pretty convenient how your entire argument is about picking and choosing the sources on which yr gonna rely. Joe Wilson is a liar because he contradicts - wait no, not contradicts, but isn't verified by - the findings of a report, in which bush administration officials would have every reason to lie to congress. Im not sure why you think ppl who twisted intelligence are going to jump up and admit to itb,121b,121is this statement by the ny times unfair in some way:b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121But it found that the administration officials??? statements usually did not reflect the intelligence agencies??? uncertainties about the evidence or the disputes among them.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121because to me that counts as manipulating intelligence. im not sure i understand what pedantic way you've managed to interpret things that emphasizing certain parts of the intelligence and ignoring others doesn't count as manipulating intelligence. what you're saying makes no sense and is missing the forest for the trees - the trees of detail you like to bring up to prove your superior knowledge while not actually contradicting me in any meaningful way. Congratulations on having cherry-picked pieces of the report that dont actually prove anything.b,121b,121The goal of the report was to determine whether or not and i quote "public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information." What a surprise, then, when the goal is to compare statements by the president vs. the conclusions of the intelligence agencies that they arent reading memos from the bush administration asking the agencies to 'beef up the part about WMDs.'b,121b,121An example, from the report, of Bush manipulating intelligence:b,121"According to the DIA report, the intelligence community continued to assess that it would take five to seven years from the commencement of a revived nuclear program for the Iraqi government to indigenously produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon." It would take less time if a source was found abroad. CIA says, though, that "we have not detected an Iraq effort to find fissile material abroad."b,121b,121Then GWB goes out and makes a speech arguing that Iraq could have nuclear abilities in under a year. Well, Iraq could also randomly collapse on its own and become a democracy in under a year but that doesnt seem particularly likely. And according to the intelligence there were conflicting reports about whether saddam had even tried to find these materials. b,121The NIE says that Iraq did not appear to have a "systematic effort to acquire foreign fissile materials..."b,121b,121ORb,121b,121in the state of the union, george bush claimsb,1211. iraq pursued nuclear weaponsb,1212. the regime attempted to purchase aluminum tubes that could be used in a nuclear program, andb,1213. the british government recently learned that saddam has recently sought "significant quantities of uranium from africa."b,121b,1211. state/INR did not believe that reconstitution of a nuclear program had begun at allb,1212. DOE and State/INR assessed it was unlikely the aluminum tubes were being used for nuclear weapons related purposesb,1213. State/INR said, and i quote from the report, "The claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious."b,121b,121OK. so considering that the state dept. directly contradicted all three pts at the time gwb gave the state of the union speech, how can you possibly claim that there was no evidence found that he was manipulating the results as he saw fit? sorry if the only evidence you'll accept is memos from the bush administration explicitly asking for the intelligence agencies to go along for the ride but that wasn't the purpose of this report in the first place.b,121b,121further, im enjoying the contradiction inherent in you agreeing with gaffney, then minimizing him as a small-time player with no real importance. Convenient! b,121b,121and no i dont support regime change in iran, i support the moderation and liberalization of the country's democratic tendencies. b,121b,121really enjoying your argument that if i wasnt in favor of regime change then i must be pro-saddam. wtf is that shit about? im not pro saddam, im not pro-north korean regime, but im also not at all pro- the united states trying to engineer a perfect world via far-flung wars, funding insurgencies (which often later turn on us) and the other methods of violence neocons argue is the only way to solve international disputes.b,121b,121i think its amusing you think that such a radical position should sound logical and reasonable to ppl on this board. its absolutely infuriating frankly.b,121b,121and as for ayers, its not just because Daley said it was OK - way to ignore me about REPUBLICANS SERVING ON THE BOARD WITH HIM.
Deej,b,121b,121First to Joe Wilson. I am calling him a liar because he is a liar. Not only does the senate report fail to verify any of his claims, it also directly calls him out. In the first SSCI report it finds that Wilson's insistence that his wife had nothing to do with sending him to Niger was false. Furthermore, Wilson claimed that analysts were pressured to produce the right answers. They were asked to testify to this under oath and failed to do so. Unless you can explain how the senate reports were wrong on that account then my point stands. Finally Wilson claimed that his report went directly to Cheney, it turns out that there were numerous investigations on Niger. Wilson claims he told the agency before the war that the whole story was bogus. The CIA told the Senate committee that he was far more qualified on this. Wilson claims that Rove deliberately leaked Plame's name to punish him. It turns out the first person to leak Plame's name to Novak was Armitage, a deputy secretary of state who was bureaucratic enemies with Rove. And on it goes. b,121b,121As to the quote from the times, I went over this. The Times says correctly that public statements and unclassified intel products before the war did not reflect the classified dissents within the community. But the point here is that the statements on everything from nukes, to germs, to chemicals to links if not partnership with al Qaeda did reflect the consensus judgment. Since there is no evidence to support the view that those consensus judgments were the result of pressure, your point falls. b,121b,121Now Deej, don't take this the wrong way, but I know more about this than you do. It's a function of my job and the fact that I have read all of these reports. Yes there are DIA estimates from early 2002 that suggest a longer timeframe than Bush implied or nukes. But other reports from other non pressured analysts had it different. The US intelligence community in 2002 had missed Iraq's nukes in 1991, Iran's nuke program in 2002, North Korea's in both 1994 and 2002, this says nothing of Pakistan. Also the intelligence community missed 9-11. That's the environment before the war. There was no disagreement, except for the State Department, that Saddam had a nuclear program. What's more, everyone agreed he had such a program and was attempting to hide it. At this point, the particulars of how fast or how slowly Saddam was making the nukes is a political call. But most important is that the consensus estimates in 2002, ordered to look at this very question were reflected in every major intelligence presentation--from the state of the union to Powell's UN speech. b,121b,121Again, if you fail to prove pressure or tampering, which you have failed to prove, then the entire thesis on which an internet movement has been launched is a fairy tale.
b,121First to Joe Wilson. I am calling him a liar because he is a liar. Not only does the senate report fail to verify any of his claims, it also directly calls him out. In the first SSCI report it finds that Wilson's insistence that his wife had nothing to do with sending him to Niger was false. Furthermore, Wilson claimed that analysts were pressured to produce the right answers. They were asked to testify to this under oath and failed to do so. Unless you can explain how the senate reports were wrong on that account then my point stands.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121it does??? explain to me how a + b = c here because "wilson was wrong about his wife having nothing to do with it" and "analysts didn't confirm wilson" does not = wilson is lying about the govt twisting the evidence - its a misleading logical fallacy to imply otherwise. You're right that I don't do this for my job so u may be more aware of some information than I am about Joe Wilson but nothing you've said here implies anything contradicting my position that the bush administration was pushing for war based on contradictory intelligence.b,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121 Finally Wilson claimed that his report went directly to Cheney, it turns out that there were numerous investigations on Niger. Wilson claims he told the agency before the war that the whole story was bogus. The CIA told the Senate committee that he was far more qualified on this. Wilson claims that Rove deliberately leaked Plame's name to punish him. It turns out the first person to leak Plame's name to Novak was Armitage, a deputy secretary of state who was bureaucratic enemies with Rove. And on it goes.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121or alternately, it turns out that armitage took the fall for rove. this may shock and surprise you but a legal decision contrary to facts does not change the facts as they stand. where were u conservative 'pragmatists' when OJ was found innocent.b,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121As to the quote from the times, I went over this. The Times says correctly that public statements and unclassified intel products before the war did not reflect the classified dissents within the community. But the point here is that the statements on everything from nukes, to germs, to chemicals to links if not partnership with al Qaeda did reflect the consensus judgment. Since there is no evidence to support the view that those consensus judgments were the result of pressure, your point falls.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121this is such a tremendous logical fallacy i have trouble believing your seriously making this argument. 1st off do you understand the definition of 'consensus'? b,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121Now Deej, don't take this the wrong way, but I know more about this than you do. It's a function of my job and the fact that I have read all of these reports. Yes there are DIA estimates from early 2002 that suggest a longer timeframe than Bush implied or nukes. But other reports from other non pressured analysts had it different. The US intelligence community in 2002 had missed Iraq's nukes in 1991, Iran's nuke program in 2002, North Korea's in both 1994 and 2002, this says nothing of Pakistan. Also the intelligence community missed 9-11. That's the environment before the war. There was no disagreement, except for the State Department, that Saddam had a nuclear program. What's more, everyone agreed he had such a program and was attempting to hide it. At this point, the particulars of how fast or how slowly Saddam was making the nukes is a political call. But most important is that the consensus estimates in 2002, ordered to look at this very question were reflected in every major intelligence presentation--from the state of the union to Powell's UN speech.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121wait, so the point of this paragraph is to say that because we didnt catch other countries developing nuclear programs, we were totally justified in believing iraq had them? are you not aware that uh THEY WERE RONG ???b,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121Again, if you fail to prove pressure or tampering, which you have failed to prove, then the entire thesis on which an internet movement has been launched is a fairy tale.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121actually it seems based on the pure illogic of invading iraq with false connections between saddam and al qaeda, the likelihood of iraq developing nukes 'within one year,' the threat of wmds.b,121b,121im sorry, i dont buy after reading through those reports that we've conclusively decided that the consensus judgment of our intelligence agencies was that iraq was a clear and present danger to the united states. and there the burden of proof should be on you.b,121b,121im sorry i dont have tape recordings of gwb saying "lets push everyone into iraq even though we dont need to" but late 90s statements from neocons furious at ghb for not toppling saddam in the early 90s (where are those pragmatic generals now?) arguing to clinton that he should invade iraq suggests more than enough to me that there is a concentrated effort by neocons to play civilization-maker with the world.b,121b,121their determination to play f*cking stratego with our troops cant be 'proven' any more than you can prove the opposite but considering the context of this stupid war i have trouble believing anything else.b,121b,121sorry your expertise isnt really helping you here
This is not hard really. Joe Wilson's instances of intel manipulation, which I just outlined remain unproven on disproven. And if Armitage was taking the fall for Rove, then why did he let Rove and Libby twist in the wind and not inform them of what he told the special prosecutor at the moment of the worst of the political pressure. b,121b,121When the National Intelligence Council concludes x, but there is y dissent, then the consensus judgment is x. it is not a consensus estimate in the sense that all 16 agencies agree. But it is called the consensus judgment because that is what is sent to congress and other senior government executives. The Clinton administration does not help you. Clinton also went into some detail about Saddam's WMD proliferation, such as in 1998 when he bombed Iraq. b,121b,121Intelligence analysts are not asked to make political decisions. Whether Iraq posed a grave danger is a political question. The intelligence bureaucracy is supposed to determine more empirical matters like Does Saddam have a nuclear program. 15 out of 16 agencies said, "yes, he does." What is the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam. By the state of the union and UN presentation, the intelligence community agreed that al Qaeda operatives were using all of Iraq as a base of operations with Saddam's permission. These are important facts that must be considered in light of the original Bush lied thesis. b,121b,121Democrats and Republicans both concluded that Saddam was amassing WMD. Democrats, unlike Republicans, tried to shed their responsibility on this by saying the intelligence was manipulated or the analysts were pressured. None of the reports we are discussing proves any of that, indeed the latest Senate report negates this thesis. When I talk about the politics of fear employed by Democrats, this is what I mean. Democrats lie to their base and tell them the democracy was subverted to launch an unpopular war. It is far more scummy than drawing attention to the professional and adult associations of a candidate for the presidency.
yes its way more 'scummy' to suggest that bush pushed for a war by exaggerating the threats against us than it is to try to draw connections between the first black candidate for president and a tenuously-associated 'terrorist'b,121b,121im not some captain save-a-dem here, i think dems who backed the war did it because it was politically popular and the white house convinced them they'd look like cowards to oppose it. b,121b,121but your argument would ring more true if, you know, we found actual evidence in iraq that this 'consensus' was correct. b,121b,121can you link me to a place in the report where it is documented that the overwhelming consensus was that iraq was an immediate danger to the united states? Where the state department is shown to be a lone voice of cluelessness in the face of 14 other agencies with confirmed evidence that saddam had actively sought nuclear material that would let him attack the united states or israel 'within a year'? b,121b,121can you explain how saddam allowing al qaeda to chill in iraq is any different from saudi arabia or pakistan and how that = saddam's motives paralleling al-qaeda's.b,121b,121can you explain why iraq was targeted over countries that clearly posed a more obvious threat - even in 2003 when i was 20 yrs old i was well read enough to be aware of the more urgent threat of north korea.b,121b,121there are so many logical holes in your argument that you fall back on meaningless partisan 'you guys did it too!' defensiveness.b,121b,121the case for the iraq war made no sense. 9/11 was used as a justification for a war that neocons had been advocating for over a decade as part of their arrogant civilization-building.b,121b,121considering the bush admin has had no qualms spying on domestic citizens, incl red cross workers and journalists, no qualms about torturing suspects, no qualms about denying the geneva conventions, i am perfectly willing to believe that the case for war was pushed beyond what the facts implied. The report you keep referring to catalogs numerous examples of gathered intelligence that disagreed with or even directly contradicted the president's statements to the public.b,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121Those now trying to figure out what went wrong before the war in Iraq should bear in mind a simple truth: we are more likely to ''know'' what we want to know than what we don't want to know. That human flaw is built into the very process of making intelligence estimates. Perhaps the only way to counter it is if those who make the final decision beware taking a large risk on what is, inevitably, speculation. As Kennedy told the National Security Council in the days after the Bay of Pigs, ''we're not going to have any search for scapegoats . . . the final responsibilities of any failure is mine, and mine alone.''
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121-richard goodwin, asst to johnson and kennedy
i mean, am i wrong that a key element of the '..could attack us within a year' argument was a document that was not procured by u.s. intelligence but was discovered by british intelligence and later was roundly criticized for being unverifiable
b,121One finding, the official went on, was that the intelligence reports about Iraq provided by the United Nations inspection teams and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitored Iraq???s nuclear-weapons programs, were far more accurate than the C.I.A. estimates. ???Some of the old-timers in the community are appalled by how bad the analysis was,??? the official said. ???If you look at them side by side, C.I.A. versus United Nations, the U.N. agencies come out ahead across the board.???
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121Part of the answer lies in decisions made early in the Bush Administration, before the events of September 11, 2001. In interviews with present and former intelligence officials,
b1I was told that some senior Administration people, soon after coming to power, had bypassed the government???s customary procedures for vetting intelligence.
/b1
b,121
b,121The point is not that the President and his senior aides were consciously lying. What was taking place was much more systematic???and potentially just as troublesome. Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, whose book ???The Threatening Storm??? generally supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, told me that what the Bush people did was ???dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership. Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from them.
b,121Now Deej, don't take this the wrong way, but I know more about this than you do. It's a function of my job and the fact that I have read all of these reports.
some more fun things i discovered while browsing aroundb,121b,121members of the OSP - the intelligence group that the administration used to gather information to justify the case for war - included Lawrence Franklin who was later charged with leaking classified defense info to a pro-israeli lobby, former iran-contra dude michael ledeen, and harold rhodeb,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121Rhode, seen by many veteran staffers as an ideological gadfly, was officially assigned to the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, an in-house Pentagon think tank headed by fellow neocon Andrew Marshall. Rhode helped Feith lay down the law about the department's new anti-Iraq, and broadly anti-Arab, orientation. In one telling incident, Rhode accosted and harangued a visiting senior Arab diplomat, telling him that there would be no "bartering in the bazaar anymore. You're going to have to sit up and pay attention when we say so."
