody wish to put a baseless (that ""factually accurate"" line is getting old and worthless) claim in the State of the Union.

But, if you feel perfectly comfortable to let these questions hang while this nation faces more attacks and more showdowns with tinpot dictators, don''t let me stop you.

""Who put the reference in?""
Well, we don''t know who wrote the original line, whether speechwriter or policy wonk, but as you posted previously, Robert G. Joseph, a nuclear proliferation expert at the National Security Council, and Alan Foley, a proliferation expert at the C.I.A. approved it. They discussed that the Niger report was unverified, but since British intelligence still believed that Iraq was trying to obtain African uranium in spite of the Niger doubts, agreed to use the statement, and attribute it to British intelligence.

""Who (badly) forged the Niger documents?""
Who cares? They obviously weren''t forged by American or British intelligence agencies, or UN officials wouldn''t have been the one''s to catch them. Maybe we have a source in Niger trying to make himself seem more important.

""How widely circulated were the CIA''s, State''s, and Wilson''s doubts in the Administration? We know they hit certain offices, we just don''t know who read them.""
Again, who cares? All Wilson''s report proves is that he couldn''t corroborate one Niger report. The President himself could have read this report and still believed British intelligence''s assertions that they were not basing their conclusions on Niger alone and had sources unavailable to retired US diplomats on non-secret missions to countries they haven''t visited in 5 years.

""Why hasn''t British Intelligence shared its ""other sources"" with the CIA?""
Why should they have to? To prove the veracity of information, you have to reveal all sorts of things about a source. Maybe, as the Brits have said, their sources don''t want to be exposed to US intelligence agencies. Think about it.

""Why didn''t Condi Rice or any other official responsible for fact-checking the SotU remove the statement if didn''t meet their standards for a presidential speech?""
Because it was an accurate statement. The British government has never changed its story. They claim Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. They still claim this, in spite of the work of Joseph Wilson and the existence of forged documents relating to only one African country, Niger. Until there is evidence showing they are lying, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

""Why did the CIA object to any reference to Africa in October 2002 but withdraw initial objections in January 2003?""
Because the reference in October was specific to Niger, for which we only had one source on which we couldn''t verify. The SOTU, as noted innumerable times, referenced the unverified, yes, but also unrefuted claim by the British government about Iraq seeking uranium in Africa.

Any more questions?

Edit - by the way:

""claimed by British intelligence services"" does not equal ""baseless""

Your bias is showing a bit there...

One would think that you would be curious to know the truth

I would love to know the truth. But, then again, I would love to have a threesome with Courtney Cox and Kate Beckinsale.

I guess all you need is for the president to say that it is over and then you''ll drop it.

Not at all. I have a healthy skepticism of anything that any politician says. But on this, I feel fairly certain that even if a mistake was made, it was not a malicious conspiracy.

Even though this raises serious questions about our intelligence agencies, whether they were maniuplated by or manipulating the intelligence

See my above post. I have grave concerns about our capabilities because of the cutbacks in the mid-90''s. But, again, I don''t view that as malicious or negligent.

It raises questions about the bureaucracy in Washington; obviously one official''s concerns weren''t heeded.

Which official is that? Wilson? How do you know he wasn''t heeded? Just because language he disapproved of was used? Why is he the last word?

Even though it raises questions about the integrity of several members of the Administration

Not until there is proof it doesn''t. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

But, if you feel perfectly comfortable to let these questions hang while this nation faces more attacks and more showdowns with tinpot dictators

Ahh, and here is the crux of the issue. What does 16 words out of two pages of proof have to do with ''showdowns with tinpot dictators''? This is, as I have said before, a classic example of arguing without arguing. Evidence and logic go out the window. Empirical fact becomes secondary to inflammatory rhetoric. You manage in one paragraph to dismiss everything I have said under the pretext that you care more, and that my lack of willingness to prosecute a case without evidence somehow equals my apathy about threats we face from the world around us.

If you can prove to me how the world is more unsafe because of those sixteen words as compared to having left Saddam in power, I will concede the point and get a ''I love Ratboy'' tattoo on my ass (props to RalCydan for the initial idea a few threads ago).

"ralcydan" wrote:

""They discussed that the Niger report was unverified, but since British intelligence still believed that Iraq was trying to obtain African uranium in spite of the Niger doubts, agreed to use the statement, and attribute it to British intelligence.

And this is where they contradict themselves. They said it was included because it was ""factually accurate"" but then say it wasn''t included because it ""didn''t meet the standards of a presidential speech."" Which is it?

Who cares? They obviously weren''t forged by American or British intelligence agencies, or UN officials wouldn''t have been the one''s to catch them. Maybe we have a source in Niger trying to make himself seem more important.

Too dismissive, given that it was part of a major claim in a policy speech. Try again.

Again, who cares? All Wilson''s report proves is that he couldn''t corroborate one Niger report. The President himself could have read this report and still believed British intelligence''s assertions that they were not basing their conclusions on Niger alone and had sources unavailable to retired US diplomats on non-secret missions to countries they haven''t visited in 5 years.

Again, too dismissive. These are the same intelligence agencies that practically had every piece of the 9-11 plot sitting before them and did nothing. This is an example of a US intelligence failure; don''t you think it behooves the intelligence agencies or their superiors should try to rectify the problem?

Why should they have to? To prove the veracity of information, you have to reveal all sorts of things about a source. Maybe, as the Brits have said, their sources don''t want to be exposed to US intelligence agencies. Think about it.

They are allies on the same side in a war. Think about it.

Because it was an accurate statement. The British government has never changed its story. They claim Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. They still claim this, in spite of the work of Joseph Wilson and the existence of forged documents relating to only one African country, Niger. Until there is evidence showing they are lying, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

An accurate statement that they admit should not have been part of the speech. Again, you can''t even acknowledge that it should not have been in the speech at all even though the people you are defending have acknowledge what you apparently will not.

Because the reference in October was specific to Niger, for which we only had one source on which we couldn''t verify. The SOTU, as noted innumerable times, referenced the unverified, yes, but also unrefuted claim by the British government about Iraq seeking uranium in Africa.

Claims that were not repeated by other members of the Administration in later speeches, including Powell''s presentation to the UN. Why would they have not repeated a statement that an ally has repeatedly backed?

Any more questions?

* Why did Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz suggest attacking Iraq on September 12, 2001?

* Why weren''t British, Polish, and Australian oil and construction companies allowed to bid on rebuilding Iraq? Heck, why wasn''t there a competitive bidding process in the first place?

* Why won''t the US allow UN inspectors back into Iraq to aid in the search for WMDs?

* Why does the Vice President continue to try to conceal records on his meetings with energy company officials? (Whoops, not Iraq related)

* Why are humanitarin NGOs entering Iraq being ordered by American officials to go out of their way to mention that the donations are from America? (There''s a nice thread about it that''s buried somewhere in here)

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

You manage in one paragraph to dismiss everything I have said under the pretext that you care more, and that my lack of willingness to prosecute a case without evidence somehow equals my apathy about threats we face from the world around us.

Then endorse a Congressional and/or independent inquiry into this matter. So far, you haven''t.

If you can prove to me how the world is more unsafe because of those sixteen words as compared to having left Saddam in power, I will concede the point and get a ''I love Ratboy'' tattoo on my ass (props to RalCydan for the initial idea a few threads ago).

Here''s a nice question for you:

""Where are the WMDs?""

Also, argue why the world is safer with Saddam not having these WMDs rather than with them being mysteriously gone or in somebody elses hands.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:
You manage in one paragraph to dismiss everything I have said under the pretext that you care more, and that my lack of willingness to prosecute a case without evidence somehow equals my apathy about threats we face from the world around us.

Then endorse a Congressional and/or independent inquiry into this matter. So far, you haven''t.

Very well. I support an inquiry into the threats we face from the world around us. Preferably in the form of greater human intelligence.

