Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion
FAQ Calendar Arcade Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-11-2004, 12:22 PM   #11
Donut
Jack Burton
 

Join Date: March 1, 2001
Location: Airstrip One
Age: 41
Posts: 5,571
Looking forward to this tonight

A failure of intelligence



Panorama: A failure of intelligence will be broadcast on BBC One on Sunday, 11 July 2004 at 22:15 BST


In his Iraq dossier, the Prime Minister said he believed the intelligence showed "beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein was producing chemical and biological weapons.

The intelligence was mostly wrong. So should the buck be passed to the intelligence services?

On the eve of Lord Butler's report into the failure of the intelligence system on Iraq, Panorama's John Ware has reconstructed how Tony Blair made the case for war to the British people and to Parliament.

While the Joint Intelligence Committee advised Mr Blair that Saddam may have retained some old WMD from the original Gulf War, he was claiming publicly that Saddam had "stockpiles of major amounts of chemical and biological weapons."

When the JIC reported that intelligence was "limited" and based mainly on "assessment", Mr Blair said the matter was "beyond doubt."

Last Autumn Mr Blair also told the Hutton inquiry that he'd published the dossier "because there was a tremendous amount of information and evidence coming across my desk as to the weapons of mass destruction and the programmes associated with it that Saddam had."

Yet, the Ministry of Defence's chief WMD intelligence analyst at the time tells Panorama that the Prime Minister's comments "confused me.....Certainly no-one on my staff had any visibility of large quantities of intelligence of that sort."

In his first television interview Dr Brian Jones, explains that misjudgements were made on the basis of sparse intelligence by senior people, rather than the intelligence community as a whole, and that the Joint Intelligence Committee should accept responsibility.

In "A Failure of Intelligence", the same Panorama team that reported on Lord Hutton's Inquiry now sets out what the intelligence services and Mr Blair knew, when they each knew it - and some of what he left out.
__________________
[img]\"http://www.wheatsheaf.freeserve.co.uk/roastspurs.gif\" alt=\" - \" /> <br />Proud member of the Axis of Upheaval<br />Official Titterer of the Laughing Hyenas<br />Josiah Bartlet - the best President the US never had.<br />The 1st D in the D & D Show
Donut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2004, 01:21 PM   #12
John D Harris
Ninja Storm Shadow
 

Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 63
Posts: 3,577
Quote:
Originally posted by Gab:
quote:
Originally posted by Khazadman Risen:
If there are problems with our intelligence agencies it's because the dems have been trying their best to destroy them for the last few decades.
You always try to blame the Democrats and the left for everything! What proof do you have of this anyway? Why not blame or accuse Bush of being a warmonger and foolishly believing the flawed intilligence or even just plain lying to go to war? [/QUOTE]Why do you NOT even mention the DEMOCRATS on the Senate Intel. Comm. that VOTED for the war, and came out and said things LIKE, "Iraq is an eminate threat"? Or prehaps the Dems that while running for office in 2002 said "If you don't believe Iraq has WoMD's DO NOT vote for me." Why oh why is nearly everybody jumping on the BUSH DID it on purpose bandwagon when the report CEALRY states there is ZERO/NADA/NO evidence that any of the intel was politicly motovated? But I guess to admitt that would mean President Bush was acting on what he was told and not in some wild wacko far-out conspricay started before he was elected. Lord knows he couldn't possibly be doing what he thought was best, he HAS to be forcing the CIA to make-up intel. Why he even forced the CIA to make-up the Intel years before, he was elected to be president of the Unitied States of America, while he was still a govenor of the state of Texas.

Wow! I never realised as Govenor Bush had so much power to be able to manipulate the CIA, con President Clinton into saying that Iraq was working on Nuclear weapons, and launch missle to attack Iraq's capitabilities. And send nearly every Dem that is now criticizing President Bush, to support President Clinton's attack and defend his statements about Iraq's WoMDs. Govenor Bush even made the UN pass several resolutions about Iraq'a WoMD's, long before he became President. Amazing the mind control powers of then Govenor Bush, to make the Dems. support attacking Iraq when Bill Clinton was President. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm wonder why President Bush is not using those miraclious powers now that He is President.


****If you want to know who the Dems were that made the statments I mentioned, you may want to check out the Democratic Presidental ticket.****
__________________
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working.
Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864
66:KIA 5008
67:KIA 9378
68:KIA 14594
69:KIA 9414
70:KIA 4221
71:KIA 1380
72:KIA 300

Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585
2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting

Davros 1
Much abliged Massachusetts
John D Harris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2004, 01:44 PM   #13
John D Harris
Ninja Storm Shadow
 

Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 63
Posts: 3,577
Quote:
Originally posted by wellard:
quote:
Originally posted by Khazadman Risen:
If there are problems with our intelligence agencies it's because the dems have been trying their best to destroy them for the last few decades.
Well this is the get out of trouble path I suspected GW Bush supporters would take. I actually thank Khazadman Risen for at least addressing this topic. So many of the regular Republican brigade are MIA. [/QUOTE]Just out of Idle couriousity wellard, which part of the following statement, from the report you on the left are clinging to for dear life, is hard to understand?

"The committee found no evidence that the intelligence community's mischaracterization or exaggeration of the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities was the result of political pressure," Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts said.

Please explain why Sen. John Edwards a member of the Senate Intel. Comm. made the statement in Feb. 2002 "that Iraq is an eminate threat". Or why he voted for the war? He as a member of the Senate intel comm gets to see the same CIA intel that President Bush sees, he reached the same conclusion. As did Senator John Kerry, who voted for the war after seeing the intel, Senator John Kerry went so far as to say "if you don't believ Iraq has Womd's don't vote for me!" I wonder how many of the Dems/left/liberals are willing to stand up for their convictions and not vote for Senator Kerry? After all he doesn't want the vote of anyone that doesn't believe that Iraq had WoMDs. Let's hear the cry and shout from the left about the Democratic Senators on the Senate Intel. Comm that voted for the war, based on the same intel! Remember the line the left is clinging to is "we wouldn't have passed the vote for the war with 75 votes if we had known" Well here is the chance to stand up for what the left beieves is right and condem the democratic Senators that supported the war, voted for it, and came out and made statements about how bad Iraq was. Don't worry I'm not going to hold my breath, old age has taught me that isn't going to happen, insteed the left will say something about how we are trying to confuse the issue, or we are being mean. Yet I doubt even one on the left will come out and say their Presidental ticket was for the war based on the same intel as President Bush, and their ticket came to the same conclusion, even though they had access to the same "desenting Intel" and IGNORED IT ALSO!
__________________
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working.
Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864
66:KIA 5008
67:KIA 9378
68:KIA 14594
69:KIA 9414
70:KIA 4221
71:KIA 1380
72:KIA 300

Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585
2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting

Davros 1
Much abliged Massachusetts
John D Harris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2004, 01:49 PM   #14
Black Baron
Red Wizard of Thay
 

Join Date: September 7, 2003
Location: Israel
Age: 41
Posts: 877
If Kerry has any sence in the head he will leave the troops where they are. You do not know what is a terror state. Iraq will become one, and thousands of terrorists will get out from there towards USA, europe and israel. If you had one look at PA (and not from the tv set) like i did, you would understand it too well. Pity that you will never visit Bir Zeit.
__________________
Case from my reservist service:

Kids attention, I have brought you something...

Don't pull that ring private!!
Black Baron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2004, 01:55 PM   #15
Oblivion437
Baaz Draconian
 

Join Date: June 17, 2002
Location: NY
Age: 38
Posts: 723
Ladies and Gentleman, it is the finding of this committee that Senator Hammond was killed by Joseph Frady, there is no evidence of a conspiracy, whatsoever...

Back to the thread itself...

That particular note you mention John says this much to me:

The CIA may have acted on bad faith intelligence, but Bush didn't. Bush thought he was dealing with people who could be trusted, and he can't be blamed for that. These are the people who are supposed to be telling him the truth, so he can make the best decision possible.

Bush should have gotten his own MacNamara.

As far as I can tell, it doesn't go further than the CIA, and the comission can't link a smoking gun to Bush on the matter, maybe that pisses them off, not so much that Bush might be innocent, more or less, that in and of itself is a good thing, but if he is, he and they and the whole country were hoodwinked by Central Intelligence...

What's funny though, is that weapons of mass destruction, related materials, the whole thing, is beginning to surface.
__________________
[img]\"http://www.jtdistributing.com/pics/tshirts/experts%20copy.jpg\" alt=\" - \" />
Oblivion437 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2004, 08:25 AM   #16
wellard
Dracolisk
 

Join Date: November 1, 2002
Location: Australia ..... G\'day!
Posts: 6,123
Quote:
Originally posted by John D Harris:
Just out of Idle couriousity wellard, which part of the following statement, from the report you on the left are clinging to for dear life, is hard to understand?

"The committee found no evidence that the intelligence community's mischaracterization or exaggeration of the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities was the result of political pressure," Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts said.

Please explain why Sen. John Edwards a member of the Senate Intel. Comm. made the statement in Feb. 2002 "that Iraq is an eminate threat". Or why he voted for the war? He as a member of the Senate intel comm gets to see the same CIA intel that President Bush sees, he reached the same conclusion. As did Senator John Kerry, who voted for the war after seeing the intel, Senator John Kerry went so far as to say "if you don't believ Iraq has Womd's don't vote for me!" I wonder how many of the Dems/left/liberals are willing to stand up for their convictions and not vote for Senator Kerry? After all he doesn't want the vote of anyone that doesn't believe that Iraq had WoMDs. Let's hear the cry and shout from the left about the Democratic Senators on the Senate Intel. Comm that voted for the war, based on the same intel! Remember the line the left is clinging to is "we wouldn't have passed the vote for the war with 75 votes if we had known" Well here is the chance to stand up for what the left beieves is right and condem the democratic Senators that supported the war, voted for it, and came out and made statements about how bad Iraq was. Don't worry I'm not going to hold my breath, old age has taught me that isn't going to happen, insteed the left will say something about how we are trying to confuse the issue, or we are being mean. Yet I doubt even one on the left will come out and say their Presidental ticket was for the war based on the same intel as President Bush, and their ticket came to the same conclusion, even though they had access to the same "desenting Intel" and IGNORED IT ALSO!
John these are good points you make (and I’ve spent the day thinking them over) and unless the Democrats / left where collectively a set of wimps in that they where able to see through the CIA / Intel bullshit and still be to scared to stand up and voice an opinion against the Iraq war then you (and I) have to conclude that the 'facts' presented to all the politicians was done in a very calculated and convincing manner. So in that manner I agree with you.


However two or three things still leave me very uneasy about this mess.

1) Why did the republicans push for the inquiry to be split into 2, with the investigation of what the very top administration knew and pressure if any applied, till after the election? You cannot deny that it smells of cover up surely? Even if you don’t agree that there was one.

2) Obviously now, The French, German, Russian etc INTEL was different to that the CIA was pushing. Did the Bush administration not follow through the idea that the other countries may be right and they wrong? And why not, aragance?


3) Is it possible that Bush and certain top administration had separate advice than that given to the rest of the Washington mob?
__________________


fossils - natures way of laughing at creationists for over 3 billion years
wellard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2004, 09:28 AM   #17
Black Baron
Red Wizard of Thay
 

Join Date: September 7, 2003
Location: Israel
Age: 41
Posts: 877
France, Russia and Germany supplied Saddam with tools, people, raw material, material and stuff for his goals. Obviously they would have said-" there are No WoMD dude".
__________________
Case from my reservist service:

Kids attention, I have brought you something...

Don't pull that ring private!!
Black Baron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2004, 09:40 AM   #18
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
I get the feeling I've been involved in the same argument for over a year. [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img]
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2004, 10:01 AM   #19
Oblivion437
Baaz Draconian
 

Join Date: June 17, 2002
Location: NY
Age: 38
Posts: 723
Well, Russian agents, of some kind, operating in an unknown capacity, were caught trying to smuggle documents out of Iraq last year.

Let's not forget Food for Oil, or the dirty deeds what were done by the Klinton Krime Kommission from 1992-2000 both to make cash and cover tracks.

Wellard, do you have proof that "the Republicans" pushed for it? If not, it isn't a valid point.

[ 07-12-2004, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]
__________________
[img]\"http://www.jtdistributing.com/pics/tshirts/experts%20copy.jpg\" alt=\" - \" />
Oblivion437 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2004, 10:13 AM   #20
John D Harris
Ninja Storm Shadow
 

Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 63
Posts: 3,577
Wellard good questions [img]smile.gif[/img] From what I can see I'll try to give you what I think and on what I base my thoughts on.
Question #1: I believe it was done to head off an attempt to make the Senate Intel Comm. report political, here is a memo leaked by somebody from the Dem. side of the committee. (I'll not give a link to the website I found it at , to save people from attacking the messenger/website suffice to say it has been out for several months and not deined by any involoved.) The memo came from the senior Dem. Sen. Rockafeller's(sp?) office IIRC. As you can see this is a plan for a political solution Before the facts are known, not a plan to find the facts and let the chips fall where they may.

Text of the Democrat Memo

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

We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president's State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.)

2) Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment).

3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:

A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report -- thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: 1) additional views on the interim report; 2) announcement of our independent investigation; and 3) additional views on the final investigation; or

B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue. We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence. In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information.

Summary

Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods.

Question #2 I'm not sure why that their Intel showed anything differant, I've not seen anything from their intel. except the statement from the Russians stating that Iraq was seeking to use terrorist tactics against the USA, and Putin warned Bush about it. I don't know for sure but I would suspect that since Russia, France, and Germany were the 3 biggest arms partners with Iraq and sold them most of their weapons and capitabilties of war. (Germany may have been #4 I don't recall off the top of my head). Might have something to do with it, but that is only a suspision(sp?).

I'll try to answer #3 later
__________________
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working.
Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864
66:KIA 5008
67:KIA 9378
68:KIA 14594
69:KIA 9414
70:KIA 4221
71:KIA 1380
72:KIA 300

Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585
2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting

Davros 1
Much abliged Massachusetts
John D Harris is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
US intelligence fears Iran duped hawks into Iraq war Dreamer128 General Discussion 24 06-08-2004 12:14 PM
Australia 'twisted Iraq intelligence' Skunk General Discussion 4 08-22-2003 05:10 PM
False Alarm? skywalker General Discussion 2 02-14-2003 08:57 AM
no false dawn pschub Baldurs Gate II: Shadows of Amn & Throne of Bhaal 12 10-28-2002 02:39 PM
False Pomab Slinky Icewind Dale | Heart of Winter | Icewind Dale II Forum 3 08-13-2000 09:23 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved