Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Worldnetdaily admits Bush is a Liar

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:25 AM
Original message
Worldnetdaily admits Bush is a Liar
This site is Freeperville and they are not happy over there on the board. The writer is the Washington Bureau Chief to boot. Wonder how he got his hands on the 'secret' documents? CIA no doubt.

Yes, Bush lied

Posted: October 6, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


2003 WorldNetDaily.com


WASHINGTON A year ago, on Oct. 1, one of the most important documents in U.S. history was published and couriered over to the White House.

The 90-page, top-secret report, drafted by the National Intelligence Council at Langley, included an executive summary for President Bush known as the "key judgments." It summed up the findings of the U.S. intelligence community regarding the threat posed by Iraq, findings the president says formed the foundation for his decision to preemptively invade Iraq without provocation. The report "was good, sound intelligence," Bush has remarked.

Most of it deals with alleged weapons of mass destruction.

SNIP


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_I...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. Wow!! Holy Cow!!
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 08:35 AM by JNelson6563
This has got to have them wetting themselves!! This is a big leak!! Oh I just knew they shouldn't've poked the spooks in the eye like that!! Poppy must be in a panic. He more than most knows what this means.

Finally! Vindication!!

On a fun aside, hahaha!! Notice how they offer Freepr books for a buck a piece!! hahahaha!!!!! Gee they don't pump up book sales by buying bulk or anything do they?? hahaha!! I love it when they let their slips show!

Julie

On eidt: I wonder if the Freepers have seen this yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. I found the article on the freeper board
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 08:47 AM by dutchdemocrat
Here is one on Bush lies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/996535/posts

And here is another thread written by a conservative nicely titled "Arnold's corruption of Republican Party" which is pulling their underwear out of their pants.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/996046/posts

They are having a bad day over there. Poor little freepies. I love it when they can't take down a thread because it comes from one of their own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phillybri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. This is going to every Repug I know...
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khephra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. I've already sent it out to a few people myself
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
61. Great
Get the news out there!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
3. This is a big deal
If a hard-nosed conservative is willing to be this direct and honest......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
5. Explosive!
I have already emailed it to my republican friends.

Keep the pressure on!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cat Atomic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
6. Jesus.
"If he 'feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime,' the report explained.

'In such circumstances,' it added, "he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States..."


Sounds to me like our fearless leaders wanted to exacerbate the problem and bring on more terrorist attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
8. I Had To Take A Double And Third Take
Yep...this is legit!

I noticed one of the writers...Mark Steynis a real "work". He's published on the weekends in the Chicago Sun-Times and makes the Chickenhawks look Chicken.

This could be a big thing if this is the conduit for another attack by the CIA on the "executive" by using an off-beat RW website to start the buzz going that could end up on the front pages by the weekend. Maybe.

I'm sure it's made it's way to Freeperville, but their so frenzied about Rush and Ahnold to bother with this...and then, they'll blame Clinton anyway.

btw...isn't this the place O'Leilly use to post his diatribes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Paul Sperry wrote it...
Paul Sperry is Washington bureau chief for WorldNetDaily.com. He is author of "Crude Politics: How Bush's Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism" (WND Books, an imprint of Thomas Nelson Publishers).

I find it odd that they would choose a guy who wrote that book to be their Washington Bureau Chief... don't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Hmmm...Yes...Very
I've heard of Sperry, but am not familiar with the work. Also any idea who Thomas Nelson is? Are they a subsidiary of a mega conglomerate?

Maybe we found that rare fringe that actually has some principles. I'm not holding my breath.

Who in the RW has an agenda against big oil? Obviously, they'd have to work further underground than the French resistance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. Heard Him Interviewed on Thom Hartmann
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 09:25 AM by mhr
a few weeks ago and he was very sincere in his criticism of Bush.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #11
30. He links to his prewar article
He was antiwar and calling Bush spin "brainwashing" on Mar 12.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kool Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
80. I just bought "Crude Politics".
I picked it up in the bookstore and just opened it randomly and started reading. 40 minutes later I bought it. I didn't know anything about the author, but I recommend it. I am amazed to learn that this guy is a conservative, because he starts his timeline back in Reagan's administration to bring us up to the present re:Afghanistan and Iraq. And it is scathing so far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
9. Refreshing. A conservative writer with a real sense of right and wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
10. This is Pretty Much What Tenet Testified
When he got in front of congress and said as much.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
13. Great balls of fire!!
Dean will eat junior up with this and so will the rest of the field.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
14. Whoa! This is the best, I was all depressed thinking about Arnold
being my Govenor tomorrow morning. Thank you DD you have made my day. I sent this off to a couple of peeps myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
15. I may have to visit Freeperville
I've not seen any exploding Freeper heads recently! :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack The Tab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #15
37. Nothing at Freeperville so far...
the sound of tumbleweeds...

Have you noticed that they post the most inane, "news of the weird" type stories instead of hard news, especially when it's critical of their Dear Leader.

I know we post the same kinds of stories, but at least we tend to keep them in the lounge or sometimes in GD, but for the most part we stick to the news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #37
54. That's one of the lst things I noticed when I trolled..
The articles were really stupid or so innocuous, like "Heavy flooding in California," - it's beyond reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
16. My big problem with this
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 09:11 AM by dutchdemocrat
My big problem with this is they have already leaked parts of this National Intelligence Estimate from 2002 on Iraq and it contradicts whatever this journalist has. What is going on here?

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

Key Judgments (from October 2002 NIE)
Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL HOLDS BACKGROUND BRIEFING ON WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ

AS RELEASED BY THE WHITE HOUSE

JULY 18, 2003

We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)

We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs.

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

SNIP

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/20...

A PDF of the parts of the report is also found at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/pdf/Iraq/declass...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. This means one of two things
Either the declassified documents released in July are false.

Or

The reporter has been duped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #18
33. He says that parts were left out of the version WH released
those parts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Also in today's WND: "Arnold is Unfit"
!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SWPAdem Donating Member (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #18
51. No, these facts were out there before the war
I wish that I had a link to post but the info that Saddam would not team up with Osama, as well as the fact that an invasion would be likely to increase terrorism were published in The Washington Post before the war started. I do not remember exactly when but I have a hard copy of the articles somewhere around here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #16
52. This is the WH spin on the NIE, not the report itself...
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #52
77. I don't understand
What is Whitehouse spin here? NIE is the report. What are you talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
17. Can't wait to see where this one goes
This is worth at least 10 more nails in the coffin, don't ya think?

I love the fact that this is coming out of a hardcore RW site. Now we know who really runs WorldNetDaily and it's not Karl Rove.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aboveitall Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
20. The Report
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. So Does This Suggest Two Reports
The real one and a fake one!

Dubya would be too dense to know the difference.

Maybe the fake one came from the Pentagon and the real one has been shown to the reporter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aboveitall Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. What's Real?

This is the official position of the CIA (not the Pentagon) as of October 2002 (the same timeframe mentioned by Mr. Sperry). What it all means...

(dutchdemocrat may be right)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. Well I emailed Paul Sperry this....
Hi Paul

There is already an NIE report out on the date as you can see by the link and it sounds nothing like what you are reading. I was wondering why you did not address that in the article. Should I assume that the one I am reading on the CIA site is false? Then that is a whole other story isn't it?

An answer would be appreciated.

Warm Regards

Richard

Key Judgments (from October 2002 NIE)
Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL HOLDS BACKGROUND BRIEFING ON WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ

AS RELEASED BY THE WHITE HOUSE

JULY 18, 2003



http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.h...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aboveitall Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. Exactly!
That's exactly what I thought I should do!!! I couldn't understand why Mr. Sperry didn't at least address the offical report as part of placing his story on context. Something doesn't square and he needs to at least attempt to address the issue. Great jump on it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. I will bookmark this in case it slides
My Title could have been better as many may not know the significance of Worldnetdaily publishing this. The real smoking gun is the fact that this information has (or not) leaked. This is impeachment material if it is true.

If and when I get a response I will post it and message it to you personally.

Maybe we should post some more snips in case people are too lazy to hit the link?

Cheerio

Dutchman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aboveitall Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #28
36. Selective Parsing
Hmmm...a closer look reveals that Mr. Sperry states that:

"The 90-page, top-secret report, drafted by the National Intelligence Council at Langley..." and that "Most of it deals with alleged weapons of mass destruction."

The offical report is 25 pages and does not deal with Terrorism. The "Key Judgements" highlighted by Mr. Sperry are terrorism bullets, not WMD bullets.

So a couple of issues. Was there a bigger top secret report of which this is only a part? Is this a "gotcha" piece regarding selective parsing of the terrorism bullets and ignoring the WMD bullets? Based upon the charter of the National Intelligence Council:

http://www.cia.gov/nic/about_page/index.htm

It doesn't seem that a strategic policy body would be publishing detailed "key judgement" bullets in an NIE... Curiouser & Curiouser. It could be that this "90-page" report is false, and Mr. Sperry was duped, or it could indeed be genuine, and the context is tightly focused around the terrorism bullets.

If the second is correct, then the correct title may be "Bush Obfuscates" as opposed to "Bush Lied." A serious matter regarding the subtle use of words (without direct falsehood) to give an impression of terrorist connection that did not exist. However as one point in the administration's whole "kitchen sink" rationale for War, it's not quite the impeachable blockbuster Mr. Sperry orients his piece as being.

