Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 130
  1. #1
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Macomb ,Illinois
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,871

    Bush trusted BOGUS sources for intel to go to war with Iraq

    We've heard Bush state many times that the intelligence was checked over by various agencies and that ALL intelligence pointed to Saddam having WMD. However for some reason you never hear about the sources of the faulty intelligence, and the fact that a former UN inspector(Scott Ritter) has said many times before the war that this war is not warranted because Saddam was allowing weapons to be disarmed. Most of the intelligence came from Ahmad Chalabi, a man whose wanted to overthrow Saddam for almost a decade, and the former favorite of the Bush administration to become the next Iraq president. Why would Bush trust someone who obviously hates Saddam and would benefit big time from his removal, and not a former UN weapons inspector?


    I threw this together for those that are interested.

    "The Times said the CIA relied on four sources for the information, at least two of which were Iraqi defectors who were introduced to American intelligence circles through the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a group formed in exile by Saddam nemesis Ahmad Chalabi"
    Source : http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...2/221920.shtml
    __________________________________________________________________________________

    "The Bush administration has signalled an end to its relationship with Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress and the Pentagon's former favourite for leadership of the country."

    "Backed by powerful sponsors in the Pentagon and Vice-President •••• Cheney's office, Mr Chalabi, a former exile, played a major role in urging the administration to overthrow Saddam Hussein."
    Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../19/wirq19.xml
    __________________________________________________________________________________
    "Before the war, the CIA was largely skeptical of Chalabi and the INC, but information from his group (most famously from a defector codenamed "Curveball") made its way into intelligence dossiers used to help convince the public in America and Britain of the need to go to war. "Curveball" – the brother of a top lieutenant of Chalabi – fed hundreds of pages of bogus "firsthand" descriptions of mobile biological weapons factories on wheels and rails. Secretary of State Colin Powell later used this information in a UN presentation trying to garner support for the war, despite warnings from German intelligence that "Curveball" was fabricating claims. Since then, the CIA has admitted that the defector made up the story, and Colin Powell apologized for using the information in his speech."
    Source: http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/A/Ahmed-Chalabi.htm
    __________________________________________________________________________________
    SWEENEY: But didn't the United Nations present a report last year saying they believed there were weapons?

    RITTER: No, the U.N. presented a report saying they could not account for everything.

    SWEENEY: But it is hard to account if you cannot get into the country.

    RITTER: That's right. Then why did the United States pick up the phone in December 1998 and order the inspectors out -- let's remember Saddam Hussein didn't kick the inspectors out. The U.S. ordered the inspectors out 48 hours before they initiated Operation Desert Fox -- military action that didn't have the support of the U.N. Security Council and which used information gathered by the inspectors, to target Iraq.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SWEENEY: How much access did you get to the weapons inspection sites?

    RITTER: One-hundred percent. Every site we wanted to get to, we eventually got to. There was some obstruction, it wasn't pretty, but we got there.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RITTER: Well, look: As of December 1998 we had accounted for 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability -- "we" being the weapons inspectors. We destroyed all the factories, all of the means of production and we couldn't account for some of the weaponry, but chemical weapons have a shelf-life of five years. Biological weapons have a shelf-life of three years. To have weapons today, they would have had to rebuild the factories and start the process of producing these weapons since December 1998.

    Source: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/...m.ritter.cnna/

    __________________________________________________________________________________

    ASMAN: The FBI and CIA say the situation is not clear but Czech intelligence says it is. And why it is that the only person, only Arab leader that Usama bin Laden likes and approves of and speaks highly of is Saddam Hussein, why?

    RITTER: That's an absurdity, David. Usama bin Laden in 1991 was offering his services to confront Saddam Hussein. Usama bin Laden has issued fatwas against Saddam Hussein.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ASMAN: And isn't that a risk that we have to be particularly cognizant of, and if the Iraqis won't allow our inspectors unfettered access, isn't our only option to go in there and take out Saddam?

    RITTER: Yes. Now let's get to the bottom line here. The last time we allowed inspectors into Iraq unconditionally, with unfettered access, what happened? The United States took these inspectors and used them to spy on Saddam Hussein.

    ASMAN: Wait a minute, are you including your former boss Richard Butler in that category?

    RITTER: Richard Butler was totally complicit with it.

    ASMAN: Richard Butler, you're saying, was a spy for the United States, not an independent U.N. weapons inspector?

    RITTER: Richard Butler allowed the United States to use the United Nations weapons-inspection process as a Trojan horse to insert intelligence capabilities into Iraq, which were not approved by the United Nations and which did not facilitate the disarmament process, were instead focused on the security of Saddam Hussein and military targets.

    Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C62916%2C00.html



    http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0912-02.htm

    Kerry needs to stop being a sissy and educate the public about what sources produced the intellignece that Bush said warranted the war, and the fact that a former UN inspector was ignored while a guy like Chalabi was trusted. Imagine if Kerry made a huge live public speech talking about these intelligence issues...


    BTW i used this into a reply to a different topic, but i decided it needed its own

  2. #2
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Monument, Colorado
    Age
    59
    Posts
    2,519

    Re: Bush trusted BOGUS sources for intel to go to war with Iraq

    It's really funny how you conveniently left out all the "credible" sources, you can pick and choose any story you want to get the outcome you desire. You left out all the intel reports that were used not only by the U.S. but by all the other countries involved, all the others with the exception of France, Germany and China, I left out Russia on purpose for this because Putin has said they too had credible information that was passed onto the U.S. Dozens of intelligence agencies had the very same information we used, agencies not Ritter not Chalabi, there is a big difference, but of course to get the outcome you desire you will use the information provided in bits and pieces, just like Moore does. Most of Your credible sources you list would all like to see Bush lose, have you double checked or even triple checked to make sure the information they have given you is accurate? We already know that CBS can't be trusted to give us credible information, can you vouch for the rest of them? So you say we should have taken the word of one man named Ritter?

  3. #3
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    11,090

    Re: Bush trusted BOGUS sources for intel to go to war with Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by kamikazee
    It's really funny how you conveniently left out all the "credible" sources, you can pick and choose any story you want to get the outcome you desire. You left out all the intel reports that were used not only by the U.S. but by all the other countries involved, all the others with the exception of France, Germany and China, I left out Russia on purpose for this because Putin has said they too had credible information that was passed onto the U.S. Dozens of intelligence agencies had the very same information we used, agencies not Ritter not Chalabi, there is a big difference, but of course to get the outcome you desire you will use the information provided in bits and pieces, just like Moore does. Most of Your credible sources you list would all like to see Bush lose, have you double checked or even triple checked to make sure the information they have given you is accurate? We already know that CBS can't be trusted to give us credible information, can you vouch for the rest of them? So you say we should have taken the word of one man named Ritter?
    but herein lies the problem: you say that there WAS credible evidence, others say its NOT credible. Who is Bush going to believe? he was really stuck in a "damned if you do, damned if you dont" situation. Im not saying i agree with the war, im just saying that if saddam HAD WMD's then we dems would be saying "why didnt you listen to that intel?" and that there was an intelligence failure. I dont agree with the war, but i believe that the president has made his decision and i understand the pressures that are placed upon him to make the right decision. Bush could have handled it ALOT better, but we have to live by his decision


    Trust me, I do science
    My Hardware, Past and Present

  4. #4
    Joined
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Go Colts & Pacers!
    Posts
    1,889

    Re: Bush trusted BOGUS sources for intel to go to war with Iraq

    Bush admin performed "data mining". They came to a conclusion first and then went through data and it's interpretation to enforce their (Cheney's) predetermined conclusion.
    A7N8X Dlx./2500 Barton/Bios 1007 10.5x 215mhz @2.3Ghz
    PC3200 Kingston VR 512MG, 2.5t,3,3,8 v2.7, v2.75 vcore
    Silent Boost HSF/CPU 19c+ambient@idle
    Gainward GF3 Ti200 Mk2001SE 10237 (245/500)/SB Live
    80 & 120 Gig WDse
    BenQ DW1620 DVD-R, Lite-on 52x CD-R


  5. #5
    Joined
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Right behind you
    Posts
    3,553

    Re: Bush trusted BOGUS sources for intel to go to war with Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by R. Vanderlow
    Bush admin performed "data mining". They came to a conclusion first and then went through data and it's interpretation to enforce their (Cheney's) predetermined conclusion.
    This may very well be true. However, I know that I was ready to go to war with Iraq when we did. I supported Bush for his decision, although I still disliked him, and I believe it was the best decision to make. I, appearantly like GWB, did not think about the consequences of the war for the Iraqi people or our troops. I never thought inncoent people would be getting beheaded or that we would lose 1,000+ troops, most of them after Saddam was captured. It has become a complete cluster over there and there is no good exit strategy. We basically screwed ourselves they way I look at it.

    BTW, I don't agree with the war any longer and I hope and pray for the quick and safe return of all our troops. God Bless 'em all!
    looking for a 5GB Athlon

  6. #6
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: Bush trusted BOGUS sources for intel to go to war with Iraq

    I never thought inncoent people would be getting beheaded or that we would lose 1,000+ troops, most of them after Saddam was captured. It has become a complete cluster over there and there is no good exit strategy.
    Most estimates before the war said we could easily lose 10,000 troops, probably many more than that.

  7. #7
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    11,090

    Re: Bush trusted BOGUS sources for intel to go to war with Iraq

    i find it weird almost, that people think 1000 deaths in Iraq seems like a huge number, but it is pale in comparison to Vietnam, WWII, WWI and korea. we have become spoiled by smart bombs and low-scale conflicts. In a real war people die in huge numbers, people need to understand that

    sorry

    I just find it so crazy that people whine about Bush's data sources now but didnt stop to think about it when the war started


    Trust me, I do science
    My Hardware, Past and Present

  8. #8
    Joined
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Peoples Republic of Kalifornia
    Posts
    14,684

    Re: Bush trusted BOGUS sources for intel to go to war with Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar
    Most estimates before the war said we could easily lose 10,000 troops, probably many more than that.

    Quoted for truth.


    Interesting how so many people quickly forgot the estimates before the war.

    Why? Oh yeah... its their chance to use it for political gain.

  9. #9
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Macomb ,Illinois
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,871

    Re: Bush trusted BOGUS sources for intel to go to war with Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by kamikazee
    It's really funny how you conveniently left out all the "credible" sources, you can pick and choose any story you want to get the outcome you desire. You left out all the intel reports that were used not only by the U.S. but by all the other countries involved, all the others with the exception of France, Germany and China, I left out Russia on purpose for this because Putin has said they too had credible information that was passed onto the U.S. Dozens of intelligence agencies had the very same information we used, agencies not Ritter not Chalabi, there is a big difference, but of course to get the outcome you desire you will use the information provided in bits and pieces, just like Moore does. Most of Your credible sources you list would all like to see Bush lose, have you double checked or even triple checked to make sure the information they have given you is accurate? We already know that CBS can't be trusted to give us credible information, can you vouch for the rest of them? So you say we should have taken the word of one man named Ritter?

    So are you trying to say cnn, newsmax, foxnews, and that telegraph are all lieing? You don't even specify what exactly you don't believe to be true. I don't even have a cbs as a source for anything. Try and prove my information wrong. It's a fact that Chalabi was the favorite of the Pentagon to be the next Iraq President, and its a fact that he's wanted to overthrow Saddam for quite some time. It's a fact he was a primary source of intelligence. It's also a fact that the CIA did not trust Chalabi and that the Bush Administration still trusted him.

    Chalabi has ties to some of the top officials of the Bush administration: Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and •••• Cheney. Chalabi was a special guest at Bush's State of the Union.

    "Russert: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?

    President Bush: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.

    I remember speaking to Mr. al-Hakim here, who is a fellow who has lost 63 family members during the Saddam reign. His brother was one of the people that was assassinated early on in this past year. I expected to see a very bitter person. If 63 members of your family had been killed by a group of people, you’d be a little bitter. He obviously was concerned, but he — I said, you know, “I'm a Methodist, what are my chances of success in your country and your vision?” And he said, “It's going to be a free society where you can worship freely.” This is a Shiia fellow.

    And my only point to you is these people are committed to a pluralistic society. And it's not going to be easy. The road to democracy is bumpy. It's bumpy particularly because these are folks that have been terrorized, tortured, brutalized by Saddam Hussein.

    Russert: You do seem to have changed your mind from the 2000 campaign. In a debate, you said, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called 'nation-building.'"

    President Bush: Yeah.

    Russert: We clearly are involved in nation-building.

    President Bush: Right. And I also said — let me put it in context. I'm not suggesting you're pulling one of these Washington tricks where you leave half the equation out.

    But I did say also that our troops must be trained and prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, make peace more possible. And our troops were trained to fight and win war, and we did, and a second phase of the war is now going on. The first phase, of course, was the Tommy Franks troop movement.

    Russert: But this is nation-building.

    President Bush: Well, it is. That's right, but we're also fighting a war so that they can build a nation. And [crosstalk] the war is against terrorists and disgruntled Baathists who are saying we had it good in the past, and therefore we don't want this new society to spring up because they have no faith in democracy, and the terrorists who want to stop the advance of freedom.

    And if I might, people say to me, ‘OK, you made a judgment as to how to secure America for the short term with the Taliban and with Saddam Hussein, and with staying on the hunt for al-Qaida, but what about the long term?’ Which is a legitimate question. And the best way to secure America for the long term is to promote freedom and a free society and to encourage democracy.

    And we’re doing so in a part of the world where people say it can't happen, but the long-term vision and the long-term hope is — and I believe it's going to happen — is that a free Iraq will help change the Middle East. You may have heard me say we have a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. It's because I believe so strongly that freedom is etched in everybody's heart — I believe that — and I believe this country must continue to lead.

    Source:http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

    Its nice how you try and make Ritter out to be some random guy that they found in the sewer. Scott Ritter was a UN inspector. He has no reason to lie and in hindsight it seems his claims were obviously much more credible than the one's Bush followed.


    Here's some more good reads:
    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040607fa_fact1
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5068722/site/newsweek/
    http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=85754
    http://slate.msn.com/id/2101123/
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Sep3.html
    Last edited by lynch03; 09-21-2004 at 02:58 AM.

  10. #10
    Joined
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Peoples Republic of Kalifornia
    Posts
    14,684

    Re: Bush trusted BOGUS sources for intel to go to war with Iraq

    Try reading up on Ritter's book deal. And who financed it. And where that money came from. And how quickly his view of the WMD situation changed after getting the deal.


    FYI, read the Kay and Duelfer reports. And educate yourself about Saddam's WMD programs and where the WMD went.

  11. #11
    Joined
    Mar 2004
    Location
    mtl,canada
    Age
    41
    Posts
    37,286

    Re: Bush trusted BOGUS sources for intel to go to war with Iraq

    old old news,and no surprises either..i bet that if soembody on the street walks up to him and says : "dude,the swiss are making nukular bombs.." hed go to war

  12. #12
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Macomb ,Illinois
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,871

    Re: Bush trusted BOGUS sources for intel to go to war with Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew LB
    Quoted for truth.


    Interesting how so many people quickly forgot the estimates before the war.

    Why? Oh yeah... its their chance to use it for political gain.

    Unlike some of you Republicans who like to pick and choose (non)issues to get outraged over, this post discusses a pretty big issue.

    Why did Bush trust a shady character like Chalabi? We have gone to war because of Bush's poor judement. People have died. A bigger deal than some documents that cbs produced that many democrats don't even attempt to back up because it's such a non-issue and hasn't been tied to the DNC(at least yet) and a bigger deal than what Kerry did 30 years ago.

  13. #13
    Joined
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Peoples Republic of Kalifornia
    Posts
    14,684

    Re: Bush trusted BOGUS sources for intel to go to war with Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by lynch03
    Why did Bush trust a shady character like Chalabi?
    Because the intelligence from Chalabi checked out when looked into by the CIA and other agencies like MI-6 and Putin's FSB. Duh!


    We have gone to war because of Bush's poor judement.
    Hmm.... read the quote in my sig.

  14. #14
    Joined
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    6,596

    Re: Bush trusted BOGUS sources for intel to go to war with Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew LB



    Hmm.... read the quote in my sig.

    If Kerry is fed specially selective intelligence that only shows one side of things...don't you think he was mislead?? Especially considering all the info that was posted originally..T

    his is just more proof of Bush's selective attention when it came to the intelligence, he only wanted one type of intelligence and that's all he got..he ignored all other sources..

  15. #15
    Joined
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    6,596

    Re: Bush trusted BOGUS sources for intel to go to war with Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by kamikazee
    It's really funny how you conveniently left out all the "credible" sources, you can pick and choose any story you want to get the outcome you desire. You left out all the intel reports that were used not only by the U.S. but by all the other countries involved, all the others with the exception of France, Germany and China, I left out Russia on purpose for this because Putin has said they too had credible information that was passed onto the U.S. Dozens of intelligence agencies had the very same information we used, agencies not Ritter not Chalabi, there is a big difference, but of course to get the outcome you desire you will use the information provided in bits and pieces, just like Moore does. Most of Your credible sources you list would all like to see Bush lose, have you double checked or even triple checked to make sure the information they have given you is accurate? We already know that CBS can't be trusted to give us credible information, can you vouch for the rest of them? So you say we should have taken the word of one man named Ritter?
    The intelligence given by chalabi was the main intelligence that was used to prove that iraq had weapons... You don't just ignore one source then use another....don't you see the problem here...

    How in the hell is Chalabi..someone who's goal is to get Saddam out of power.. how could you say that is "Credible" and chalabi's isn't..what the hell are you smoking..

    It's ok for Chalabi's intel. to be not reputable..but any others...that prove otherwise as far as the wmd claim just can't be used.. ??????

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •