Comments on: What Makes a Statement False

By: Military Pundits » Obama Is Wrong For America

Military Pundits » Obama Is Wrong For America — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:37:30 +0000

[...] little over a year ago, I wrote a piece called "What Makes a Statement False?" over at A Soldier's Perspective. In that piece I talked about the difference between lying and being wrong. A lie is saying [...]

By: Ray Robison

Ray Robison — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:24:05 +0000

A new book shows Saddam did support al Qaeda and the Taliban:

'Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents'

bothinonetrench.com

By: wordsmith

wordsmith — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:44:59 +0000

They desired to invade Iraq before 9/11 occurred.

From Meet the Press, 5 days after 9/11:

MR. RUSSERT: Saddam Hussein, your old friend, his government had this to say: "The American cowboy is rearing the fruits of crime against humanity." If we determine that Saddam Hussein is also harboring terrorists, and there's a track record there, would we have any reluctance of going after Saddam Hussein?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have evidence that he's harboring terrorists?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is–in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

Yet supposedly Bush and Cheney had their cross-hairs on Iraq, all along. Anyone who claims that Cheney overstated the links between Saddam and al-Qaeda or ever suggested that Saddam had a hand in the events of 9/11, need to go back through every Meet the Press interview Cheney did; because partisan haters are misremembering or simply are misinformed by the spinsters.

WMDs in Iraq Recovered as of 2004 (unclassified version)

Nuclear:

* 1.95 tons of enriched uranium
* 1000 banned radioactive sources (cesium and other isotopes)
* 16 drums of yellowcake from Al-Qaim extraction plant
* An undisclosed rail gun system used to test nuclear detonations. Iraq developed this in secret in 1999. The gun was built at Al-Tahadi. It, along with 500 tons of natural uranium wsa found south of Baghdad in 2003.

Biological Agents.

* Live C. botulinum Okra B (makes batulinum toxin: 1 gram kills 10,000) found hidden in Iraqi Biological Weapon’s Scientist’s home.
* Discovered, continued, out-lawed and concealed, research on Brucella, Congo Crimean Hemorragic Fever (CCHF), ricin, and aflatoxin. None of this was declared to the UN even after 12 years of sanctions.
* Ricin discovered in Sargat, Iraq along with hidden sacks of castor beans (labeled as “fertilizer”) in al-Aziziyah.
* Human testing facilities (prisons) for BW agents.
* Mobile labs for BW agents buried in the desert. 11 found in Karbala.
* Mulitple small fixed BW sites/labs which the UN never knew about.

Chemical

* Multiple attacks against US troops using Mustard and Sarin gas filled shells
* Multiple attacks by terrorists against Iraqi civilians using chlorine gas
* Cyanide labs found in “Safe Houses” in fallujah
* 5,000 Lbs/2,268KG of Cyanide found in Taji (total cyanide as of 2004 was 2,370 Kg or 2.4 million leathal doses)
* Various Chemical Weapons Labs

Folk like Drumheller and Wilkerson are partisanly biased. Drumheller was soundly rebuked in the addendum to the Senate Select Intell Committee phase II report for lying to the media, pg 143:
The Committee was aware of this source’s WMD reporting [Sabri] during the first phase of the Committee review, the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments on Iraq, but began exploring this issue again as a result of press reports, in particular a story on 60 Minutes, “A Spy Speaks Out,” which seemed to contradict the information available to the Committee.

The 60 Minutes story focused on the account of the former Chief of CIA’s Europe Division (Chief/EUR) [i.e., Drumheller] who claimed that the source described above “told us that [Iraq] had no active weapons of mass destruction program.” This story was followed by numerous other media appearances by the former Chief/EUR such as, CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight and Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees, and MSNBC’s Hardball, in which he claimed that the source said Iraq had no WMD programs.

Concerned that something may have been missed in our first Iraq review, the Committee began to request additional information from the Intelligence Community and to question current and former CIA officers who were involved in this issue. As noted above, the Committee has not completed this inquiry, but we have seen the operational documentation pertaining to this case. We can say that there is not a single document related to this case which indicates that the source said Iraq had no WMD programs. On the contrary, all of the information about this case so far indicates that the information from this source was that Iraq did have WMD programs. Both the operations cable and the intelligence report prepared for high-level policymakers said that while Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear weapon, “he was aggressively and covertly developing such a weapon.” Both documents said “Iraq was producing and stockpiling chemical weapons” and they both said Iraq’s weapon of last resort was mobile launched chemical weapons, which would be fired at enemy forces and Israel. The source’s comments were consistent with the nuclear, chemical and missile assessments in the October 2002 WMD NIE. The only program not described as fully active was the biological weapons program which the source described as “amateur,” and not constituting a real weapons program.

The former Director of Central Intelligence testified before the Committee in July 2006 that the former Chief/EUR “has mischaracterized [the source’s] information” and said the former Chief/EUR never expressed a view to him, as the former Chief/EUR has claimed publicly, that the source’s information meant Iraq did not have WMD programs. The Committee is still exploring why the former Chief/EUR’s public remarks differ so markedly from the documentation.

By: sealpatriot

sealpatriot — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 05:48:44 +0000

Seeking answers from both sides doesn't sound like cherry picking to me. It's also sad that 25 comments after the original post, everyone already forgot the list of WMD material that CJ provided. Apparently, the misleading evidence was right, and that people comment before actually reading.

By: JD

JD — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:30:35 +0000

Cheney/Bush did cherry pick intelligence and evidence. They desired to invade Iraq before 9/11 occurred. They should be held accountable for misleading the US into an unjustified war under false pretenses.

Semper Fidelis

By: sealpatriot

sealpatriot — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:51:58 +0000

Actually, every country has some vitriolic emotion directed at them from another country, it's not just or solely America. At the same time, we didn't just get Saddam because he sought WMD's, he actually had them. Also, the world can not hold the United States solely responsible for taking Saddam down for issue of WMD's.

Every single intelligence service from all the countries that was involved with investigating Pre-War Iraq in the 19 months before we set foot in there said that Saddam had WMD's. This includes the United Nations as well as countries who opposed Saddam's removal to begin with. As far as the reasons why America is hated by many are concerned, those same reasons are also why America is loved by many as well.

Also, Bush didn't cherry pick evidence. This claim is ludicrous. With all due respect for Ray McGovern, Bush sought to find intel that countered what was being given to him by the Senate and House Select and House Intelligence Committees. He was actually trying to find intelligence that was contradictory to the conclusions that most of the collected intel presented, which was that "Saddam had WMD's".

When most of the intel being past your way by intelligence services domestic and from foreign countries all conclude the same thing even when they weren't conducting the investigation together, then having to act on that intel is mandatory. Especially when it is crucial National Security.

By: CJ

CJ — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:55:29 +0000

Ken,

Sounds to me like there's been a "pattern of manipulation" on the part of Graham as well if we're to follow his logic. You can't have one without the other.

By: Ken Hoop

Ken Hoop — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:03:53 +0000

Graham said the following in early 2003–your resort to ancient quotes is telling.

(Graham suggested…..that the intelligence was satisfactory but that it was manipulated, so as just to present to the American people and to the world those things that made the case for the necessity of war against Iraq.

Sen. Graham seems to believe there is a serious chance that it is the final scenario that reflects reality. Indeed, Graham told CNN "there's been a pattern of manipulation by this administration."

Graham has good reason to complain. According to the New York Times, he was one of the few members of the Senate who saw the national intelligence estimate that was the basis for Bush's decisions. After reviewing it, Graham requested that the Bush administration declassify the information before the Senate voted on the administration's resolution requesting use of the military in Iraq.

But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent Graham a letter discussing the findings. Graham then complained that Tenet's letter only addressed "findings that supported the administration's position on Iraq," and ignored information that raised questions about intelligence. In short, Graham suggested that the Administration, by cherrypicking only evidence to its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its conclusion.

By: CJ

CJ — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:42:01 +0000

Again, Ken, I implore you to find FACTS and stop sharing this drivel. How do you respond to the following comment that Graham made on December 8, 2002:

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”

Interestingly, this is a DIFFERENT quote than the one I shared above. Not only that, but he didn't say he THOUGHT Saddam had WMDs. Nope, he said he had "COMPELLING EVIDENCE" he possessed them.

Let's hope Sen Graham doesn't run for office. This kind of flip flopping only comes around once in a John Kerry while. Graham was Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

By: CJ

CJ — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:31:28 +0000

Adding on to what Sue said, Bush doesn't "release", "hold", "suppress", "control", "create", "disseminate", or "publish" intelligence. That is NOT the job of the President of the United States. The Senate Intelligence Committees and House equivalent are privy to the same information the White House is. The White House is not now, nor has it ever been, a stovepipe for intelligence. Please use some form of intelligence in your arguments and refrain from relying on fringe lunatics to feed you your beliefs.