Is Yurtsie giving you reading lessons or something? We're talking about manipulation of intel. Try to keep up a little...
So.... is Obama a war criminal yet?
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
Is Yurtsie giving you reading lessons or something? We're talking about manipulation of intel. Try to keep up a little...
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
now the goal posts are moving because you just got busted in yet ANOTHER lie. you claimed the intel was manipulated....you above quote does not have a link and here is a link to the actual report....read conclusion 84 on p.13 of that link, it says the opposite of what you claimed...the entire report found that there was no manipulation of intel or coercion by the admin to pressure people to create intel to support their beliefs.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec9.pdf
its hilarious how you think you schooled me, when your quote does not support your claim at all. my link shows that your claim about manipulation is not true. and of course you finally got quote, once again proving i am correct in that you only link up when you think you're right.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Um, Yurtsie? Half of the conclusions in whatever report you posted are redacted.
Only in Yurtsie-land do the findings of that report indicate no manipulation of intel, but 2 aviators falling to the ground in Libya represent "boots on the ground."
No partisan agenda there. You're clean...
Only in Yurtsie-land do the findings of that report indicate no manipulation of intel, but 2 aviators falling to the ground in Libya represent "boots on the ground."
No partisan agenda there. You're clean...
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I don't need reading lessons, but apparently you do! The very source you claimed backed your stupidity, says point blank, there was nothing unlawful done. They found NOTHING to substantiate the claims you are making! It's right there in black and white, in the very report you cited! Now, you need to back up what you said, or admit you lied... either way is fine by me, but we're not going to keep playing this little game where you simply deny reality and pretend, while the rest of us scratch our heads and try to figure out what planet you're living on. Got it, moron? Probably not!
Are you afraid of a rebuttal...???
I'd say that whoever made this statement needs to clarity what it says....and address undeniable facts about the information in the NIE I posted.
Intelligence is by its nature not necessarily fact...everyone knows that...intelligence is what spies and informers tell us of what MAY be going on or happening .....the NIE is what the Bush Administration talked about...national intelligence ESTIMATE....understand that word....it could just as well be GUESSTIMATE....Bush NEVER made statements about an Al Qaida/Saddam connection...ever that I'm aware of, in spite of what WIKI says....
These 2 statements are DIRECTLY from the Oct. NIE
Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida — with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States — could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.
• In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.
This is the intelligence presented to Bush .....so even it Bush did say something about Saddam and AlQuida...its in the intelligence he was given...
NOW....are you claiming the Iraqi War Resolution doesn't exist ?
Here is the link....http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/jt_resolution.htm
IF you read it for yourself and still maintain it doesn't exist, that will certainly conclude our discussion.
And now its obvious....You just got schooled
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so.
When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with Administration policies on Iraq’s WMD programs, not a single analyst answered “yes.” Most analysts simply answered, "No” or “never,” but some provided more extensive responses.
Some of their responses are below:
A Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) biological weapons (BW) analyst said, “NO,never. Never. Matter of fact, the assessments we make have always tried to -we always tried to be as accurate and always as truthful as we can, and it might be that our assessments suited what they needed. But we were never pressured to make an assessment a certain way or anything.’’
The National Intelligence Officer (NIO) for Science and Technology said, “my answer to all of those is there was no pressure on me throughout that entire period. I did not have any analysts come to me with any information about the fact that they were feeling pressure to change their judgments. And I was certainly not aware of any, whether I heard it or not. So there were really no -as far as I’m concerned, there were no such things happening.”
A CIA chemical weapons (CW) analyst said, “there was no pressure at all. They didn’t tell us what to say or anything like that.”
Another CIA CW analyst said, “I did not feel any pressure, nor would I have done anything if they tried to pressure me.”
A Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear analyst said, “ . . .no one influenced me. I think the NIE as it stands, although it was a rushed process like we talked about, but as it stands our position is adequately represented in there.”
A National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) analyst said, “my assessment was based purely on, as I’ve said and I keep saying, on my research and what I was able to find out and then thinking about it and writing and giving out the information.”
A Department of State Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) WMD senior analyst said, “Not at all. . . . lNR has a pretty solid track record of stating its views, whether they are in sync with the prevailing winds of policymakers, but we have never shied away from stating our view where it diverges . . .’’
A Defense IntelligenceAgency (DIA) nuclear programs division chief said, “We had absolutely no contact with Administration or policy folks while we were preparing our work. We had no internal or external influences on what [the analysts’] judgments were.”
Committee staff asked some CIA analysts covering Iraq’s WMD programs specifically about visits from the Vice President to question analysts. These analysts said they believed the visits were intended to gather information, not to pressure analysts to come to particular judgments.
For example, the Deputy Director of Analysis at the DCI’s Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) told Committee staff that he was involved in several of the meetings and said,
I think I’ve mentioned before, with the Vice President and I think that there’s no question they had a point of view, but there was no attempt to get us to hew to a particular point of view ourselves or to come to a certain conclusion. It was trying to figure out why do we come to this conclusion,what was the evidence, a lot of questions asked, probing questions, but no pressure to get us to come to a particular point of view.
This goes on for page after page after page.....
CONCLUSION:
The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials
attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
As Yurt said.... BUSTED!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I just posted the report, where does it say anyone "manipulated intelligence?" From what I read, it says just the opposite, there was no evidence found to substantiate that claim, and every person they asked, refuted that claim in no uncertain terms. What part of THAT are YOU failing to comprehend, retard-o-breath?
This is fairly unambiguous:
" "repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.” These included President Bush's statements of a partnership between Iraq and Al Qa'ida, that Saddam Hussein was preparing to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups, and Iraq's capability to produce chemical weapons."
I don't know what you idiots are missing here. Only in Dixieland, and now Yurtsieville, is this not "manipulating intel." Only in Dixieland & Yurtsieville is it not manipulating intel when Colin Powell's top aide says he's given a "chinese menu" of intel to make a case for war. Only in Dixieland & Yurtsieville is not manipulating intel when the British say the "intel was being fixed around the policy." Only in Dixieland & Yurtsieville is it not manipulating intel when the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence says, "“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."
Only in Dixieland & Yurtsieville....
" "repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.” These included President Bush's statements of a partnership between Iraq and Al Qa'ida, that Saddam Hussein was preparing to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups, and Iraq's capability to produce chemical weapons."
I don't know what you idiots are missing here. Only in Dixieland, and now Yurtsieville, is this not "manipulating intel." Only in Dixieland & Yurtsieville is it not manipulating intel when Colin Powell's top aide says he's given a "chinese menu" of intel to make a case for war. Only in Dixieland & Yurtsieville is not manipulating intel when the British say the "intel was being fixed around the policy." Only in Dixieland & Yurtsieville is it not manipulating intel when the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence says, "“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."
Only in Dixieland & Yurtsieville....
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
CONCLUSION:
The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials
attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
Only in Onzieville can evidence of an accusation exist when no evidence is found, and the accusation becomes established fact, even when numerous committees find the accusation can't be substantiated.
"repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated" ...What the fuck does that even mean? Intelligence information is NEVER presented or accepted as established fact! NEVER! Not even by the biggest dumbest brain-dead moron alive! Intelligence of ANY kind, is almost to a fault, unsubstantiated. In every speech I find from Bush, his comments are always under the caveat, that this is what we've learned from intelligence sources. He never stated that we knew ANYTHING for a fact, in fact, THAT was one of the mitigating reasons it was so urgent to take action, we didn't KNOW what Saddam might be doing!
"Bush's statements of a partnership between Iraq and Al Qa'ida" ....While there was some bad intel, one thing we did establish for a fact, between 1997 and 2001, there were at least 8 clandestine meetings between members of Saddam's regime and members of alQaeda. The CIA has photographs of them meeting, this is not in dispute and have never been in doubt. Now.... what they were talking about, is anyone's guess... maybe they were trading cookie recipes? In 2000 or 2001, Saddam sent his defense minister, Farouk Haziz, to Afghanistan, to meet with Osama Bin Laden. Maybe he just wanted to extend get well wishes? But we know that trip did occur, the two did met. Now, I never recall Bush saying anything about a "partnership" but he did mention a connection to alQaeda, because there was one.
The Left became dyslexic and wanted to substitute "alQaeda" for "9/11" ...and made the repeated false claim that Bush connected Saddam to 9/11... No one EVER made that statement. Saddam was involved in the 1995 WTC bombing, and up until our invasion, provided sanctuary and state income, for the mastermind of the 1995 bombing. But 9/11? We don't know if he was involved with that or not, and no one ever claimed he was.
"....when the British say the "intel was being fixed around the policy." Again, it doesn't matter what people say! Even "the British" ....and who are you talking about? ALL the people in the UK? The British Government? The Queen? Who the fuck are you talking about when you say "the British"? Of course the allegation was made that Bush fixed intel around the policy, that was the reason for the investigation to which I posted the findings for! They could find no evidence to substantiate the allegation! They found NO EVIDENCE of ANY illegality! They found NO EVIDENCE of manipulation or coercion! Yet here you are, in OnzieDoodleLand... pretending the allegations were proven fact!
