Portal to Intelligence Do ents

[Yonivore]

The Foreign Military Studies Office has a website which allows the public to examine and search translated do ents captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom -- and much else. Links to a wide range of analytical products are also provided.

Apparently, Fox News is the only mainstream media outlet with enough curiosity to start poring over this cache of do ents. Guess what they've already found?

Iraq How-to Manual Directed Arab Military Operatives In Afghanistan

Go ahead, poke around yourselves...you can't do any worse than the rest of the Mainstream media...which is nothing.

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/in...rint&position=

interesting article on the fabrication and use of knowingly false information leading up to the war. Bush actually chose to not present the contradictory opinions. Seems to me I 'm right about him withholding intel..

[George Gervin's Afro]

The Foreign Military Studies Office has a website which allows the public to examine and search translated do ents captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom -- and much else. Links to a wide range of analytical products are also provided.

Apparently, Fox News is the only mainstream media outlet with enough curiosity to start poring over this cache of do ents. Guess what they've already found?

Iraq How-to Manual Directed Arab Military Operatives In Afghanistan

Go ahead, poke around yourselves...you can't do any worse than the rest of the Mainstream media...which is nothing.

I have actually read part of it and there is an awful lot of 'maybes' about the so called relationships and information uncovered.

[Yonivore]

I have actually read part of it and there is an awful lot of 'maybes' about the so called relationships and information uncovered.

Gee, you have zero evidence that George W. Bush lied about anything and, yet, you're convinced he did. A maybe should have you calling for Saddam Hussein's head on a platter.

[Yonivore]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/in...rint&position=

interesting article on the fabrication and use of knowingly false information leading up to the war. Bush actually chose to not present the contradictory opinions. Seems to me I 'm right about him withholding intel..

You do know these are do ents being uncovered after the fact, right?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Gee, you have zero evidence that George W. Bush lied about anything and, yet, you're convinced he did. A maybe should have you calling for Saddam Hussein's head on a platter.

for the last time withholding information is just as bad as lying.. if the case was so rock solid then why use bad information? you have ignored this question again. That's fine I have provided you with proof the man withheld information in making the case for a war and you do not seem to have any problem with it. I may put you on my ignore list from here on out..

[Yonivore]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/in...rint&position=

interesting article on the fabrication and use of knowingly false information leading up to the war. Bush actually chose to not present the contradictory opinions. Seems to me I 'm right about him withholding intel..

Can't speak to your NYSlime article but here's what the CIA was saying in October of 2002:

How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.

If Baghdad acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year.

• Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until the last half of the decade.
  
  Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain proscribed high-strength aluminum tubes are of significant concern. All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program. Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs.
  
  Based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire, a few tens of thousands of centrifuges would be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a couple of weapons per year.

[Yonivore]

for the last time withholding information is just as bad as lying.. if the case was so rock solid then why use bad information? you have ignored this question again. That's fine I have provided you with proof the man withheld information in making the case for a war and you do not seem to have any problem with it. I may put you on my ignore list from here on out..

Proof? Where? A New York Times article?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Can't speak to your NYSlime article but here's what the CIA was saying in October of 2002:

Amazing how yesterday you were using the NYT as a reference mocking me to provide a Times article to refute yours yet now the NYT is slime.. your as bad as the people on talk radio..

[Yonivore]

Here's a competing article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../19/wirq19.xml

[George Gervin's Afro]

Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.

The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober cer ude in public

[Yonivore]

Then this from the Wall Street Journal in early 2003:

Iraq's attempt to import aluminum tubes of higher tensile strength than is needed in conventional weapons has been brushed aside by the IAEA's Mohammed El-Baradei. He claims there is no proof that these tubes were intended for modification and use in centrifuges to make enriched uranium. Yet he fails to report that Iraq has the machining equipment to thin these tubes down to the required thickness (less than one millimeter) for an efficient centrifuge rotor. What's more, they don't find it suspect that Iraq did not deliver all the computer controlled machining equipment that it imported from the British-based, Iraqi-owned Matrix-Churchill that manufacture these units.

So, apparently, there isn't universal agreement over what the tubes could or could not have been used for.

Your "proof" evaporates.

[Yonivore]

Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.

The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober cer ude in public

Take my two articles; proof of an ongoing nuclear program buried in the back yards of Iraqi scientists and proof that Iraqi had the capability to modify said tubes to be used for a nuclear program and I believe your claim is trumped.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Then this from the Wall Street Journal in early 2003:



So, apparently, there isn't universal agreement over what the tubes could or could not have been used for.

Your "proof" evaporates.

SO THEN WHY USE IT AS JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR ? Why not tell America that your proof has been disputed even by your own scientists? that has been my question from the begining? If you are ok with the Preseident cherry picking information to go to war then we are all in trouble.

[boutons_]

"lied about anything"

lies can be of commission, or of omission. It's obvious to any intelligent person of good faith that WHIG omitted/suppressed all doubts about Iraq "evidence" used to justify the invasion and start a war.

The WHIG acted in criminal, impeachably bad faith by omitting and suppressing serious doubts in the intelligence community about every single bit of "evidence" against Iraq.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Take my two articles; proof of an ongoing nuclear program buried in the back yards of Iraqi scientists and proof that Iraqi had the capability to modify said tubes to be used for a nuclear program and I believe your claim is trumped.

This reminds of cheney's interview on Meet The Press. Russert replayed a statement he made " Iraq had an active WMD program and recons uted their nuclear weapons program"..

When confronted Cheney said he misspoke he meant to say "they had the 'intent' to recons ute their wmds program". I almost fell out of my chair... cheney made a case for war saying they had an active program to then casually say he simply misspoke.. again just another long line of coincedences

[Yonivore]

Here's the CIA's post-invasion response to critics of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.

It doesn't specifically address the aluminum tubes issue but, it does speak to other "myths" about the findings in that do ent.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair...r11282003.html

[Yonivore]

This reminds of cheney's interview on Meet The Press. Russert replayed a statement he made " Iraq had an active WMD program and recons uted their nuclear weapons program"..

When confronted Cheney said he misspoke he meant to say "they had the 'intent' to recons ute their wmds program". I almost fell out of my chair when cheney made a case for war saying they had an active program to then casually say he simply misspoke.. again just another long line of coincedences

Apparently they did have an active WMD program. What's your point? And, please, in the future, provide exact quotes with sources.

[Yonivore]

Read all the links on this page and tell me Saddam Hussein wasn't still pursuing a Nuclear Bomb.

http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm

Nevermind the mounting proof of other prohibited weapons.

[boutons_]

Iraq was presented as an immediate threat to the USA, where the ONLY option was immediate invasion and war.

In the context of the al-Quaida threat and the on-going (and now unraveling) war in Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq was totally unjusitified.

Going after Saddam was already a done decision in 2000 before the Repugs were even elected. Lots of people in the intelligence community had the consensus impression that the the Repug war was decision already made, and the intelligence community was to provide supporting evidence, NOT to provide balanced evidence for and against.

The Fox news "conclusion" still does not excuse the invasion, nor the incredible incompetence in planning and execution (assumption: "welcomed with open arms", NOT a multi-year insurgency, "stuff happens").

[Yonivore]

Then, there's this post-invasion story by CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ear/index.html

If they didn't have the capability of producing nuclear weapons how can the IAEA say that materials capable of producing nuclear weapons, that were there before the invasion, went missing after the invasion?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Read all the links on this page and tell me Saddam Hussein wasn't still pursuing a Nuclear Bomb.

http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm

Nevermind the mounting proof of other prohibited weapons.

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1999
Briefer: JAMES P. RUBIN

*** Excerpt ***

QUESTION: Maybe this is another question that you won't like. There's a story, I believe in the Post this morning, suggesting that the Iraqis have not done very much since December to recons ute their weapons of mass destruction. What do you have to say about that?

MR. RUBIN: Well, first of all, let me say that that isn't a question I don't like, and I, in fact, enjoyed your question as well, as I enjoy all the questions here in the briefing room. Sometimes I enjoy them and don't like them at the same time. Because I'm the spokesman for the State Department, I'm capable of holding those two thoughts in my head.

But in response to your question, the only effective means for the international community to know whether Iraq is taking steps to recons ute its weapons of mass destruction program is to have inspectors on the ground with the right to visit all sites. We need expert UN weapons inspectors on the ground with full Iraqi cooperation, as required under Security Council resolutions, for us to have high confidence that there is credible arms control in Iraq. Those Security Council resolutions haven't changed. The problem is Iraq's refusal to do what the Council - that's the entire world, through the Council - has directed it to do.

With respect to our ability to monitor outside of inspections, let me say that it is limited; that the only really effective way is to have inspections. Having said that, I think it's fair to say that we have no reason to believe there have been significant efforts to recons ute their weapons of mass destruction programs.

[Yonivore]

Here, read this too.

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iraq.htm

[Yonivore]

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1999
Briefer: JAMES P. RUBIN

*** Excerpt ***

QUESTION: Maybe this is another question that you won't like. There's a story, I believe in the Post this morning, suggesting that the Iraqis have not done very much since December to recons ute their weapons of mass destruction. What do you have to say about that?

MR. RUBIN: Well, first of all, let me say that that isn't a question I don't like, and I, in fact, enjoyed your question as well, as I enjoy all the questions here in the briefing room. Sometimes I enjoy them and don't like them at the same time. Because I'm the spokesman for the State Department, I'm capable of holding those two thoughts in my head.

But in response to your question, the only effective means for the international community to know whether Iraq is taking steps to recons ute its weapons of mass destruction program is to have inspectors on the ground with the right to visit all sites. We need expert UN weapons inspectors on the ground with full Iraqi cooperation, as required under Security Council resolutions, for us to have high confidence that there is credible arms control in Iraq. Those Security Council resolutions haven't changed. The problem is Iraq's refusal to do what the Council - that's the entire world, through the Council - has directed it to do.

With respect to our ability to monitor outside of inspections, let me say that it is limited; that the only really effective way is to have inspections. Having said that, I think it's fair to say that we have no reason to believe there have been significant efforts to recons ute their weapons of mass destruction programs.

Not a very definitive statement on Rubin's part; "no reason to believe." And, in light of discoveries since that statement, I say we now have reason to believe.

[Yonivore]

Here, let me make it easy on you.

Post some definitive proof -- not disputed or over which reasonable people could disagree -- that between the November 2002 NIE and the March 2003 invasion Iraq was not engaged in a nuclear, chemical, and/or biological weapons development.