Bad Intelligence. Uh oh - Page 2  

They may not have any choice!

Nver gonna happen my friend.

Mac user's are primarily artists. Artists are primarily empathetic (i.e. liberal in the true sense of the word, not the dirty word politics has turned it into).

funny stuff from yesteryear

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2...200206102.html

It's amazing how hypocritical you can be. Is dishonesty allowed in the White House or not?

"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."

SDW, maybe you should check out this thread.

We're not talking about that. We are talking about Bush taking the fall. It's not going to happen. Wow, this is strawman day, isn't it?

He was told it was false. He didn't listen. He made the decision to put it in the state of the union address. This is pegged on Bush.

If you're trying to say no one will care, that's one thing. If you're trying to say Bush can legitimately blame someone else, I say you're wrong.

No, bunge...you're still building that huge strawman!

No one has said that Bush was told. That's the whole point. They have said that "The White House" was told. Yes, it made it into the State of the Union. If Bush believed the intelligence and allowed it to be included, that actually means he didn't lie at all. The only question is whether he knew or not...and anyone who thinks the man is stupid enough to use something he knew to be false in the State of the Union cannot be serious.

That would mean he is grossly and immensly incompetent. Incompetent in the way that a PVS patient is incompetent. There's no way around that.

If the President's trusted advisors give him intelligence which later turns out to be wrong, that makes the President incompetent? How? What are you saying...that Bush should have known the intel on Niger was wrong?
Bush has trained professionals whose job it is to present him with information. Decisions are then made on the basis of that information. This is either the fault of the people who gathered and recorded the intel, or the people that presented it to the President.

Let me ask you this: Let's say you have a professional helping you with something in your life. This person is considered an expert in his field, say, Real Estate. Your Broker tells you that you should list your house for $250,000. The house doesn't sell. You later find out the house is only worth $200,000. This broker came highly reccomended as has tremendous credentials. As it turns out though, the appraisal company he used overstated the value because it got a kick back from the Real Estate Broker's Branch Owner for the house selling higher. The appraisal company took a gamble and lost. Now tell me...this makes YOU incompetent?

It's the same with the President. If the President is presented information, he has to assume it is accurate unless it is obviously wrong. There can be no case that Bush should or could have known this. Let's say the Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld tell the President that from North Korea absolutely WILL launch an ICBM at San Francisco at 8 a.m. tomorrow morning. Bush orders a pre-emptive surgical strike on the launch facility, which we later learn was actually a Grain Silo, as opposed to a Missile Silo. This is Bush's fault?

The President can only act on what he is presented with. So too can you and I. "Lying or incompetent" is simple use of false dilemma technique. "Disingenuous Debate Tactic Day 2003" continues, apparently.

Isn´t this beginning to be a bit to technical? Are we now to discuss what "The White House" is? What lying means? What excatly "is" is?

I think there is a HUGE distinction here. HUGE.

Apparently.

SDW seems to also think that the President isn't responsible for what he does.

But, as Bunge pointed out, Bush knew:

"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."

As for you, SDW, if you actually believed anything you say, shouldn't you be a bit more concerned about the fact that the entire Bush admin knew but didn't tell Bush (or so the vooices tell you). Since when you elect the president you are more so electing the admin, you better hurry up and hop on the bandwagon to get the Bush admin out of office.

No matter what you think of Bush the person, the Bush admin is corrupt as hell by your own measure.

There is? So if your claim is that information that was used to justify a major war was known in the white house to be false it is the fault of the mail system? "Oops. The report that Russia was launcing a rocket bringing food to the ISS wasn´t delivered to the president himself so therefore we thought it was a missile and we nuked Moscow. That calls for drastic matters. Fire the mail boy!"

The president is responsible for getting the right information. He desides how the infrastructure of the white house is and therefore he is responsible.

SDW,

No one buying your ideas today either I see.

buying? most people would probably pay to get rid of them.

*note, for those of you that need help, that's an attack on the idea, not the person*

I think your confusing him with the previous president.

I'd like to see that quote linked please. Somehow I doubt your word.

And, apparently "Disingenuous Debate Tactics 2003 Day" continues with your coninued use of Strawman technique. I didn't say the "entire Bush administration". You did. The report was wrong. If Bush knew it, then we have a problem. If someone else knew it, he/she has a problem. If someone suspected the repport was wrong, but didn't bring it to President's attention, that person again has a problem.

The Bush administration is "corrupt as hell"? Come on. If you were anymore polarized you'd be a battery. My God...take a step back. Get some perspective...perhaps take a vacation.

Anders:



Oh My God. The President is presented with information. If the information is wrong, he cannot be held responsible. The person or persons that PRESENTED the info to him must be held responsible.

giant and jimmac:

You not agreeing with me doesn't mean a thing. 10,000 people, 50,000 or the entire population of France (apparently) won't disuade me. Bush used information which has now been proven inaccurate. The only question is: Did he know it at the time? There is no evidence of that. There is no evidence Bush lied to start a war, as you are so fond of claiming. There is no case for impeachment. The hunt for WMD is not over and has not been totally fruitless. The war did not violate any domestic or international law, was not without merit and was not for the purposes of enriching Bush's friends, pampering white males, empire building or the conquest of Iraqi natural resources.

But by all means, continue. Wait 'till you see the thread I start on Election night 2004.

Why, because everything I've posted has been demonstrated true? Anyway, here's a bone, doggy:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_2518.shtml


Since we actually know for a fact that all major offices, Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, Rice's and Powell's, were notificed multiple times that one of the most crucial elements of their case was totally invalid, we know for a fact that that information was intentionally withheld. End of story. Bush Admin decieved the american people.

But, now you have to acknowlege that Bush was personally informed of the fact on multiple occasions, as stated above. As such, he knew what he was saying had been discredited.

You are also a liar. The board is repeatly hitting you on the head and you still claim there is no board.

The ONLY evidence that exists AT ALLpoint to Bush knowing. The only defense put forward has been Ari Fleischer's contorted denials coupled with your inability to think clearly. Have you even read the transcripts of the exchange? I didn't think so.

more than just your average Thread title, this one is becoming a content description

whether Bush "knew" that intel info was bogus and/or too weak to support as justification for war, as it seems Colin Powell "knew" when he allegedly threw up papers "full of crap" he was being asked to read to the UN, might be one issue.
if the briefing guy quote pans out, it seems pretty clear that he was told.

whether Bush cared?
(badges... we don't need no steenkin badges!). nope.
the war to get revenge on the "man who tried to kill my daddy" was long planned. inconveniences like no "imminent threat of WMD" shouldn't get in the way of some carefully stage-managed yelling like Chicken Little serving FUD in order to fulfill such a long-itched-for-payback.
facts that don't conform get massaged. staple of politics. doctored evidence is de rigeur with some bosses... j.e.hoover and many in Washington since.

whether Bush was bright enough to realize that those skeptical before the war would see such bogus claims for the transparent propaganda they seemed to be, get reminded daily by the near total lack of WMD found in Iraq in the three months of intensive searching since and begin to ask questions...
no... i don't think GWB had the neurons to see that wheel coming around

beware leaders more interested in conformity with preset chosen views than in hearing conflicting evidence.
yes-men don't do the checks and balances thing very well
and blind obedience is twice as tough on the dog

edit: boy I'm grumpy today.

I believe you. I have never really thought any of us would change your mind. It's just that there are probably more people out there like you that bothers me. So as this latest soap opera for the whitehouse unfolds at least I get some satisfaction this time to see someone like you proven wrong.

I can't wait for election night either!

Although I just posted this a few posts back, I'll repost it here for your sake. Please read it this time:

"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."

Maybe he was sleep walking.

or drunk?

(on power, booze, the belief he actually EARNED his way to the white house, yadda yadda, yadda.)

Is the Capitol Hill Blue story true? click

This interested me for 10 seconds, then I stopped reading, which is why I leave it as a question. Thought you boys might have some fun with it.

Funny things happen at times like these. But the meat of this story has appeared elsewhere.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...wmd/index.html

We were just discussing that here at work. We think it's clear there is more to the story. Note that he checked with numerous people and verified that Terry Wilkinson was real and they knew him. So it seems likely that he is in fact real.

It's very interesting, and it would be good to look out in the future for anything more on this. It's clear that there is something we aren't being told.

WOW! I didn't realize he actually said this:

"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld said.

This is not news, but some of you haven't been able to accept it. The expressed purpose of the Office of Special Plans was to pour over existing info and make the case for war.

However, MANY posters on AI (and FC) said we didn't have access to the same info, even when it was clear we did.

This is just another nail in the coffin for the belief in Closed Intel.

giant:


Bullshit. I want the quote from the guy that you said was in the room when the President was told the Niger report was false. Go ahead. Show me.



This was "an" element, not a "crucial" one. Nice try. And we DON'T KNOW the information was intentionally withheld. We DON'T know that at all. You haven't shown me that Bush was informed. Show me the link.


Meaningless. Unless you are saying that you are the board (with all of it's properties such as *density* and *rigitiy*), in which case I'd agree.



What evidence. Show me. There is NO EVIDENCE that Bush knew in advance. None. Where do you get this shit?


curious:


Translation:

1. George Bush is stupid.
2. George Bush wanted war for a personal vendetta
3. There was no threat...(even though the search for WMD isn't over).
4. He was told....(except there is no evidence of that).

Very original. You left me speechless. Congratulations.



jimmac:



And people like you scare me, jimamc. If it's proven Bush lied...he loses my vote. If no WMD are found (and sorry, but we've already gotten pretty close to declaring they have been, from chemical suits, to banned warheads and missles, to nuclear centrifuge components), that doesn't mean he lied. That's really all I'm saying. Time will tell...as I said.

giant:


Why does his statement mean anything? What does "new" mean? OF COURSE they made the case for war. Duh. And who is "we", giant? The public didn't know. But I forget...you're Super-Intellectual and Really Informed Guy (TM).

No. It was a crucial one. The head editor of US News put it well on Hardball Wednesday night, pointing out that nuclear weapons are in a class of their own and that the gulf between accusing Iraq of chem/bio and nuclear is large. Every piece of info presented about a possible nuclear program was either entirely fabricated (Bush citing ficticious IAEA reports) or discredited before hand (aluminum tubes and niger docs). The only reason the Niger docs are such a big deal is because they made it into the State of the Union, which is sacred. Go look at the transcript and note that Bush doesn't even state that Saddam has chemical weapons in it, because he knew that after the war was over he would have caught shit. The bush admin tried to slip this past by pinning it on britain, but that has failed. Now they are trying to pin it on the CIA.

All of the many people stating that the Bush admin was informed.


do you mean like what does 'is' mean? Here's a clue, get a dictionary


'We' doesn't include you. 'We' includes everone that actually looked at the reports. If the public didn't know, it was because they were lied to.

Crucial vs. not cruicial is an opinion. I'm getting nitpicky now, but technically it wasn't IAEA "reports", it was an IAEA report, not referenced by name, number, etc. To say it was fabricated is a bit of a stretch. That's semantics though, so I'll leave it be. As far as the CIA, I'm not sure how you can refute their statement. If the CIA did clear it, then well, they cleared it and it is they who are responsible. You may suspect Bush of of knowing, even strongly, suspect him, but the fact is there is asbsolutely no evidence he knew.




You've referenced one man's quote (earlier) and have failed to provide the link. I want the quote from the guy that was supposedly there when Bush was told.



This is as valid a point as the old standby: "What did he/she know and when did he/she know it?". Does "new" mean the last 3 months? One year? Ten years? So, we acted on intelligence we already had. Is that a bad thing? Was there a requirement for new intelligence? Was Clinton wrong to bomb in 1998 based on the nearly the same intelligence? What Rumsefled was saying, I think, is that there wasn't new revelation that caused everyone to sit up and take notice. Rather, it was existing intelligence as seen through 9/11-colored glasses that promted action.

In Bush at War Bob Woodward notes that Bush thought of Saddam immediately after 9/11. He said that it was his feeling that Saddam might even be proven to be behind it (though there is no evidence of this now, this shows that Iraq was on his radar immediately after 9/11 and the early days of the WOT). Bush considered Iraq to be part of the WOT, and the administration used existing intelligence to yes, SELL the war. Of course they did! They wanted to take out Saddam, whom they considered a threat, a maniacal murderer, and a violator of all agreements he had ever made with respect to WMD, Oil for Food, etc. What were they going to do...NOT try and convince the public? Woodward notes that it was Powell who talked Bush and Rumsfeld out of going after Iraq immediately. My point here is that Rumsfeld was clarifying the fact that we already had the intelligence, and it wasn't as if they woke up one day and saw a report that said "NEWSFLASH: Saddam has new chemcial weapons he might give to Al-Qaeda". The action was a pre-emption based on what we already knew. I don't see how Rumsefeld's statement supports your argument in any way.




There you go again! You are basing a point on a false assumption, namely, that you know all the facts. The FACT is that you (nor I) cannot begin to know "what the Bush administration knew". Your closed intel vs. open intel argument is nothing but a distraction. You can do all the research you want, but if you actually think you have access to exactly what the upper eschelon of the government did, think again. Please tell me you don't really believe this.

To this end, there is one fact about the lead-up to war that will NEVER cease to amaze me. That fact is this: Elitist pseudo-academic liberals (you), Hollywood celebrities and anti-war leaders in general consistently believe themselves to not only be MORE informed than The President and his cabinet.. they also consider themselves to posess superior judgement (especially on matters of national security). This is perhaps the most absurd notion in politics today.

The fact that you claim to know "all there is to know" on this situation is the very definition of arrogance. Let's post it in large text so everyone can see:

giant thinks he knows everything the government knows as it pertains to secret intelligence and surveillance of foreign powers!

There. Someone had to say it

No, they didn't 'clear' his use of the statement so much as they refused to let him pin it on the CIA.

They can't stop the President from saying anything in a State of the Union address, but they can tell him they don't support a position. They 'cleared' the SotU Address means that in their eyes Bush isn't using any CIA information erroneously, not that everything in the Address is accurate.

It's not the CIA's job to spell check the SotU Address.

What so amazing about you is that you think you know about something that you have spent absolutlely zero time studying. The stupidity is amazing.

giant, are you trying for the most despised Ai'er around ?
B-Coz if you are, then you'd win hands down...

Condition of Ai is very clear ..giant...

" By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."

Be nice giant..people might actually come to like you...
cheers\

Quite frankly, I'm not the one claiming to know "everything" (literally...everything) about the Iraq War and its intelligence. It's an absurd position, based on YOUR INTERPRETATION of "intelligence reports". Please, explain to me your case for knowing all the government knows. Go ahead. I'm listening.


bunge:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jul11.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91619,00.html



and from this link:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ech/index.html



bunge, we have the CIA director making a public statement saying they cleared the speech. End of story. But according to you, the Evil Bush White House (TM) submitted a speech with known false information (from the CIA, btw) and the CIA skimmed it to see if they were claiming the earth was flat, the sun rotated around the earth, or Clinton had character. Since they didn't do any of that, they just slapped the old "approved" stamp on there and went to the bar. Please.

We have the CIA director saying exactly what I've been saying:


'Technically it wasn't a lie, even though we knew it wasn't true.'

FALL GUY!

Oh SDW! Here's another story for you from CNN. Also be sure and vote in the poll on the same page and read the results!.









http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ean/index.html