The War on Terror - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ratbastid · 10-07-2006, 05:24 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5329350.stm

Quote:

Iraq war justifications laid bare
By Adam Brookes
BBC News, Washington

The Senate Intelligence Committee has found no evidence of links between the regime of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

In a report issued on Friday, it also found that was little or no evidence to support a raft of claims made by the US intelligence community concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The 400-page report was three years in the making, and is probably the definitive public account of the intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

One starting point is this:

In a poll conducted this month by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, a sample of American adults was asked: "Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 11 September terrorist attacks, or not?"

Forty-three percent of those polled answered yes, they believed Saddam was personally involved.

Even though it is well-established that Saddam Hussein was no ally of al-Qaeda, nor did he possess weapons of mass destruction, the original justifications for the invasion for Iraq linger on, often in ways that have strangely mutated on their journey through politics and media.

Cheney claims 'untrue'

In fact, the intelligence agencies had been extremely cautious in suggesting links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

George W Bush and Dick Cheney at the 2002 State of the Union address
Mr Bush and Mr Cheney have been making the link for years
It was Vice-President Dick Cheney who asserted most strongly in public that Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda had an operational relationship.

In a television interview in September 2003, he said there was "a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s... al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained... the Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organisation."

It was "clearly official policy" on the part of Iraq, he said.

Friday's report, issued by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, provides another definitive statement that that assertion is simply not true.

It says that debriefings conducted since the invasion of Iraq "indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qaeda. No post-war information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with [Osama] Bin Laden.

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda... refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support."

Administration confusion

The report supports the intelligence community's finding that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - the man who was al-Qaeda's chief operative in Iraq between the invasion and his death in June this year - was indeed in Baghdad in 2002.

Was this an Iraqi link to al-Qaeda?

No, says the report. Far from harbouring him, Saddam's regime was trying to find and capture him.

But the Bush administration has a way, still, of confusing this issue.

As recently as 21 August this year, President Bush said that Saddam "had relations with Zarqawi".

The Senate report is scathing of the intelligence community's product concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

"Post-war findings", it reads, "do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate judgement that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

Nor do "post-war findings" support the 2002 NIE's assertions that Iraq had chemical or biological weapons.

Political fallout

It remains to be seen if the Democrats can use the Senate report to damage the Republican Party in the run-up to Congressional elections in November by reminding the American public of the intelligence debacle that preceded the invasion of Iraq, and ascribing that failure to the leadership of the Bush administration.

It is far from clear they'll be able to do so.

The president has been extremely active in the last week, selling his successes in the "war on terror" in a series of speeches; demanding Congress give him greater powers to fight it; and announcing that the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks will be brought to trial.

The Democratic Party still seems unable to find a concerted critique of President Bush's handling of the "war on terrorism" and the conflict in Iraq, without themselves appearing defeatist.

So: the Senate Intelligence Committee has now determined that we had no damn business going into Iraq in the first place, that every justification given for war was false, and that, in fact, by removing Saddam from power, we took out an ally against Al Qaeda.

Whups.

The only remaining question is whether the Democrats can use this without stepping into the "weak on terror" beartraps that the administration has set out for them.

roachboy · 10-07-2006, 08:20 AM

the full senate report is quite interesting and it goes fast too. (150 pages of big print with the occasional big black lines through text)

it is available as a .pdf here:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

the full text has a certain strange ritual force to it, particularly in the repetition of sentences on the order of:
"this has been found not to be true"
or
"there was no evidence of this"
or
"al-qa'ida was operating in the kurdish-controlled areas of northern iraq and was perceived by saddam hussein as a threat to the iraqi regime"
or
well pick your bushargument and look up the assessment of the "evidence" it was based on and you'll find your very own "this was not true" statements....

not a single argument advanced by the administration was true.
not one.
none of it was true.
none of it.

it is pretty amazing to read, even though folk have known this, at one level or another, all along....

host · 10-07-2006, 08:22 AM

We've kicked this "Senate Select Intel Committee, Releases "one part" of it's "Phase II report, which was divided into two parts in 2004, and then the second part was divided into five parts by committee chairman, Pat Roberts, (R-KS), in 2006, so that most of it's release could be delayed until after yet another elections cycle" .... "news reporting"........around, here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108336

Quote:

http://www.forbes.com/technology/fee...ap3003247.html
Senate Panel Releases Iraq Intel Report
By JIM ABRAMS , 09.08.2006, 12:03 PM

.......The intelligence committee issued a portion of its analysis, labeled Phase I , on prewar intelligence shortcomings in July 2004. But concluding work on Phase II of the study has been more problematic, because of partisan divisions over how senior policymakers used intelligence in arguing for the need to drive Saddam from power.

