Huge breakthrough. Congratulations. A big door got unlocked into how they maneuvered and you've allowed us to apply that now to ALL policy. Pardon the oversimplification but it always occurs to me that the old adage, Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought him back, needs an addendum. Something along the lines of AND NOW HE'S PISSED!
Posted by mainsailset at December 7, 2005 07:28 AMI still think that "Directive to Deceive" works much better than The White House Iraq Protocol (WHIP), which is to confusing and many people do not know what "protocol" means.
As for the story itself, it is a very important discovery it seems to me. Congratulations, and thank you for the hard work to expose the ultimate corruption.
Posted by Toby at December 7, 2005 07:34 AMIt is patently clear that everyone connected with Bushco has adopted Torture as a modus operandi-- as in TORTURING the English language... We should just label the whole sorry affair "Scrabble-gate"... for Bushco's shameful parsing of words and obfuscation-- "Hey, euros we don't torture" (fingers crossed, dictionary in pocket)...
Posted by tjschill at December 7, 2005 07:38 AMStrong article...befitting of the hype...and great call on the WHIP name. Time to call all the bloggers at Big Brass Blog who pushed the DSM and get them to work!
Posted by Ron Brynaert at December 7, 2005 07:42 AMWhat I'm referring to here is a brief statement made to the SSCI by a top IC official to explain why the Bush Administration's unclassified White Paper of October 2002 dropped numerous critical caveats and direct challenges to the scary claims in the White Paper - caveats and challenges that existed in the classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) (all emphasis mine):
Boy, the emphasis sure is all yours, do you even read your own links? This one clearly states why the differences between the classified and unclassified versions. And this document is your damning evidence? From what I see, there is no evidence that intelligence was changed or ignored due to pressure from the administration. It appears that, and I quote "The all-source agencies were split three to one on the issue of nuclear reconstitution - the CIA, DIA and DOE assessed that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, while INR assessed that Iraq's activities did not add up to a compelling case that Iraq was currently pursuing an "integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons." end quote. Looks more to me like people and their intelligence was just wrong. They most likely based their assumptions on Saddams past proven history of DEVELOPING AND USING WMD
Posted by FresnoBob at December 7, 2005 07:50 AMFresno Bob,
Did you miss the part about how they admitted not giving the public the whole story because they didn't want to give Saddam the opportunity to defend himself against the WMD charges?
Bob seems to forget that there were no WMD program activities, and has now activated the "lalala I can't hear you" defense.
Smoking gun, bitches! They buried their excuse deep, but our man, eriposte has the magic shovel. Thanks!
Posted by iamcoyote at December 7, 2005 08:32 AMSo the nightmare-worst-case-scenarios are bloviated to the American citizenry incessantly, while known, far-less-scary dissenting interpretations of the date by intelligence experts are intentionally supressed on national security grounds. ("We wouldn't want Saddam to think anyone believes him.")
Pretty insidious trick by Bushco, and a brilliant catch by Eriposte.
I fear it's too difficult and subtle for the American Boob to grasp (see FresnoBoob above), but bravo nonetheless.
Posted by euzoius at December 7, 2005 08:34 AMLooks more to me like people and their intelligence was just wrong.
So, incompetence is okay by you?
Posted by ann at December 7, 2005 08:34 AMann, I guess incompetence is quite okay since the trolls proudly proclaim it, defend it, and live it, here daily.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 7, 2005 08:44 AMThat "Protocol" Terrorized the American People!!
It's just that simple. I know it may sound hyperbolic, but saying anything short of that is just euphemizing.
What they did was no different than calling in a bomb threat.
Anyone who even "looked the other way" while this was done is part of the conspiracy to commit The Most Heinous Act of Terrorism in History.
Anything 20 guys with boxcutters, or even a "dirty bomb," could do pales in comparison to "mushroom clouds ... in 45 minutes."
We need to keep demanding full prosecutions and punishment for all of the crimes of the past 5 years. Even if the perps have "left government," or "retired," or "suffered public humiliation," or "were punished at the ballot box."
No more euphemistic rationalizations.
It is THE ONLY way to fight this fascism (or neofascism, or creeping fascism, or the whiff of fascism), which is exactly what the PNACons are all about.
---
Posted by thedeanpeople at December 7, 2005 09:03 AMRemember that most of our representatives and Senators never heard any of the classified information so they too were sold the Big Lie by the Bush administration. One thing that should have given them cause to rethink their position would have been to look at who was opposing the administration before the vote: it was people like Bob Graham and Dick Durbin who heard all the evidence who were opposed to authorizing Bush the power to take the country to war.
What has always been true for the Bush White House is that you are a fool if you trust them on any front. They are totally untrustworthy.
Great post, eriposte.
Posted by Mary at December 7, 2005 09:23 AMI did catch the part of the memo where Did you miss the part about how they admitted not giving the public the whole story because they didn't want to give Saddam the opportunity to defend himself against the WMD charges?,
I actually understand their reasoning. I would love to have a poker game with you invited. According to you we should just publish all of our intelligence, even when there is disagreements between agencies, show all our cards to our enemies and let them pick it apart even when there is near consensus? WRONG, maybe in your world, but not in the real world.
And no, incompitence is not OK, but the failure in intelligence prior to the iraq war was nearly world wide. People took at face value that a nut (Saddam) who previously had WMD, had previously used WMD and had been caught red-handed trying to hide WMD would do so again. The major cause of the failure was a lack of intelligence assets in iraq. No spys. the intelligence community was stripped of power and assets over a number of years and I for one want that fixed. Kerry believed that Saddam had WMD, Bill Clinton believed he had WMD and on and on and on. So Monday morning quarterbacking is ok, but realize that it is just that.
Posted by FresnoBob at December 7, 2005 09:37 AMYou're totally correct Mary, but I haven't noticed too many of the intentionally misled Dems shouting this from the rooftop.
One other thing must be recognized. For Bush's base (such as FresnoBoob), and perhaps many others, it literally would not matter to them if it were PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt that Bushco intentionally misled the people about Iraq's WMD.
They simply don't care. The ends justify the means in a non-reality based fantasy world.
They don't see the invasion of Iraq, at the cost of thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and billions upon billions of tax dollars squandered with no end in sight, as a mistake.
And they never will, whatever mountain of objective evidence may be placed in front of their faces.
The crucial concern is that their "team" not be held accountable for this reckless, foolish debacle.
Posted by euzoius at December 7, 2005 09:50 AMThe crucial concern is that their "team" not be held accountable for this reckless, foolish debacle.
This is more painting themselves as victims. The intelligence was bad - well, who was responsible for the quality of the intelligence? If I had been President and was given a load of intelligence that was proven to be bad, heads would be rolling.
Posted by ann at December 7, 2005 09:55 AMit was people like Bob Graham and Dick Durbin who heard all the evidence who were opposed to authorizing Bush the power to take the country to war.
FresnoBob, I think you need to read this over and over and over until it sinks in. You claim that the intelligence failure was nearly world wide and yet members of the Intelligence Committee who did see ALL of the intelligence voted against giving Bush the power to wage war.
Posted by ann at December 7, 2005 09:59 AMThe simple fact that no intelligence heads ever "rolled" demonstrates that Bush and Cheney did not ever feel that the intelligence given to them was bad.
As if Bushco was unwillingly "forced" into putting an invasion of Iraq on the national agenda because of some CIA intelligence that later turned out to be dead wrong.
Yet that literally seems to be their story.
And their base nods their imbecile heads in unison.
Posted by euzoius at December 7, 2005 10:09 AMIt's difficult to know how to react. On one hand, it's startling that they would admit so openly that they hid exculpatory evidence. On the other, this was a secret that was hiding in plain sight. Certainly (and unfortunately), nobody who was predisposed to cut the administration slack will change their mind due to this discovery.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 7, 2005 10:38 AMUnfortunately, this post does not live up to its billing as the US "Downing Street Memo." As someone who opposed the the war from the beginnning on the basis of sound geopolitical and military grounds--as did LtCol Kwiatkowsky, Gen Zinni, LGen Scowcroft & LGen Odom--I applaud the good work by eriposte and others to provide the kind of investigative journalism that the MSM are too lazy or cowardly to provide. On the WHIP issue FresnoBob has a good point using his poker analogy on why the UNCLASS and classified versions of the NIE would differ. If you're looking for more DSM quality material to demonstrate to a seduced public how the Cheney administration intentionally misled the public, then I think the earlier work and thread about how the forged Niger yellowcake documents were aggressively "marketed" is a less ambiguous and more convincing "smoking gun." This would be most powerful if direct links of the forgeries to Ladeen and Hadley can be substantiated with the kind of evidence that would be admissible in court. This is the trail that blogger sleuths should pursue without being distracted by side issues that will never convince the general public.
Posted by fanofColBoyd at December 7, 2005 10:52 AMSo Fresno Bob,
Just to be clear, you approve of how this administration misled the world on whether Saddam was importing the parts he needed to build nukes?
You're right, dj. Documented evidence that it was the policy to lie to go into war...whatever.
What this proves is that no one in our government bothered to read any of the reports from any of the committees, as the admin knew they wouldn't. Can someone tell me again why we're fighting?
Posted by iamcoyote at December 7, 2005 11:03 AMGREAT job eriposte... wonderful analysis and well worth the wait... I do indeed like the label WHIP - kudos to Jim - beats the heck out of the WHIG (no pun intended, but maybe some of those who enjoy Libby's trashy novel will be intrigued enough to investigate)
Yes, it will move through Corporate media (if they allow it)
Fresno Bob is never going to be interested in finding the truth, only in smokescreens and disinformation that protect his (mis)leader's butt... so don't even waste your time in dialog with him...
email your friends, get this out there... does no good sitting on the blog... GO!
Posted by crone at December 7, 2005 11:12 AMIf you will take the time to read through it, this strips away the notion that it was only President Bush that claimed Saddam had WMD.
If you want to claim it was only the Bush Administration saying these things after reading this, you are just not being intellectually honest.
Posted by FresnoBob at December 7, 2005 11:26 AMCongratulations AssClown, you have discovered something that nobody will believe and worse yet, something that nobody will care about.
keep up the good work.
P.S. Liberals Suck
Posted by at December 7, 2005 11:43 AMExperts question if tubes were meant for weapons program
Washington Post
September 19, 2002
By Joby Warrick
A key piece of evidence in the Bush administration's case against Iraq is being challenged in a report by independent experts who question whether thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes recently sought by Iraq were intended for a secret nuclear weapons program.
The White House last week said attempts by Iraq to acquire the tubes point to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. But the experts say in a new report that the evidence is ambiguous, and in some ways contradicts what is known about Iraq's past nuclear efforts.
The report, from the Institute for Science and International Security, also contends that the Bush administration is trying to quiet dissent among its own analysts over how to interpret the evidence. The report, a draft of which was obtained by The Washington Post, was authored by David Albright, a physicist who investigated Iraq's nuclear weapons program following the 1991 Persian Gulf War as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection team. The institute, headquartered in Washington, is an independent group that studies nuclear and other security issues
[...]
According to Albright, government experts on nuclear technology who dissented from the Bush administration's view told him they were expected to remain silent. Several Energy Department officials familiar with the aluminum shipments declined to comment.
Posted by Andy Vance at December 7, 2005 11:51 AMA 2002 article is the best you can do?
Posted by FresnoBob at December 7, 2005 11:57 AMA 2002 article is the best you can do?
Fresnobrainless,
Do you know when Bush started the war? Here's a clue. It was after this article was published. Understand?
Oh, and if information that is 3 years old is not sufficient evidence in this case than I suppose you have a big problem with Bush starting a war in 2003 based on intelligence that was gathered in the 1990's?