All this is to say, I don't expect this story to "explode" onto the national news meme. If the CIA issued a "seperate" report regarding Iraq and Terrorism with these "key judgements" then there might be more leverage...as it stands the preponderance of the WMD stuff in the same(?) report water's down the impact...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. yes
Hmmm...a closer look reveals that Mr. Sperry states that:

"The 90-page, top-secret report, drafted by the National Intelligence Council at Langley..." and that "Most of it deals with alleged weapons of mass destruction."

The offical report is 25 pages and does not deal with Terrorism. The "Key Judgements" highlighted by Mr. Sperry are terrorism bullets, not WMD bullets.

So a couple of issues. Was there a bigger top secret report of which this is only a part? Is this a "gotcha" piece regarding selective parsing of the terrorism bullets and ignoring the WMD bullets? Based upon the charter of the National Intelligence Council:

http://www.cia.gov/nic/about_page/index.htm

It doesn't seem that a strategic policy body would be publishing detailed "key judgement" bullets in an NIE... Curiouser & Curiouser. It could be that this "90-page" report is false, and Mr. Sperry was duped, or it could indeed be genuine, and the context is tightly focused around the terrorism bullets.

-----------

I would agree about the bullets... that is odd. He may have done that himself for emphasis.

And he could have been duped. But tell me, don't you think the Washington Bureau Head of a news organization would check it out first?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aboveitall Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. Only he can answer that...
"And he could have been duped. But tell me, don't you think the Washington Bureau Head of a news organization would check it out first? "

Agreed. Which is why I'd kinda think that he might actually have something. However, if so, this is not an instance of the CIA deliberately publishing a "false" report and keeping the "real" one secret. It's a case of declassifying only those "key judgements" that support the administrations point-of-view. Not quite the blockbluster of falsification of evidence, but the standard unethical political manipulation of data...

What doesn't add up, is that Mr. Perry states that the report is 90 pages, and that most of it deals with WMD. The CIA report is 25 pages. That leaves 65 pages unaccounted for. 25 of 90 pages is not "most." The problem is, just as it is bad for the administration to selectively declassify only 25 pages that support it, it is also bad for Mr. Sperry (who indicates he's seen all 90 pages) to only selectively report on 2 pages (4 and 5). If Mr. Perry (ala Novak) is going to leak Top Secret information based upon the public's "right-to-know" then he's also obligated to share all 90 pages. His selective reporting compromises his objectivity as much as the administrations'


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. I am not sure.
He's a journalist. If he has all the goods, he won't dump them at once. He's probably leaking a little to protect his control over the material. Maybe he has another one or two editorials to milk from it.

He used enough bullets to get his point across and he did so very effectively. This is an editorial piece, not hard news - so Perry is not obligated to unveil all under the principal of objectivity.

Funny enough, he's still a Republican - so I doubt that he wants Democrats to use the gunpowder. There's another reason he did not open the floodgates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aboveitall Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #46
53. Still Problematic
Well then he shouldn't have mentioned the 90-pages or the WMD stuff, and fail to place it in context or reference the declassified report. It's obvious that folks like us would check it out. Was it his point to create confusion? He's supposed to help sort things out, not make things worse. He's supposedly got the full version of a partially declassified report. He needs to report all of it. Playing fun & games with some of the report is no better than what the administration did. He highlights threats against the "homeland" but doesn't mention if the report talks about the attack against Bush I, Kobar Towers, or any other American interests elsewhere in the world. He gives the same appearance of selectivity that the administration gives...therefore he offers no more credibility...and credibility is the number one currancy of a journalist. He may think that slowly publish bits over time will protect his journalistic edge, but so far he's just devalued his credibility.

When you go for the King, you better not miss. I want to see a full-power shot that can't be deflected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. Okay you win...! lol
I am not defending him, I am just figuring out his rationale. You are a great writer by the way. Much more refined than this old hack who cut his teeth covering Native and Inuit politics in the Arctic many years ago. I have a pretty good nose though.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aboveitall Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. Thanks
Thanks for the kind words, and you may indeed be correctly describing Mr. Sperry's motivations. I'm just the impatient sort. Kind of like Area-51. If I hear someone's gotta classified report...I wanna read it!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. I sent you a message
How did I miss that? Or did I? Weird.

The text has been altered on the site.

That was not in there before. I emailed him about (see other post). Something has been altered. I swear. Aboveitall will vouch for that. We both questioned the fact. He altered the page.... wow. Time to do a waybackmachine on this one.

This was not in there when we first read it was it?????


-----------

Does this paragraph answer your question?