Last November, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada forced the Senate into a rare closed-door session to discuss the delay in coming out with the new data.

The 400-page report to be released Friday covers only two of the five topics outlined under Phase II . Much of the information - on the intelligence supplied by the INC and Chalabi and the overestimation of Saddam's WMD threat - has been documented in numerous studies.

But Rockefeller said the report would show how the "administration pursued a deceptive strategy, abusing intelligence reporting that the intelligence community had already warned was uncorroborated, unreliable and in some critical circumstances fabricated."

Rockefeller said a third segment , on the prewar intelligence assessment of postwar Iraq, could be issued later this month. But there was no set date for issuing the last two parts of Phase II , including a look at the politically divisive issue of whether policymakers manipulated intelligence reports to set the stage for war.

"We continue our work on the remaining part of our Phase II inquiry," said Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan.

....and now, they have successfully delayed most of the "Phase II" release, past yet another election.....and it's exactly 27 months later than when this exchange took place:

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5409538
Transcript for July 11
Guests: Sen. Pat Roberts, (R-Kan.); Sen. Jay Rockefeller, (D-W.Va.); David Broder, The Washington Post; Ron Brownstein, Los Angeles Times; William F. Buckley, Editor Emeritus, National ReviewJack Germond, Baltimore Sun
NBC News
Updated: 11:18 a.m. ET July 11, 2004

.........On the repetitive questioning, in regards to the terrorism section, which is a pretty good section, they came out with a pretty good product. On the WMD section, there was not repetitive questioning and we got into Curveball and we got into aluminum tubes and we got into UAVs and we got into mobile labs and all of that, and it was a lousy product. Now, I hope to heck that there was pressure by the policy-maker asking tough questions of every analyst, "Are you sure?" This was post-9/11. This was, "We can't be risk averts. We have to lean forward." I don't think that's pressure.

Now, in terms of the IG and the ombudsman, I've talked to both and I said, "Give me names of people that you have talked to." One of the individuals, and I won't get into this, said, "Well, I heard it in the cafeteria."

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, you...

SEN. ROBERTS: And also bottom line in terms of those statements, they indicated, "Was there any real pressure to change the product?" Answer? "No."

MR. RUSSERT: ...mentioned Curveball. Secretary Powell went before the United Nations in February and talked about the evidence that he had seen about Saddam having trucks and railroad cars to be used to disperse biological-chemical weapons. Secretary Powell then came on this program in May and said, "It turned out the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases deliberately misleading."

SEN. ROBERTS: He's right.

MR. RUSSERT: And you talked about Curveball. Curveball was the son of Ahmad Chalabi, the former Iraqi exile's friend who came forward and said, "I'm a high-school--number one in my class. I know all about this." He was a fraud. And in the report, this is what the e-mail from the deputy chief of the CIA's Iraqi task force had to say. "Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn't say, and that the Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he's talking about."

SEN. ROBERTS: OK. That's an isolated memo that we obviously now know is absolutely incorrect. Curveball really provided 98 percent of the assessment as to whether or not the Iraqis had a biological weapon. Yet, the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, knew of his background. He has a very troubled background. Secondly, he was a single source that we did not have access to. And on the basis of that came the statement in the WMD section that Iraq had a biological capability. That's the kind offlaw in intelligence, and I think--I won't say willful, but the DIA should have shared that information with the CIA and the CIA should have gone from there.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent out before the United Nations and the world based on...

SEN. ROBERTS: I know. It was wrong.

MR. RUSSERT: ...that information.

SEN. ROBERTS: You couldn't be more upset or frustrated than both Jay and I. And let me tell you something else. Curveball and all of that information that is in our report, much of it is redacted. I can't really tell you some of the more specific details that would make your eyebrows even raise higher.

MR. RUSSERT: With all this being said, the second phase of your investigation as to whether or not the Bush administration deliberately altered, massaged the data, the intelligence in order to mislead the American people. Why shouldn't the American people have the benefit of your report before the November election?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Well, let's forget the election for a moment, and I know that sounds like a frivolous thing to say, but it needs to be made very clear here that--two things. Number one, I think, is the fact that Pat Roberts and I worked very closely together with a lot of pressure from people from both of our membership, colleagues.

