Yeah, we did the wrong thing..

"Ockham" wrote:

it''s a little early in the morning to be reading the bile Ralcydan spews and then calls argument

You have an interesting way of capitulating that the DoD release in fact does not call the Feith memo inaccurate. At least the ""I turned it around on you"" silliness stopped once you saw you were wrong - though it does seem to have put you in a bad mood...

"Ockham" wrote:

You made it sound like the evidence was factually shown to be accurate, but it was not the intelligence itself that was cleared, it was ''the provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee'' that was cleared. The act of providing the annex was cleared, not the annex itself.

Maybe you don''t know what ""cleared"" means. All intelligence is conjecture. Cleared intel never means cold, hard fact, and my stating that the evidence was cleared doesn''t indicate otherwise. But it was indeed cleared - cleared to be presented to a Senate select committee.

Further, we are discussing the accuracy of these reports. You are trying to imply that the information is inaccurate, but the idea that this information was considered to be inaccurate, but still cleared for briefings given to the secretary of Defense, the director of Central Intelligence, the Vice President, and now a Senate panel investigating the potential misuse of intelligence, stretches credulity.

A good analysis of the DoD release, from an interested party

"Ockham" wrote:

It seems like the memo is basically the DoD saying, ""Yes we provided the info that Congress asked for, we can''t confirm or deny if any of it means anything and any news reports saying we did are wrong.

Finally, you get it right.

At least the Newsweek piece addressed some of the specific points of the memo - the first actual rebuttal to the evidence you''ve offered in the entire thread. Of course the Newsweek piece only takes issue with 2 points out of 50, and the Weekly Standard addresses even those here.

Ockham, since your basic case is link to liberal opinion pieces and conspiracy theory rants and act like you''ve made an argument, let''s try a different tack. Let''s talk about the evidence itself.

During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in Dec 2000. Iraqi intelligence was ""encouraged"" after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training.

Show the above not to be true.

You won''t be able to, and that of course is the point. There are 50 such pieces of evidence, from reports across multiple intelligence agencies. Any of them show a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but you say they are all inaccurate. Your basis for this claim? A Newsweek article casting doubt on 2 of the 50 pieces of evidence, and a whole lot of conjecture - some of which by people that you should be embarrassed to have admitted was a source of thinking for you.

My friend, youcan''tbe convinced.

During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in Dec 2000. Iraqi intelligence was ""encouraged"" after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training.

That''s the smoking gun? Wow!

That''s the smoking gun? Wow!

Fang, I actually can''t tell whether you are being sarcastic or not.

First of all, the concept of a ""smoking gun"" is a standard invented by people who can''t handle the intellectual rigors of examining evidence. This report is just one of many that indicates the relationship.

Secondly, given the hard, documentary evidence we found in Afghanistan that Al Qaeda was looking into both obtaining and ways to use chemical weapons, does it surprise you that some of Al Qaeda''s membership of 20,000 (many of whom are Iraqi) would go to the local expert?

Wow you''re really something. You were playing junior high English teacher earlier, and when I point out how your reading of a sentence is wrong. You just plow right on ahead and ignore it and keep on arguing your misinterpretation. The memo specifically said the provision of the annex to Congress was cleared. The key to definition of ''provision'' in context would be the usage of the word ''to''.

You also seem to be ignoring the whole point of the annex in the first place, which was simply to provide references to specific intelligence Feith was using to back up his claims to the Senate. The DoD memo only confirmed that they approved the gathering of the data in the annex for provision. They specifically said it contained no analysis in itself.

I provided links that state that the intelligence reports in the annex have all been analyzed by the intelligence community and the People who get Paid to understand this stuff decided it was not enough to make a solid case, not yet at least.

The fact is some of what I linked to comes from professional journalists who presumably could provide sources were you to ask. But who cares right? It''s enough for you to call them ''liberal opinion'' pieces and then dismiss them out of hand. Yet the only supporting pieces you have shown thus far are all written by Stephen Hayes, who published the leaked memo in the first place. One source, who clearly also has a bias, and yet in your mind he must be right.

I even acknowledged that some of the data in the memo might end up being correct, but you yourself said it was in the end the Senate''s job to determine if it was enough to prove Feith''s allegations. But then you go ahead and do their job for them, assuming that it must be true. Let''s not even get into the fact that it was Feith and his office who made what turned out to be some of the most bogus claims about WMD''s in Iraq before the war, where are they at again? Is it Narnia this week?

Anyway the burden of proof is not on me here, much as you would like it to be. From the first I only requested that you not build arguments on unproven ground. You claim the memo contains correct facts , but you can''t prove it. Neither you nor Stephen Hayes is a trained intelligence analyst, and those who are, are not convinced enough to draw the conclusions you''ve drawn. That''s worth repeating again for the oxygen-deprived: the people who are trained and have seen this evidence in full context do not think it''s enough to draw any conclusions at the present time.

So if that''s the best you can do, then no, I''m not convinced. Yes, I could be, but probably not by your pedantic blend of obfuscation and verbal ju-jitsu. And I''m certainly not your friend.

That''s the longest post I''ve ever seen just to say, ""no, I really can''t give any rebuttal to the evidence"".

Actually, Ral, Im not being sarcastic. Do you want me to go over what that quote reads like to me?

During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training

Ok so a senior Al Qaeda operative is ordered to go to Iraq for training on chemical weapons. (By who? How senior is he? Does he actually go or even make any plans to go?)

After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in Dec 2000.

Ok 2 random operatives were sent for the training. (Did they make it to Iraq? Did they meet with any Iraqi? Did they get turned back? Did they get shot on sight? Did they complete the training? Did they return from Iraq?)

Iraqi intelligence was ""encouraged"" after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training.

Saddam''s regime would always delight in the tragedy of the US. Who in Iraqi intelligence was ""encouraged""? What were they ""encouraged"" to do? Did they actually provide training? Who ""encouraged"" Iraqi inteligence?

Well , you''re just parroting Stephen Hayes, whose argument boils down to:

""""Even though I said this was iron clad evidence, the Pentagon doesn''t, so because James Woolsey is convinced, the Pentagon was wrong."" -- taken from here.

"Ockham" wrote:

Well , you''re just parroting Stephen Hayes, whose argument boils down to:

Actually, I''m parroting the CIA, NSC, and the DIA, all of whom think the evidence good enough to be presented to the VP, SecDef, DCI, and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. And I''m parroting the DCI and Undersecretary of Defense themselves, both of whom considered the information reliable to present it to a Congressional committee that has access to check its reliability.

But what do those organizations and people know? It''s not like they are those ""People who get Paid to understand this stuff"" you were referring to. And besides, the actual intelligence community is helpless in the face of criticism like this:

You see? Just as I said yesterday, this is just more Psychological Warfare directed by the Fascists, against their own citizens.

You are kidding right? Slacktivist and pandagon are your journalistic rebuttals to the Weekly Standard? And after posting those links, you actually have the gumption to say that some of what you are posting is from ""professional journalists""? Have you looked at the front pages of the stuff you''re linking to as ""evidence""? Come on, this can''t be for real. Rantage, is that you just messing with me?

I''m sure lots of intelligence data gets presented to various government officials. But I have yet to hear any of the officials you mentioned besides Feith actually publically announce that yes, there was provable, high-level cooperation between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

Yeah they provided the data to the Senate Committee, because the committee ASKED FOR IT, to back up the claims that Feith made during his testimony. Has the committee reached any decision yet? Did they issue a report saying that Feith''s claims were correct? If they have I missed it, but you keep on assuming he''s right, just like he was right about those mass quantities of WMD''s that Iraq had aimed right at us.

And how lame is picking two examples from blogs to attack me and ignoring the authors of the Newsweek piece and Josh Marshall, who despite what you may believe, are ''real'' journalists. Why don''t you email Marshall and ask him where he got his government intelligence sources who say that Feith''s claims ''wouldn''t pass the laugh test'' in the professional intelligence community.

Oh that''s right, because you''re mentally incapable of admitting you might be assuming too much. My bad.

P.S. In case your ego is getting in the way, let me also point out to you that anyone writing a blog about the subject has at least as much credibility as you do arguing about it on a gaming message board. Unless you really are Ari or Doug Feith.

Next person to make a ""you"" comment locks this thread and has their post deleted. This is going in circles.

