Not quite...

Post #128,488 by bepatient 12/2/03 12:55:09 PM Reply	Not quite... ...what I see here are 2 >inside< sources...each telling us there were programs in place...and if the other report is correct, we have internal official documents that verify the statements of these 2 >inside< sources. It became, then, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Our "defectors" tell us about weapons programs, internal government sources also tell us about them. This is part of vetting intel...multiple unrelated sources describing the same information and programs. At that point, taking this to the Pres would no longer be considered "stovepiping"...its passing along verified and vetted intelligence. Granted the intel may have been (or >was<) incorrect...but it was information that was not only believed by our intel community...but by host country government as well. It would be very hard at ANY point, >>>if this is the case<<<, to lay blame on anyone in the US government for making decisions based on this intelligence. For all that Sadam knew, he >had< a nuclear weapons program. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #128,493 by jb4 12/2/03 2:06:36 PM Reply	Something not entirely clear These two defectors are telling us the things that were in reports that they themselves generated. Hmmmm... And (at least) one of those defectors had a serious axe to grind with Boo-foo...perhaps enough that, by manipulating the intel (or, more accurately, continuing to manipulate the intel), he could goad the Most Powerful Nation in the World to smite his own personal infidel. Hmmmm... After all, these people are rocket scientists! And feeding the same laundered and/or manufactured data to a frother like Perle is most assuredly not beyond his capability, now is it? Certainly something to consider...we went to war as a personal vendetta by some Iraqi rocket scientists. Hmmmm... jb4 "There are two ways for you to have lower Prescription-drug costs. One is you could hire Rush Limbaugh's housekeeper ... or you can elect me President." John Kerry
Post #128,510 by Simon_Jester 12/2/03 5:09:22 PM Reply	Bzzt...sorry... ...what I see here are 2 >inside< sources...each telling us there were programs in place...and if the other report is correct, we have internal official documents that verify the statements of these 2 >inside< sources. nope..you don't have 2 inside source each telling you that there were programs in place. You have 3 (actually more) sources telling you that programs were in place. Furthermore, all but one of them are telling you that programs were destroyed. Furthermore, your fairly good source tell you that they went to ENORMOUS lengths to hide whatever evidence/data they had of their program. This is all valid evidence. You have one source telling you that they're working on programs RIGHT NOW. (None of the others did - and I've got one who said they never worked on it afterward and were lying in their reports to Saddam.) Now, Saddam is probably not a nuclear scientist. So evidence given to him should probably fool him pretty easily. However, our CIA/NSA/DSA guys SHOULD have nuclear weapons expects...and any evidence that would go to Saddam should go to them as well. Now, if they were fooled, I MIGHT believe you...but I haven't seen any evidence of that (and I have a hard time believing that). In fact, I've got evidence that they weren't easily fooled -- the Niger Uranium document, for example. Nevermind other intel such as material movement that can be used to assist in determining whether or not a person is telling you the truth. So, either the Iraqi Scientists fooled everyone (including our trained experts)....even to the point of ignoring the one Iraqi Scientist whom has been yelling all along that Iraq didn't have a nuclear program. Or a select group (Richard Perle) ignored evidence to the contrary and listened to an apparent single source to support a position he had already taken. And I still haven't seen any evidence that anyone has attempted to verify this source was legimate.
Post #128,513 by bepatient 12/2/03 5:41:52 PM Reply	I'm just extrapolating from what I saw here. But, I see I misread the initial revival post of this thread...that apparently states that the lying stopped after the first war. In which case my wondering aloud about self-vetting intel is all bullshit anyway :-) So in the immortal words of Roseanne Rosannadanna... "Never mind." If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #128,515 by Simon_Jester 12/2/03 6:01:09 PM Reply	Nyah...just goes to show... That ol' Lt. Gen. Amir al-Saadi was probably not a nuclear scientist and believed what his scientists were telling...(probably because he would've killed them if that didn't say what he wanted them to say.) Apparently some of our Generals (who are probably not nuclear scientists) believed these same scientists. I'm glad we've got smarter Generals, right?
Post #140,784 by Simon_Jester 2/9/04 7:20:32 PM Reply	More stuff - DIA claimed defector not reliable.... An Iraqi military defector identified as unreliable by the Defense Intelligence Agency provided some of the information that went into United States intelligence estimates that Iraq had stockpiles of biological weapons at the time of the American invasion last March, senior government officials said Friday. [...] Intelligence officers from the D.I.A. interviewed the defector twice in early 2002 and circulated reports based on those debriefings. They concluded he had no firsthand information and might have been coached by the Iraqi National Congress, the officials said. That group, headed by Ahmad Chalabi, who had close ties to the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney, had introduced the defector to American intelligence, the officials said. [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/politics/07INTE.html\| NY Times ]
Post #129,612 by Simon_Jester 12/8/03 10:41:42 AM Reply	Interesting memo... [link\|http://www.msnbc.com/news/1002223.asp\| MS-NBC ] THE MEMO, obtained by NEWSWEEK, suggests that the INC last year was directly feeding intelligence reports about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and purported ties to terrorism to one of Cheney\ufffds top foreign- policy aides. Cheney staffers later pushed INC info\ufffdincluding defectors\ufffd claims about WMD and terror ties\ufffdto bolster the case that Saddam\ufffds government posed a direct threat to America. But the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies have strongly questioned the reliability of defectors supplied by the INC. For months, Cheney\ufffds office has denied that the veep bypassed U.S. intelligence agencies to get intel reports from the INC. But a June 2002 memo written by INC lobbyist Entifadh Qunbar to a U.S. Senate committee lists John Hannah, a senior national-security aide on Cheney\ufffds staff, as one of two \ufffdU.S. governmental recipients\ufffd for reports generated by an intelligence program being run by the INC and which was then being funded by the State Department. Under the program, \ufffddefectors, reports and raw intelligence are cultivated and analyzed\ufffd; the info was then reported to, among others, \ufffdappropriate governmental, non-governmental and international agencies.\ufffd The memo not only describes Cheney aide Hannah as a \ufffdprincipal point of contact\ufffd for the program, it even provides his direct White House telephone number. The only other U.S. official named as directly receiving the INC intel is William Luti, a former military adviser to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who, after working on Cheney\ufffds staff early in the Bush administration, shifted to the Pentagon, where he oversaw a secretive Iraq war-planning unit called the Office of Special Plans.

Welcome to IWETHEY!