As for the 16 words, you managed to deflect my question, so I''ll ask it again:

Can you prove to me how the world is more unsafe because of those sixteen words as compared to having left Saddam in power?

Because all of the attempts on changing the subject don''t alter the fact that you have nothing to offer in the way of evidence of wrongdoing, much less that the world is worse off because of those 16 words, or that those 16 words were even more than one part of a much larger justification for the war.

""Where are the WMDs?""

Don''t know. Ask me again in six years. I figure that giving the US at least half as long as the UN had is fair before I pass judgement.

Also, argue why the world is safer with Saddam not having these WMDs rather than with them being mysteriously gone or in somebody elses hands.

Please rephrase the question.

As to your other questions:

Why did Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz suggest attacking Iraq on September 12, 2001?

Proof please.

* Why are humanitarin NGOs entering Iraq being ordered by American officials to go out of their way to mention that the donations are from America? (There''s a nice thread about it that''s buried somewhere in here)

Are the donations actually from America? If so, do you have a problem with credit being given where credit is due?

I''ll get to the other questions in a bit, I have to scoot.

And this is where they contradict themselves. They said it was included because it was ""factually accurate"" but then say it wasn''t included because it ""didn''t meet the standards of a presidential speech."" Which is it?

There are two sides to the argument. Since liberal hacks are yelling ""liar"", one way to shut them up is to say, that if you read the statement, it is impossible to call it a lie, as it is factually correct. Now, this is a bit Clintonian for my tastes (and came from the Clinton-appointed Tenet, coincidentally), so let''s look at the other side. The administration admits it shouldn''t have used the information since it came only from a foreign source and was unverified. Therefore, it didn''t meet the standards for a Presidential speech. Mistake made, mistake admitted - absolutely refreshing!

Too dismissive, given that it was part of a major claim in a policy speech.

First of all, the documents weren''t discovered to have been forged until after the SOTU, so they are completely irrelevant to whether the President lied. Secondly, all intelligence is suspect, but we will always have to rely on it in spite of its sketchiness for matters of national security. Thirdly, how do you know they were part of a claim in a major policy speech? I assume you don''t read the posts, because, as stated above, the Brits claim that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Africa, regardless of the Niger forged documents (which came from Italian intelligence sources, not British ones)

These are the same intelligence agencies that practically had every piece of the 9-11 plot sitting before them and did nothing. This is an example of a US intelligence failure

Only if the British are lying, and our intelligence agencies knew it.

They are allies on the same side in a war. Think about it.

That''s a moronic statement. Being allies has nothing to do with it. Intelligence agencies have to cultivate sources with trust and years of relationships. They certainly aren''t going to just expose them to foreign intelligence agencies. Not only do the sources not want that, but it would be foolish to assume that it wouldn''t be the first step in seeing those sources exposed to non-friendly entities.

Again, you can''t even acknowledge that it should not have been in the speech at all even though the people you are defending have acknowledge what you apparently will not.

That's because I can think for myself. This statement hasn't been proved to be untrue, either literally or in what it claimed. Unlike me, the administration has to look out for partisans who will leap on any grey area and twist it for political gain. But in fact, they do defend the statement: Rice, Rumsfeld, and the White House through Ari Fleischer have all defended the statement. This is not contradictory, but rather putting things in perspective. The administration says that the statement shouldn''t have been in the speech, but reminds us that it is neither the falsehood that some (the real liars) have made it out to be, nor that the President could by any stretch be made out to be lying when he said it.

Claims that were not repeated by other members of the Administration in later speeches, including Powell''s presentation to the UN. Why would they have not repeated a statement that an ally has repeatedly backed?

Powell's speech was full of specific intelligence, down to the level of transcripts of recorded conversations. Every argument he made was backed up by presentable evidence. The African connection came from a foreign agency. We did not have access to the sources and documentation that supported this claim.

And since you are never happy:

Why did Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz suggest attacking Iraq on September 12, 2001?

Because Saddam was a terrorist supporting dictator who was an enemy of the US and maintained WMD programs he used against his own people. Let me clear about this: the argument to take out Saddam was as good on September 10th as it was on September 12th, and we should have done it years ago. All 9/11 gave us was a public who also saw the dangers of leaving Saddam in place.

Why weren''t British, Polish, and Australian oil and construction companies allowed to bid on rebuilding Iraq? Heck, why wasn''t there a competitive bidding process in the first place?

The same reason Phillips Petroleum in Bartlesville, Oklahoma wasn''t. This isn''t a job about pulling oil out of the ground, it''s about working with the military in rebuilding infrastructure. The only competitor to Haliburton in this arena on this scale is Schlumberge - a French company. They weren''t really on the list for this one. Haliburton has worked with the US government and military for decades, and did this type of work in Kuwait after the first Gulf War, before Cheney was ever on board with them. Everyone thinks Haliburton gets government contracts because Cheney went there. In reality, it''s the other way around.

Why won''t the US allow UN inspectors back into Iraq to aid in the search for WMDs?

Because the UN hasn''t earned the right to be there. They proved impotent in dealing with the threat of Saddam and obstructed the only country who was actually willing and able to. They need us a lot more than we need them. There is no reason the world''s most free and modern democracy should let a committee of third world, anti-western dictatorships have any say about anything in Iraq.

Why does the Vice President continue to try to conceal records on his meetings with energy company officials?

The office of the Vice President has released 39,000 pages of documents in regards to these meetings. Cheney doesn''t have to release every transcript of every conversation. The people involved in these meeting should be able to offer opinions without special interest groups using misquotes and half-truths to demonize them. Any energy legislation which comes will be publicly available, publicly debated, and publicly voted on by your elected representative. Feel free to chime in then.

Why are humanitarin NGOs entering Iraq being ordered by American officials to go out of their way to mention that the donations are from America?

Why shouldn''t they be? Since most of the world falsely thinks America is an evil, war-mongering Empire, some nice press is a great idea. The American people did make these donations, surely the recipients should know who to thank. Maybe they''ll be less inclined to kill our women and children if they realize we are feeding theirs...

[quote=""JohnnyMoJo""]

Very well. I support an inquiry into the threats we face from the world around us. Preferably in the form of greater human intelligence.

That wasn''t the question. The question was if you supported a Congressional and/or independent inquiry into this matter.

As for the 16 words, you managed to deflect my question, so I''ll ask it again:

Can you prove to me how the world is more unsafe because of those sixteen words as compared to having left Saddam in power?

Insufficient information to say with any certainty. Certainly, 200 American troops wouldn''t be dead right now if Saddam was left alone. Certainly, Saddam''s WMDs wouldn''t be somewhere floating around in space right now. Certainly, the US wouldn''t be regarded as a war-like nation in Europe. Certainly, the UN inspectors would have destroyed all the al-Samoud missles in Iraq (one was fired during the war and landed in downtown Kuwait City). Certainly, every Abudul, Dick, and Harry wouldn''t be flocking to Iraq just to kill Americans. Certainly, the Bush Administration wouldn''t be under this much scrutiny as it is right now. Certainly, the millions that Saddam executed over the years would stay dead.

Don''t know. Ask me again in six years. I figure that giving the US at least half as long as the UN had is fair before I pass judgement.

Funny, I could''ve sworn that people were saying the last round of inspections were a waste of time and wouldn''t find anything.

Please rephrase the question.

Please answer the question; I believe it was quite obvious.

""...argue why the world is safer with Saddam not having these WMDs rather than with them being mysteriously gone or in somebody elses hands.""

Proof please.

Source: Bush at War by Bob Woodward.

First excerpt is set on September 12, 2001:

Rumsfeld raised the question of Iraq. Why shouldn''t we go against Iraq, not just al Qaeda? he asked. Rumsfeld was speaking not only for himself when he raised the question. His deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, was committed to a policy that would make Iraq a principal target of the first round in the war on terrorism.

*snip*

Rumsfeld was raising the possibility that they could take advantage of the opportunity offered by the terrorist attacks [9-11] to go after Saddam immediately.

This excerpt is set a few days later:

Earlier in the week, Powell had approached [General Hugh] Shelton and rolled his eyes after Rumsfeld had raised Iraq as a potential target.

""What the hell, what are these guys thinking about?"" asked Powell, who had held Shelton''s job as chairman of the Joint Chiefs. ""Can''t you get these guys back in the box?""

Shelton could not have agreed more. He had been trying, arguing practicalities and priorities, but Wolfowitz was fiercely determined and committed.

And, just to raise your eyebrows a little, this from Dick Cheney on 9-15 at Camp David:

Building a coaltion to take advantage of the opportunities, he said, suggests that this may be a bad time to take on Saddam Hussein. We would lose momentum. ""If we go after Saddam Hussein, we lose our rightful place as good guy.""

You might want to pick up and read the book (the trade paperback supposedly has an added chapter or two on the War in Iraq). New question:

""Do you or do you not support Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz''s urgings to attack Iraq instead of Afghanistan as the first move in the War on Terror?""

Are the donations actually from America? If so, do you have a problem with credit being given where credit is due?

Original thread with a link to the article here.

Non-governmental organizations are supposed to be non-governmental and should not be forced to further foreign policy as a condition for their being allowed to render assistance in foreign countries.

Non-governmental organizations are supposed to be non -governmental and should not be forced to further foreign policy as a condition for their being allowed to render assistance in foreign countries.

That''s not what the article says. The NGO''s in question all receive federal tax dollars. If they don''t want to promote the fact that they are recipients of US funding and restrict their media activities to US approved ones, they can refuse the US tax dollars...

Does it change the fact that in order to get funding, they have to be mouth-pieces for the Administration? It doesn''t seem odd to you that charities (if they want to work with the US [which you''d kind of have to do for security purposes]) have to do the job of making the US look good? Aren''t there any government-run organizations that can do this?

New article to chat about. Interesting quote:

For example, in his Oct. 7 speech, Bush said that ""satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."" He also cited Hussein''s ""numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists"" as further evidence that the program was being reconstituted, along with Iraq''s attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes ""needed"" for centrifuges used to enrich uranium.

But on Jan. 27 -- the day before the State of the Union address -- the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported to the U.N. Security Council that two months of inspections in Iraq had found that no prohibited nuclear activities had taken place at former Iraqi nuclear sites. As for Iraqi nuclear scientists, Mohamed ElBaradei told the Security Council, U.N. inspectors had ""useful"" interviews with some of them, though not in private. And preliminary analysis, he said, suggested that the aluminum tubes, ""unless modified, would not be suitable for manufacturing centrifuges.""

I''ll just wait for someone to come up with a reason why the IAEA would lie about Iraq''s nuclear activities.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

So, in eight days, he managed to gain enough information that he is confident that there is no way Iraq could possibly be trying to buy uranium from Niger.

Hey, if Sean Penn can do it in Baghdad...

Sean Penn visited Iraqi civilians in hospitals, the same civilians that the Administration now wants to portray as the true reason Saddam was deposed. He said that the Iraqi civilians posed no threat to the US and that a war against them would be barbaric. What he said was factually correct. Now, do you want to dispute his claim that harming Iraqi civilians would be wrong?

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Insufficient information to say with any certainty. Certainly, 200 American troops wouldn''t be dead right now if Saddam was left alone.

I think we can agree on that. Question is, how many people would be alive today if we had thrown him out in 1991? How many people might have been killed if he were allowed to stick around for 5 more years?

By the same token, if Osama Bin Laden were killed or captured in 1998, how many of the victims of 9/11 would be alive today? How much noise do you think that military operation would have caused at the time?

Certainly, Saddam''s WMDs wouldn''t be somewhere floating around in space right now.

Wait....I thought Saddam didn''t have WMDs.

If he did have WMDs, does that justify the Bush Administration''s actions, or would only nuclear weapons qualify?

Pages