What's worse, the inconvenient conclusions about Iraq and al-Qaida were withheld from the unclassified version of the secret NIE report that Bush authorized for public release the day before his Cincinnati speech, as part of the launch of the White House's campaign to sell the war. The 25-page white paper, posted on the CIA website, focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction, and conveniently left out the entire part about Saddam's reluctance to reach out to al-Qaida. Americans also didn't see the finding that Saddam had no hand in 9-11 or any other al-Qaida attack against American territory. That, too, was sanitized.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aboveitall Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. Whoa!
Yes, I can vouch dutchdemocrat. That paragraph has been inserted. Check out the reference now to the CIA site, and the mention of a 25-page report. Specifics first brought up in our discussion here!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Thanks mate
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 02:05 PM by dutchdemocrat
I thought I was dreaming. Or somehow I missed the paragraph.

He did not have the audacity to email me back after I pointed it out though. That bothers me.
He did change it!
I can't believe it!

Problem is, it contradicts so completely the 25 pages that are publically available. That disturbs me. I cannot see the two together in the same dossier. There is something wrong here. We nailed him somehow... there is a trail here.

He could be some weird plant for disinfo or something. I am a little warped on this right now.

What do you think?


ON EDIT

Welcome to DU aboveitall, it's a whole new world in here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. Aboveitall
I want to email him again. I need suggestions for questions. Short, simple concise and to-the-point. First I want to ask why he did not bother to email me back on the first question of 'why he did not mention the original report' and secondly I want to nail him with a couple of hitters.

We pushed a button here and we should see if there are any more.

Think tank time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aboveitall Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. Google news
Has the article posted on October 5th, though Worldnetdaily says the 6th. Could be a time zone delay issue however. I'm searching various system caches I can find to see if I can document article as originally posted.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #67
68.  www.freerepublic.com
We are not exonerated. It is where I found the tale in the first place.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/996535/posts

It seems we both missed it. That is strange. I am pretty intense when it comes to these kind of things but where I first found the article has the new paragraph as well.

Could we have both been blind?

hit the page and ctrl F and find

What's worse

It's there.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aboveitall Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. Pretty Amazed
I'm stupified myself, as I'd have remembered such a specific reference...unless freerepublic dynamically grabs content from the site...

Main point still stands. Where's the other 65 pages! Why are they in a report on WMD's? What are ALL the key judgements in the document? Who on the NIC produced the report, since the organization of the NIC doesn't include a specialist on terrorism as a primary position?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. It could have been reposted.
They have no function to show re-edit.
I don't know.
But on to the facts, yes you feel we need to see the whole thing and I feel the story has to be debunked or proven as the ammunition is impeachment material. This is outright lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aboveitall Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. Lying
"This is outright lying."

That's the critical test. Is the declassified report false...a lie as oppossed to a real top secret report.

Or did the administration just selectively declassify portions of a document? What's key is what Congree was given (before they voted), as they are the people's representatives. How did their classified briefings square with this 90-page report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. What leads me to worry
is that our author here works for the PNAC arm of the media and is allowed to babble with Democrat fodder. That does not make sense to me. These types are usually handled in the 'Murdochian' style and canned.

There is something acutely wrong here. I know I did not miss what was changed. I reread it at least ten times.

I don't know what the agenda is... but if Sperry actually has this evidence he has enough for impeachment, there is no way around it. The bombshells in the article prove that.

But why the worldnetdaily for the CIA to leak? Krugman at NYT would be the man - or at least a more prominent publication. It does not make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aboveitall Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. Thoughts
For the most part all we can do is speculate, which looks like much of what Mr. Sperry has done. Although we can be sure of one of two things:

1) He reads his e-mail
2) He reads DU

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

I also find it troubling in same report. It confuses the issue even for the CIA. If you follow DCI reports you notice that the CIA keeps tight focus in its reports. A 90-page report mostly about WMD's and then a few points regarding terrorism? What are they doing in there rather than a separate report regarding Iraq and terrorism. What about Salam Pak, the MEK, and the supposed terrorist camps in the North East? There's enough grist there for a seperate report, not a few offhand bullets in a WMD report.

He mentions with much fanfare page 4 and then page 5...of course not the same page 4 or page 5 in the report on the CIA website. What's the point of mentioning page 4 and then page 5, if we the public don't have the report to follow along? I think he mentions the "numbers" as a way of conveying some sort of legitimacy that he has an actual report in his hands. Now why do you feel the need to do that?

Something is very fishy here. Show me the money (or at least the 65 other pages)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. I am not sure if he reads DU
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 02:22 PM by dutchdemocrat
Those changes could have easily been made right from the questions on the email. We concocted it here but the email forced the hand.

I have done a cross check of his statements and the 25 pager and I am starting to think his may be on the ball. I have not found anything that really shows that the documents could not be from the same package.

I still wonder though. Why has he not been sacked? His work is a complete non-sequitor within the scope of his employers and that is what makes me suspicious.

Thoughts...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
priller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #26
48. Does this paragraph answer your question?
What's worse, the inconvenient conclusions about Iraq and al-Qaida were withheld from the unclassified version of the secret NIE report that Bush authorized for public release the day before his Cincinnati speech, as part of the launch of the White House's campaign to sell the war. The 25-page white paper, posted on the CIA website, focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction, and conveniently left out the entire part about Saddam's reluctance to reach out to al-Qaida. Americans also didn't see the finding that Saddam had no hand in 9-11 or any other al-Qaida attack against American territory. That, too, was sanitized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #48
56. Yes
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 12:36 PM by dutchdemocrat
How did I miss that? Or did I? Weird.

That was not in there before. I emailed him about (see other post). Something has been altered. I swear. Aboveitall will vouch for that. We both questioned the fact. He altered the page.... wow. Time to do a waybackmachine on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. No
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 01:20 PM by dutchdemocrat
I went back through my cut and paste's and this article has been altered since I sent the email. This is new material he has put int to answer my question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrBB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
22. It's easy to lose track of the most critical issue
...about these lies, and that's why the article's conclusion is so well taken. I'm NOT a pacifist--I DO think military action is needed in some situations, and as a liberal I DON'T object to it being used to prevent a humanitarian disaster or even to liberate a hideously oppressed people from a criminal ruling regime.

Just like Dean and Clark, I believe that taking out Saddam at some point was a reasonable thing to do. It's the how, when and why that are critical to me, not the thing itself, and the Flying Chimp was wrong on all three. The key, crushing objection from a non-pacifist standpoint, IMO, is that this misconceived adventure was not just irrelevant to the so-called (mis-labeled) War on Terror, it was an actual impediment to that struggle.

A point the author resolves on with great force:

Forget that Bush lied about the reasons for putting our sons and daughters in harm's way in Iraq; and forget that he sent 140,000 troops there with bull's-eyes on their backs, then dared their attackers to "bring it on."

It was the height of irresponsibility to have done so in the middle of a war on al-Qaida, the real and proven threat to America. Bush diverted those troops and other resources including intelligence assets, Arabic translators and hundreds of billions of tax dollars from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders along the Afghan-Pakistani border. And now they've regrouped and are as threatening as ever.

That's inexcusable, and Bush supporters with any intellectual honesty and concern for their own families' safety should be mad as hell about it and that's coming from someone who voted for Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Great point
He really hits hard on that one. Can you believe he voted for Bush? The writer feels totally betrayed and elucidates that point very well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nostamj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
24. wow! a conservative that notices that
BushCo is not conservative! this is a keeper and a sender...

By telling Americans that Saddam could "on any given day" slip unconventional weapons to al-Qaida if America didn't disarm him, the president misrepresented the conclusions of his own secret intelligence report, which warned that Saddam wouldn't even try to reach out to al-Qaida unless he were attacked and had nothing to lose and might even find that hard to do since he had no history of conducting joint terrorist operations with al-Qaida, and certainly none against the U.S.

If that's not lying, I don't know what is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
29. Snippet from the report - let's try and get some people over here
This information needs to be looked at and debunked or proven.

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

Most of it deals with alleged weapons of mass destruction.

But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad:



had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,

was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,

and was not a terrorist threat to America.

"We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against U.S. territory," the report stated.

However, it added, "Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qaida could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct."

Sufficiently desperate? If he "feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime," the report explained.

"In such circumstances," it added, "he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janekat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
31. Other article: EPA more concerned about commerce than people's health
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_I...
False assurances put public at risk
Watchdog: EPA more concerned about commerce than people's health
Posted: October 7, 2003

......According to a recent report by the lead agency's inspector general, information necessary to protect the public came up short because of overemphasis on the need to prevent panic and reassure the business and trade giants still officed nearby as well as the essential workers of the city's great financial markets who live or pass through the neighborhood.

-snip-

.....The EPA, the OIG report showed, opted for concern about commerce rather than people. So did the New York City Department of Health, or NYCDOH, which advised in information releases: "Based on the asbestos test results thus far, there are no significant health risks to occupants in the affected area or to the general public."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janekat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
32. Reps are P.O.'d and loking for someone else to vote for....
A lot of Republicans I know are saying "I just wish there was someone else to vote for." I tell them about Clark, Gephardt, Kerry and Dean and they sound somewhat interested. I've won one die-hard Republican over to Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janekat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
35. This guy tied into Insight / Seventh-day Adventist
What is Seventh-day Adventist? Is that some "whacko" religion or is it ok. Not sure....

"Editor's note: WorldNetDaily is pleased to have a content-sharing agreement with Insight magazine, the bold Washington publication not afraid to ruffle establishment feathers. Subscribe to Insight at WorldNetDaily's online store and save 71 percent off the cover price."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #35
39. They are sort of like
Jehovah Witnesses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #35
42. Worldnetdaily is owned by an Arab strangely enough
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 11:39 AM by dutchdemocrat
Joseph Farah

Joseph Farah, an Arab-American, is founder, editor and chief executive officer of WorldNetDaily.com, the leading independent English-language Internet newssite. He is also a weekly columnist for the International Edition of the Jerusalem Post. The former editor-in-chief of the Sacramento Union has written for the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Wall Street Journal and dozens of other publications. In 1996, he co-authored with Rep. Richard Pombo This Land Is Our Land for St. Martins Press.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #42
45. The Sun-Times link interests me...
That paper also owns the Jerusalem Post. Also, the Sun-Times employs Robert Novak (even though he's been with the paper though several ownerships)...Any dots to connect here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. Not sure....
He seems to be one the heaviest hitters from the right on the administration - perhaps that is why he got access to the full dossier, instead of Novak.

The only way he would get access is from the CIA and Novak is not too popular with them right now for leaking Wilson's wife.

This could be payback.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MISSDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #35
49. You can find out about Seventh Day Adventist at
www.adventist.org . It is a Christian religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fridays Child Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
38. He's that rare Repub who doesn't like having his leg peed on and...
...being told that it's raining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paragon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
41. Didn't Freek Republic get busted for reprinting entire articles?
Or does World Net Daily look the other way when the Freeks do this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #41
44. Don't spend too much time over there
You may need a shower soon.

There are plenty of idiots and freaks over there who have no concept... I have seen endless single posts on religion that left skid marks from the roller in my mouse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paragon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #44
50. I don't
I'm just saying...maybe someone should contact WND and let them know that Free Republic is violating the lawsuit they lost with the Washington Post and L.A. Times. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #50
60. hahahah....
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #60
69. Sperry is the guy from Seattle...
...who broke press protocol in 2000 and got into an altercation with President Clinton at a social event at the White House. Here's an account of the happening from a right wing pundit, Michelle Malkin:

Paul Sperry, Washington bureau chief of Investor's Business Daily, bravely broke the rule last week at an invitation-only White House picnic/jazz concert with reporters, their families, and President Clinton. While shaking hands, Sperry had the audacity to ask when Clinton's next formal press conference would be. Sperry also pointed out that the public still had questions about the Chinagate campaign fund-raising scandal and noted that FBI agents had just testified before Congress about Justice Department stonewalling in the probe of shady Clinton donor Charlie Trie.

Clinton went postal. Photos of the exchange between Sperry and Clinton show that the president's face turned redder than barbecued Cajun shrimp. He railed for ten minutes, jabbed a menacing finger at Sperry, cast aspersions on the FBI and Republican Party, and called the reporter's questions "accusatory." Clinton fumed that "not one person" had brought up the campaign finance debacle in his trips around the country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:35 PM
Original message
Dupe
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 02:36 PM by dutchdemocrat
Dupe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. Dupe
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 02:37 PM by dutchdemocrat
Dupe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. And now he is trying to lynch Bush?
There is something very wrong here.

I am a little suspicious he is still getting paychecks from the same people as Novak. Are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElementaryPenguin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
76. Holy shit!! BushCo getting outed on all fronts!!
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kusala Donating Member (864 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
78. ns
Why doesn't this concern apply to the Novak/Wilson case as well?


To: UncleJeff; Cindy; backhoe; piasa

The 90-page, top-secret report,

My questions:

How did the author become privy to a top secret report?

Why is the author publishing the contents of a top secret report?

Shouldn't someone be prosecuted for revealing the contents of a top secret report?


8 posted on 10/07/2003 2:39 AM PDT by Amelia

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #78
82. Good questions
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 07:08 PM by dutchdemocrat
I saw those as well.

It seems the story is just sliding away into oblivia which is also interesting. No one has really picked up on it past this point.

Maybe someone should forward it to Krugman at NYT to see if this valise can hold any water.

I am still closer to debunk at this point. Why did he get the documents? Would the CIA not chose a better leak?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
79. Part of the answer to the '2 reports' thing
is that last October the public and Congress (publicly) were shown the declassified 'summary', selected bits to support aWol. Senators had to lean on Tenet (?) to squeeze more info out, since they, particularly Graham and Levin, and seen the goods in closed hearings and knew there was selective distortion. Bob Graham finally got a letter in a few days from Tenet saying, actually admitting:

snip
These are some of the reasons why we did not include our classified judgments on Saddam's decisionmaking regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in our recent unclassified paper on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Viewing your request with those concerns in mind, however, we can declassify the following from the paragraphs you requested:

Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States.

Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means, as with Iraq's unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or CBW.

Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.

Regarding the 2 October closed hearing, we can declassify the following dialogue:

Senator Levin: . . . If (Saddam) didn't feel threatened, did not feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?