SEN. ROBERTS: Yeah, we felt pressured.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Yeah, we felt pressure to, you know, not do--put out this report that we did. Nevertheless, we were, in fact, under committee rules, and it was my hope from the very beginning—and we did not prevail because we are in the minority on the committee and in the Senate--to take up this whole question of what the administration said, what the administration did during this entire time. We actually only did prewar intelligence. That's all we did. The whole subject of what was the administration's role, what influence did they bring upon the American people, what pressure did they

or did they not bring was never really gone into.

MR. RUSSERT: Why not, Senator?

SEN. ROBERTS: We agreed that our first mission was to get the report done that we, you know, had to do. I thought it could be done in six months. We hit a little bit of a rocky path at first. There were some politics involved and all of that. And then I said we ought to be able to do this in six months. Well, then it became nine months and then it became a year. Every member had their say. We had to work with the CIA, and as a result, our staffers had to go back thousands and thousands and thousands of pages to get it right. We are doing...

MR. RUSSERT: Was there any political--was there any political pressure from the White House not to do the second part...

SEN. ROBERTS: None. None.

MR. RUSSERT: ...of the investigation until after the election?

SEN. ROBERTS: None. And they didn't even know about the second part of the--and now this thing has morphed into a change as to whether or not the administration has magnified or has changed it or has manipulated it. The whole key was the use of intelligence. And so consequently that is ongoing right now, as I speak, by our staff, as well as a--other priority goal which is to get at the reform measures that we must do on a very careful and deliberate basis. But even as I'm speaking our staff is working on
phase two and we will get it done.

MR. RUSSERT: Before the election?

SEN. ROBERTS: I don't know if we can get it done before the election. It is more important to get it right. Understand, too, that it is going to an independent commission after we get our work done. So we haven't heard the end of this by any means..........

Presumably, only the least damning portions of the Phase II senate intel. report were released, last month. It is long past the time that Rockefeller, rather than make excuses for Pat Roberts' blatant, politically motivated obstruction, should have resigned in protest....from the Senate Select Committee on Intel. Rockefeller has destroyed his own credibility and helped Roberts keep the rest of this information....the deliberate, fixing of "facts", to match the policy, that the "Downing Street Memos" described, in July, 2002, from the voters through both the 2004 and now, the 2006 elections.

Deltona Couple · 10-09-2006, 07:05 AM

While the information given is interesting, and shows a lot of information, some of which I am still trying to decypher from "legal-speak" in some cases, I still pose this question: How do we know that this "Senate Select Intel Committee" is getting all the right information? lol...How do we know that THEY arent lying to us to better support hteir OWN political agendas? Does anyone see where I am going with this at all? It's a poke in jest here, but a real evaluation. The common citizen can only rely on what they are told, and who they trust. Personally I don't trust anyone that is involved in the political world....I know it is a necessary evil in our society, but personally I find faults and mistrust in all those involved at some point.....

10-07-2006, 08:20 AM	#82 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the full senate report is quite interesting and it goes fast too. (150 pages of big print with the occasional big black lines through text) it is available as a .pdf here: http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf the full text has a certain strange ritual force to it, particularly in the repetition of sentences on the order of: "this has been found not to be true" or "there was no evidence of this" or "al-qa'ida was operating in the kurdish-controlled areas of northern iraq and was perceived by saddam hussein as a threat to the iraqi regime" or well pick your bushargument and look up the assessment of the "evidence" it was based on and you'll find your very own "this was not true" statements.... not a single argument advanced by the administration was true. not one. none of it was true. none of it. it is pretty amazing to read, even though folk have known this, at one level or another, all along.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-09-2006, 07:05 AM	#84 (permalink)
Deltona Couple Addict Location: Spring, Texas	While the information given is interesting, and shows a lot of information, some of which I am still trying to decypher from "legal-speak" in some cases, I still pose this question: How do we know that this "Senate Select Intel Committee" is getting all the right information? lol...How do we know that THEY arent lying to us to better support hteir OWN political agendas? Does anyone see where I am going with this at all? It's a poke in jest here, but a real evaluation. The common citizen can only rely on what they are told, and who they trust. Personally I don't trust anyone that is involved in the political world....I know it is a necessary evil in our society, but personally I find faults and mistrust in all those involved at some point..... __________________ "It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison