Cooking the Books

The Bush administration distorted intelligence and presented conjecture as evidence to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq (news - web sites), according to a retired intelligence official who served during the months before the war.

"What disturbs me deeply is what I think are the disingenuous statements made from the very top about what the intelligence did say," said Greg Thielmann, who retired last September. "The area of distortion was greatest in the nuclear field."

Thielmann was director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. His office was privy to classified intelligence gathered by the CIA (news - web sites) and other agencies about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.

From ( source)

The interesting question is will you use patented conservative response

#1:Hey, as long as Saddam's gone. Who cares about things like deceiving the American public, or fabricating evidence.

#2: This guy is totally just doing this to get attention. And, he's totally not credible. And someone in an important position just denied everything this guy says, and also anything other guys who agree with this guy say. Totally.

or #3: Bush is teh AWESOME. France suXX0rz! Teh UN is dumb. Nuke Afghanistan. And, um, something about 9/11!!!1!1

Ah, snide derision from the left. Come on, you've grown to expect it at this point. Not that I think the American public will actually care. I mean, unless someone is getting fellated, then it just doesn't have legs in the media, ya know. Yeah, a bunch of people died, but most of them were brown and not American, so big whoop, am I right! Either way, it's nice to see you guys fielded every bit as much a liar in office as our boys did. So much for moral superiority...

I'm not actually trying to start a debate here. Just found some mud on the ground, and felt like slinging it.

Now you have analysts dismissing claims that the trailers found and praised as the ""smoking gun"" probably aren''t the ""germmoblies"" they''re looking for. Gee, nobody wanted to talk about the fact they tested negative for WMDs. (source)

Elysium: The full report hasn''t been released.

Rat Boy: You have analysts saying things that can give anyone what they want to hear.

Fact remains that nothing has been found, despite this preponderance of evidence and despite the likes of Mrs. Anthrax and Dr. Germ surrendering to the US. Don''t you think they''d say something? Or don''t you think the US would be able to torture something out of them?

"Rat Boy" wrote:
Fact remains that nothing has been found, despite this preponderance of evidence and despite the likes of Mrs. Anthrax and Dr. Germ surrendering to the US. Don''t you think they''d say something? Or don''t you think the US would be able to torture something out of them?

We do not torture people. My only problem with the people who think we won''t find anything is that it proves everyone wrong, not just the United States. Lets look at this as bias free as we can. To think that there are no weapons we must discount this""

The U.N. catalog in 1998 that listed all of these weapons.
The Intel. Groups from the United States, France, Germany, U.K., Russia, and many other countries that all said he had weapons. Remember the debate was never that he didn''t have them it was that we should give the inspectors more time.

If he really didn''t have them, why didn''t he throw open the country to the inspectors? He could have said how he got rid of them and all of that.

I think we should give it more time.

We do not torture people.

*Whistles a nameless tune and walks away from the thread.

"Ulairi" wrote:
I think we should give it more time.

I think it behooves the US to let in UN inspectors to give any discovery a shred of credibility. I think it also behooves them to give the Iraqi people democracy then step back, but that''s a secondary issue.


I think it behooves the US to let in UN inspectors to give any discovery a shred of credibility. I think it also behooves them to give the Iraqi people democracy then step back, but that''s a secondary issue.

That''s right because the U.N. has proven track record of being honest *cough*. Oh and we''re there for Empire Gore Vidal said so!

So far, the US doesn''t have a proven track record of honesty in Iraq, either. You''re a neo-con; aren''t you worried the reason they haven''t been found yet is that the whole kit and kaboodle has been shipped to Syria or Iran? Not that they''d be found there, either; with US intelligence being the collective crapfest that it has been lately, I doubt they could find Waldo in the middle of Tehran.


So far, the US doesn''t have a proven track record of honesty in Iraq, either. You''re a neo-con; aren''t you worried the reason they haven''t been found yet is that the whole kit and kaboodle has been shipped to Syria or Iran? Not that they''d be found there, either; with US intelligence being the collective crapfest that it has been lately, I doubt they could find Waldo in the middle of Tehran.

I really do not care about WMD. I said that before the war started. I think we should push to shape Liberal Democracy in the world.

We do not torture people

I''m sorry, but this is just naive. Seriously, do you think for a minute that when were at war we never have tortured anyone? Im not saying its common practice, but it has happened. The US Military, while a damn fine insitution, is fallable just like anyone else, and like it or not, even if the military at large absolutely abhors torture it will still happen. Of course, I guess this is a moot point, since we can never actually be sure that we don''t, only prove that we have. I''m just saying those are strong words when we don''t even know half the people that have been arrested as terrorists and held without trial.
Elysium: The full report hasn''t been released.

Are you saying the final report will have absolutely none of this in it, and in fact say the exact opposite? Because otherwise, he lied. Now, I''m with you, I think we should give it more time, however it doesn''t look good at this point. Nothing is certain, but that doesn''t mean we should stick our fingers in our ears and start singing when we hear preliminary reports.


I''m sorry, but this is just naive. Seriously, do you think for a minute that when were at war we never have tortured anyone? Im not saying its common practice, but it has happened. The US Military, while a damn fine insitution, is fallable just like anyone else, and like it or not, even if the military at large absolutely abhors torture it will still happen. Of course, I guess this is a moot point, since we can never actually be sure that we don''t, only prove that we have. I''m just saying those are strong words when we don''t even know half the people that have been arrested as terrorists and held without trial.

