Kanjorski says Dems were insincere about ending war

[elder999]

In the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), the Intelligence Community (IC) reported to the President and Congress that although Saddam did not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, that he remained intent on acquiring them. The NIE claimed that, "most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors depart - December 1998." The report concluded that the speed with which Iraq could obtain its first nuclear weapon would depend on when it acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material: if Baghdad acquired sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year. Without such material from abroad, NIE stated that Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.

This conclusion, though presented as the opinion of the Intelligence Community, was not shared by the Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR). INR stated that it believed that although Saddam still desired nucelar weapons and pursued at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon-related capabilities, the evidence at hand was not enough to conclude that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. Specifically, INR disagreeded with CIA and DIA regarding the nature of aluminum tubes procured by Iraq.

As seen Here

• Iraq probably has concealed precursors, production equipment, documentation, and other items necessary for continuing its CW effort. Baghdad never supplied adequate evidence to support its claims that it destroyed all of its CW agents and munitions. Thousands of tons of chemical precursors and tens of thousands of unfilled munitions, including Scud-variant missile warheads, remain unaccounted for.
• UNSCOM discovered a document at Iraqi Air Force headquarters in July 1998 showing that Iraq overstated by at least 6,000 the number of chemical bombs it told the UN it had used during the Iran-Iraq War—bombs that remain are unaccounted for.
• Iraq has not accounted for 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred means for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent.
• Iraq probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents.

Baghdad continues to rebuild and expand dual-use infrastructure that it could divert quickly to CW production. The best examples are the chlorine and phenol plants at the Fallujah II facility. Both chemicals have legitimate civilian uses but also are raw materials for the synthesis of precursor chemicals used to produce blister and nerve agents. Iraq has three other chlorine plants that have much higher capacity for civilian production; these plants and Iraqi imports are more than sufficient to meet Iraq's civilian needs for water treatment. Of the 15 million kg of chlorine imported under the UN Oil-for-Food Program since 1997, Baghdad used only 10 million kg and has 5 million kg in stock, suggesting that some domestically produced chlorine has been diverted to such proscribed activities as CW agent production.

As seen Here in October, 2002. This was the sum extent of intel on Iraq's possible WMD programs. Note that will and intent do not make a "program." It's likely that Saddam was dreaming of having a program again, being evasive, but not doing a damn thing to make the weapons that were never found. And, CIA was aware of the thinness of their intel, and noted it to the parties involved: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice and BuS. Indeed, Powell refused to carry on the story of "acquiring yellowcake uranium from Niger,"in his U.N. presentation because he was aware of how thin and questionable it was.

 

[Twin Fist]

just like on the other subject, i dont think you want to know anything other than what you have chosen to go with.

 

[Big Don]

I'll get more serious in a moment, but honestly......:Come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with meee.....!

Talk sense to a fool...

 

[elder999]

Talk sense to a fool...

Oh, okay.

Prewar Findings Worried Analysts
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 22, 2005; Page A26
On Jan. 24, 2003, four days before President Bush delivered his State of the Union address presenting the case for war against Iraq, the National Security Council staff put out a call for new intelligence to bolster claims that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear, chemical and biological weapons or programs.
The person receiving the request, Robert Walpole, then the national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs, would later tell investigators that "the NSC believed the nuclear case was weak," according to a 500-page report released last year by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
It has been clear since the September report of the Iraq Survey Group -- a CIA-sponsored weapons search in Iraq -- that the United States would not find the weapons of mass destruction cited by Bush as the rationale for going to war against Iraq. But as the Walpole episode suggests, it appears that even before the war many senior intelligence officials in the government had doubts about the case being trumpeted in public by the president and his senior advisers.

Seen Here.

Now, it's pretty clear that the parties in question were told that the info was shaky-yet they asserted it as a matter of known fact. That's a lie. Doesn't matter if they were 'pretty sure," "nearly certain," or thought it was a "slam-dunk."

Of course, they're politicians, and that's what they do: politicians lie. Democrat or Republican.

Of course, most of the time, when they do lie, it's not a crime. It's campaigning:lol:

 

[exile]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Bob Levine
-MT Moderator-

 

[elder999]

Have a look Here

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001Prev | Next § 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Maybe I should start another thread, one with a poll, and see how many people think Cheny, RUmsfeld and BuSh are indictable...

Meantime, looking at that other kind of political lie-the legal one-that is to say, campaign promises, both CLinton and Obama have promised variously to "end the war in Iraq," "bring troops home," and, at their most truthful "redeploy." Does anyone here know what that really means? It means a continued armed presence in Iraq, of course-the protection of the world's largest embassy, the maintenance of the "Green Zone," a detachment at Bagdhad Airport and the hiring of more military contractors.

More lies......

 

[Twin Fist]

and polls show a lot of people think the governement faked the moon landing and bombed the towers on 9-11

doesnt make it true

 

[Big Don]

and polls show a lot of people think the governement faked the moon landing and bombed the towers on 9-11

doesnt make it true

No more than the polls of people who believe Elvis is still alive, put him on tour.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

and polls show a lot of people think the governement faked the moon landing and bombed the towers on 9-11

doesnt make it true

Ah yes, because if some polls are skewed, biased, and/or agenda driven, then all polls are therefore illegitimate. Logic games are fun!

 

[FearlessFreep]

Ah yes, because if some polls are skewed, biased, and/or agenda driven, then all polls are therefore illegitimate. Logic games are fun!

Point being is that all polls show is popular opinion, they do do not determine truth or accuracy. A poll may be legitimate in the sense of actually reflecting that 95% of people polled believe X, but that doesn't say anything about whether X is true.

A poll may be completely legitimate, complete accurate, and completely meaningless at the same time

 

[elder999]

Point being is that all polls show is popular opinion, they do do not determine truth or accuracy. A poll may be legitimate in the sense of actually reflecting that 95% of people polled believe X, but that doesn't say anything about whether X is true.

A poll may be completely legitimate, complete accurate, and completely meaningless at the same time

Yeah-except that's what a grand jury is-a poll. The prosecution presents a case, and the grand jury decides whether or not there is enough information to continue investigation-to bring charges, that is, an indictment.....

...think I will start that other thread....::disgust:

 

[FearlessFreep]

Yeah-except that's what a grand jury is-a poll. The prosecution presents a case, and the grand jury decides whether or not there is enough information to continue investigation-to bring charges, that is, an indictment.....

...think I will start that other thread....::disgust:

well in context you were talking about starting a thread to poll people whether or not they were indictable. A poll on a website is a popular opinion poll and a a long way from a grand-jury

 

[elder999]

well in context you were talking about starting a thread to poll people whether or not they were indictable. A poll on a website is a popular opinion poll and a a long way from a grand-jury

yeah, and I'm no lawyer-but I'll present a case,

 

[Archangel M]

Who will select the jury?

 

[FearlessFreep]

Who will select the jury?

We're the 'jury'

 

[elder999]

We're the 'jury'

Correctomundo!

 

[FearlessFreep]

Interesting follow up

http://jeffemanuel.net/paul-kanjorski-pa-11-claims-credit-for-surge-he-opposed

We've taken public positions which have now forced the president to go into the surge mentality, which is somewhat working