You don't know what "repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated" means? Really? I'll explain it to you. It's like getting a PDB a few days before a state of the union saying that the ONE source you had for mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq, a spy named "Curveball," was deemed wholly unreliable, and then saying in that state of the union that "mulitple sources" had confirmed the presence of mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq. It's like giving your SOS a "chinese menu" of intel, and telling him to pick what would make the best case for war. That's what it means.
LOL at you're still trying to make the case for the Iraq/Al Qaeda "alliance." You need to read the 1st part of the investigation we're talking about. I'm glad you're admitting that the admin made no bones about creating the connection, though.
You know which "British" I'm talking about with "intel fixed around the policy." And you know about the Downing St. memo. And you know about Paul O'Neil (you know...the guy who was actually IN the Bush admin). You know about Paul Wolfowicz, and Richard Clarke, and Colin Powell's aide...all of whom said essentially the same thing. So, either they're all lying, or Bush is.
There really isn't any question whatsoever what happened in the lead-up to war. If you're determined to keep partisan blinders on regarding the facts, that's your choice, but it won't change history.
christiefan915
Catalyst
He didn't have to, as long as he notified them within 48 hours, which he did.
The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.
And what do you think about "CHERRY PICKING" statements to reinforce your lies ?
That is exactly what you're doing...
PHASE 1 Conclusions.....
General conclusions on intelligence relating to Iraq's WMD and ties to terrorism
The report's first conclusion points to widespread flaws in the October 2002 NIE, and attributes those flaws to failure by analysts in the intelligence community:
Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence.
Subsequent conclusions fault the intelligence community for failing to adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties that underlay the NIE's conclusions, and for succumbing to "group think," in which the intelligence community adopted untested (and, in hindsight, unwarranted) assumptions about the extent of Iraq's WMD stockpiles and programs. The committee identified a failure to adequately supervise analysts and collectors, and a failure to develop human sources of intelligence (HUMINT) inside Iraq after the departure of international weapons inspectors in 1998. It also cited the post-9/11 environment as having led to an increase in the intensity with which policymakers review and question threat information.
=============================================
PHASE 2
After Democrats gained a majority in the Senate during the 2006 midterm election, chairmanship of the committee passed to Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). The former chair, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) left the committee; the ranking Republican and vice chairman of the committee is now Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO).
Thus you have a much harsher PHASE 2 analysis of the hearing....the reason is obviously the partisanship....Democrats now in majority...
=============================================
In "Additional Views"...written conclusions by individual committee members are telling.
All Republican committee members used their 'additional views; to compliment the entire committee for their work and co-operation during the investigation...all of them....
All Democrat committee members used their 'additional views' to criticize Bush, to criticize the Bush Administration and to criticize the intelligence community...all of them....
Doesn't that at lease cause you to pause ?...
You should learn, as we adults already know, that its not just the actions taken or the conclusions made in any issue...its the process, its WHY did you take an action, its WHY did you come to that conclusion...
The fact that conclusions that diametrically oppose one another, appear immeniatly after another party becomes the majority is enough to make any open minded person wonder WHY....
So you 'cherry pick' away....its your choice to retain the ignorance you started with in 2003 and not learn as new facts become available....in your case, ignorance certainly is bliss....personally, I think ignorance is just 'dangerous'....
And...as you've now read the IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION and still deny its existence, we're done.....you're dismissed.
LOL - how ironic that bravo is using the word "cherrypicking" to defend Bush on intel.
Like I said, the history is clear; nothing you hacks say will change it.
And another LOL for "Iraqi War Resolution." How dishonest can you get? A complete rewriting of history, without even flinching. That was not a WAR declaration, or resolution, or anything. Do you know what war is bravs?
Very, very sad.
Like I said, the history is clear; nothing you hacks say will change it.
And another LOL for "Iraqi War Resolution." How dishonest can you get? A complete rewriting of history, without even flinching. That was not a WAR declaration, or resolution, or anything. Do you know what war is bravs?
Very, very sad.
Google "Iraq WAR RESOLUTION".....I get 15,700,000 hits and you deny it exists......? I even linked you to the text........ not only...very, very sad..... you're very, very pathetic......so deny away pinhead, there is no law against your embracing ignorance....
LOL - the google results "proof." I get about 10 million hits on "Bush lied," so by your standard, that's all the proof you should need.
Duh.
And btw Onceler....you are correct in saying the Iraq War Resolution was not a declaration of war....no one ever claimed it was
This is how its described...
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
This is how its described...
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
Here is "how it is described"...by who, bravs? Congress?