We take people to other countries to do the torturing.


Are you saying the final report will have absolutely none of this in it, and in fact say the exact opposite? Because otherwise, he lied. Now, I''m with you, I think we should give it more time, however it doesn''t look good at this point. Nothing is certain, but that doesn''t mean we should stick our fingers in our ears and start singing when we hear preliminary reports.

People are taking a small part of a report that supports their claims. I''ve read articles that state the whole report supports the Adminstrations claim that weapons are there. I think there is just too much circumstantial evidence for there not to be weapons.

"Ulairi" wrote:
I really do not care about WMD. I said that before the war started. I think we should push to shape Liberal Democracy in the world.

That isn''t what we went to war for. We went to war because there were WMDs that needed destroying. The Administration couldn''t give a flying f*ck about establishing Liberal Democracies all over the world, otherwise that''s the causus belli they would''ve used on the American people and the world.

We do not torture people.

We take people to other countries to do the torturing.

I''m confused.

"Certis" wrote:
We do not torture people.

We take people to other countries to do the torturing.

I''m confused.

The first post was ""sarcasm"" the second post is what I''ve read and trying to clairfy my first post.

"Certis" wrote:
We do not torture people.

We take people to other countries to do the torturing.

I''m confused.

That''s because you''re doublethinking too much. It''s double plus ungood.

"Ulairi" wrote:
People are taking a small part of a report that supports their claims. I''ve read articles that state the whole report supports the Adminstrations claim that weapons are there. I think there is just too much circumstantial evidence for there not to be weapons.

Could you link those articles, cause I haven''t heard about them.

Also, are you saying that circumstantial evidence alone is enough to justify thier claims? Even at that, they still lied, because they said they had substantial proof.


Also, are you saying that circumstantial evidence alone is enough to justify thier claims? Even at that, they still lied, because they said they had substantial proof.

Yes. Because more than one country had the same view, even countries that were not for the war. We do not know who lied. Did someone lie to Bush? Did Bush know and lie? We need to find out.

I''m guessing you''re advocating the Senate and Parliament inquiries?

"Ulairi" wrote:

Also, are you saying that circumstantial evidence alone is enough to justify thier claims? Even at that, they still lied, because they said they had substantial proof.

Yes. Because more than one country had the same view, even countries that were not for the war. We do not know who lied. Did someone lie to Bush? Did Bush know and lie? We need to find out.


So as long as more than one country is wrong its okay, well pretend theyre right? Why is it okay to get people killed as long as several people agree? Theres still no proof, whether everyone thinks they''re shifty or not. Should Arabs living in NYC be found guilty of terrorism because everyone in thier building agrees theyre a terrorist, even if there is no proof at all?

Also, yes, I am speaking of specifically whoever lied, and who knew about it. All of them should be put on trial.

Its funny how you want proof when Bush and the Administration is on trial, but when it comes to killing people you don''t like it becomes unnecessary.


So as long as more than one country is wrong its okay, well pretend theyre right? Why is it okay to get people killed as long as several people agree? Theres still no proof, whether everyone thinks they''re shifty or not. Should Arabs living in NYC be found guilty of terrorism because everyone in thier building agrees theyre a terrorist, even if there is no proof at all?

I do not think we were wrong going in. I do not think Saddam had any rights because he did not protect the rights of his citizens. I''m with Locke on this.

I do not care about WMD.

I do not think we were wrong going in. I do not think Saddam had any rights because he did not protect the rights of his citizens. I''m with Locke on this.

I do not care about WMD.

Which would be fine, if the administration had used that as a reason to go in (well not fine, I think Locke is often full of self-indulgent sh*t. I don''t agree with several of his positions). My issue is being misled by my own government. I don''t think even Locke would be happy with that. I know Paine wouldn''t.

"Ulairi" wrote:

So as long as more than one country is wrong its okay, well pretend theyre right? Why is it okay to get people killed as long as several people agree? Theres still no proof, whether everyone thinks they''re shifty or not. Should Arabs living in NYC be found guilty of terrorism because everyone in thier building agrees theyre a terrorist, even if there is no proof at all?

I do not think we were wrong going in. I do not think Saddam had any rights because he did not protect the rights of his citizens. I''m with Locke on this.

I do not care about WMD.

Nothing disrespectful intended here, but no one cares why you think we should be fighting. This is about the Administration''s justification for going to war. I didn''t ask what you thought, but why it was okay to justify a war on circumstantial evidence, simply because everyone else agrees?


Nothing disrespectful intended here, but no one cares why you think we should be fighting. This is about the Administration''s justification for going to war. I didn''t ask what you thought, but why it was okay to justify a war on circumstantial evidence, simply because everyone else agrees?

Yes. The whole war was circumstantial. The war was fought that he might use weapons and we based that on circumstantial evidence.

Face it, Ulairi. The Administration made the wrong choice in casus belli. The American public might not mind right now, but if Congress starts digging up some really stinky dirt, things will change.

And there''s also the little matter of the Niger uranium that you haven''t been able to explain away:

Clear, definitive proof that the Administration has not used entirely factual evidence in selling the war to the American public.