Bush and Officials Lied leading up to Iraq war

[RetiredGySgt]

not at all. Which is why there is ALWAYS a degree of doubt. If there was absolute certainty, the judgments and conclusions would not change from year to year. Lenin is buried in his tomb in Red Square. next year: Lenin is buried in his tomb in Red Square. Our intelligence agents can walk right up to the glass covered coffin and see him. absolute certainty. If the intell changes and conclusions change, then there, by definition, could NOT have been absolute certainty...there could NOT have been the total absence of doubt.

What part of that do you have a hard time comprehending?

Wrong. The "estimate" has NO doubt. IT states that all 16 Intel agency AGREE that Iraq HAS chemical and Biological weapons. It does not say " we think" nor " our best estimate is" It STATES repeatedly through out the Document that Iraq has them, that Iraq is making more, that Iraq is using mobile labs and using civilian plants. It further STATES , again with NO caveats, that Iraq is try to build longer range missiles for the purpose of delivering said weapons and that Iraq is working on making a nuclear weapon.

NO doubt, no maybe, no could be, no we think, no we estimate, no the consensus is. A straight forward statement of fact. All 16 agencies AGREED that Iraq had weapons and was making more, that it was getting better at making those weapons last on the shelf.

Yet you keep claiming that just is not true.

Now lets take a look at some more of this NIE shall we?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/nie-iraq-wmd.html

Here a re some nice parts.

We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD.

Why look, they DO know how to inform the reader, the President of doubts or lack of certainty after all.

• The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been, directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against US territory.

NO don't look, but they actually SAY when they have no certainty, using the word probably to convey a degree of doubt.

In fact the NIE did have doubts, but NONE about the Possession of weapons. NONE about the production of weapons, NONE about the production and use of missiles.

Now here is a face saver for you Maineman.

Since Alpha did not provide the entire released portion of the NIE and this link seems to have it. You can say that there was DOUBT that Iraq would use Terrorists to attack us unless pushed. That there was doubt that Iraq would use WMDs against us on our soil or in the Middle East unless pushed.

But before you gloat to much over that, remember the simple fact that Saddam was a meglomaniac and already had a grudge against the US. He had tried several times to find common Ground with AL Quaede.

Thus the President stating that he did not feel it wise to wait until we were attacked to get rid of a KNOWN threat ( the WMDs that the intel STATED were there) does not add up to the lie you want so desperately to be true.

And this of course would explain why Congress has agreed ever since that in fact Bush did NOT lie. He was told that Iraq had weapons and that they could use them against us if they felt threatened or for revenge.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL

I don't run crying and whining like a little girl to the mods, over garden variety banter.


HaHa....RGS is a pussy. He just neg repped me for proving that everything he said about the balkans was wrong.


PS RGS: I don't give a crap about neg reps. Only little girls, emotional people, and posters who take message boards far too seriously give people neg reps.

And you got it wrong as usual. You got neg repped for continuing to claim I was not a retired Marine, which is clearly stated in the neg rep. Tell ya what , your free to copy and post what I said, as long as it is all of what I said.

Go ahead retard post it.

 

[maineman]

And you got it wrong as usual. You got neg repped for continuing to claim I was not a retired Marine, which is clearly stated in the neg rep. Tell ya what , your free to copy and post what I said, as long as it is all of what I said.

Go ahead retard post it.

I can understand your not knowing about the marines' involvment in the Balkans. I will admit that I do not keep up with every detail of US Navy ops since my retirement.

 

[Alpha1]

not at all. Which is why there is ALWAYS a degree of doubt. If there were absolute certainty, the judgments and conclusions would not change from year to year. For example: Lenin is buried in his tomb in Red Square. next year: Lenin is buried in his tomb in Red Square. Our intelligence agents can walk right up to the glass covered coffin and see him. absolute certainty. If the intell changes and conclusions change, then there, by definition, could NOT have been absolute certainty...there could NOT have been the total absence of doubt.

What part of that do you have a hard time comprehending?

The agreed upon conclusion of 16 different intell agencys of the United States as of 10/02......."Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

HAS....
1. to possess
to own
to hold
for use; contain: He has property. The work has an index.
2. to hold, possess, or accept in some relation, as of kindred or relative position: He wanted to marry her, but she wouldn't have him.
3. to get, receive, or take: to have a part in a play;
to have news.

"Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons
"Baghdad possesses chemical and biological weapons
"Baghdad holds chemical and biological weapons

What part of that do you have a hard time comprehending?
I'll try smaller, less intimidating words if thats possible....

The agreed upon conclusion of 16 different intell agencys of the United States as of 10/02......."Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

The agreed upon conclusion of 16 different intell agencys of the United States as of 10/02......."Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

The agreed upon conclusion of 16 different intell agencys of the United States as of 10/02......."Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

The agreed upon conclusion of 16 different intell agencys of the United States as of 10/02......."Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

HAS, HAS, HAS, HAS,HAS


Maybe repetition will help you....try saying HAS aloud....maybe something will click in that pointy head of yours.....

 

[maineman]

do you think that all of the agencies agreed about Iran's nuclear program in 2005? What about 2007? Two completely different conclusions. They may have arrived at a similar judgment, but it was, and always be an ESTIMATE.

what part of ESTIMATE and JUDGMENT are you willfully refusing to understand? Try repeating Estimate over and over and over again.

 

[Alpha1]

do you think that all of the agencies agreed about Iran's nuclear program three years ago? What about this year? Two completely different conclusions. They may have arrived at a similar judgment, but it was, and always be an ESTIMATE.

what part of ESTIMATE and JUDGMENT are you willfully refusing to understand?

As the intell dictates, judgments might vary.....all 16 agencys will debate their particular intell.....
and they might CONCLUDE "Baghdad DOES NOT HAVE WMD"
or they might CONCLUDE "Baghdad H A S WMD"
Either is a definite conclusion, without reservations, caveats, or qualifiers..

Just so happens the 10/02 conclusion was ...."Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

Now Sonny...you can twist and turn and spin and jump and tumble and write these words in a foreign language.....
and in the end, after all is said and NOTHING WILL FUCKIN' CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE WORDS.......""Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

Its just that simple.....and it don't matter 1 iota what other conclusions were arrived at at other times.....

 

[maineman]

As the intell dictates, judgments might vary.....all 16 agencys will debate their particular intell.....
and they might CONCLUDE "Baghdad DOES NOT HAVE WMD"
or they might CONCLUDE "Baghdad H A S WMD"
Either is a definite conclusion, without reservations, caveats, or qualifiers..

Just so happens the 10/02 conclusion was ...."Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

Now Sonny...you can twist and turn and spin and jump and tumble and write these words in a foreign language.....
and in the end, after all is said and NOTHING WILL FUCKIN' CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE WORDS.......""Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

Its just that simple.....and it don't matter 1 iota what other conclusions were arrived at at other times.....

of course it matters.... estimates change. judgments change. asbsolute certainties do not. estimates that say one thing one year and another thing the next and another the year after that are estimates.... there is always doubt in estimates. It was their best estimate that Saddam had weapons. I don't question that...but it WAS an estimate.

and remember: nothing will change the meaning of the E in NIE. The entire report is an ESTIMATE. Gramps.

 

[DeadCanDance]

And you got it wrong as usual. You got neg repped for continuing to claim I was not a retired Marine, which is clearly stated in the neg rep. Tell ya what , your free to copy and post what I said, as long as it is all of what I said.

Go ahead retard post it.

The marine thing was a diversion for your anger. You got angry because I proved, with official government websites, that everything you said was wrong about the balkans. You're too emotionally invested in touting your alleged heroic warrior status. Most of my family served in the military, and they never ran their mouths or bragged about being veterans to complete strangers. I have no way of affirming what any poster claims they did in their private, lives, nor do I care. I only know that for someone with an alleged military background, you are completely uninformed about the US military posture in the balkans. And you've yet to admit everything you said was wrong.