But I have yet to hear any of the officials you mentioned besides Feith actually publically announce that yes, there was provable, high-level cooperation between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

Actually, you haven''t even heard Feith publicly announce anything - the information is still classified. It''s amazing how much time you have spent commenting and linking to others commenting on the administration''s lack a discussion of classified intelligence - they can''t talk about it.

Has the committee reached any decision yet? Did they issue a report saying that Feith''s claims were correct? If they have I missed it, but you keep on assuming he''s right

I''m not assuming. I''ve read the contents of the memo, and drawn my own conslusion. Either every one of those reports is false, or there was indeed a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

It is beyond credulity that this information would be presented to the people who have been briefed if it was all thought to be inaccurate. And if it is not all inaccurate, and there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, then we likely have barely scratched the surface. If the relationship was as long term and secretive as our sources claim, the 50 points probably ain''t the extent of what we will discover.

because you''re mentally incapable of admitting you might be assuming too much. My bad.

I think you might be my first groupie. You lurked for a while, and then jumped in aggressively to get my attention. Well, it worked - and I''m flattered. Of course, I was hoping to have a new person to discuss the case and evidence with, but you just seem to want me to pay attention to you.

Now you may not like that characterization, but I think it fits. Your initial complaint was that I don''t offer up facts, while expecting others to do the same, and challenged me to do so on the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection.

Well, the facts are these: There are dozens of reports from multiple sources, many of whom corroborate each other. These reports have been cleared by the intelligence community to be presented to the highest levels of the executive branch as well as the Congressional committee responsible for oversight of intelligence.

It is this evidence that is the core of the case. By presenting these 50 items, I am offering evidence that there was indeed a link. If you would like to show me I am wrong, a good route would be to show how the items themselves are demostrated false.

Poorly written blogs ranting about government conspiracies are not a rebuttal of the evidence. Josh Marshall''s unnamed source talking about a ""laugh test"" is not a rebuttal of a single point of evidence. The Newsweek article questions 2 out of 50 points, and the Weekly Standard addresses those questions in the article linked above. In other words, your case has been to quote other people''s cases, most of which doesn''t even address, much less refute the evidence in question.

So why are you still arguing?

Next person to make a ""you"" comment locks this thread and has their post deleted. This is going in circles.

Oops - sorry, sig, missed it... I say lock it up anyway, there''s not much more to say.

The real question is:

Did we do the RIGHT thing.

Oops - sorry, sig, missed it... I say lock it up anyway, there''s not much more to say.

Yeah, I can see you pinched that one out a couple minutes after my post. We''ll say starting now then.

This is kind of fun!

First time I''ve ever heard anyone reference ''pinching'' a post.

My final word on the subject:

Just because there may be 50 pieces of raw data labeled Top Secret that may suggest a conclusion to an untrained eye doesn''t mean much. I''d bet that, given free access, one could find at least 50 pieces of classified intelligence data that support a theory concluding Castro killed Kennedy. That does not mean it inevitably follows that he did.

The mere existence of unconfirmed classified data selectively chosen to reinforce a conclusion does not necessarily mean that conclusion is correct. Assuming that it does despite numerous valid objections and reasons indicating the contrary and then using that conclusion to bolster other arguments is fallacy at best.

If the Senate Intelligence Committee ever issues any public findings on the matter, or new evidence is uncovered, I''d be happy to reopen the discussion at that point. Until then I consider it an open question, and put the burden of proof on those who insist on it''s veracity.

"Dirt" wrote:

The real question is:

Did we do the RIGHT thing.

Yes. Next topic!

"Certis" wrote:

Next person to make a ""you"" comment locks this thread and has their post deleted. This is going in circles.

You, you, Canadien!

This isn''t about the Iraqis. If it were, Wolfowitz wouldn''t be banning Russia, Germany and France from being able to bid on contracts. If those three countries can do something cheaper than any other country, isn''t that in the best long term interest of the Iraqi people?

Dammit Ral, I say no more ""you"" comments and then you go ahead and do one AFTER you acknowledge me. Just for that you lose both posts AND I''m going to let an Orc eat you in FFXI next time you need me to save your bacon.

Which is like, all the damn time.