Rice still saying Al Qaeda & Iraq links

[Burgold]

There's an old saying that if you repeat something often enough most people will believe it's true. The one thing this administration has been superb at is in sticking to the same refrain regardless of the circumstances or revelations.

[Redskins Diehard]

The intelligence used by the administration was either a) Very poor, or Did not really matter, since the administration had an objective of invading Iraq, no matter what intelligence.

I believe Rice knows what she is doing - after all, who is going to question her? The "leftist" media? Her supporters? This wouldn't be the first time that I have observed her making statements that were not completely truthful. I guess we have to expect that from our politicians?

I don't think Secretary Rice is a politician.

The intelligence used by the administration was the best that the country had to offer. And it was poor.

[Burgold]

I don't think Secretary Rice is a politician.

The intelligence used by the administration was the best that the country had to offer. And it was poor.

It's getting harder and harder to believe that. I think their bias colored their views. I think they wanted to believe that Iraq was linked and that Iraq was doing this and that, so they tended to believe anything that jibed with their point of view and dismissed anything that ran contrary. Does that mean they did it out of malice? No, but it does mean that their decision making was suspect. We keep hearing more and more about how their each of their facts were deeply questioned from within and from respected intelligence officials and agencies. Many of their slam dunks now seem to have been debunked beforehand. Too many of their assertions have been proven false. This indicates either a total failure in intelligence, a rush to judgement, or an intention to deceive Congress and the American people.

[Redskins Diehard]

It's getting harder and harder to believe that. I think their bias colored their views. I think they wanted to believe that Iraq was linked and that Iraq was doing this and that, so they tended to believe anything that jibed with their point of view and dismissed anything that ran contrary. Does that mean they did it out of malice? No, but it does mean that their decision making was suspect. We keep hearing more and more about how their each of their facts were deeply questioned from within and from respected intelligence officials and agencies. Many of their slam dunks now seem to have been debunked beforehand. Too many of their assertions have been proven false. This indicates either a total failure in intelligence, a rush to judgement, or an intention to deceive Congress and the American people.

I have said before and I'll say it hear now again. The intelligence briefing I recieved during my active duty time in the Army, which began in1996, changed very little. In fact the briefings I received in 1998 sitting on the border between Iraq and Kuwait were very similar to the ones I recieved in 2003, in nearly the same location. The only thing that changed was the administration that "approved" such briefings.

[Burgold]

Ironically, I still believe Iraq had WMD before the invasion. Simultaneously, I believe that the passion for this administration to prove their case was greater than their passion to get it right. I think it was a case of the means justifying the ends. That is, I think that they figured even if they were wrong, getting rid of Sadam, installing a democrasy, and having a safe harbor in the Middle East would have been worth the PR black eye.

I believe you that the reports you were getting were very similar, but I also think that you were never given all the information, exposed to all the differing opinions, and points of view, or shown every contradicting or complimentary piece of intel. So, does that make what you were told right, wrong, or incomplete. From a civilian viewpoint, I can tell you that what we heard differed in intensity and direness. There was no doubt in my mind that we were going to go into Iraq again militarily. The Bush Administration did everything they could to paint the worst picture possible and said it was a necessity. This did differ from how Iraq had been depicted in the past.

[chomerics]

I have said before and I'll say it hear now again. The intelligence briefing I recieved during my active duty time in the Army, which began in1996, changed very little. In fact the briefings I received in 1998 sitting on the border between Iraq and Kuwait were very similar to the ones I recieved in 2003, in nearly the same location. The only thing that changed was the administration that "approved" such briefings.

Do you expect to get contrary reports? Do you expect to get a report that states "available intel is sketchy, but this is what it says"? No, you get something that says available intel. . . It is not up to you to discern the threats from non threats, you have to view everyone as a threat, it is in your own best intrest as a soldier. It is up to the intel industry to make the distinction between credible, and non-credible. They did make that distinction before the war, and they did get it right most of the time. The administration is the one that ignored everything that didn't fit their plan to invade Iraq, and pumped up all the "sketchy" stuff to fear a public into a war. The Downing street memo's which state we were fixing the facts around the intel should tell you this. As for being a soldier, You should be told only one side of the story, for not only morale concerns, but also to keep everyone in line as far as the chain of command goes. Just because you read "some of the same stuff" does not mean you were reading the "best stuff we have to offer". Do you see the reasoning for this?

