It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Cheney Adviser Libby Resigns After Indictment

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
But why would the CIA be under pressure from the White House for proving faulty evidence that supported the case for invasion? Do you really think the White House would attack its primary foreign intelligence agency for providing evidence that backed its call to war?


The CIA is under attack/scrutiny/pressure for providing inaccurate intelligence, which was then used by the White House staff of advisors to advise the president in pushing for war.

You haven't heard?

Iraq had no WMDs or programs.

Therefore, those CIA intelligence reports were invalid, incorrect, "faulty," etc. Furthermore, those CIA intelligence reports used go all the way back to the previous administration and their intelligence gathering accountings and documentations asserting, claiming, and verifying that Saddam had WMDs and programs thereof.






seekerof

[edit on 28-10-2005 by Seekerof]




posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The CIA is under attack/scrutiny/pressure for providing inaccurate intelligence, which was then used by the White House staff of advisors to advise the president in pushing for war.

Is that so? The CIA volunteered faulty evidence to the White House to help them get their invasion? An invasion that the Downing Street Memo proves the White House was "forming intelligence around policy" over?


Leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Cheney worked with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld's then-deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, to challenge CIA findings that countered their expectations or that disagreed with information they had received through their own intelligence channels.

Cheney traveled from the White House to CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., a dozen times, most often to discuss Iraq's possible links to nuclear weapons and terrorism. Agency veterans have said that Cheney's visits were more frequent than those of any other president or vice president, including the first president Bush, a former director of the agency.

When Cheney visited the CIA, Iraq was his main focus, particularly in the months before the war. Unlike Libby and others working with the vice president, Cheney was reportedly always polite. But in his quiet way, he was insistent, sometimes asking the same question again and again as if he hoped the answer would change, according to people familiar with his contacts with the CIA.

Cheney's visits perked up agency analysts who often worked anonymously, said one former official. Many reportedly enjoyed the challenge of a smart questioner and appreciated his interest. But Cheney's visits and his clinging to certain views became noticeable and drew expressions of concern, according to the former official.

Cheney, CIA Long At Odds

Rest assured Seeker, the CIA was specifically told what to come up with by Cheney. Then when Cheney's cooked-up CIA evidence is proven faulty he gets to blame it on the CIA? Typical political double speak.

Cheney: Does Iraq have WMD's?

CIA: No

Cheney: Does Iraq have WMD's?

CIA: No!

Cheney: Does Iraq have WMD's?

CIA: No!!

Cheney: Let me rephrased that, does Iraq HAVE WMD's?

CIA: No!!!

Cheney: We know they do and if you cant even provide evidence that supports this view then what good are you? We are going to invade Iraq regardless and when we find the WMD's we will use it as proof positive that the CIA is useless. We'll cut funding severely and destroy the Agency. Now I'll ask you again, does Iraq HAVE WMD's?

CIA: Yes Mr. Vice-President

[edit on 28/10/05 by subz]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Yeah, perhaps, but then again, maybe it is all semantics, eh, subz.
You provide what you will, as will I.
According to the the US Senate Intelligence Committee 511 page report that reviewed all of this, including that which you refer to, it was the CIA's prewar estimates of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were overstated and unsupported by intelligence.

CIA: Opppss.



seekerof

[edit on 28-10-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Subz don't forget that other agencies within the U.S. as well as other governments were providing intelligence to the administration via the White House, not via the CIA--most notably the Israeli's and the Soviets. The Soviets have corroborated that they were doing so, other countries have not seen fit to publicize their provision of intelligence (which is usually the case); however, the White House did have access to information the CIA did not have. It doesn't surprise me that Cheney was continually looking for corroborative information from the CIA, or that he might have disagreed with some of their analyses of what they did have.

In spite of the above though, like you, I don't recall the administration poo-pooing info that fit their opinions.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Seeker, im not saying the evidence provided by the CIA wasnt faulty. What I am saying is that the faulty evidence provided by the CIA was created by Cheney's frequent visits and insistance that the CIA come up with evidence that made a case for invasion. The CIA was forced into providing faulty intelligence by Cheney.

So who's to blame?


Originally posted by Astronomer68
Subz don't forget that other agencies within the U.S. as well as other governments were providing intelligence to the administration via the White House, not via the CIA--most notably the Israeli's and the Soviets.

Good point apart from calling them Soviets
. I think you'll find the Russians and the Israelis provided the Americans with the best kind of lies: ones that you know people want to believe.

The Russians gave evidence to the Americans that they knew they wanted and they gave it because they knew an American war in Iraq would weaken the United States.

The Israelis gave evidence to the Americans that they knew they wanted because the Israelis saw a chance to get the Americans to remove their biggest threat: Iraq. They also knew it would drag the United States into a wider confrontation with muslims. It would mean the Israelis could use the United States as the biggest cats-paw in history to destroy their enemies.

[edit on 28/10/05 by subz]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   
CIA was "forced" by Cheney?
Really?
Lets be serious here, k?
Is there anyone within the CIA with a backbone, or better yet, a pair of tennis balls?
Is there anyne within the CIA that could have stood up and said that they could not find such evidences?
Does or did Cheney have the power to fire everyone within the CIA if such evidences were not found?

This garbage reads like the Nuremberg trials, where every Tom, Dick, and Harry is pointing fingers at who is to blame, all the while failing to blame themselves. Point your finger. Look at your hand when you do so. How many fingers are pointing back at you? Three?

The point here is that I am not buying that crap of Cheney bending over the CIA and making them provide faulty evidences for starting a war. If Cheney had done such, do you not think that the US Senate Intelligence Committee would not have cited such? And if the CIA was bentover and made to do such, then all those within the CIA lacking those tennis balls need to be canned and canned hard. There should have been no problem finding or producing the evidences to go to war with Iraq. I mean geez, the previous administration spent 6 of those 8 years bombing Iraq and citing through doumentation that Saddam indeed did have WMDs and programs thereof.





seekerof

[edit on 28-10-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   
From your link Seeker:


Critics of the war had expressed concerned about visits to the CIA by Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials, but the report said it found no evidence that policymakers asked inappropriate questions of analysts or tried to pressure them into changing their views.

Some GOP lawmakers on the panel successfully blocked Democratic efforts to finish the second part of the report -- how the Bush administration used the information from the intelligence community -- until after the November elections.

Report slams CIA for Iraq Intelligence

Wow
, a report by Republicans found the CIA guilty of providing faulty intelligence whilst exhonorating their Vice President? I am shocked, nay flabberghasted!

Im interested though, why did the GOP sucessfully block efforts to finish the report? Could it of actually ended up showing that Cheney and Rumsfeld were pressuring the CIA into giving this faulty intelligence. Three cheers for the GOP investigating itself!

[edit on 28/10/05 by subz]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   
That is certainly a credible theory and I don't have any information to refute it; however, it is just a theory without solid evidence to back it up.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
CIA was "forced" by Cheney?
Really?
Lets be serious here, k?
Is there anyone within the CIA with a backbone, or better yet, a pair of tennis balls?
Is there anyne within the CIA that could have stood up and said that they could not find such evidences?

Yeah there was except they've been publically outed or sacked, remember?



Originally posted by Seekerof
Does or did Cheney have the power to fire everyone within the CIA if such evidences were not found?

Just those who spoke out. From memory the CIA is a pretty secretive organisation that doesnt usually release press releases of their internal conflicts and intelligence gathering problems.

Also you seem pretty dismissive of the White House's power over the CIA. Do you forget how the Patriot Act changed how the intelligence business was run in the US? Not to mention the fact that the White House is more than willing to publically name covert CIA operatives. I wonder if that was the primary threat the White House used to coerce the CIA: we will publically out any one who doesnt play ball.


Originally posted by Seekerof
This garbage reads like the Nuremberg trials, where every Tom, Dick, and Harry is pointing fingers at who is to blame, all the while failing to blame themselves. Point your finger. Look at your hand when you do so. How many fingers are pointing back at you? Three?

Youre blaming me?


Originally posted by Seekerof
The point here is that I am not buying that crap of Cheney bending over the CIA and making them provide faulty evidences for starting a war.

No, why would you? There's only ample evidence proving it. But hey, pull a Cheney, believe what you want to believe and ignore the conflicting evidence.


Originally posted by Seekerof
If Cheney had done such, do you not think that the US Senate Intelligence Committee would not have cited such?

A committe with a GOP majority? Yeah Im sure they'd be willing to bring down their own White House...


Originally posted by Seekerof
And if the CIA was bentover and made to do such, then all those within the CIA lacking those tennis balls need to be canned and canned hard.

Probably or you could reduce the White House's power over them. Maybe make it illegal for the Vice President to fly to Langley and question the analysts?


Originally posted by Seekerof
There should have been no find the evidences to go to war with Iraq. I mean geez, the previous administration spent 6 of those 8 years bombing Iraq and citing through doumentation that Saddam indeed did have WMDs and programs thereof.

So? You want to blame Clinton? I dont give a rats-ass. There is plenty of evidence that shows the White House was forming intelligence around policy. Should I find you a copy of the Downing Street Memo? Or is that a fake and a lie as well? Talk about head firmly in the sand!

[edit on 28/10/05 by subz]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Wow
, a report by Republicans found the CIA guilty of the providing faulty intelligence whilst exhonorating their Vice President? I am shocked, nay flabberghasted!


Dude, you really need to get a research grip before you go making unfounded assertions.
"A report by Republicans"?
Really?
Let me guess, because there are three more Republicans than Democrats on the Committee, it makes the report "a Republican report"?
Maybe it is because it has something to do with the Republican majority in Senate (55) over the Democrats (44)?

Here is a link to the Senate Intelligence Committee membership.
Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Link to the report on the CIA:
Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq

:shk:





seekerof

[edit on 28-10-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Those links prove your point how exactly Seeker?

Nice try at changing the topic from what you've actually said, to what you think I dont know.

Again, from YOUR LINK:


Some GOP lawmakers on the panel successfully blocked Democratic efforts to finish the second part of the report -- how the Bush administration used the information from the intelligence community -- until after the November elections.

How did they "sucessfully block Democratic efforts to finish the second part of the report" when they dont have any power to sway the committee? You've either provided us with a false link or your deliberately misleading us into thinking that report on the CIA's evidence was bipartisan and accurate.

[edit on 29/10/05 by subz]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   
They prove the point that I was refutting, your rats-ass unfounded assertion stating that the US Senate Intelligence Committee's 511 page report was "a Republican report."

Proven wrong once, you can certainly be proven wrong again. Bet.
Nuff' said.





seekerof



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
They prove the point that I was refutting, your rats-ass unfounded assertion stating that the US Senate Intelligence Committee's 511 page report was "a Republican report."


Explain this then:


Some GOP lawmakers on the panel successfully blocked Democratic efforts to finish the second part of the report -- how the Bush administration used the information from the intelligence community -- until after the November elections.


EXPLAIN IT

[edit on 29/10/05 by subz]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Subz let's talk about the Downing Street memo for a moment. From a reading of that memo it appears the U.S. was bending intelligence to fit policy decisions. But don't for a minute think that either the U.S. or the U.K. share all their intelligence with one another. We do share most of it and at the same time we spy on one another because we both know that everything is not being shared and that it cannot be. Often both countries receive intelligence information that is not for attribution or distribution--not to anybody. We honor our committments to such sources simply because they tend to be extremely valuable sources that would evaporate if it ever got out that we told anyone where we got it. It is not unreasonable to think such was the case here. On the surface the memo looks damming, but if we knew all the facts it might not be so.

I'm not trying to refute the memo, I'm just saying we must take such things with a grain of salt. BTW, not to infringe on your discussion with Seekerof, I never bothered to look at the report you guys are discussing. What did the report say about the use of intelligence when it did finally get finished?

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   
That might be a valid explaination Astronomer if there wasnt evidence that shows the information was infact faulty and that Cheney has been shown to of not taken "no" for answer when the CIA gave evidence he didnt like.

[edit on 29/10/05 by subz]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I'm not trying to refute the memo, I'm just saying we must take such things with a grain of salt.


Here is what little ole' Wiki has to say concerning the Downing Street Memo:


Criticism of the Memo

Robin Niblett, a member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, says it would be easy for Americans to misunderstand the reference to intelligence being "fixed around" Iraq policy. " 'Fixed around' in British English means 'bolted on' rather than altered to fit the policy," he says. This view was seconded by the writer Christopher Hitchens. Others have dismissed this criticism, saying the British useage of the term is the same as in the U.S., and that the meaning of "fixed around" in the memo is clear from context. ([48])

It has also been pointed by many observers that in the same exact memo, the mention of the possible use of WMD is discussed:

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

Critics argue, this contradicts the purported “smoking gun” of the issue of WMDs being fabricated.

While the authenticity is generally regarded sound, recent events such as “RatherGate” added additional skepticism on the validity of the memo. Jim Cox, USA Today’s senior assignment editor for foreign news commented: "We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source, There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing."

Criticism of the Memo






seekerof

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Dodging my question Seeker? Surely not

And just for the record, as a native Englishman, "fixed around" means bloody fixed around, not "bolted on". We English dont suffer from a lack of adjectives in our language. If Jack Straw felt he needed to state the obvious and tell Blair that the Americans were bolting policy onto intelligence he would of used an appropriate expression.

That criticism is hogwash and probably why you had to go to Wikipedia to get it.

[edit on 29/10/05 by subz]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Your questions have been answered enough to suit my tastes.
If your attempt is to incite me or bait me, better read up or refresh yourself on those Terms and Conditions of this site there, mate.





seekerof



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Baiting (aka asking) you to answer a question is against the T&C?

You seem content on telling me that I am delusional in thinking the report you originally mentioned isnt a bipartisan report. Yet when I gave you evidence that shows the Republican's swayed the Committee into ommitting key facts you shy away from the whole topic. Nice moves.

p.s. Weekend away - Bye


[edit on 29/10/05 by subz]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Out of curiosity Subz, how do we know Cheney would not take "no" for an answer? If our only source is the CIA, that response would fit in quite nicely with my little conspiracy theory.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join