 

[Alpha1]

of course it matters.... estimates change. judgments change. asbsolute certainties do not. estimates that say one thing one year and another thing the next and another the year after that are estimates.... there is always doubt in estimates. It was their best estimate that Saddam had weapons. I don't question that...but it WAS an estimate.

and remember: nothing will change the meaning of the E in NIE. The entire report is an ESTIMATE. Gramps.

Bush statement under debate......

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
George Bush March 18, 2003
----------------------------------------------

Is the 10/02 NIE US intell gathered by this government.?....Yes....
Does it conclude that Iraq HAS WMD ? Yes...
Does any foreign intell confirm Iraq had WMD ? ....Yes....
Is the Bush quote accurate ?...YES....ergo...There is no lie...
Does it matter that earlier intell had caveats ? ...Not a bit...
Does it matter that later intell had caveats ? ...Not a bit...
THIS intell, consisting of 16 independent agencys, after comparing and debating and analyzing their various findings, concludes with certainty.....and I quote...."Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

Sorry sonny...thats the facts of the matter....there is no doubt!

 

[maineman]

Bush statement under debate......

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
George Bush March 18, 2003
----------------------------------------------

Is the 10/02 NIE US intell gathered by this government.?....Yes....
Does it conclude that Iraq HAS WMD ? Yes...
Does any foreign intell confirm Iraq had WMD ? ....Yes....
Is the Bush quote accurate ?...YES....ergo...There is no lie...
Does it matter that earlier intell had caveats ? ...Not a bit...
Does it matter that later intell had caveats ? ...Not a bit...
THIS intell, consisting of 16 independent agencys, after comparing and debating and analyzing their various findings, concludes with certainty.....and I quote...."Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

Sorry sonny...thats the facts of the matter....there is no doubt!

an estimate is not absolute certainty. A judgment is not absolute certainty. Sorry gramps. You lose.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your entire claim that Bush lied rests on your claim that Bush was not told Iraq had WMDs , that he was told there was doubt or uncertainty they had them. The NIE is pointedly clear on that issue. NO DOUBT existed for the 16 agencies that made the report.

It is now in your ball park, provide us with a link to some evidence that Bush was told Iraq may not have weapons. Your entire claim depends on it.

I have already shown that when the intel people were not certain they in fact DID use words to convey that uncertainty. There are none on the issue of WMDs, none on missiles, none of production.

 

[maineman]

Your entire claim that Bush lied rests on your claim that Bush was not told Iraq had WMDs , that he was told there was doubt or uncertainty they had them. The NIE is pointedly clear on that issue. NO DOUBT existed for the 16 agencies that made the report.

It is now in your ball park, provide us with a link to some evidence that Bush was told Iraq may not have weapons. Your entire claim depends on it.

I have already shown that when the intel people were not certain they in fact DID use words to convey that uncertainty. There are none on the issue of WMDs, none on missiles, none of production.

no. my claim rests on my claim that he WAS told that there were caveats and qualifiers that limited the certainty of the intelligence. ANd NIE's are ESTIMATES. Did you read the definition of the word "estimate"?

Can you explain how the 2005 NIE says that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons and the 2007 NIE says that they had stopped pursuing them in 2003? I can.... it is because they are ESTIMATES!!!!!

read this link from start to finish:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7758/intelligence.html#2

 

[RetiredGySgt]

no. my claim rests on my claim that he WAS told that there were caveats and qualifiers that limited the certainty of the intelligence. ANd NIE's are ESTIMATES. Did you read the definition of the word "estimate"?

Can you explain how the 2005 NIE says that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons and the 2007 NIE says that they had stopped pursuing them in 2003? I can.... it is because they are ESTIMATES!!!!!

read this link from start to finish:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7758/intelligence.html#2

You can not be serious. You do understand intel is a constant on going effort and that I sure as hell hope the 2007 NIE is not exactly the same as the 2005 one.

Come on provide us a link to one of those pre invasion briefs were Bush was told " we are not sure". You keep claiming they exist, post one. I have posted the NIE which has NO DOUBT in regards this issue, NONE, NOT a SHRED of doubt. And we have the Director of the CIA stating publicly that WMDs in Iraq was a slam dunk open and shut case.

 

[maineman]

You can not be serious. You do understand intel is a constant on going effort and that I sure as hell hope the 2007 NIE is not exactly the same as the 2005 one.

Come on provide us a link to one of those pre invasion briefs were Bush was told " we are not sure". You keep claiming they exist, post one. I have posted the NIE which has NO DOUBT in regards this issue, NONE, NOT a SHRED of doubt. And we have the Director of the CIA stating publicly that WMDs in Iraq was a slam dunk open and shut case.

the link I provided you discussed caveats and qualifiers that were in place in the classified version of the NIE and not available in the UNclassified summary-only released to the public that you posted.

ca·ve·at
a warning or caution; admonition

qual·i·fi·er
A word or phrase that qualifies, limits, or modifies the meaning of another word or phrase.


And of COURSE estimates change... that is why they call them ESTIMATES.

But things in this world about which we have absolute certainty do NOT change.
1. Lenin is buried in Red Square
2. Stonehenge is in Salisbury
3. There is a statue of Abraham Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial
4. The USS Arizona is at the bottom of Pearl Harbor
5. The earth revolves around the sun.
I do not need to estimate any of those things. I can state #1-5 without doubt.

Again:

es·ti·mate
noun
an approximate judgment or calculation, as of the value, amount, time, size, or weight of something.
a judgment or opinion, as of the qualities of a person or thing.


The fact that estimates do, in fact, change over time...and, in the case of 2005 v 2007 NIE's - the latter completely contradicted the judgments of the former - is why one should NEVER ascribe absolute certainty to the judgments contained therein. There is ALWAYS a degree of doubt...there is ALWAYS a degree of uncertainty. IT IS A FUCKING ESTIMATE!!!!!

 

[Alpha1]

What's the process for writing an NIE?

* An executive branch official, a member of the House or Senate, or a military commander requests an NIE.
* The request is authorized by the director of central intelligence.
* The NIC prepares the terms of reference, an outline of the key issues, and questions to be covered in the estimate.
* An NIO writes the first draft of the NIE or directs another intelligence analyst or outside expert to do so.
* The NIC staff reviews the draft, which is then sent to the U.S. government that share responsibility for compiling national intelligence on the relevant issue. Each agency's experts review the draft and prepare comments.
* Each agency sends a representative to meet and discuss the report at an interagency coordination session. "They go through the report line by line, paragraph by paragraph," says Michael Peters, the executive vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations and, during his Army career, a participant in the NIE-preparation process. "They discuss the quality of the information and the facts and analysis, as well as the wording and terminology."
* In this and succeeding sessions, the analysts attempt to produce a draft that reflects the collective judgment of the intelligence community. "Once there is fundamentally a text that is as close to consensus as you can get, you either sign on or take a footnote [indicating disagreement]," Peters says. In the case of a footnote, one or more agencies will include in the report a short paragraph disputing a particular point. There can be dozens of footnotes in an NIE, Peters says.
* A final draft is submitted to intelligence community peers and experts for their review. In addition, the NIE often includes a summary of the opinions of experts outside the government.
* The NIC reviews the final draft, then forwards it to the National Foreign Intelligence Board (NFIB) for approval. The NFIB is composed of senior representatives of the intelligence community and is chaired by the director of central intelligence.
* The NFIB approves the NIE, typically on the same day it is presented.


"They discuss the quality of the information and the facts and analysis, as well as the wording and terminology."[/u]
* In this and succeeding sessions, the analysts attempt to produce a draft that reflects the collective judgment of the intelligence community.

So they discuss wording and terminology used in an attempt to produce a draft that reflects the collective judgment of intelligence community......

Does MM understand that ..... and what did this produce? Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons

So this is the wording used to reflect the collective judgment of the intell. community.....B A G H D A D H A S.....


this collective group (all individuals of which, I would assume are much smarter that MM),

This group agrees the word HAS best reflects what their intell shows.....and present their findings

If they had reasonable doubt, would they be smart enough to say....might,....or could, or may have, ...
I think they know what those words mean, don't you snipe ? But what word did they agree on......H A S......

 

[maineman]

What's the process for writing an NIE?

* An executive branch official, a member of the House or Senate, or a military commander requests an NIE.
* The request is authorized by the director of central intelligence.
* The NIC prepares the terms of reference, an outline of the key issues, and questions to be covered in the estimate.
* An NIO writes the first draft of the NIE or directs another intelligence analyst or outside expert to do so.
* The NIC staff reviews the draft, which is then sent to the U.S. government that share responsibility for compiling national intelligence on the relevant issue. Each agency's experts review the draft and prepare comments.
* Each agency sends a representative to meet and discuss the report at an interagency coordination session. "They go through the report line by line, paragraph by paragraph," says Michael Peters, the executive vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations and, during his Army career, a participant in the NIE-preparation process. "They discuss the quality of the information and the facts and analysis, as well as the wording and terminology."
* In this and succeeding sessions, the analysts attempt to produce a draft that reflects the collective judgment of the intelligence community. "Once there is fundamentally a text that is as close to consensus as you can get, you either sign on or take a footnote [indicating disagreement]," Peters says. In the case of a footnote, one or more agencies will include in the report a short paragraph disputing a particular point. There can be dozens of footnotes in an NIE, Peters says.
* A final draft is submitted to intelligence community peers and experts for their review. In addition, the NIE often includes a summary of the opinions of experts outside the government.
* The NIC reviews the final draft, then forwards it to the National Foreign Intelligence Board (NFIB) for approval. The NFIB is composed of senior representatives of the intelligence community and is chaired by the director of central intelligence.
* The NFIB approves the NIE, typically on the same day it is presented.


"They discuss the quality of the information and the facts and analysis, as well as the wording and terminology."[/u]
* In this and succeeding sessions, the analysts attempt to produce a draft that reflects the collective judgment of the intelligence community.

So they discuss wording and terminology used in an attempt to produce a draft that reflects the collective judgment of intelligence community......

Does MM understand that ..... and what did this produce? Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons

So this is the wording used to reflect the collective judgment of the intell. community.....B A G H D A D H A S.....


this collective group (all individuals of which, I would assume are much smarter that MM),

This group agrees the word HAS best reflects what their intell shows.....and present their findings

If they had reasonable doubt, would they be smart enough to say....might,....or could, or may have, ...
I think they know what those words mean, don't you snipe ? But what word did they agree on......H A S......

Do you understand what the word "judgment" means? do you understand what the word "estimate" means? Do you understand that judgment and estimate do not play well together with total absence of doubt and absolute certainty?

That same collective group of individuals estimated, in 2005, that Iran was actively involved in producing a nuclear weapon. But then...that same collective group of individuals estimated, in 2007, that Iran had abandoned their efforts to produce a nuclear weapon back in 2003. hmmmm. I guess maybe that is why they call it a national intelligence ESTIMATE!!!!!

 

[Taomon]

You can not be serious. You do understand intel is a constant on going effort and that I sure as hell hope the 2007 NIE is not exactly the same as the 2005 one.

Come on provide us a link to one of those pre invasion briefs were Bush was told " we are not sure". You keep claiming they exist, post one. I have posted the NIE which has NO DOUBT in regards this issue, NONE, NOT a SHRED of doubt. And we have the Director of the CIA stating publicly that WMDs in Iraq was a slam dunk open and shut case.

http://downingstreetmemo.com/manningtext.html

 

[Alpha1]

Do you understand what the word "judgment" means? do you understand what the word "estimate" means? Do you understand that judgment and estimate do not play well together with total absence of doubt and absolute certainty?

That same collective group of individuals estimated, in 2005, that Iran was actively involved in producing a nuclear weapon.