As to the nature of the intel, what would you have said if you knew they got the infromation from someone that was tortured, waterboarded and then told a different story after the torture? Would you rely on the information as fact? Would you think the information was the "best available intel"? Wht would you think if you went into an area which was based on bogus information, and you lost a couple of buddies? Would you then think everything is kosher, or would you question command decisions? There is a reason you are not told both sides, and a good one at that.

Here is the problem people on the right have. They can not fathom that their country could do something such as this. There were many MANY reasons to go to war with Iraq, unfortunately making us safer was not one of them, and that was what we were told. Again, attack the messenger, attack the person who gave the bogus message to begin with.

Question for you, have you read the Senate Intel report? Did you go through what we knew, when we knew it, and then what was told to the American public? Does that bother you at all?

[Redskins Diehard]

Do you expect to get contrary reports? Do you expect to get a report that states "available intel is sketchy, but this is what it says"? No, you get something that says available intel. . . It is not up to you to discern the threats from non threats, you have to view everyone as a threat, it is in your own best intrest as a soldier. It is up to the intel industry to make the distinction between credible, and non-credible. They did make that distinction before the war, and they did get it right most of the time. The administration is the one that ignored everything that didn't fit their plan to invade Iraq, and pumped up all the "sketchy" stuff to fear a public into a war. The Downing street memo's which state we were fixing the facts around the intel should tell you this. As for being a soldier, You should be told only one side of the story, for not only morale concerns, but also to keep everyone in line as far as the chain of command goes. Just because you read "some of the same stuff" does not mean you were reading the "best stuff we have to offer". Do you see the reasoning for this?

As to the nature of the intel, what would you have said if you knew they got the infromation from someone that was tortured, waterboarded and then told a different story after the torture? Would you rely on the information as fact? Would you think the information was the "best available intel"? Wht would you think if you went into an area which was based on bogus information, and you lost a couple of buddies? Would you then think everything is kosher, or would you question command decisions? There is a reason you are not told both sides, and a good one at that.

Here is the problem people on the right have. They can not fathom that their country could do something such as this. There were many MANY reasons to go to war with Iraq, unfortunately making us safer was not one of them, and that was what we were told. Again, attack the messenger, attack the person who gave the bogus message to begin with.

Question for you, have you read the Senate Intel report? Did you go through what we knew, when we knew it, and then what was told to the American public? Does that bother you at all?

Thank you for your input on what soldiers get, what they need, and why they need it. You base this on your experience, the threat briefs you have particpated in?

Difference between you and me Chomerics is that I don't have to imagine "if" I would feel this way or that way in certain situations, I've been in those situations. In fact I've been in this situation we are talking about.

So you have examined the preponderance of the intel. I highly doubt it. Since there was limited(read virtually non-existent HUMINT) available all this intelligence is based on the best guess of our analysts. For every one that has come out and said there was no connection there is at least one that believes there was. You quoted a DIA report. Where does the NCA get their intel?

There is no such animal as the "intel industry", there is an intel community. Made of different organizations that have different but specific roles. Present me with evidence and reports from each one that says there was no connection and then I will agree that the connection should not have been drawn.

[chomerics]

There is no such animal as the "intel industry", there is an intel community. Made of different organizations that have different but specific roles. Present me with evidence and reports from each one that says there was no connection and then I will agree that the connection should not have been drawn.

Did you read the Senate Intel report? I asked you that question, and you ignored it completely. Maybe if you did read it, you would see exactly where the information was coming from, what they USED as information and what they ignored.

I do not argue that intel is an inexact science, but so far in this thread, and in others of the same topic, you have argued basically that you know what intel is, and because you were there it doesn't matter what anyone else has to say. Well, sorry, but that does not give you any more moral high ground to stand on, or any more insight as to what we knew and when we knew it. We are BOTH on equal playing fields when it comes to that aspect of it. Unless you have top secret clearance levels, and are privy to the information that comes across an intel analysist's desk on a daily basis, we are BOTH in the same boat.

So I will ask you again, did you read the Seante Intel report? I ask you because your posts leads me to think you have not. If you HAD read the report, you would unserstand the facts surrounding the intel, and you would see how the intel was used to bolster support for the war. In almost every single case, there was evidence that stated in no short terms, the evidence contained is NOT credible, and I wouldn't use it. Well, Bush DID use it, and he used it to pimp a war on the American public by fearing them into thinking we were being attacked. I am sorry you do not believe this, and you believe Bush had grand intentions about Iraq, but I am a skeptic. I look at things like the Downing report, what business leaders were saying before Iraq, meetings and presentations they were giving 6 months before the invasion on the "post war planning". Everything was there, we were going in no matter what, everything else was just a smoke screen.

Did you read the Senate report, and what were your thoughts on it? If you disagree with it, label the specific sections and discuss the topic. There is information out there, which is the best information on the subject. It is from a bipartisan commission, and it lists everything we knew, when we knew it, and what was sold to the American public. Furthermor, if you have not read it yet, why are you still commenting on things which the report debunks?

[Sarge]

Did you read the Senate Intel report?

This is the same Senate intel report that looks like the 9/11 Commission Report so far?

[Redskins Diehard]

Did you read the Senate Intel report? I asked you that question, and you ignored it completely. Maybe if you did read it, you would see exactly where the information was coming from, what they USED as information and what they ignored.

I do not argue that intel is an inexact science, but so far in this thread, and in others of the same topic, you have argued basically that you know what intel is, and because you were there it doesn't matter what anyone else has to say. Well, sorry, but that does not give you any more moral high ground to stand on, or any more insight as to what we knew and when we knew it. We are BOTH on equal playing fields when it comes to that aspect of it. Unless you have top secret clearance levels, and are privy to the information that comes across an intel analysist's desk on a daily basis, we are BOTH in the same boat.

So I will ask you again, did you read the Seante Intel report? I ask you because your posts leads me to think you have not. If you HAD read the report, you would unserstand the facts surrounding the intel, and you would see how the intel was used to bolster support for the war. In almost every single case, there was evidence that stated in no short terms, the evidence contained is NOT credible, and I wouldn't use it. Well, Bush DID use it, and he used it to pimp a war on the American public by fearing them into thinking we were being attacked. I am sorry you do not believe this, and you believe Bush had grand intentions about Iraq, but I am a skeptic. I look at things like the Downing report, what business leaders were saying before Iraq, meetings and presentations they were giving 6 months before the invasion on the "post war planning". Everything was there, we were going in no matter what, everything else was just a smoke screen.

Did you read the Senate report, and what were your thoughts on it? If you disagree with it, label the specific sections and discuss the topic. There is information out there, which is the best information on the subject. It is from a bipartisan commission, and it lists everything we knew, when we knew it, and what was sold to the American public. Furthermor, if you have not read it yet, why are you still commenting on things which the report debunks?

I will leave you and this thread with the following. You are so arrogant to think you have all the answers. That you are able to sit there and google your way to the enlightened perch that you, and those that agree with you, can look down upon us "ignorant" people. One piece of advice for you that I am sure you will disregard...you can't, won't, and shouldn't be able to get the whole picture from the very same computer screen that you are reading this message board.

[Sarge]

I will leave you and this thread with the following. You are so arrogant to think you have all the answers. That you are able to sit there and google your way to the enlightened perch that you, and those that agree with you, can look down upon us "ignorant" people. One piece of advice for you that I am sure you will disregard...you can't, won't, and shouldn't be able to get the whole picture from the very same computer screen that you are reading this message board.

