billvon 3,058 #201 September 23, 2004 >Well the anthrax was of a type used in US labs.....So....Kinda alomst rules out AQ... ??? The chemical weapons and germ cultures we accused Iraq of having (and some accused of offering to Al Qaeda) were from US labs! Where do you think he got them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #202 September 23, 2004 QuoteWe had credible info that he did not have WMD's; we also had credible info that he did. He chose to believe the pro-WMD people because that intelligence supported a course of action he wished to pursue. Ya think just maybe the intel pointed in that direction? Or do you have a secret clearance, that let you see the data yourself, you need to tell us about?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #203 September 23, 2004 Quote??? The chemical weapons and germ cultures we accused Iraq of having (and some accused of offering to Al Qaeda) were from US labs! Where do you think he got them? Anthrax has a life span...So you would be hard pressed to make the claim that it was the same batch."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,058 #204 September 23, 2004 >Ya think just maybe the intel pointed in that direction? Nope! >Or do you have a secret clearance, that let you see the data yourself, you >need to tell us about? Read Bob Woodward's book ("Bush at War"). It contains a great deal of the planning that went into the decision to start the Iraq war. He was a favorite of the Bush administration and was given very good access to the major players. Also, if you doubt that the Iraq war was done for reasons other than WMD's, read Pollack's book. It outlines the reasons that they sorely needed an excuse to invade Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #205 September 23, 2004 QuoteWell the anthrax was of a type used in US labs.....So....Kinda alomst rules out AQ... What kind of sense does that make? What do you think would be easier, obtaining it locally or smuggling it into the country? I don't recall the planes on 9/11 being Afghani or Saudi air liners. So I guess it wasn't AQ You seem to be using the same kind of logic that produced the faulty intelligence about Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #206 September 23, 2004 Quote>Ya think just maybe the intel pointed in that direction? Nope! see you would rather hold to your thougths no matter what...so whats the point in talking to you? QuoteRead Bob Woodward's book ("Bush at War"). It contains a great deal of the planning that went into the decision to start the Iraq war. He was a favorite of the Bush administration and was given very good access to the major players. Also, if you doubt that the Iraq war was done for reasons other than WMD's, read Pollack's book. It outlines the reasons that they sorely needed an excuse to invade Iraq. Does Woodward have a secret clearance? Keep guessing Bill."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,058 #207 September 23, 2004 >Anthrax has a life span.. Spores last many years; cultures have an indefinite life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,058 #208 September 23, 2004 >so whats the point in talking to you? Oh, I suspect you'll keep answering my posts for as long as I answer yours. >Does Woodward have a secret clearance? The old "if you knew all the secrets you'd just shut up and thank god wise men were keeping you safe from all the secret harm out there!" argument. Well, that can go both ways. How do you know that Bush didn't have agents in Iraq who knew the truth? Why is it easier to assume that this secret information, the best intelligence our country can provide, was completely wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #209 September 23, 2004 Quote>Anthrax has a life span.. Spores last many years; cultures have an indefinite life. Which means if it was from pre 91 that someon had to process it...Again we gave it to Iraq...So... Well never mind no point in pointing out stuff to you taht does not fitinto your thoughts....Kinda exactly what you claim Bush did... Now thats funny."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #210 September 23, 2004 Quote the end product, and (mistakenly) refer to it as Intel From the glossary of FM 34-130 Quote Analysis - A stage in the intelligence cycle in which information is subjected to review in order to identify significant facts and derive conclusions therefrom. Intelligence - The product resulting from the collection, processing, integration, analysis, evaluation and interpretation of available information concerning foreign countries or areas. Intel is the product used to make decisions... Analysis is a step in the process of producing Intel... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,514 #211 September 23, 2004 But if there is more than one information bit conveyed to the recipient (e.g. the President, or the Secretary of Defense), then they will also have to analyze that intel. Unless they should just believe the first piece that comes, act on it, and ignore anything subsequent. Then it's a race to see who gets the information there first. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #212 September 23, 2004 QuoteQuote the end product, and (mistakenly) refer to it as Intel From the glossary of FM 34-130 Quote Analysis - A stage in the intelligence cycle in which information is subjected to review in order to identify significant facts and derive conclusions therefrom. Intelligence - The product resulting from the collection, processing, integration, analysis, evaluation and interpretation of available information concerning foreign countries or areas. Intel is the product used to make decisions... Analysis is a step in the process of producing Intel... J damn gonna make me break out the recommended revisions arent you... we've been trying to fix that for a while....The military is a bit behind in a number of things...I'm sure you'll recall the lengthy process in getting doctrine changed when it isnt politically motivated... ps. which FM does the CIA use? a significant part of the problem is all services need to be using the same terms in the same manner across the board... and they arent... however your right in that reguard FM 34-130 defines the terms that way, and in the opinions of many still active in the intel world incorrectly. what is described therein is a fixed inflexible process, something we've moved away from in the last 5 years..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #213 September 23, 2004 Quotethen they will also have to analyze that intel. Don't you mean anyalyze the information? But to answer the question, yes all of the avaialble data needs to be evaluated, not just the info that supports one side or the other... that is the job of the intelligence community (CIA, DIA, etc.)... I have stated before that the head of the Intel community, the DCI, should be apolitical, that is not serving at the pleasure of the President... Partisan politics have no place in intelligence. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #214 September 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteHow do you know the UN was keeping him to busy to develop WMD’s? Because there aren't any. That's an easy statement to make NOW, post war. How much would you have wagered on it before March 2003? In March of 2003 I didn't want them to invade. I wasn't impressed with Powell's speech and there was more noise about their being no weapons than there were about the fact that he did have them. I used to say back then, oh geez...well, now that we are in there we better find those WMDs, but I don't think we will. I also said that there would be an uprising from the people and that was a conclusion I made with my limited understanding and study of the middle east. Now, if I was able to come to that coclusion, you think that GW with his IVY education should have come to that as well? Yes, I would have bet that they never would have found WMDs. That is not a bet I would make with Iran or N Korea right now._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #215 September 23, 2004 Quote Can't admit that you were wrong? Many of us have been saying the same thing for the last 20 months. Unlike the Bush administration which has changed its rationale for the war a dozen times already. Here are the words from your posting: "The "evidence" so far presented on which you place your belief that everyone "knows" about WMDs, etc. would not be strong enough to convict a shoplifter in a US courtroom (except maybe in Illinois where we routinely sentence innocent people to death), but you are prepared to go to war on the strength of it?" Innocent beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard of care one uses in foreign relations, esp when you're the one carrying the big stick and the target. Iraq had proved that it would continue to be a thorn in the face of anything short of war. I'm not going to go back and read everyone's posting - you supplied this particular one to me, and it says nothing to prove that Iraq was not packing heat. Had you instead wished to argue that no nation would ever dare to use such weapons against a nation like the US or Israel, you might have more of a case. But again I'd point you to my first paragraph - superpowers don't have to and don't tend to take chances on the goodwill of others. Esp when the other had in fact used such weapons on its own people and a neighboring country in the last 20 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,099 #216 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuote Can't admit that you were wrong? Many of us have been saying the same thing for the last 20 months. Unlike the Bush administration which has changed its rationale for the war a dozen times already. Here are the words from your posting: "The "evidence" so far presented on which you place your belief that everyone "knows" about WMDs, etc. would not be strong enough to convict a shoplifter in a US courtroom (except maybe in Illinois where we routinely sentence innocent people to death), but you are prepared to go to war on the strength of it?" Innocent beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard of care one uses in foreign relations, esp when you're the one carrying the big stick and the target. Iraq had proved that it would continue to be a thorn in the face of anything short of war. I'm not going to go back and read everyone's posting - you supplied this particular one to me, and it says nothing to prove that Iraq was not packing heat. Had you instead wished to argue that no nation would ever dare to use such weapons against a nation like the US or Israel, you might have more of a case. But again I'd point you to my first paragraph - superpowers don't have to and don't tend to take chances on the goodwill of others. Esp when the other had in fact used such weapons on its own people and a neighboring country in the last 20 years. Read the entire thread, it's quite illuminating and serves to remind us who was saying the evidence for WMDs was overwhelming (the same people now backpedaling like crazy). On the whole I think that you should be damn sure of your information before invading a sovereign nation and getting 1000+ of your countrymen killed. But that's just me.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #217 September 24, 2004 QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the end product, and (mistakenly) refer to it as Intel -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the glossary of FM 34-130 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Analysis - A stage in the intelligence cycle in which information is subjected to review in order to identify significant facts and derive conclusions therefrom. Intelligence - The product resulting from the collection, processing, integration, analysis, evaluation and interpretation of available information concerning foreign countries or areas. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel is the product used to make decisions... Analysis is a step in the process of producing Intel... Oh snap....Got him at his own game....Thats gotta smart."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,099 #218 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the end product, and (mistakenly) refer to it as Intel -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the glossary of FM 34-130 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Analysis - A stage in the intelligence cycle in which information is subjected to review in order to identify significant facts and derive conclusions therefrom. Intelligence - The product resulting from the collection, processing, integration, analysis, evaluation and interpretation of available information concerning foreign countries or areas. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel is the product used to make decisions... Analysis is a step in the process of producing Intel... Oh snap....Got him at his own game....Thats gotta smart. Big f**king deal. The administration still ignored information contrary to its prejudices and only accepted information in line with its desire to invade Iraq. Where does the buck stop? (Oh, I forgot, there is no buck any more).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #219 September 24, 2004 not at all.. its just frustrating because it emphasizes the pace at which written doctrine and documents are updated inside the Army. Some of the simple spelling and acronym fixes we (the JTF) put in for FMs 34-1, 34-3 100-103, 100-6 and particularly 34-25-1 more than five years ago still havent been applied. The Air Force is much more responsive in this regard, and the JCS manuals were published more recently so included our changes in their first editions... some of the soldier training manuals for a few of my systems were 'completed' nearly four+ years ago as well... wanna know when they came out?? April 04.. care to guess how many pages of revisions we have for them already??? Believe me its a very sore subject....there arent alot of things i get bent about...dragging ass on information that can help save soldier's lives is one of them.... what is being taught, and put into practice on the modern battlefield is far different. As are the documents for other services..fortunately.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #220 September 24, 2004 QuoteBig f**king deal. The administration still ignored information contrary to its prejudices and only accepted information in line with its desire to invade Iraq. Where does the buck stop? (Oh, I forgot, there is no buck any more). How did this involve you at all...Oh thats right it DIDN'T. you just felt like jumping in (Again) and throwing some of your old retoric around (Again). Sad John, sad."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #221 September 24, 2004 None of this changes the fact that you were wrong at your own game. Quote its just frustrating because it emphasizes the pace at which written doctrine and documents are updated inside the Army. Some of the simple spelling and acronym fixes we (the JTF) put in for FMs 34-1, 34-3 100-103, 100-6 and particularly 34-25-1 more than five years ago still havent been applied. The Air Force is much more responsive in this regard, and the JCS manuals were published more recently so included our changes in their first editions... some of the soldier training manuals for a few of my systems were 'completed' nearly four+ years ago as well... wanna know when they came out?? April 04.. care to guess how many pages of revisions we have for them already??? Believe me its a very sore subject....there arent alot of things i get bent about...dragging ass on information that can help save soldier's lives is one of them.... what is being taught, and put into practice on the modern battlefield is far different. As are the documents for other services..fortunately. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #222 September 24, 2004 what it changes is the definitions he offered are outdated and obsolete, and the manuals havent caught up yet. sometimes going 'by the book' will get you in a great deal of trouble. I prefer to trust the people who still actually work on the ground and in the sky. sucks being on the bleeding edge, but its alot more interesting.... QuoteFM 34-130 Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC, 8 July 1994. FM 34-130. ... This publication supersedes FM 34-130, 23 May 1989 5 years between revisions....10 since the last.... yea thats cutting edge...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,099 #223 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteBig f**king deal. The administration still ignored information contrary to its prejudices and only accepted information in line with its desire to invade Iraq. Where does the buck stop? (Oh, I forgot, there is no buck any more). How did this involve you at all...Oh thats right it DIDN'T. you just felt like jumping in (Again) and throwing some of your old retoric around (Again). Sad John, sad. Just bringing the discussion back to the point, since you Bushies are trying to divert attention to dictionary definitions. Sorry you don't like it, but I have the same posting privileges here as you do. The point is, Bush selectively used intel that coincided with his prejudices and ignored intel that didn't. He chose poorly. The buck stops at the top, not in the Senate.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #224 September 24, 2004 Quotewhat it changes is the definitions he offered are outdated and obsolete, and the manuals havent caught up yet. sometimes going 'by the book' will get you in a great deal of trouble. I prefer to trust the people who still actually work on the ground and in the sky. sucks being on the bleeding edge, but its alot more interesting.... I have not see you provide one bit of PROOF anything has changed. Definitions very rarely change anyway."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #225 September 24, 2004 QuoteJust bringing the discussion back to the point, since you Bushies are trying to divert attention to dictionary definitions. Sorry you don't like it, but I have the same posting privileges here as you do. Yep, but no one has to care. Quote The point is, Bush selectively used intel that coincided with his prejudices and ignored intel that didn't. He chose poorly. The buck stops at the top, not in the Senate. And you KNOW this based on your secret clearence and having looked at all the data yourself? Fact is you don't, that you have grabed on to a mindset and refuse to consider anything else. Like I said before, Sad"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