Well Sonny, If that same collective group said, "We ESTIMATE that Iran is actively involved in producing a nuclear weapon", I would agree with 100%......so what, you want a medal or something

But then...that same collective group of individuals estimated, in 2007, that Iran had abandoned their efforts to produce a nuclear weapon back in 2003. hmmmm.

And if that same collective group said, "We ESTIMATE that Iran has abandoned their etc...." I would again agree....and again say 'so what'.....

I guess maybe that is why they call it a national intelligence ESTIMATE!!!!!

EX 1

Its when they say...., "Iran is actively involved in producing a nuclear weapon"....THAT Sonny, is quite a different statement, with a different meaning......(Reading-Grade 3)


EX 2
And then later that same learned group says, "Iran had abandoned their efforts to produce a nuclear weapon back in 2003"...that too is a different statement with a different meaning....(Reading-Grade 3)

Do I need to explain those two statements to you?.....


Example 1
that in 2005, this group stated without reservation that Iran was actively involved in producing a nuclear weapon"......
END OF EXPLANATION.....

Example 2
that in 2007, this group stated without reservation that
"Iran had abandoned their efforts to produce a nuclear weapon back in 2003"
END OF EXPLAINATION


You're concerned about the opposing claims?

Well, lets see....
If in fact the 2005 conclusion is true, then the 2007 claim is in error....

If in fact the 2007 conclusion is true, then the 2005 claim is in error....

Conclusions is error? Yep....Lies maybe...Nope...

SO WHAT !

You can't seem to grasp the fact that the accuracy of the NIE statements is IRRELEVANT to this debate.....while the accuracy of what Bush said is the point.....and after all the fog clears...Bush is accurate in stating what the intell said (in definite terms, ie HAS) about Iraq having chem and bio weapons--- the accuracy of the intell is irrelevant....

 

[Alpha1]

no. my claim rests on my claim that he WAS told that there were caveats and qualifiers that limited the certainty of the intelligence. ANd NIE's are ESTIMATES. Did you read the definition of the word "estimate"?

Can you explain how the 2005 NIE says that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons and the 2007 NIE says that they had stopped pursuing them in 2003? I can.... it is because they are ESTIMATES!!!!!

read this link from start to finish:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7758/intelligence.html#2

You keep saying the NIEs are estimates.....are you claiming that the NIE report cannot ever contain or conclude or make a statement of absolute fact and state it as such.....are you hinting at such a stupid claim.....???

Are you trying to convince us that an NIE can never contain an indisputable fact and state it .......such as ....Baghdad has chem and bio weapons.....

Well...it ain't gonna happen Sonny....

 

[maineman]

You keep saying the NIEs are estimates.....are you claiming that the NIE report cannot ever contain or conclude or make a statement of absolute fact and state it as such.....are you hinting at such a stupid claim.....???

Are you trying to convince us that an NIE can never contain an indisputable fact and state it .......such as ....Baghdad has chem and bio weapons.....

Well...it ain't gonna happen Sonny....

Yes...I am clearly stating that the National Intelligence ESTIMATE is, indeed, an ESTIMATE...HENCE THE FUCKING NAME! I am saying that, in the world of intelligence, there are nearly always caveats and qualifiers that limit the certitude of the "judgments". I am stating that the link I gave you speaks of the caveats and qualifiers in the classified portion of the NIE that you and I are not privy to. You only quote the unclassified only summary and act as if it the fucking ten commandments handed to Moses on Mount Sinai. It is a fucking ESTIMATE...do you understand what that word means? Do you understand that the NIE of 2005 stated that Iran HAD a viable ongoing nuclear weapons program and the 2007 NIE stated that Iran had stopped the program in 2003? There was no "might's" or "maybe's" in 2005...and they were dead wrong.... but that's OK.. BECAUSE IT WAS A FUCKING ESTIMATE...NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE...ESTIMATE...ESTIMATE.... ESTIMATE. Jesus, you are numb as a hake.

p.s. and if "Baghdad has chem and bio weapons" is an "absolute and indisputable fact" as you claim.... WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY???