PDA

View Full Version : Did I miss the thread...



Yonivore
06-09-2008, 08:26 PM
...on the recent Senate Intelligence Committee report on, "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information together with Additional and Minority Views?"

Did I?

Yonivore
06-09-2008, 09:07 PM
I guess not.

The U.S. Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence (http://intelligence.senate.gov/) issued its much anticipated report on “whether public statements regarding Iraq by U.S. government officials were substantiated by intelligence.” The committee majority concludes that while most of the administration’s prewar claims were substantiated, the White House exaggerated the extent to which intelligence supported its claims about the threat posed by Iraq.

Ironically, the Committee’s report itself consists of serious distortions and misrepresentations. In addition, leading Senate Democrats, with access to the same intelligence information the administration relied on, made the same kind of claims (or more sweeping ones) that the Committee now deems “exaggerated.” One of those Democrats is the chairman of the Committee, Senator Rockefeller. Not surprisingly, the Committee majority declined to include in its report the prewar statements of Senate Dems.

The majority concedes that the administration’s statements about Iraq’s nuclear activities were substantiated by intelligence, but notes that some statements did not convey disagreements that existed within the intelligence community, which were revealed in the National Intelligence Assessment (NIE). But Democratic Senators, including Chairman Rockefeller, also made forceful statements about Iraq’s nuclear activity without mentioning dissents that were contained in the NIE.

Moreover, some Democrats stated, incorrectly, that there was no dissent. For example, Chris Dodd stated: “There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that [it] seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons; that is not in debate.” And John Kerry stated, falsely, that “all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons.” Finally, Dick Durbin stated that Saddam Hussein “perhaps [has] nuclear weapons at his disposal.” Durbin's statement (but not those of Dodd and Kerry) preceded the publication of the NIE. However, no intelligence agency ever assessed that Iraq had nuclear weapons, and no administration official ever made that claim.

In my view, it was reasonable for both the administration and congressional Democrats to not refer to dissenting views, since both believed the majority view, not the dissents. But if there is now some standard under which the views of dissenters within the bureaucracy must be publicized regardless of whether one credits them, the Democrats violated that standard. And Senators Dodd and Kerry affirmatively misrepresented that there was no debate, something the administration did not do.

Ironically, moreover, the Democrats blame some administration officials for failing to refer to the alternative views contained in the WMD NIE even though that dissent had not yet been published when they made the statements in question. By contrast except for Durbin's patently unsubstantiated comment, all of the unequivocal statements by Senate Democrats cited above, and many more, were made following publication of the NIE.

In short, administration officials are expected to read minds, while Senate Dems grant themselves the freedom to ignore published dissents.

Committee Democrats attempt to finesse the fact that Democratic Senators as a group gave shorter shrift than the administration to the dissents contained in the NIE not only by limiting the report to statements by administration officials, but also by making misleading claims about congressional access to intelligence. They assert that members of Congress did not have the same ready access to intelligence as did senior executive branch policymakers. In fact, however, all of the intelligence analyzed in the Committee report was fully and readily available to members of Congress. Some of it was actually provided to members of Congress in closed hearings. Much of the remainder, including the NIEs, was widely disseminated to members.

Committee Democrats claim, though, that the NIE on Iraqi WMD was published “mere days” before Congress was scheduled to vote on the war resolution. Again, the Dems are attempting to mislead. The NIE in question was published nearly two weeks before the vote. Moreover, its key assessments had been presented to members of the Intelligence and Armed Services committees a month before the vote. Nor were these judgments new – numerous intelligence assessments had reached identical or similar judgments months earlier.

In any case, Senators Rockefeller, Dodd, Kerry, and the others (including Senators Clinton and Edwards) cannot defend statements they made about WMD following publication of the NIE on the grounds that they didn’t have enough time to study the document. If that were true, and it is not, they shouldn’t have opined on the issue, much less affirmatively claimed that there was no debate, as Dodd and Kerry (but not the administration) did.

National Intelligence Estimates are intended to represent the consensus of our intelligence agencies. The NIE that was produced in the fall of 2002 said with a "high level of confidence"--which is a defined term, expressing the greatest degree of confidence that the intelligence agencies ever express--that Iraq possessed chemical weapons; possessed biological weapons; and was pursuing nuclear weapons. It said, with a "moderate degree of confidence," that Iraq did not yet possess nuclear weapons. In other words, the CIA and other intelligence agencies told President Bush and Congressional leaders that the possibility that Iraq already had nuclear weapons was greater than the possibility that it did not have either biological or chemical weapons.

The idea that it was somehow incumbent on President Bush (but not, of course, Democrats in Congress) to cherry-pick the intelligence on Iraq by publicizing minority views, rather than acting on the consensus presented to the administration by the agencies, is ludicrous.

Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687_pf.html) has waded through the Committee's report and has concluded (though he doesn't put it this way) that the Committee has engaged in something of a fraud.

Hiatt points out that, in releasing the report, Committee Chairman Rockefeller claimed to have demonstrated that the administration "repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even nonexistent." But Hiatt finds, correctly, that the Committee report does not substantiate its Chairman's claim. On point after point, the report shows that the administration's stated concerns about Iraq were in fact supported by the intelligence at hand.



But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."
The report does criticize statements the administration made about Iraq's intentions. But, as Hiatt observes, this was a judgment call, not a misrepresentation of intelligence.

Moreover, Sen. Rockefeller (among many other Senate Democrats) propounded the same judgments his Committee criticizes. For example, Rockefeller stated:


There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.
It's easy to understand why Chairman Rockefeller and other Senate Dems want to see the history of the prewar debate rewritten in order (a) to perpetuate the phony "Bush lied" mantra and (b) air-brush themselves out of the picture. And it's easy to see why the Committee Democrats were frustrated by their inability to support the anti-Bush mantra except through specious reliance on the kind of statements they themselves made in spades. But frustration isn't a defense to fraud.

Gateway Pundit (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/bush-did-not-lie-saddam-officials-had.html) has much more, including a response by Kit Bond to the Democrats' disgusting trick, and quotes from the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on pre-war intelligence, which was issued before the Democrats went stark raving mad;


http://bp3.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SE1uBkqqqEI/AAAAAAAAOOY/wcOlTFfhX9Q/s400/iraq+intelligence+ford.JPG (http://bp3.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SE1uBkqqqEI/AAAAAAAAOOY/wcOlTFfhX9Q/s1600-h/iraq+intelligence+ford.JPG)
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Democrats like the "Bush lied" meme because it gets Democrats who voted for the war off the hook with their antiwar constituencies. The problem is that it's more politically convenient than, you know, true. It's rather convenient for the intelligence services, too . . . .

What does all this prove? That once again Congressional Democrats are playing politics with the Iraq war in an effort to gain more traction in an election year - probably in an attempt to help out their anti-war nominee, even when they know that the prior administration made almost identical claims about the threat from Iraq, and even though they have to know that their own report repeatedly points out that Bush’s claims were 'generally substantiated by available intelligence.'

I'm telling you all, history will vindicate this administration's actions in Iraq, and elsewhere, in response to the terrorist attacks against our country on September 11, 2001 and before

balli
06-09-2008, 09:09 PM
No. I was going to make one but I just figured you idealogues would start trashing the Democratic Senate and blindly defending Bush while attempting to rewrite history/the reasons for going to war. Thus I (and probably a few others) just decided it would be best to avoid the whole thing.

Edit: ^ See the post above that you put together while I was writing this. :lmao

Yonivore
06-09-2008, 09:14 PM
No. I was going to make one but I just figured you idealogues would start trashing the Democratic Senate and blindly defending Bush while attempting to rewrite history/the reasons for going to war. Thus I (and probably a few others) just decided it would be best to avoid the whole thing.

Edit: ^ See the post above that you put together while I was writing this. :lmao
Nothing blind about the post I put up...again, sourced and linked. Have at it. Better yet, read the report for yourself and see where Rockefeller -- the chairman -- is the one misrepresenting his own report's findings.

balli
06-09-2008, 09:16 PM
Nothing blind about the post I put up...

Pretty predictable apparently.

Yonivore
06-09-2008, 09:17 PM
Pretty predictable though.
That Democrats would rely on you to believe what they say instead of the facts in the report? Yes, pretty predictable.