Posted by Tim at December 7, 2005 12:16 PMThe article isn't a response to anything you've raised, FresnoBob (or it may be; I stopped reading you after your first comment); it's merely another dot in the matrix on the aluminum tubes issue, in particular effort to suppress dissenting views. You're obviously not interested in a serious consideration of this matter. Go bother someone else.
Posted by Andy Vance at December 7, 2005 12:20 PMHere's the report referred to in the article.
An intelligence official told the media that the statement in the White Paper quoted above was toned down. The CIA asked the White House to do so to reflect dissenting opinions and also to give the United States a "little wiggle room." Reflecting this uncertainty, another intelligence official added that the aluminum tubing was "not a smoking gun."
In fact, the intelligence community is deeply divided about the purpose of the tubing, with a significant number of experts knowledgeable about gas centrifuges dissenting from the CIA view. It appears that the New York Times stories represented only one side of this debate.
ISIS has learned that U.S. nuclear experts who dissent from the Administration's position are expected to remain silent. The President has said what he has said, end of story, one knowledgeable expert said.Posted by Andy Vance at December 7, 2005 12:27 PM
To FresnoBob et. al.,
I hear once again a familiar reference that Saddam Hussein used "WMDs" on his own people. This, of course, points to the Halabja poison gas attack that killed thousands. However, I have never quite reconciled how this could be construed as evidence that Iraq posed a threat to the US then (1988) or later. Certainly, there was no outcry from the US government at the time--primarily because it would have been in poor taste to appear too shocked since we supplied the chemicals used in the attack.
Also, Saddam attacked the Kurds from the air with all night sorties. This is how the Tabun, which may take up to one ton to effect a single casualty as it too easily disperses when mixed with air, was applied during the attack. Did we really allow ourselves to believe in 2002 that an attack such as Halabja was possible over the US? This would mean that Saddam would rule the skies over US cities with no opposition.
And why are we so scared of "WMD"s? I have lived a lifetime under the threat of emminent thermonuclear war. Certainly, the effects of chemical weapons is no match for that in the imagination. The Sarin nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway was a type of worst case scenario (i.e., deadly gas in an enclosed space during rush hour). There were 12 fatalities. Over 90% of the hundreds who sought treatment were released by the afternoon. It was a deadly, criminal act of deliberate terrorism. However, the trains ran the following morning.
The point is we should have been more vigilant in preventing the administration from using its scare tactics so effectively. A reasonable response to Bush's exhortations about "WMDs" would have been a large, collective yawn. As a kid I remember knowing that the Soviets could start blasting away at us any moment, although it is now clear that we were far more likely to have produced a first strike during the height of the Cold War. As unsettling as the thought of total, sudden death by fire was, we could still play Frisbee and listen to the BeeGees. Nowadays, everybody gets hysterical over nuttin', know what I'm sayin'?
Fresno Bob,
There was an international effort to isolate and contain Saddam Hussien. What the French, the UN and Clinton said and did was a part of that effort. If Clinton made an allegation or threatened force or used force it was designed to isolate, contain, and pressure Saddam. It was designed to ensure he had no WMD and make it so he was not a threat. And it worked. Perfectly…. For everybody except Halliburton… But more importantly, it worked WITHOUT creating the disaster this invasion and occupation has been. To site this perfectly effective effort as justification for the treasonous, fraudulent meat grinder of a disaster Bush and Cheney got us into is as illogical as can be and perversely ironic to say the least.
"We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." - Colin Powell - FEBUARY 24, 2001
Needless to say Colin Powell has moved on to "spend more time with his family".
Posted by snark at December 7, 2005 12:43 PMDo you know when Bush started the war? Here's a clue. It was after this article was published. Understand?
Exactly my point, this debate on aluminum tubes was held back then. these points were raised back then. Yet, congress still voted for it.
Posted by FresnoBob at December 7, 2005 12:50 PMBill Clinton said it well here - "After 9/11, let's be fair here, if you had been President, you'd think, Well, this fellow bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction, right? Arguably they were super-powerful chemical weapons. Think about it that way. So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of this, so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that. That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for. So I thought the President had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' When you're the President, and your country has just been through what we had, you want everything to be accounted for." (Bill Clinton, "His Side of The Story," Time, 6/28/04)
Posted by FresnoBob at December 7, 2005 12:55 PMIf you will take the time to read through it, this strips away the notion that it was only President Bush that claimed Saddam had WMD.
I guess I missed it where anyone here claimed that it was only Bush saying that Saddam had WMD. What we have said, repeatedly, is that the intelligence supplied to Congress was not the exact same intelligence that the committee saw or that the WH possessed. As was posted earler, some of those who were on the Intelligence Committee (Graham, Durbin) and saw all the intelligence, voted against giving Bush authority to wage war.
You can whine and cry about what Clinton did or didn't do or who voted for the war and who didn't but in the end, the buck has to stop with Bush. He's the Commander in Chief and is ultimately responsible for and failure or success within his administration.
Posted by ann at December 7, 2005 01:00 PM'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' When you're the President, and your country has just been through what we had, you want everything to be accounted for.
Too bad we rushed the inspectors out of the country so we could bomb it. Had we let them finish the job, maybe we wouldn't be in the quagmire we are now.
Posted by ann at December 7, 2005 01:02 PMThis much ballyhooed new Downing street type memo by eriposte is a big nothing burger. Over promised, under delivered.
Posted by FresnoBob at December 7, 2005 01:03 PMSo I thought the President had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.
And who put an end to the inspection process before it was complete?
Fresnobrainless,
Exactly my point, this debate on aluminum tubes was held back then. these points were raised back then. Yet, congress still voted for it.
Yes. Some in the media were runnign such stories. But the intelligence that the Congressmen were shown was still stripped of dissenting opinion.
Also, many have noted repeatedly that they voted for it because it was necessary to show a united front to the U.N. and to the Iraqi's that we meant to confirm that Hussein was complying with the UN resolutions. Bush himself said that the Congressional resolution was a means to prevent a military confrontation. Now the administration wants to wave it in everyones face and say "but you voted for war". They're doing a bit of historical revision. Or it's a flip-flop. Whichever you prefer.
Posted by Tim at December 7, 2005 01:07 PMI dismiss your contention that we are in a quagmire. our armed forces are on the verge of finishing the job, and doing a damn fine job in the process.
After the sucessful election in December, and a portion of the troops start coming home after the new year, Bush polls will ratchet back up to respectible numbers.
Posted by FresnoBob at December 7, 2005 01:08 PMhttp://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm
"The Seven Day figures have shown the President's Job Approval at 46% for five straight days. They show the President's rating bottoming at 41% on October 28 and making modest but steady progress since that time."
Posted by FresnoBob at December 7, 2005 01:11 PMDude, Bob, what're you talking about!? This is the biggest thing since... THE LAST TIME WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS! This is important breaking news because it confirms what we have ALREADY CONFIRMED! Every major news source should be ALL OVER THIS ONE, just like they were ALL OVER IT LAST TIME!
Please. Someone. Show me something new.
Posted by Bbbbooya at December 7, 2005 01:12 PMFresnobob = jwest?
Posted by at December 7, 2005 01:13 PMI strive to be not just equal to, but greater than or equal to.
Posted by FresnoBob at December 7, 2005 01:25 PMFresnobob = jwest?
Nah, j. west's spelling was always perfect.
Posted by ann at December 7, 2005 01:30 PMI dismiss your contention that we are in a quagmire. our armed forces are on the verge of finishing the job, and doing a damn fine job in the process.
You can dismiss it all you want. Ask some of the real military (non Bushaholics, only) what it's really like over there. I do not dismiss the efforts or abilities of our armed forces, but I believe you are completely underestimating the power and longevity of the insurgency. There's a reason that Bush I didn't go on to Bagdad and the current quagmire is that reason.
Posted by ann at December 7, 2005 01:34 PMA perfect speller would not be an accurate description of me. I happened upon this web site and saw your glorious host comparing people losing their job to those killed in the twin towers and felt compelled to respond to such an idiotic statement. That was the first time I have ever posted on your leftist blog heaven. I have lurked on many web sites but never felt compelled to post until that day back in November.
Posted by FresnoBob at December 7, 2005 01:44 PMOT:
Snarky:
Front page on your miserable little blog? Gosh o golly I am honored.
I've been producing a quality blog for more than two years now. That's more than you've done in the blogosphere, you ignorant fuck.
Apparently no one is going to tell this moron I am wrong.
Just so long as you admit that you're wrong.
Guess your imaginary friends are just that, imaginary.
No, the readers at TLC are embarrassed for you.
Here's some reading for you.
I am not responsible for others.
This is were one of your ilk gets busted as either the worse lawyer ever or a total liar.
You are weaselling out of the fact that you made an error. Have some character and shut up.
Survy says ...total liar. OOPPs... there goes some of that Republican integrety and values ya'll prattle on about.
Have I mentioned yet that you're illiterate?
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=6188
Irrelevance to obscure your error. You are a loser.
This is were the same dumb ass gets busted postin under another identity. So nothing this guy posts can ever be taken even slightly serious again.
Who are you again? Someone who's too much of a loser to post under her own name?
Helps the Republican cause? You betcha.
Irrelevance. I'm not a Republican.
Then you plagerize The Huffington post and try to pass it off as yours.
You're a complete liar. You're also both ignorant and stupid, but that's been established.
I realize Arina is quoting some one else, but that is in the middle of an original posting.
Huh? It's inexcusable.
Your posting consists of only this phrase.
Another lie.
On the same day Arian posts the same thing.
Do you suffer from some brain disorder that causes you to read the word bigotry as punditry? Is that what this is?
Even if you were quoting the original speaker (St Ronnie I believe) it should still be in quotes.
I've already shown you that the original phrase is from Bush the Younger's speech to the NAACP in 2000, you stupid asshole.
I just wanted to publicly point that out just in case anybody might mistakenly think you came up with something clever.
No, because most readers here have some contextual knowledge of recent political history. Which means that they know that you are a stupid asshole.
Hear that sound? Thats your credibility flushing down the toilet.
Them's your brains, moron.
Happy Holidays Chickenhawk.
Taste my slopchute.
Posted by Toby Petzold at December 7, 2005 01:46 PMI read a number of military blogs, that is one of the reasons I hold the opinions that I do.
Posted by FresnoBob at December 7, 2005 01:48 PMAsk some of the real military (non Bushaholics, only) what it's really like over there.
You mean, ask someone in the military who agrees with you, right? Because anyone who disagrees with you would be a "Bushaholic", right?
My response: ask some of the real military (non anti-Bushers, only) what it's really like over there. Kinda limits the intell, huh?
Posted by Bbbbooya at December 7, 2005 01:50 PMYou mean, ask someone in the military who agrees with you, right? Because anyone who disagrees with you would be a "Bushaholic", right?
Um, no. I mean ask the military who are over there who aren't compelled to say just what Bush wants to hear. Idiot.
Posted by ann at December 7, 2005 01:54 PMToby,
Not sure what your post is about, kind of sounds like a little inside baseball revenge. But I will comment on one thing. The post thread thats referenced, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=6184, boy did Carpe Deim kick some butt.
Posted by FresnoBob at December 7, 2005 01:54 PMleft coaster,
You're something of an amazing sleuth, finding things that the rest of us overlook.
It's a truly amazing argument to make. In Psychiatry, we call such things rationalizations. But this one goes beyond that. It's a carefully crafted justification for lying, which leaves out the obvious - in supposedly outfoxing our enemies, they actually outfox we-the-people, on purpose, for another reason entirely. It ranks right up there with "I didn't NAME her."
Thanks for your finely honed attention to detail...
Posted by Mickey at December 7, 2005 01:56 PMBut do you propose to tell if the person you are asking is "compelled to say just what Bush wants to hear"? Seems like you can only place your "Bushaholic" label on someone based on their answer.
But, I love the name-calling. It's always nice to be reminded of kindergarten.
Posted by Bbbbooya at December 7, 2005 01:56 PMMaybe someday the useless media will take up the tubes story.....while it's struggles to provide something, anything, to deflect attention away from the truth of 911. Whatever, it won't work. Anyone not current with the multitude of data that is available on the net should make a quick tour, and then play connect the dots with what’s going on in washington.
amerle
But do you propose to tell if the person you are asking is "compelled to say just what Bush wants to hear"? Seems like you can only place your "Bushaholic" label on someone based on their answer.
What in the world are you trying to say?
Posted by ann at December 7, 2005 02:01 PMFres-nobrain:
There is no point debating with you, as you obviously (from the depth of your anaysis)are a FoxNews kinda guy... but I will point out your facts are wrong... of course you probably got them from Drude, Rush, Hannity, and the ilk... NO ONE, foreign or domestic, believed there was WMD... in the best light to Bushco there was some intel of unaccounted for chemical and biological stockpiles, but no WMD.... the most that can be said was there were some WMD "programs related activity", but this was largely debunked... so the whole neocon echo chamber of this WMD is an urban myth to quote Rummy... and let's do a little better than quoting the RNC talking points on these issues... because the linch pin in this whole fatuous "bad intel" excuse is that NO ONE (even those depositories of the bad intel... planted, in some cases??) wanted to immediately bulldoze the place... except Preznit, Bigtime... and Gin-the-war Rummy...
What you have here is best explaned by wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber#As_a_metaphor
"Metaphorically, the term echo chamber can refer to any situation in which information or ideas are amplified by transmission inside an enclosed space.
For example, observers of journalism in the mass media describe an echo chamber effect in media discourse. One purveyor of information will make a claim, which many like-minded people then repeat, overhear, and repeat again (often in an exaggerated or otherwise distorted form) until most people assume that some extreme variation of the story is true."
That is how these libs feed off of each other. Facists, nazis, Bush is evil and all the other terms they call us conservatives is part and parcel of their group think mentality.
Posted by at December 7, 2005 02:20 PMToby..
Don't know why you dragged that threads buiseness over here. I check it even though its dead. This thread is for eriposte, and you are being very rude.
I won't respond except to let that jewel stand for itself.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 7, 2005 02:21 PMGreat work and excellent catch eR. I remember reading that comment (and the others) in one of your previous posts but didn't make the connection in the way you have laid out so succinctly and clearly before us. Great "framing" as to why that seemingly unremarkable comment when put together in totality and context with everything else is so important. Yes this clearly shows what we all have said...that it wasn't the intelligence per se, but how the intelligence was misused by this administration...no wonder why Roberts is stonewalling the second half of the investigation. YOu have just demonstrated that there are already people admitting that it was a policy of deception based on cherrypicking and omission of intelligence contradicting what was allowed to be unclassified here.
One other thing, I think one can discern how important this whole post is based on the frequent amount of dumbass posts Fresnoboob continues to throw into this thread. Boob has posted more than you it seems like here...the major different being, your's actually make sense and are logical and his are well just more delusional bs.
Also, I am wondering, do you know if this practice (of unclassifying only information that was supportive of the administration's desired gov't policy ) was as common in other administrations as well? Or should I say, was it as used to the extent, frequency, or as maliciously and deceptively on issues of such grave importance?
But this all just fits in with other Bush administration policy activities that resulted in some horrible legislation....I'm thinking of the prescription drug benefit costs (whistleblowers have come forward and admitted that they purposefully hid the true costs),as well as with some environmental/science issues. I think this official whitehouse protocol is one of the reason that made Paul O'Neil leave...weren't they asking him to hide economic numbers that weren't friendly to the administration? Ya see they prefer to hide the whole truth and suppress bits of information instead of making their case based on merits of their policy desires in an honest and open debate based on the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Arseholes! I think commenter howard made that observation a while back. All I asked for was an HONEST debate based on all the known facts...but that isn't official WHIP.
Posted by emal at December 7, 2005 02:22 PMWe've got quite a collection of Right Wing sophists plying their trade today.
Dealing with their endless non sequiturs is another Iraq quagmire!
Remember: it would not matter to them if Bushco WERE definitively shown to have misled the country about Iraq'a WMD; they don't care.
And: they have literally nothing to say about Eriposte's point that exculpatory evidence about Iraq's weapons program was intentionally withheld from Congress by Bush on bogus national security grounds.
Thus Bush could reveal the dangerous interpretion of the data compelling invasion, but not the benign one counselling caution.
Right Wingers: You may now replace your red noses and resume your GOP clown dance!
That is how these libs feed off of each other. Facists, nazis, Bush is evil and all the other terms they call us conservatives is part and parcel of their group think mentality.
LOL!
Hey genius.
Posted by snark at December 7, 2005 02:33 PMTP....STFU and take your fight on another thread.
You owe eR and others here who actually are concerned with things outside of your own egocentric world...(it's not always about you TP) You have some serious issues TP and are in need some serious psych counseling...are you that insecure you needed to drop and carry that stupid little childish fight in here. Gawd what a pathetic thing you are... How old are you...I feel like I am dealing with a 2 year old here....Get some help after you apologize to eR and TLC...we all deserve better than that...I thought you knew better than that...apparently once again I gave you the benefit of the doubt and I shouldn't have because I really thought you were smarter and more mature than that...get some help.
Posted by emal at December 7, 2005 02:35 PMFresnoBob: "I dismiss your contention that we are in a quagmire. our armed forces are on the verge of finishing the job..."
Help me out here, being that my background is in physics, I'm always looking for a common reference frame. Was hoping that you could give me some sort of time frame that you are speaking of. Based on my readings the GOP claim of being on the "verge" of job completion is now going on 2 years.
Or is the shrinking area of saftey within the green zone yet another sign of "finishing the job?"
Posted by Simp at December 7, 2005 02:37 PMMy apologies to emal et al. I made an "OT" comment on this post because I wanted to ensure that this worthless liar SnarkyShark would catch my response on the most current thing.
But, yeah, this wasn't the thread to do it. And I agree that Eriposte does quality work, even though I think it's almost wholly partisan in its logic.
Not incidentally ---and even though I know we aren't responsible for our respective co-religionists--- why couldn't one of you say to her that Snarky is factually wrong? Why is that so hard to do? I am clearly correct, so why can't one of you just agree that she's a liar?
Posted by Toby Petzold at December 7, 2005 02:46 PM
TP apology accepted. As for your other comment, I seriously don't have any idea what you and Snarky are bickering about because as I said before, not everyone here pays attention to YOUR world and petty little squabbles you have with another poster here..we have lives and concerns outside of YOUR world.
Sorry eR for ruining the post with this...but I was just sick and tired of it.
Posted by emal at December 7, 2005 02:53 PMI am clearly correct, so why can't one of you just agree that she's a liar?
Uh, last time I checked I was a male.
Looking back on some of your recent posts, it seems your time at Atrious has made you slightly more civil.
In that spirit I will refrain from cussing you.
I will not refrain from pointing out your BullHocky.
But I wouldnt look for any imaginary friends in here. People remember your bloodlust, and Bush-hero worship.
A big sorry to eriposte if any actions on my part contributed to despoiling this most informitive story.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 7, 2005 03:05 PMTobys quote should have been in italics...
Damn tags. GRRRRRR
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 7, 2005 03:08 PMThat is how these libs feed off of each other. Facists, nazis, Bush is evil and all the other terms they call us conservatives is part and parcel of their group think mentality.
LOL!
Hey genius.
Try this.
Posted by snark at December 7, 2005 02:33 PM
Actually Snark, you did get a chuckle out of me. immitation is the purest form of flattery
Posted by at December 7, 2005 03:27 PMHate to break up the circle-jerk, but the White House was not tasked with creating, disseminating, or otherwise altering the white paper or the NIE. The IC was responsible for this, and I quote from the SSCI:
Conclusion 85. The Intelligence Community's elimination of the caveats from the
unclassified White Paper misrepresented their judgments to the public which did not have
access to the classified National Intelligence Estimate containing the more carefully worded
assessments.
What a dud. I really thought you had something. You just built me up and brought me down. :(
Posted by Seixon at December 7, 2005 03:30 PMOh come on wingnut American living in Norway (god help the Norwegians)....what part of the eR's original point don't you understand....they couldn't put in caveats because that would have tipped off and possibly helped Hussein. Read english...not so much I see. Nice try at the reverse psychology too LGF fan ...but WHat a dud.
Posted by emal at December 7, 2005 03:59 PMWhew, that's quite a lot of garbage from the trolls to debunk.
Let's start at the top of the steaming pile of bulls***.
1. FresnoBob: From what I see, there is no evidence that intelligence was changed or ignored due to pressure from the administration.
That's what happens FresnoBob when you don't read the actual post and come armed with the garbage talking points. This post is not about intelligence changed or ignored "due to pressure" from the administration. It was the administration that ignored and hid the information that they got.
2. FresnoBob: Looks more to me like people and their intelligence was just wrong
Looks to me that you can't read English. The post makes it very clear that the DOE and INR and the NIE dissent did not get it "wrong". They got it right.
3. Fresno Bob: According to you we should just publish all of our intelligence, even when there is disagreements between agencies, show all our cards to our enemies and let them pick it apart even when there is near consensus? WRONG, maybe in your world, but not in the real world.
Again, this is what happens when you don't read the post. But, no, no one is arguing that EVERY BIT of intel should be revealed to the world. But when only the false intel is allowed to be "public" and miraculously all the true information is "classified" only a skunk could look at that and excuse it. When there is no consensus, then you don't go to the world and state that there is a consensus and everything is peachy. That's what lying and misleading is all about. I'm sure that they don't teach you that in Bush Worship 101. If there is no real consensus then don't go out to the world and make up s*** about what is true and what is not true. Which is why the SSCI, and the Robb-Silberman Commission did not excuse what happened. You can certainly join the elite minority group of people who don't agree with any of them. They said - the intelligence needs to be accurate. You sau - lie without consequence and hide the truth in "classified reports".
4. fanofColBoyd: On the WHIP issue FresnoBob has a good point using his poker analogy on why the UNCLASS and classified versions of the NIE would differ
Please see #3 above. Stunned that you would fall for this BS talking point from a troll.
5. FresnoBob: The major cause of the failure was a lack of intelligence assets in iraq.
Ha ha. This, coming from a worshipper of Bush who chased out the actual UN intelligence assets who were in Iraq and conducting coercive inspections. Boy, your talking points are lamer than lame.
6. FresnoBob: If you will take the time to read through it, this strips away the notion that it was only President Bush that claimed Saddam had WMD. If you want to claim it was only the Bush Administration saying these things after reading this, you are just not being intellectually honest.
Another stale BS talking point. No one is claiming only Bush claimed Saddam had WMDs. Some others did - and some did not. But they did not have the same intel. They did not see most of the classified reports that Bush saw. Many of them voted against the resolution.
7. FresnoBob: this debate on aluminum tubes was held back then. these points were raised back then. Yet, congress still voted for it.
Same garbage talking points that ignore the fact that there were a lot of people in Congress (mostly Democrats) who DID NOT VOTE for "it". And of the people who voted for "it", they did not have the same intel that Bush had. And quoting Bill Clinton on top of that must have required quite a shower, huh? Bill Clinton was neither in Congress nor was he President in 2002/2003.
8. Seixon: Hate to break up the circle-jerk, but the White House was not tasked with creating, disseminating, or otherwise altering the white paper or the NIE. The IC was responsible for this...
Seixon, this is what happens when you don't read my entire post (especially the portion that says "2. This was official policy set by George Bush"
Posted by eriposte at December 7, 2005 04:01 PMYou know who comes out of this looking pretty good? Bob Graham. For God knows what reason, he was the only Democrat from the Senate Intelligence Committee who was willing to call the White House on their redactions of contradictory evidence.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 7, 2005 04:04 PMEriposte, how do you know that these Congressmen didn't have the same intelligence that Bush did? For you to know that would be to have some acquaintance with the difference. Therefore, tell me something that, say, John Kerry didn't know before casting his vote to authorize the use of force that the President did know. Anything at all.
JFK v.2.0: When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.
Why does the anti-war crowd think they can lie their way back to respectability? In the totalitarian/socialist society you people want, History is doomed to be trash.
Posted by Toby Petzold at December 7, 2005 05:34 PMEriposte, how do you know that these Congressmen didn't have the same intelligence that Bush did?
Well, because the White House told us so.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 7, 2005 05:54 PMEriposte, how do you know that these Congressmen didn't have the same intelligence that Bush did? For you to know that would be to have some acquaintance with the difference. Therefore, tell me something that, say, John Kerry didn't know before casting his vote to authorize the use of force that the President did know. Anything at all.
How bout that little waterboarded terrorist thing. You know, where they waterboarded that guy untill his tales of Ossama and Saddam being bestes buddies matched the talking points in Karl Roves brain. Suprisingly enough the information that the CIA provided, claimed said waterboarded terrorist could not be counted as reliable. Imagine why the gestapo boys would discount that? Certianly that little tid-bit never wafted into John Kerrys ear. Partisan advantage and all that.
One spends large coin on a suppossed world-class intellegence agency, one should pay attention when one hears the word unreliable
I could go on all night, but one was all you said you wanted. So there it was.
Warning: if you do not employ a little humor, and an understsanding of the concept of sarcasm and irony you will not understand this post.
Good luck
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 7, 2005 05:58 PMToby,
If you had read this series you would have seen that I have provided multiple examples where people in Congress (remember I never said just Democrats - I include Republicans as well) were not given the same intelligence reports that were given to the President and the White House. Read Part 3A-1, Part 3A-2 for example. A few more links are at the top of this post:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/005999.php
Some here:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13185357.htm
And so on.
There is only one truth here. The pro-war liars on the Far Right "think they can lie their way back to respectability". The totalitarian, fascist, anti-capitalist, corporate welfare society such people want, a society that has far more in common with the society of the Taliban and very little in common with that of a traditional constitutional democracy, is really the one doomed to fail.
As for me, I love capitalism and I am in favor of a democracy with a healthy separation of powers, to prevent corrupt, lying, incompetent crooks from coming to power who specialize in destroying the fabric of America and making the US an easy target for terrorists through their unmatched incompetence.
Posted by eriposte at December 7, 2005 05:59 PMYou know who comes out of this looking pretty good? Bob Graham.
Yep...I always liked that guy
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 7, 2005 06:02 PMEriposte,
Your #2 claim is just that, a claim. There is no evidence of that. The intelligence community made all the papers, the white paper, the NIE, and the presidential summary for the president. The National Intelligence Council stands for all of that, and has to sign off on all of it. You claim that it is Bush policy for them to remove this and that - no, it is IC policy.
Besides, that wouldn't make them have to remove caveats. How does that help in what you're saying? Chopping off "we judge" from the front of a statement doesn't conceal a damn thing from Saddam Hussein.
What you're essentially doing is projecting an IC protocol to the Bush administration, without having any reason to do so. In fact, I do believe you say "we can extend this to the White House". Why? Because you want to? LOL.
What a joke.
Oh, and for all you noobs who think that the president was getting "different" intelligence from the CIA than what the CIA presented to Congress, please have a read of Dick Durbin's additional comments in the SSCI. There he says that the contents of the Presidential Summary did not include anything that was not in the NIE that the Senate and House Intelligence Committees got to see.
Strike fifty-five, you're out! LOL
Posted by Seixon at December 7, 2005 06:55 PMSeixon,
You clearly and deliberately ignored most of what I said in #2. That makes it obvious to me that you have a serious problem with the truth.
Also, thanks for adding to the resident jokers club here at the TLC Comments section. You actually believe my post is about a "we judge" being added or not? Incredible! Here I am thinking some of these so-called critics actually read my posts.
ere I am thinking some of these so-called critics actually read my posts.
Nope, title maybe and a couple of sentences before it becomes a cut and paste circle jerk.
They aint here to argue the merits, there just here to cataupult the propaganda.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 7, 2005 07:55 PMEriposte,
I read your post. It is still a wish wrapped in a want. Your counter points are simply pathetic. Where is the evidence Bush commanded the altering of these documents? Oh, I didn't think so.
Posted by FresnoBob at December 7, 2005 07:56 PMOh man, I guess I will have to spell it out for you.
(a) The CIA reported to the White House and not the other way around. So, the policy on what was allowed to be revealed to the public, in unclassified documents, was ultimately set by the Bush White House (unless they chose to violate secrecy rules on their own). After all, this White House has built an almost unprecedented reputation for classification and secrecy.
The CIA also reports to the the House and the Senate, and did so upon request by several Democratic senators. The IC was fully responsible for creating the white paper, the NIE, and the Presidential Summary. The White House played no role in this. Your point here is not even a point. Yes, the IC reports to the White House, but it also reports to Congress. You are trying to escape that fact.
(b) Even if the WHIP was used by the IC, the Bush White House had final say on whether to accept or reject this policy. Obviously, they chose to accept this policy. They actively supported and executed this policy. The proof is evident in their spreading false or deliberately misleading information on Iraq's capabilities - an epitome of which was covered in previous installments of this series.
Once again, the White House had no role in the creation, dissemination, or compilation of any of the intelligence reports. That is the IC's job, and that's what they do. They were asked to provide Congress with a NIE, and that is exactly what they did. The White House gets their information from the IC, and do not get to decide what the IC tells them or Congress. You're still avoiding the glaring fact that the IC was solely responsible for the contents of the documents.
(c) The evidence is conclusive that the policy must have been set by Bush. For example, if we just take the aluminum tubes issue, it is obvious that almost all of the classified intel reports from the CIA, DIA, DOE and INR actually mentioned that an alternative end use for the tubes was possible. In other words, the aluminum-tubes-for-centrifuges claim was at worst caveated (CIA, DIA), and in other instances it was basically rejected in favor of an alternate, non-WMD explanation (DOE and INR). Even the classified NIE was clearly and strongly caveated. These are the reports that were being sent and briefed to Bush and his cabinet as I showed in this series - so the White House cannot argue that they were getting uncaveated or unchallenged information in the classified reports they were receiving. Yet, when the White House was making public claims based on the classified reports they received, they hid or ignored all the caveats and made unjustifiably false or deliberately misleading claims about the tubes' end use (sometimes even before the classified NIE or its declassified version - the White Paper - were released).
The NIE stated that in the view of the majority of the IC, there was COMPELLING EVIDENCE that Iraq had restarted their nuclear program. Your first sentence of this point is hilarious. You assert something, and then don't back it up with anything at all.
Earth to Eriposte: the IC was solely responsible for the creation, dissemination, and compilation of all the intelligence provided to the White House and Congress. The White House played no role in it, and were on the receiving end, not the supply-side as you hilariously pointed out yourself.
The National Intelligence Council had to sign off on all of these documents, and they did. The White House had nothing to do with it. In fact, the CIA was asked by members of Congress to compile a report, not just the White House.
Oh well, don't let reality hit you on the way out.
Posted by Seixon at December 8, 2005 09:10 AMYeah, I'll bet the White House STRONGLY DISAGREED with the CIA's presentation of the weapons data in the unclassified white paper.
They really wanted an objective Congressional debate on the Iraqi WMD threat, that's for sure.
Oh, if only the White House had the power to influence the CIA and how it presents intelligence data! But what could the President do? His hands were obviously tied!
Posted by euzoius at December 8, 2005 09:36 AMSeixon you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be reading comprehension impaired. Either that or you are too lazy and did not read the post. What part of the Official whitehouse policy that stated they would not allow the NIC or intelligence official to put in any caveats and dissenting opinions written into the unclassified version of the NIE don't you understand. That was the main gist of eR's entire post.
I am offering some more here for those blame the CIA people folks who seem to forget that it was the President's policy that dictated the ultimate terms of the NIE. Chew on this.
Here's my favorite part about just some of the differences in the 2 documents. And why were they different....because Bush's official policy was that they told the NIC they couldn't put dissenting opinions and caveats into the unclassified version.
The committee's report describes not just sins of omission, but of addition. The classified NIE stated, for instance, that "Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW (biological weapons) agents and is capable of quickly producing … a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives." In the unclassified version, the words "potentially against the U.S. homeland" are inserted at the end of the statement. During a briefing before the report was released, one committee aide said that the Senate panel had asked Tenet and Stu Cohen – the acting chairman of the National Intelligence Council who oversaw production of the NIE – who was responsible for inserting those words into the unclassified document. "They did not know and could not explain," said the aide, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Simple the WH Iraq policy was that NO caveats or dissenting opinions were allowed for things that were unclassified. And isn't it amazing all the caveats and dissension were all the accurate pieces of intelligence.
Posted by emal at December 8, 2005 02:21 PMSeixon,
This is my last response to the recycled garbage you keep posting as if this is something new.
First of all the CIA sends reports to Congress - it doesn't "report to Congress". You distorted what I was saying to make a point which in itself is BS. The CIA is part of the Executive, not part of the Legislature. The CIA reports to the President of the United States, not to the Senate Majority Leader. The CIA has an obligation to keep Congress informed, but Congress is not the CIA's real boss.
That's not all. The NIE was asked for by Congress precisely because your Dear Leader and his fellow neocons were out faking it in public with statements about Iraq's capabilities even though no NIE existed at that time. The aluminum tubes, which is the focus of this series, were raised by Bush, Cheney and Rice, using false, deliberately misleading statements about their end use, before the NIE even existed. I am talking about aluminum tubes --- and you, being a shill for these crooks, try to change the topic to "nuclear program" (let alone the INR's strong dissent in the NIE that the claims on Iraq's nuclear reconstitution/programs was not credible at all). Nice try but you don't get away with such fakery that easily on this blog.
Third, when Democratic Senators Dick Durbin and Bob Graham et al. finally received the NIE and the declassified White Paper and realized how the most important challenges to the White Paper's claims (which questioned the aluminum tubes, uranium, and other key assertions) were dropped from it even though those challenges appeared in the classified NIE, Graham asked for more of the NIE to be declassified since they were outraged at what was being hidden from the public. The Bush administration refused. The CIA refused. This has been known for a long time.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/005999.php
If the CIA really "reports to Congress", as you are falsely BSing on this comment thread and wasting my time and everyone else's, they would have done *what Congress asked them to*. They did not.
George Bush, Mr. Moral Clarity himself, who was the boss of George Tenet, never bothered to tell Tenet - "hey, you know what, the IC has been sending me reports that there could be a different end use for the tubes, the NIE says clearly that the IC's nuclear experts (DOE) and INR are saying the tubes were for rockets - so why are you putting out a White Paper where you took out that information?" Not once. Never. He let the public be deliberately misled. Even when Democratic Senators objected.
I can see how hard you are trying to shill and cover-up for criminals and perhaps that is something you enjoy, but I've had enough of this BS.
Posted by eriposte at December 8, 2005 08:04 PMI LOVE YOUR BLOG !!!
Attaboy! Good luck !
------------------------------
Alex Sanekopolidis
My site about kelly clarkson
http://kelly-clarkson.cduk.ru/