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121"According to insiders, Rhode worked with Feith to purge career Defense officials who weren't sufficiently enthusiastic about the muscular anti-Iraq crusade that Paul D. Wolfowitz and Feith wanted. Rhode appeared to be 'pulling people out of nooks and crannies of the Defense Intelligence Agency and other places to replace us with,' says a former analyst. 'They wanted nothing to do with the professional staff. And they wanted us the F*ck out of there.'
oh look more funb,121b,121http://www.npr.org/documents/2007/feb/dod_iog_iraq_summary.pdfb,121b,121^^^Pentagon's inspector general issues a report that concludes that the OSP "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsisent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers."
"The report stated that analysis provided by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy exaggerated a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida while the Intelligence Community remained consistently dubious of such a connection."
http://www.npr.org/documents/2007/feb/dod_iog_iraq_summary.pdfb,121b,121^^^Pentagon's inspector general issues a report that concludes that the OSP "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsisent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." b,121b,121h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Now Deej, don't take this the wrong way, but NPR is a known component of the biased liberal media and therefore complete liars whenever reporting about Republican lies. It is their narrative regarding the intelligence that is the lie. Therein lies the problem behind the lie that you refuse to believe is a lie, not to mention the lies you spread when you call GOP exaggerations lies. Please take this in the spirit it is intended, as I am sure I know more about these things than you.b,121b,121
While your scattershot googling displays an admirable enthusiasm, you are not helping your case. Let me narrow it down. How does an inspector general report on the Office of Special Plans or an outdated Sy Hersch piece address the following factual claim: None of the major public and classified presentations by the administration (major speeches, NIE to Congress, Powell to the UN) are the result of tampered or pressured analysis. If you want to bring up Lawrence Franklin, I'm happy to indulge you. But his case has nothing to do with that claim. A story that was believed by many people had the Office of Special Plans providing parallel intelligence analysis to the president. As far as I know that's true. But their product influenced none of the public presentations from the administration on the case for war, nor did their work influence the national intelligence council's drafting of the consensus estimate of all 16 intelligence agencies. If O'Neil is correct, that Bush wanted to do something about Iraq before even 9-11 (PS So did Gore according to his 2000 campaign), then the Office of Special Plans is even less relevant. Bush was already convinced that Saddam posed a danger to our national security. On this point he agreed with President Clinton, the first two UNSCOM inspectors, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Jordanian and Saudi intelligence services, and on and on. What's more, other independent agencies concurred with much of what the OSP said. So if you wish to argue that political appointees should not take a second look at intelligence to provide a second opinion to the president who appointed him, you are within your rights. But not Sy Hersch, NPR, the Inspector General, Senator Rockefeller, the British parliament, or any number of other people who have investigated the allegation of tampering and pressure have turned up any evidence to support the claim. Thousands of bloggers in the netleft still astonishingly believe the bumper sticker. This community, forever proclaiming its basis in reality, suffers an extreme empirical insecurity.
b,121While your scattershot googling displays an admirable enthusiasm, you are not helping your case.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121lol @ 'scattershot googling' as if my source is some random dude's website. my sources have been the new yorker, the new york times, mother jones, etc. legit journalists all citing and naming sources. eat my ass with your condescending 'scattershot googling' bullshit until you're actually giving sources for your pretty wild claims.b,121b,121 /font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121Let me narrow it down. How does an inspector general report on the Office of Special Plans or an outdated Sy Hersch piece address the following factual claim: None of the major public and classified presentations by the administration (major speeches, NIE to Congress, Powell to the UN) are the result of tampered or pressured analysis.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,1211. what is outdated about the sy hersch piece - please try for once to back up your claims with some kind of documentation or follow-thru rather than 'because i know more than you'b,1212. here's the answer to the subject of your question:b,121"The report stated that analysis provided by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy exaggerated a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida while the Intelligence Community remained consistently dubious of such a connection." Stated, then, that the intelligence community's consensus was that the connection was dubious. doesn't this contradict your assertion that 15 different intelligence agencies confirmed the president's assertions to the contrary?b,1213. I'm still waiting for sourcing documentation that shows that the vast majority/consensus amongst intelligence gatherers was that a) iraq had an active nuclear weapons program b) iraq had tried to get nuclear materials c) there was meaningful connection between saddam and al-qaida. please feel free to answer this with some sort of information besides "because i know more than you." maybe you can do some 'scattershot googling.'b,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121If you want to bring up Lawrence Franklin, I'm happy to indulge you. But his case has nothing to do with that claim.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121uh, duh. I just brought that up because I thought it was amusing (in a disturbing way) that one of the ppl making the case for the iraq was just found guilty of espianoge. this was an aside, not related to my argument.b,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121 A story that was believed by many people had the Office of Special Plans providing parallel intelligence analysis to the president. As far as I know that's true. But their product influenced none of the public presentations from the administration on the case for war, nor did their work influence the national intelligence council's drafting of the consensus estimate of all 16 intelligence agencies. If O'Neil is correct, that Bush wanted to do something about Iraq before even 9-11 (PS So did Gore according to his 2000 campaign)
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121interrupting briefly to observe that 'do something about iraq' undoubtedly meant very different things to gore than it would to GWB, and that I find it highly unlikely that we would have invaded iraq and deposed of Saddam under a Gore presidency, but please feel free to prove me wrong with, you know, documented evidence beyond "because its my job and i know more than you"b,121b,121...continuingb,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121, then the Office of Special Plans is even less relevant. Bush was already convinced that Saddam posed a danger to our national security.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121yes, he was already convinced - the OSP wasn't there to convince him, it was there to provide information 'stovepiped' to him minus the normal rigor required of intelligence operations that could be used to convince others that his goal of 'liberating' iraq into civil war was the right thing to do.b,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121On this point he agreed with President Clinton, the first two UNSCOM inspectors, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Jordanian and Saudi intelligence services, and on and on.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121i nor anyone else ever claimed that saddam wasn't a threat in some sense, so conflating all of these opinions is bogus. 'red herring' fallacy.b,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121 What's more, other independent agencies concurred with much of what the OSP said. So if you wish to argue that political appointees should not take a second look at intelligence to provide a second opinion to the president who appointed him, you are within your rights. But not Sy Hersch, NPR, the Inspector General, Senator Rockefeller, the British parliament, or any number of other people who have investigated the allegation of tampering and pressure have turned up any evidence to support the claim. Thousands of bloggers in the netleft still astonishingly believe the bumper sticker. This community, forever proclaiming its basis in reality, suffers an extreme empirical insecurity.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121what are these 'independent agencies'? you seem to be the only one suffering from 'empirical insecurity' here, making countless blind assertions w/out any documentation to back up your arguments. Also you're being intentionally misleading crediting that quote to NPR - NPR was hosting a document released by the pentagon summarizing the findings of the report. it was not an npr 'commentary.'b,121b,121i have no problem with the president asking for a 'second opinion,' but it was the obvious bias and dishonesty of the methods this 'second opinion' was using that is problematic here. they were stovepiping information without the normal rigor required by american intelligence organizations.b,121b,121i don't see how you can keep claiming that there's no evidence that there was no 'tampering or pressure' (although I am lolling at your continued moving of the goalposts over the course of this argument). The dishonesty in the case for war and Bush's consistent contradiction of numerous intelligence community findings, his lack of honesty when presenting this case to the public, was easily and readily identified by numerous sources. i don't know what evidence you're looking for here, like i said. Why not click on that sy hersch piece and tell me exactly what about his sources arguing that there was pressure from above to provide information to make the case for war is untrue.
http://www.npr.org/documents/2007/feb/dod_iog_iraq_summary.pdf^^^Pentagon's inspector general issues a report that concludes that the OSP "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsisent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." b,121b,121h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121Now Deej, don't take this the wrong way, but NPR is a known component of the biased liberal media and therefore complete liars whenever reporting about Republican lies. It is their narrative regarding the intelligence that is the lie. Therein lies the problem behind the lie that you refuse to believe is a lie, not to mention the lies you spread when you call GOP exaggerations lies. Please take this in the spirit it is intended, as I am sure I know more about these things than you.
b,121
b,121
b,121b,121h,121
font class="post"1b,121 i know u were joking but i just thought id point out since vitamin seemed a little confused that that was a department of defense summary that was merely being hosted by NPR's website and i was quoting that document, not any kind of NPR 'bias' or something.
http://www.npr.org/documents/2007/feb/dod_iog_iraq_summary.pdf^^^Pentagon's inspector general issues a report that concludes that the OSP "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsisent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." b,121b,121h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121Now Deej, don't take this the wrong way, but NPR is a known component of the biased liberal media and therefore complete liars whenever reporting about Republican lies. It is their narrative regarding the intelligence that is the lie. Therein lies the problem behind the lie that you refuse to believe is a lie, not to mention the lies you spread when you call GOP exaggerations lies. Please take this in the spirit it is intended, as I am sure I know more about these things than you.
b,121
b,121
b,121b,121h,121
font class="post"1
b,121 i know u were joking but i just thought id point out since vitamin seemed a little confused that that was a department of defense summary that was merely being hosted by NPR's website and i was quoting that document, not any kind of NPR 'bias' or something.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Please at least admit I know more than you or I might take it the wrong way.
We are all very proud of your adjectives and forthright conviction. I have sited the actual reports you originally brought up. The ones from Congress. You have taken a scattershot approach to bringing up a bunch of data points that are not related to the point of contention. The OSP did not effect the National Intelligence Estimate, it did not influence Powell's speech to the UN, it did not substitute for the CIA estimates for any of the president's speeches. None of the articles you have sited disprove this. They raise in your mind different issues you would like to discuss. But you keep moving the goal posts on this, so it's not worth going round and round. Believe what you believe, but you sound foolish. Sy Hersh also wrote his stove pipe story without the benefit of bipartisan reports. Most of his sources, anonymous, are axe-grinders, partisans in the debate. But it goes back to my original question. Why haven't any of Hersh's sources told the Senate committees what they told Hersh? You have not answered that question. Googling is wonderful. But I've read everything you bring up and they don't get to the latest assessments. I know how much you must want to feel right about this point. It's hard when your narratives turn out wrong. But you're not doing your side any favors. Anyway, we're through here. b,121b,121Oh and one more thing. Larry Franklin was never convicted of espionage. Read the indictment. He pled guilty to disclosing defense information to Israel lobbyists who then shared the information with a Washington Post journalist. The case sets a dangerous first amendment precedent in that it's the first prosecution of a leak to the American press. But the Israeli government was not involved. And the intelligence was about Iran and not Iraq.
b,121We are all very proud of your adjectives and forthright conviction. But you've been had. Read the original reports you sited. Read the meat of the reports. Read the Senate report from June. It compares the statements of president and his administration with the intelligence at the time. The Senate also investigated whether the office of special plans influenced the NIE. The IG said the OSP exaggerated connections between UNL and Saddam, but those assessments did not reflect or influence the administration's case for war. But good luck. You can't follow an argument and you are now resulting to ad hominem. So I am through with you. It's been fun. Keep believing your stories.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121wow daring to ask you to provide sources for your wild claims is pretty 'ad hominem.' keep it up with the lazy assertions and reliance on your supposed 'authority' to win arguments. it is hard to follow an argument that expects me to agree based purely on blind faith.
b,121Oh and one more thing. Larry Franklin was never convicted of espionage. Read the indictment. He pled guilty to disclosing defense information to Israel lobbyists who then shared the information with a Washington Post journalist. The case sets a dangerous first amendment precedent in that it's the first prosecution of a leak to the American press. But the Israeli government was not involved. And the intelligence was about Iran and not Iraq.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121my fault implying he was convicted, i misspoke; in the initial post about it i said 'charged' which was correct. but lol at a leak to the american 'press' - don't you mean an israeli lobby? and i never claimed that the israeli govt was involved, and i never implied it was related to iraq. maybe you should practice reading arguments?
the argument was never about 'what was the content of the reports,' it was about whether bush was distorting intelligence in order to convince people to go to war.b,121b,121here you claim the investigation did not find overwhelming evidence that bush contradicted the intelligence. everything i've read in those reports indicates that there was often contradictory information that he ignored. but apparently, according to you, these went against the vast consensus. I ask for evidence, or that you even tell me what page to look on within the reports, that indicates there was a consensus - and you have nothing to give me except "its my job, so i know what im talking about." neat rhetorical technique.b,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121The OSP did not effect the National Intelligence Estimate, it did not influence Powell's speech to the UN, it did not substitute for the CIA estimates for any of the president's speeches.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121this is based on what information? can you source this? saying that "the investigation didn't address this" does not prove that this was not the case. I dont think its a conspiracy theory to imply that it is incredibly likely that the OSP was involved in building the case for the war with iraq. in this case the burden of proof is on YOU.
b,121We are all very proud of your adjectives and forthright conviction. I have sited the actual reports you originally brought up. The ones from Congress. You have taken a scattershot approach to bringing up a bunch of data points that are not related to the point of contention. The OSP did not effect the National Intelligence Estimate, it did not influence Powell's speech to the UN, it did not substitute for the CIA estimates for any of the president's speeches. None of the articles you have sited disprove this. They raise in your mind different issues you would like to discuss. But you keep moving the goal posts on this, so it's not worth going round and round. Believe what you believe, but you sound foolish. Sy Hersh also wrote his stove pipe story without the benefit of bipartisan reports. Most of his sources, anonymous, are axe-grinders, partisans in the debate. But it goes back to my original question. Why haven't any of Hersh's sources told the Senate committees what they told Hersh? You have not answered that question. Googling is wonderful. But I've read everything you bring up and they don't get to the latest assessments. I know how much you must want to feel right about this point. It's hard when your narratives turn out wrong. But you're not doing your side any favors. Anyway, we're through here.
b,121
b,121Oh and one more thing. Larry Franklin was never convicted of espionage. Read the indictment. He pled guilty to disclosing defense information to Israel lobbyists who then shared the information with a Washington Post journalist. The case sets a dangerous first amendment precedent in that it's the first prosecution of a leak to the American press. But the Israeli government was not involved. And the intelligence was about Iran and not Iraq.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121nice work totally rewriting your postb,121b,121it must be extremely convenient to discount anyone who disagrees with YOUR point as an "axe-grinder." b,121b,121"There's no evidence im wrong because everyone who disagrees with me is an axe-grinder, partisan in the debate."b,121b,121you cant be serious. b,121b,121And from what i read of the report, the goal was to look at (a) intelligence reports and compare them to (b) speeches by the administration. So they took a big pile of documents and compared them to administration speeches. They found that those speeches oversimplified the intelligence estimates and were largely out of sync with the conclusions of numerous intelligence agencies.b,121b,121where do hersch's sources enter in here? Can you at least give me links to information that suggests the sources that he names have some sort of partisan axe to grind? even if you can, couldn't i just make the reverse argument - that because people have a partisan axe to grind the other way, they will protect the bush admin's iraq invasion's legitimacy? b,121b,121you can try to minimize the meaning of these intelligence agencies conclusions by saying "the overwhelming consensus was the opposite," but you haven't once sourced this evidence. Where in these reports do they imply that the overwhelming consensus was exactly what bush said? Can you at least link me to a single page where this is implied?
i mean, am i wrong that the extent of what you've argued - over and over - is that "this report did not conclude decisively that intelligence was pressured from the bush admin ergo its a giant left wing fantasy"?b,121b,121if so, to reduce this argument to simple elements, i disagree 1. that the report did not conclude this, and 2. that even if it had, that would imply innocence.b,121b,121i have argued that within context it really doesnt seem particularly farfetched.b,121b,121i have not in any way moved the goalposts from this frame
Comments