ChumpDumper
06-09-2008, 09:32 PM
Just post the links from now on and we'll decide whether to read it. Your plagiarism has grown tiresome.

boutons_
06-09-2008, 09:42 PM
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Yoni still thinks the CIA/NSA "intelligence" was

hard and true, verified n ways

not cherry-picked

all doubts about the "facts" were shown to Congress along with the NIE

Robert Gates started, under Reagan in the early 80s, to implement the movement conservatives' plan to corrupt NSA/CIA such that their "data" would support political and MIC objectives rather than be real data that leadership could base decisions.

Soviet Union was an incredible threat in the 80s requiring huge MIC buildup? Boom! 1989, Berlin wall falls, Soviet Union collapses in a worthless pile. oops, bad intel! :lol BUT the MIC got its 100s of $Bs in contracts, including the silly Star Wars Missile Defense Agency that STILL sucks up many $Bs/year and has NOTHING to show for it.

WHIG made a political decision about which lie they could get the bureaucracy to get behind to propagandize the world about their war-for-oil, and that lie was agreed to be WMD.

Yoni STILL believes the lies he was told about WMD. :lol :lol You stupid, exposed dumbfuck.

Yoni, when you get back Syria, tell dubya where all those WMDs are hidden! :lol :lol We could film it as "Indiana Yoni and the Temple of WMD"

Nbadan
06-09-2008, 11:46 PM
Why didn't Yoni post this article about how Dubya's administration marketed the Iraq war? ...

Records Could Shed Light on Iraq Group
By Walter Pincus
Monday, June 9, 2008; Page A15


There is an important line in last week's Senate intelligence committee report on the Bush administration's prewar exaggerations of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. It says that the panel did not review "less formal communications between intelligence agencies and other parts of the Executive Branch."

More important, there was no effort to obtain White House records or interview President Bush, Vice President Cheney or other administration officials whose speeches were analyzed because, the report says, such steps were considered beyond the scope of the report.

One obvious target for such an expanded inquiry would have been the records of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a group set up in August 2002 by then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr.

The group met weekly in the Situation Room. Among the regular participants (many have since left or changed jobs) were Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; and policy aides led by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, as well as I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

As former White House press secretary Scott McClellan wrote in his recently released book, "What Happened," the Iraq Group "had been set up in the summer of 2002 to coordinate the marketing of the war to the public."

"The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," McClellan wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."

In an interview with the New York Times published Sept. 6, 2002, Card did not mention the group, but he hinted at its mission. "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," he said.

Two days later, WHIG's product placement was on display. It began with a front-page story in the Times describing Iraq's clandestine purchase of aluminum tubes that, the story said, could be used to produce weapons-grade uranium. The story said that information came from "senior administration officials."

The story also spoke of "hardliners" in the Bush administration being "alarmed that American intelligence underestimated the pace and scale of Iraq's nuclear program before Baghdad's defeat in the gulf war." They "argue that Washington dare not wait until analysts have found hard evidence that Mr. Hussein has acquired a nuclear weapon. The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud," the Times story said.

That same morning, the message was carried on three network news shows. Cheney appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and, referring to the Times story, said that intelligence showed that Hussein "has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon." The Iraqi leader was "trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium to make the bombs," Cheney said.

That same day, on CNN's "Late Edition," Rice said, "There will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

On CBS's "Face the Nation," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was asked about the Times story and whether Hussein had nuclear weapons. "Is there a smoking gun here?" host Bob Schieffer asked. " 'Smoking gun' is an interesting phrase," Rumsfeld said, and then he went to the same message his colleagues had given.

"The problem with that is the way one gains absolute certainty as to whether a dictator like Saddam Hussein has a nuclear weapon is if he uses it . . . and that's a little late." Bush picked up the slogan a month later in his nationally televised speech on the threat from Iraq.

McClellan wrote that WHIG was not used to "deliberately mislead the public" but that the "more fundamental problem was the way [Bush's] advisers decided to pursue a political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people.

"As the campaign accelerated," he added, "caveats and qualifications were downplayed or dropped altogether. Contradictory intelligence was largely ignored or simply disregarded."

WHIG's records would shed much light on whether, as Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the intelligence panel, put it: "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent."

National security and intelligence reporter Walter Pincus pores over the speeches, reports, transcripts and other documents that flood Washington and every week uncovers the fine print that rarely makes headlines -- but should. If you have any items that fit the bill, please send them to [email protected].

Yonivore
06-10-2008, 07:27 AM
Why didn't Yoni post this article about how Dubya's administration marketed the Iraq war? ...
Because the Senate Intelligence Committee didn't use the article in their report. Why didn't Nbadan address the obvious contradiction between the content of the report and the public statements of the Committee's chair?

Oh yeah, and Pincus is a tool.

Yonivore
06-10-2008, 08:05 AM
There is an important line in last week's Senate intelligence committee report on the Bush administration's prewar exaggerations of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. It says that the panel did not review "less formal communications between intelligence agencies and other parts of the Executive Branch."

More important, there was no effort to obtain White House records or interview President Bush, Vice President Cheney or other administration officials whose speeches were analyzed because, the report says, such steps were considered beyond the scope of the report.

One obvious target for such an expanded inquiry would have been the records of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a group set up in August 2002 by then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr.

The group met weekly in the Situation Room. Among the regular participants (many have since left or changed jobs) were Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; and policy aides led by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, as well as I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

As former White House press secretary Scott McClellan wrote in his recently released book, "What Happened," the Iraq Group "had been set up in the summer of 2002 to coordinate the marketing of the war to the public."

"The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," McClellan wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."

In an interview with the New York Times published Sept. 6, 2002, Card did not mention the group, but he hinted at its mission. "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," he said.

Two days later, WHIG's product placement was on display. It began with a front-page story in the Times describing Iraq's clandestine purchase of aluminum tubes that, the story said, could be used to produce weapons-grade uranium. The story said that information came from "senior administration officials."

The story also spoke of "hardliners" in the Bush administration being "alarmed that American intelligence underestimated the pace and scale of Iraq's nuclear program before Baghdad's defeat in the gulf war." They "argue that Washington dare not wait until analysts have found hard evidence that Mr. Hussein has acquired a nuclear weapon. The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud," the Times story said.

That same morning, the message was carried on three network news shows. Cheney appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and, referring to the Times story, said that intelligence showed that Hussein "has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon." The Iraqi leader was "trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium to make the bombs," Cheney said.

That same day, on CNN's "Late Edition," Rice said, "There will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

On CBS's "Face the Nation," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was asked about the Times story and whether Hussein had nuclear weapons. "Is there a smoking gun here?" host Bob Schieffer asked. " 'Smoking gun' is an interesting phrase," Rumsfeld said, and then he went to the same message his colleagues had given.

"The problem with that is the way one gains absolute certainty as to whether a dictator like Saddam Hussein has a nuclear weapon is if he uses it . . . and that's a little late." Bush picked up the slogan a month later in his nationally televised speech on the threat from Iraq.
The Senate Committee concluded the president's statements on Iraq's nuclear weapons program were; and I quote...



"...generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."


McClellan wrote that WHIG was not used to "deliberately mislead the public" but that the "more fundamental problem was the way advisers decided to pursue a political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people.

"As the campaign accelerated," he added, "caveats and qualifications were downplayed or dropped altogether. Contradictory intelligence was largely ignored or simply disregarded."

WHIG's records would shed much light on whether, as Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the intelligence panel, put it: "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent."


On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

[B]As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."
Who's making misleading statements?

JoeChalupa
06-10-2008, 09:14 AM
poor little pincus

Nbadan
06-12-2008, 01:51 AM
Posted by Yoniwhore:


I'm telling you all, history will vindicate this administration's actions in Iraq, and elsewhere, in response to the terrorist attacks against our country on September 11, 2001 and before

:lol


eIoP6Dxg6sk

2centsworth
06-12-2008, 02:47 AM
Yoni has got you guys acting like school children. Just admit you don't want to do the work.

MannyIsGod
06-12-2008, 02:58 AM
tl;dr

RandomGuy
11-16-2012, 05:58 PM
...on the recent Senate Intelligence Committee report on, "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information together with Additional and Minority Views?"

Did I?

I am shocked, shocked I say that someone might get pissy about who knew what and when.