Is W cooking the intelligence on Iran? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #1 03-17-2006, 09:40 AM

First, I am not saying that W has lied about Iran, but there is a basis for suspicion.

I have no idea who Eric Brewer is. He has a post on www.dailykos.com, so I assume he has a low opinion of Bush. Even so, he provides some evidence that W is lying about Iran. Here's a link to his post: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/16/18737/5128 and here are the highlights:

On 2/2/06, DNI Negroponte, testifying before a Senate committee, said: "Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti-coalition attacks by providing Shia militia with the capability to build improvised explosive devices with explosively formed projectiles similar to those developed by Iran and Lebanese Hizballah."

On 3/13/06 Bush repeated Negroponte's claim.

At a DoD briefing on 3/14/06, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Pace was asked: "Do you have proof that they are, indeed, behind this, the government of Iran?" Gen. Pace replied, "I do not, sir." Immediately afterward, Secretary Rumsfeld also failed to endorse the accusation, saying:

"As to equipment, unless you physically see it coming in -- in a government-sponsored vehicle, or with government-sponsored troops, you can't know it. All you know is that you find equipment -- weapons, explosives, whatever -- in a country that came from the neighboring country. With respect to people, it's very difficult to tie a thread precisely to the government of Iran."

How can Negroponte's and W's statements be reconciled with Pace's and Rumsfeld's?

It's like deja vu all over again.

boneheaddoctor · #2 03-17-2006, 09:53 AM

And the motivations behind this are what?

Honus · #3 03-17-2006, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

And the motivations behind this are what?

Whose motivations?

boneheaddoctor · #4 03-17-2006, 10:01 AM

You made the claims.....either yours or what you claim are cooked alligations.

Funny if it was me posting these I would get banned for political rants again. Nothing Personal.

Honus · #5 03-17-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

You made the claims.....either yours or what you claim are cooked alligations...

I just wanted to know whether you were asking about my motivations for posting this issue or about what I thought W’s motivations might have been for lying.

My motivation is to find out whether the President is being straight with us. I have no idea what W’s motivations might be for saying what he says. I hope he is saying these things because he believes them to be true.

boneheaddoctor · #6 03-17-2006, 10:47 AM

OK...just be be clear...I like you even though we may disagree here....after all I've met you and been to your place before, and would by you a beer any time you are in my area....and oh...still stripping that car I got off you, haven't finished that yet. (yeah I need to get on that a bit more agressively)

My comments are more general towards the group in nature in that likely 1/2 of the threads here (rough guess) are political rants bashing Bush...yet I keep getting accused of rants by those same people....

dlssmith · #7 03-17-2006, 12:28 PM

dculkin - don't try to get out of the question of whether your post is an accusation or not. At the bottom you stated: [It's like deja vu all over again]

1. We should be grateful that Rumsfield and the President have different takes on a situation or disagree on things.

2. Don't try to sugar coat Iran's influence in Iraq. It is well known. If it isn't one type of weapon, then it's another.

3. It is well known that the US actions in Iraq are favorably viewed by a majority of Iranians, but not the Iranian government, and that the US is expected by Iranians under the age of 25 (around 40% of the population) to support regime change there.

Botnst · #8 03-17-2006, 01:47 PM

First, let's look at an organizational chart.

Q. Who works for Gen Pace and whom does Pace work for?

Q. Who works for Negroponte and whom does Negroponte report to?

The answer is that they work in two different chains of command.

Do all command structures within government have the same rules governing the type of information that can be discussed and the way it can be discussed?

The answer is no.

Thus, there is ample opportunity for people to be talking from two distinct data sources and following distinct rules for public disclosure.

But put all that aside and lets talk from a basis of suspicion bordering on paranoia.

If Bush is laying the groundwork for some sort of military action in Iran, wouldn't we suppose that Negroponte and Pace would be involved? If not, how in heck could Bush expect to pull off an invasion without discussing it with either Pace or Negroponte?

Okay, so the conspiracy doesn't involve Pace but it does involve Negroponte. How is Bush going to involve the military in operations without informing the military of the plan?

I'm sorry. This isn't evidence of conspiracy. This is more evidence that the military and intelligence community don't converse with each other in a clear and precise language . This is not new.

Recall that the 9/11 Commission Report mentioned communication between Intel, LE and DoD was terrible. This is more of the same and it isn't new. The feud has been underway since Eisenhower's administration. It has been in place over 50 years and it will take more than 6 years to assemble a new relationship.

Bot

Honus · #9 03-17-2006, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlssmith

dculkin - don't try to get out of the question of whether your post is an accusation or not. At the bottom you stated: [It's like deja vu all over again]

Good grief, it's a Yogi Berra quote. Don't read so much into it. Plus I said "It's like deja vu all other again" not "It is deja vu all over again." Geez.

Quote:

1. We should be grateful that Rumsfield and the President have different takes on a situation or disagree on things.

Agreed. But when they disagree on the facts, isn't it appropriate to ask why?

Quote:

2. Don't try to sugar coat Iran's influence in Iraq. It is well known. If it isn't one type of weapon, then it's another.

I believe that is true, but the President needs to be accurate about what he says. And maybe he was.

Quote:

3. It is well known that the US actions in Iraq are favorably viewed by a majority of Iranians, but not the Iranian government, and that the US is expected by Iranians under the age of 25 (around 40% of the population) to support regime change there.

Sounds reasonable.

Honus · #10 03-17-2006, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

OK...just be be clear...I like you even though we may disagree here....after all I've met you and been to your place before, and would by you a beer any time you are in my area....and oh...still stripping that car I got off you, haven't finished that yet. (yeah I need to get on that a bit more agressively)

My comments are more general towards the group in nature in that likely 1/2 of the threads here (rough guess) are political rants bashing Bush...yet I keep getting accused of rants by those same people....

10/4 on that.

Honus · #11 03-17-2006, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

First, let's look at an organizational chart.

Q. Who works for Gen Pace and whom does Pace work for?

Q. Who works for Negroponte and whom does Negroponte report to?

The answer is that they work in two different chains of command.

Do all command structures within government have the same rules governing the type of information that can be discussed and the way it can be discussed?

The answer is no.

Thus, there is ample opportunity for people to be talking from two distinct data sources and following distinct rules for public disclosure.

But put all that aside and lets talk from a basis of suspicion bordering on paranoia.

If Bush is laying the groundwork for some sort of military action in Iran, wouldn't we suppose that Negroponte and Pace would be involved? If not, how in heck could Bush expect to pull off an invasion without discussing it with either Pace or Negroponte?

Okay, so the conspiracy doesn't involve Pace but it does involve Negroponte. How is Bush going to involve the military in operations without informing the military of the plan?

I'm sorry. This isn't evidence of conspiracy. This is more evidence that the military and intelligence community don't converse with each other in a clear and precise language . This is not new.

Recall that the 9/11 Commission Report mentioned communication between Intel, LE and DoD was terrible. This is more of the same and it isn't new. The feud has been underway since Eisenhower's administration. It has been in place over 50 years and it will take more than 6 years to assemble a new relationship.

Bot

Thank you for not making one of those tinfoil hat comments. I hate those.

I doubt that W is planning to invade Iran, but I also doubted early reports that he wanted to invade Iraq, so don't go by me.

I'm just asking questions, but I think they are good questions. Don't you agree?

NKowi · #12 03-17-2006, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

First, let's look at an organizational chart.

Q. Who works for Gen Pace and whom does Pace work for?

Q. Who works for Negroponte and whom does Negroponte report to?

The answer is that they work in two different chains of command.

Do all command structures within government have the same rules governing the type of information that can be discussed and the way it can be discussed?

The answer is no.

Thus, there is ample opportunity for people to be talking from two distinct data sources and following distinct rules for public disclosure.

But put all that aside and lets talk from a basis of suspicion bordering on paranoia.

If Bush is laying the groundwork for some sort of military action in Iran, wouldn't we suppose that Negroponte and Pace would be involved? If not, how in heck could Bush expect to pull off an invasion without discussing it with either Pace or Negroponte?

Okay, so the conspiracy doesn't involve Pace but it does involve Negroponte. How is Bush going to involve the military in operations without informing the military of the plan?

I'm sorry. This isn't evidence of conspiracy. This is more evidence that the military and intelligence community don't converse with each other in a clear and precise language . This is not new.

Recall that the 9/11 Commission Report mentioned communication between Intel, LE and DoD was terrible. This is more of the same and it isn't new. The feud has been underway since Eisenhower's administration. It has been in place over 50 years and it will take more than 6 years to assemble a new relationship.

Bot

As we should have come to expect from him, Bot has addressed this from a rather level-headed and plausible position. That said, it is clear by now, to any open-minded truth-seeker, that this administration and its members have shown a capacity and a willingness to engage in the type of behavior that prompted this thread. One would have to be quite naive or, more likely, self-blinded to dismiss the very notion that the administration might be manipulating intelligence and information as it pertains to Iran. I want to believe they're not "cooking" things, but they've done nothing to have earned the benefit of the doubt.

Botnst · #13 03-17-2006, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NKowi

As we should have come to expect from him, Bot has addressed this from a rather level-headed and plausible position. That said, it is clear by now, to any open-minded truth-seeker, that this administration and its members have shown a capacity and a willingness to engage in the type of behavior that prompted this thread. One would have to be quite naive or, more likely, self-blinded to dismiss the very notion that the administration might be manipulating intelligence and information as it pertains to Iran. I want to believe they're not "cooking" things, but they've done nothing to have earned the benefit of the doubt.

Flesh-out the conspiracy for me in which this conflicting testimony makes sense.

The silliest thing is that the USA doesn't have to make anything up. The UN and EU have been doing that for several years. All the USA has done in that time is stir-up the coals every few months. Why fabricate evidence about some artillery shells?

You guys are so intent on one line of thought that you assemble evidence to fit it. Try another approach. Look at evidence and see where it leads you.

Bot

NKowi · #14 03-17-2006, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Flesh-out the conspiracy for me in which this conflicting testimony makes sense.

The silliest thing is that the USA doesn't have to make anything up. The UN and EU have been doing that for several years. All the USA has done in that time is stir-up the coals every few months. Why fabricate evidence about some artillery shells?

You guys are so intent on one line of thought that you assemble evidence to fit it. Try another approach. Look at evidence and see where it leads you.

Bot

Flesh out where I indicated there's a conspiracy here. All I did was note that the administration has clearly proven its willingness and ability - ham-handed though it may be - to employ such a strategy.

Honus · #15 03-17-2006, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Flesh-out the conspiracy for me in which this conflicting testimony makes sense.

Can't help you there. I don't see any conspiracy. I don't even see what my comment has to do with conspiracies.

Quote:

The silliest thing is that the USA doesn't have to make anything up. The UN and EU have been doing that for several years. All the USA has done in that time is stir-up the coals every few months. Why fabricate evidence about some artillery shells?

I have no idea. I'm just asking why Negroponte and W said one thing and then Pace and Rumsfeld said another. Pretty simple.

Quote:

You guys are so intent on one line of thought that you assemble evidence to fit it. Try another approach. Look at evidence and see where it leads you.

You guys? You're the only one talking about conspiracies here.