I'm sure he's been going to the New York Times to get all his intel. They've been on the ball since Bush took over with revealing classified stuff

[Burgold]

None except a very select few are privy to all the data and intelligence available. i would guess that there is no one on this board and if there were that person would stay quite far from participating in these kinds of conversations. However, that does not preclude us, military and civilians from making presumptions based on what we have been told is true. To get back to the top of the thread, if a reporter asks Bush on Thursday what Al Qaeda has to do with Iraq and he answers unequivocably that there is no connection and then on Friday a reporter asks the same question of Rice and she says there is in deed an Al Qaeda-Iraq link then there is something strange going on in the chain of communication. Someone is misinformed or someone is lying. It's as simple as that.

[Baculus]

I'd like to inquire to the accuracy of the current administration, as far as the reasons that it's stated for certain actions. This is a viable question - after all, if the administration continues to purvey certain reasoning, based upon intelligence, for actions, and the reasoning is flawed, then how much faith are we seriously supposed to have in government leadership? And if this is the case, then how can anyone fault those who question the government?

For example, Rumsfeld stating that Iraq was an immediate threat, based upon its WMD weapons and nuclear programs, and Cheney stating the Hussein regime's close ties to Al Queda. Have both of these statements been proven?

Incidentally, this is a straight up, and not a loaded, question: Links, reports, etc, is always informative.

[Predicto]

I will leave you and this thread with the following. You are so arrogant to think you have all the answers. That you are able to sit there and google your way to the enlightened perch that you, and those that agree with you, can look down upon us "ignorant" people. One piece of advice for you that I am sure you will disregard...you can't, won't, and shouldn't be able to get the whole picture from the very same computer screen that you are reading this message board.

If I may ask, how does one judge the performance of the elected officials (the ones who technically work for us) and decide whether or not to continue to vote them into office, without making these kinds of inquiries?

[chomerics]

I will leave you and this thread with the following. You are so arrogant to think you have all the answers. That you are able to sit there and google your way to the enlightened perch that you, and those that agree with you, can look down upon us "ignorant" people. One piece of advice for you that I am sure you will disregard...you can't, won't, and shouldn't be able to get the whole picture from the very same computer screen that you are reading this message board.

So I take it you did not read the report huh? Maybe, just maybe if you actually talked about the THREAD, or the facts you wouldn't be called out. Instead your presence in this thread has consisted of. . .

3 cho sucks, he's a partisan

2 cho sucks, he doesn't know what he is talking about

2 I was there and i know what I am talking about

1 I "trust them" to do what is right

At what point do you ever answer a question? At what point do you honestly discuss the merits of the thread topic without delving into why I think the way I do?

Am I arrogant? possibly in some eyes, it is not my fault I actually take time to read the facts and make my decisions based on those facts. It makes me no more arrogant then anyone else, but a bit more informed. Although, I will take arrogant anyday, as I know I will engage anyone in a discussion about anything, even if I am in the minority, or if everyone thinks my opinion is wrong. heck, i learn a lot discussing with people who think differently then I do. Why surround yourself with like minded individuals? It leads to boring conversations.

Even if you won't answer the question about the Senate Intel report, I will ask this one. . .

At what point do you admit you were wrong? Ever? Is there a number or an amount of death, or an amount of money you say is too much?

[Sarge]

At what point do you admit you were wrong? Ever? Is there a number or an amount of death, or an amount of money you say is too much?

I could ask the same question of you about the Albright tip off to Pakistan

[Ax]

To get back to the top of the thread, if a reporter asks Bush on Thursday what Al Qaeda has to do with Iraq and he answers unequivocably that there is no connection and then on Friday a reporter asks the same question of Rice and she says there is in deed an Al Qaeda-Iraq link then there is something strange going on in the chain of communication. Someone is misinformed or someone is lying. It's as simple as that.

"Well, that depends on what..........."

:laugh: Sorry. Couldn't stop myself.

Back on topic:

None except a very select few are privy to all the data and intelligence available. i would guess that there is no one on this board and if there were that person would stay quite far from participating in these kinds of conversations.

Seems I've read this somewhere. Good point.