Senior Intelligence Witness: . . . My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack--let me put a time frame on it--in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low.

Senator Levin: Now if he did initiate an attack you've . . . indicated he would probably attempt clandestine attacks against us . . . But what about his use of weapons of mass destruction? If we initiate an attack and he thought he was in extremis or otherwise, what's the likelihood in response to our attack that he would use chemical or biological weapons?

Senior Intelligence Witness: Pretty high, in my view.

snip

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/10/dci100702.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. Thanks TacticalPeak
Light is coming through the fog now. This is a strange tale with one of the net's most volatile right wing publications - perhaps breaking a story that could be tantamount to Watergate, in my humble opinion.

Can you elaborate more on your personal opinion of the article? I am curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
83. Bingo we have the source
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 07:29 PM by dutchdemocrat
Go to the website. It conveniently highlights the points of contention.

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

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/nie-iraq-wmd.h...

National Intelligence Estimate:
Iraqs Continuing Programs For Weapons of Mass Destruction

{Six agencies of the US Intelligence Community (15 agencies), National Intelligence Estimate: Iraqs Continuing Programs For Weapons of Mass Destruction (October 1 2002, 90 pages), secret, authorship/responsibility unknown, these excerpts released July 18 2003 in an off-the-record White House press briefing by a senior administration official who subsequently identified himself on-the-record (July 22) as Dan Bartlett, White House Director of Communications. CJHjr}
Key Judgments

Iraqs Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction

We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)

We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraqs WMD efforts, owing to Baghdads vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraqs WMD programs.

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Iraqs growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdads capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from $580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year.

Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.

Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.

Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departedDecember 1998.

How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.

If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year. { p.2 }

Without such material from abroad, 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.

Most agencies believe that Saddams personal interest in and Iraqs aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotorsas well as Iraqs attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine toolsprovide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdads nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)

Iraqs efforts to re-establish and enhance its cadre of weapons personnel as well as activities at several suspect nuclear sites further indicate that reconstitution is underway.

All agencies agree that about 25,000 centrifuges based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire would be capable of producing approximately two weapons worth of highly enriched uranium per year.

In a much less lively scenario, Baghdad could make enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by 2005 to 2007 if it obtains suitable centrifuge tubes this year and has all the other materials and technological expertise necessary to build production-scale uranium enrichment facilities.

We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX; its capability probably is more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.

An array of clandestine reporting reveals that Baghdad has procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and equipment sufficient to allow limited CW agent production hidden within Iraqs legitimate chemical industry.

Although we have little specific information on Iraqs CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agentsmuch of it added in the last year.

The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles. We assess that that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended ranges.

We judge that all key aspectsR&D, production, and weaponizationof Iraqs offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war.

We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives. { p.3 }

Chances are even that smallpox is part of Iraqs offensive BW program.

Baghdad probably has developed genetically engineered BW agents.

Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability.

Baghdad has mobile facilities for producing bacterial and toxin BW agents; these facilities can evade detection and are highly survivable. Within three to six months * these units probably could produce an amount of agent equal to the total that Iraq produced in the years prior to the Gulf war.


* (Corrected per Errata sheet issued in October 20023)

Iraq maintains a small missile force and several development programs, including for a UAV probably intended to deliver biological warfare agent.

Gaps in Iraqi accounting to UNSCOM suggest that Saddam retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud-variant SRBMs with ranges of 650 to 900 km.

Iraq is deploying its new al-Samoud and Ababil-100 SRBMs, which are capable of flying beyond the UN-authorized 150-km range limit; Iraq has tested an al-Samoud variant beyond 150 kmperhaps as far as 300 km.

Baghdads UAVs could threaten Iraqs neighbors, US forces in the Persian Gulf, and if brought close to, or into, the United States, the US Homeland.

An Iraqi UAV procurement network attempted to procure commercially available route planning software and an associated topographic database that would be able to support targeting of the United States, according to analysis of special intelligence.

The Director, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, US Air Force, does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents. The small size of Iraqs new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability.

Iraq is developing medium-range ballistic missile capabilities, largely through foreign assistance in building specialized facilities, including a test stand for engines more powerful than those in its current missile force.

We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD.

Saddam could decide to use chemical and biological warfare (CBW) preemptively against US forces, friends, and allies in the region in an attempt to disrupt US war preparations and undermine the political will of the Coalition. { p.4 }

Saddam might use CBW after an initial advance into Iraqi territory, but early use of WMD could foreclose diplomatic options for stalling the US advance.

He probably would use CBW when he perceived he irretrievably had lost control of the military and security situation, but we are unlikely to know when Saddam reaches that point.

We judge that Saddam would be more likely to use chemical weapons than biological weapons on the battlefield.

Saddam historically has maintained tight control over the use of WMD; however, he probably has provided contingency instructions to his commanders to use CBW in specific circumstances.

Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.

Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacksmore likely with biological than chemical agentsprobably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.

The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been, directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddams regime has directed attacks against US territory.

Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'idawith worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United Statescould perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.

In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.

State/INR Alternative View of Iraqs Nuclear Program

The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon-related capabilities. The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to { p.5 } acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result, INR is unable to predict when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.

In INRs view Iraqs efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraqs nuclear weapon program.

Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate

High Confidence:

Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.

Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.

Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once if acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.

Moderate Confidence:

Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009. (See INR alternative view, page 84).

Low Confidence:

When Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction.

Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the US Homeland.

Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida. { p.6 }

______________________

{From the bottom of NIE page-24}:

Uranium Acquisition. Iraq retains approximately two-and-a-half tons of 2.5 percent enriched uranium oxide, which the IAEA permits. This low-enriched material could be used as feed material to produce enough HEU for about two nuclear weapons. The use of enriched feed material also would reduce the initial number of centrifuges that Baghdad would need by about half. Iraq could divert this materialthe IAEA inspects it only once a yearand enrich it to weapons { p.7, NIE p.25 } grade before a subsequent inspection discovered it was missing. The IAEA last inspected this material in late January 2002.

Iraq has about 550 metric tons of yellowcake 1 and low-enriched uranium at Tuwaitha, which is inspected annually by the IAEA. Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake; acquiring either would shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons.

A foreign government service {Britain?} reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure uranium (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement.

Reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources. Reports suggest Iraq is shifting from domestic mining and milling of uranium to foreign acquisition. Iraq possesses significant phosphate deposits, from which uranium had been chemically extracted before Operation Desert Storm. Intelligence information on whether nuclear-related phosphate mining and/or processing has been reestablished is inconclusive, however.


1 A refined form of natural uranium. { p.8 }

______________________

{From NIE page-84}:

Annex A

Iraqs Attempts to Acquire Aluminum Tubes

(This excerpt from a longer view includes INRs position on the African uranium issue)

INRs Alternative View:
Iraqs Attempts to Acquire Aluminum Tubes

Some of the specialized but dual-use items being sought are, by all indications, bound for Iraqs missile program. Other cases are ambiguous, such as that of a planned magnet-production line whose suitability for centrifuge operations remains unknown. Some efforts involve non-controlled industrial material and equipmentincluding a variety of machine toolsand are troubling because they would help establish the infrastructure for a renewed nuclear program. But such efforts (which began well before the inspectors departed) are not clearly linked to a nuclear end-use. Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INRs assessment, highly dubious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
84. Full details of the 'off the record' press conference here.
National Intelligence Estimate:
Iraqs Continuing Programs For Weapons of Mass Destruction

{Six agencies of the US Intelligence Community (15 agencies), National Intelligence Estimate: Iraqs Continuing Programs For Weapons of Mass Destruction (October 1 2002, 90 pages), secret, authorship/responsibility unknown, these excerpts released July 18 2003 in an off-the-record White House press briefing by a senior administration official who subsequently identified himself on-the-record (July 22) as Dan Bartlett, White House Director of Communications. CJHjr}


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/print/2...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. kick
kix
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
86. I don't know why I bother.
I thought maybe this would provide some serious reflection over there, but instead, they keep lying to themselves.

What is so hard for these people to figure out?

-Haven't they read the PNAC agenda? Iraq and the oil was their #1 target since the mid 90s.
-That didn't stop Dick Cheney from doing business with Saddam when he was CEO of Halliburton, evading a US embargo.
-They willingly discount reasoned, objective intel on Iraq in favor of covering Dimson's lie for war.
-I'm sure they have a perfectly logical explanation as to why the Republican Party is busy setting up shop in Iraq and brokering no bid contracts to Republican trough feeders.
-There is no frigging evidence that Saddam was involved with terrorism against the US, even after we set him up in DS1.
-They all claim the assassination attempt proves that they are anti-US, but if they'd read Seymour Hersch's excellent story on the attempt, they'd know that the "evidence" is far from conclusive.
-The idiots don't understand that the ME is far more destabilized precisely because we've taken the secular leader of a geographicly central country out of the equation.
-Proof that Al-Qaeda was helping Saddam comes from one astute poster....too bad he doesn't understand that was AFTER our invasion of Iraq.

It's really sad to think that these people will continue to let Dimwit get away with the criminal behaviour after other conservative outlets are beginning to wake up and understand that the crimes of this adminstration are far more serious to our long-term security than the Clinton's dalliance with an intern. People's failure to confront truth will do us in as a country; of that, I'm sure.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Nov 26th 2014, 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC