Gov't Deperately Claiming Bradley Manning Aiding al Qaeda

[Heimdalr]

Quote:

“the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country."

I'm curious if these are the same analysts who were asserting the existence of WMD in Iraqi stockpiles.

[Wendigo]

Kasumi of Vientown

You might think that Obama as president doesn't have to keep his word, but SEAL Team 6 risked their lives to get Bin Laden, and they also collected a treasure trove of information on Al Qaeda which the intelligence community could have used to strike devastating blows to that terrorist organization, and in the space of a few breaths Barrack revealed Bin Laden was dead and we had all that information, making none of it trustworthy.

You know, you might think you could fly a helicopter full of commandos into a million-dollar compound in the middle of Abbottabad, kill a bunch of people and then fly back out without alerting the organization that owned that compound to your presence.

However, thinking that would be stupid.

They knew immediately that we had penetrated that compound, and could take a wild guess what sorts of things we'd remove. They'd have operatives in Abbottabad who could communicate this sort of information on our activities to different cells. Whole reason we found that compound in the first place was we'd "made" a high-level courier, who made regular trips to it. This wasn't a spider-hole like Saddam's or Gaddafi's, full of Spam cans and porno. This was an above-ground communications hub.

So they knew we have the information. They know roughly what information that is. Either that information was inherently useless to us, which is possible, or it was no less useful to us in spite of their operatives knowing we had it. Because there are things that you can't change about your network without compromising its usefulness. Contact in Abbottabad, say, can't go into hiding in Kabul without losing some ability to interact with his Abbottabad assets.

Quote:

What Barrack Obama did was negligent and irresponsible, and if anyone else did it they would have been charged with TREASON or perhaps even ESPIONAGE.

Unlikely, although I have heard that you could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

[Ban]

Kasumi of Vientown

The people he should have acknowledged were the men and women fighting overseas, just like President George W Bush was humble enough to do.

He did acknowledge the work of the military and the intelligence community who got the intel. Maybe you stopped paying attention since his speech runs longer than Bush's?

Listen, the problem with this line of argument is that it sounds incredibly familiar to what was being said about Bush's speech. Bush did mention "his" message to Iraqis and "his" message to the American people. Specifically, he tied it into his baby, the War on Terror, which had nothing to do with the capture of Saddam Hussein. People complained about that as being self-aggrandizing.

In either case, I'm not sure you're bothering to respond to my points.

[Kasumi of Vientown]

Wendigo

Kasumi of Vientown

You might think that Obama as president doesn't have to keep his word, but SEAL Team 6 risked their lives to get Bin Laden, and they also collected a treasure trove of information on Al Qaeda which the intelligence community could have used to strike devastating blows to that terrorist organization, and in the space of a few breaths Barrack revealed Bin Laden was dead and we had all that information, making none of it trustworthy.

You know, you might think you could fly a helicopter full of commandos into a million-dollar compound in the middle of Abbottabad, kill a bunch of people and then fly back out without alerting the organization that owned that compound to your presence.

However, thinking that would be stupid.

They knew immediately that we had penetrated that compound, and could take a wild guess what sorts of things we'd remove. They'd have operatives in Abbottabad who could communicate this sort of information on our activities to different cells. Whole reason we found that compound in the first place was we'd "made" a high-level courier, who made regular trips to it. This wasn't a spider-hole like Saddam's or Gaddafi's, full of Spam cans and porno. This was an above-ground communications hub.

So they knew we have the information. They know roughly what information that is. Either that information was inherently useless to us, which is possible, or it was no less useful to us in spite of their operatives knowing we had it. Because there are things that you can't change about your network without compromising its usefulness. Contact in Abbottabad, say, can't go into hiding in Kabul without losing some ability to interact with his Abbottabad assets.

Quote:

What Barrack Obama did was negligent and irresponsible, and if anyone else did it they would have been charged with TREASON or perhaps even ESPIONAGE.

Unlikely, although I have heard that you could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

Maybe they would know eventually, but it's pretty arrogant to assume that there was nothing usable. At the very least he should have waited to reveal Bin Laden's death until the information was sorted through so that the intelligence community could decide whether of not any of the information was usable.

Example: what if Al Qeada had been planning another attack on American soil, and there was information about a terrorist cell here, and they were not in contact with the rest of Al Qeada and had no knowledge of what had happened to Bin Laden, but intelligence there revealed who and where they were.

Now imagine for a moment if they saw on the news that Bin Laden was dead and intelligence was collected, and they went into hiding as a result and were not captured. The Intelligence Community needed time to fully figure out what it had.

And when Bin Laden's death was announced, they shouldn't have released so much information about it, and Barrack Obama should have gave credit to the soldiers that actually did it, though they would be unidentified, obviously, but he shouldn't have claimed credit for their actions.

The only one that could have been credited at all, apart from the unidentified Navy SEALS, is Admiral William H. McRaven, who was apparently responsible for the mission, perhaps was instrumental in planning it, but that's not certain, he was just going to be the fall guy if the mission failed, so if Obama wanted him to be responsible if the mission failed, then shouldn't he have been responsible for the mission succeeding too?

[Kasumi of Vientown]

Ban

Kasumi of Vientown

The people he should have acknowledged were the men and women fighting overseas, just like President George W Bush was humble enough to do.

He did acknowledge the work of the military and the intelligence community who got the intel. Maybe you stopped paying attention since his speech runs longer than Bush's?

Listen, the problem with this line of argument is that it sounds incredibly familiar to what was being said about Bush's speech. Bush did mention "his" message to Iraqis and "his" message to the American people. Specifically, he tied it into his baby, the War on Terror, which had nothing to do with the capture of Saddam Hussein. People complained about that as being self-aggrandizing.

In either case, I'm not sure you're bothering to respond to my points.

In the defense of President Bush, it was the CIA and their faulty information that pushed him into entering a war with Iraq. President Bush never sought personal glory, or at least he was careful not to be obvious about it. I think he was a lot more intelligent then people gave him credit for, but the media in the end tried hard to make him look bad and blamed him for Iraq, which is misplaced blame.

Remember everything Colin Powell presented to the UN? The CIA gave a lot of evidence to President Bush, which he based his decision to enter Iraq upon, and much of that information ended up being inaccurate.

Do you hate non-liberals so much that you wont look past leftist propaganda and you'll blame George W Bush for something that happened due to CIA negligence.

It's sorta like what I've said about the media in the Trayvon Martin case, that they've made a lot of mistakes because they didn't do enough to verify their facts. The CIA ******** up big time, and apparently didn't do enough to verify their facts either.

[Ban]

Kasumi of Vientown

In the defense of President Bush, it was the CIA and their faulty information that pushed him into entering a war with Iraq.

Weren't you just accusing Obama of using Admiral McRaven as a fall guy, which appears to be complete speculation. Now you're blaming George Tenet?

Kasumi of Vientown

President Bush never sought personal glory, or at least he was careful not to be obvious about it.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Kasumi of Vientown

Remember everything Colin Powell presented to the UN? The CIA gave a lot of evidence to President Bush, which he based his decision to enter Iraq upon, and much of that information ended up being inaccurate.

I remember that the CIA also had several caveats to that intelligence. [1]

Kasumi of Vientown

Do you hate non-liberals so much that you wont look past leftist propaganda and you'll blame George W Bush for something that happened due to CIA negligence.

I expect that the leader of our country take responsibility for their command decisions, in both success and failure. I have no issue when Obama gave his self-congratulatory speech, though I was honestly a little wigged out by the whole deal. I live in D.C. People were kind of acting nuts that night. What I had an issue with when it came to Bush was blaming all the economic and security failures of his presidency on Clinton, or trying to blame terrorist attacks on Saddam.

Kasumi of Vientown

It's sorta like what I've said about the media in the Trayvon Martin case, that they've made a lot of mistakes because they didn't do enough to verify their facts. The CIA ******** up big time, and apparently didn't do enough to verify their facts either.

Christ, why am I even responding to this bullshit? I was criticizing Bush for being self-aggrandizing by tying Iraq to his War on Terror, not about the WMDs. The CIA never gave intel about Iraq being linked to Al-Qaeda. That was all Bush.

[Wendigo]

Kasumi of Vientown

Example: what if Al Qeada had been planning another attack on American soil, and there was information about a terrorist cell here, and they were not in contact with the rest of Al Qeada and had no knowledge of what had happened to Bin Laden, but intelligence there revealed who and where they were.

Erm, it is contrary to the purpose of a network of covert cells to publish a phone book for your superiors that lists all of your operatives' home addresses. Penetration at any level is only supposed to compromise the people with whom one is in direct contact. Goes for upper level management as well as lower level flunkies.

Identities, locations, and plans must, necessarily, be communicated as little as possible. To prevent exactly that situation from happenin'. This is endemic to a covert cell network - it was engineered in. The whole idea is to minimize damage from leaks, betrayals or raids.

Quote:

Now imagine for a moment if they saw on the news that Bin Laden was dead and intelligence was collected, and they went into hiding as a result and were not captured. The Intelligence Community needed time to fully figure out what it had.

Well, here's what I imagine. Somewhere, a contingency plan has been made and memorized in case there is a raid in Abbottabad and the senior leadership is killed or captured. One day, helicopters and gunmen drop from the sky and their target is obvious. Watchful sentinels scramble into action, without waiting to see the outcome. They'd contact whoever they've been told to contact in an emergency, reporting whose compound has been raided, when, and how likely he was able to get out and destroy everything important.

The phone tree would light up over the following hours - hours, not days - as contacts make known that there has been a shake-up at the bin Laden compound, all feared lost. The few VIPs with whom bin Laden would make direct contact would move their operations to more secure locations and dig in, much as bin Laden had, restricting communication to what is strictly necessary, and conducting their affairs more through intermediaries.

"Sleeper" cells in (let's say) New York would not be included in this, because it makes no nevermind to them whether bin Laden is alive or dead. As they communicate with flappers of his flappers of his flappers, on the very fringes of the organization. Nobody on their end would have a number to call to reach the "boss," nor would he have one to reach them.

Far's scrutinizing terabytes of information to find out whether any of it is useful...that's man-years of work. Might still miss the important stuff or place undue stress on the crap.

[Kasumi of Vientown]

Ban

Kasumi of Vientown

In the defense of President Bush, it was the CIA and their faulty information that pushed him into entering a war with Iraq.

Weren't you just accusing Obama of using Admiral McRaven as a fall guy, which appears to be complete speculation. Now you're blaming George Tenet?

Kasumi of Vientown

President Bush never sought personal glory, or at least he was careful not to be obvious about it.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Kasumi of Vientown

Remember everything Colin Powell presented to the UN? The CIA gave a lot of evidence to President Bush, which he based his decision to enter Iraq upon, and much of that information ended up being inaccurate.

I remember that the CIA also had several caveats to that intelligence. [1]

Kasumi of Vientown

Do you hate non-liberals so much that you wont look past leftist propaganda and you'll blame George W Bush for something that happened due to CIA negligence.

I expect that the leader of our country take responsibility for their command decisions, in both success and failure. I have no issue when Obama gave his self-congratulatory speech, though I was honestly a little wigged out by the whole deal. I live in D.C. People were kind of acting nuts that night. What I had an issue with when it came to Bush was blaming all the economic and security failures of his presidency on Clinton, or trying to blame terrorist attacks on Saddam.

Kasumi of Vientown

It's sorta like what I've said about the media in the Trayvon Martin case, that they've made a lot of mistakes because they didn't do enough to verify their facts. The CIA ******** up big time, and apparently didn't do enough to verify their facts either.

Christ, why am I even responding to this bullshit? I was criticizing Bush for being self-aggrandizing by tying Iraq to his War on Terror, not about the WMDs. The CIA never gave intel about Iraq being linked to Al-Qaeda. That was all Bush.

Well, the fact is that the case for war with Iraq was based upon evidence from the CIA. Granted, the Bush administration apparently exaggerated a bit about how imminent the threat was, but Bush's decision was still based upon the evidence that was given to him.

And I agree that there was no known link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, but in a post 9/11 world it was an understandable fear that an Iraq with WMD's might share them with terrorist organizations.

Anyway, I never mentioned George Tenet because much of this information was probably collected before he became head of the CIA, so cant blame him individually, but it seems inappropriate to blame Bush too. He might have exaggerated how soon that Iraq could be a threat, but the information did say that Iraq would eventually be a threat, and I guess he just felt it better to put the threat down before it got serious.

Quote:

While the intelligence community believed Hussein had biological agents such as anthrax, and that they could be quickly produced and weaponized for delivery by bombs, missiles or aerial sprayers, we had no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons, agents, or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal.

While the CIA 'did not believe' Saddam was an immediate threat, they weren't entirely certain, and President Bush had to consider the politics of it all. If a war was going to be necessary eventually, then is preemptive action really wrong? Besides, he didn't lie out-right because the CIA wasn't certain that Saddam didn't already have biological weapons.

As it turned out though, many of the CIA's claims went unproven. If the CIA's information was right, then Saddam got rid of all the evidence of it before the troops went in, and if the CIA was wrong, then the decision to go in was based on bad information.

Regardless of a little exaggeration on the part of the Bush Administration, the case for invading Iraq was made based upon information from the CIA, so if that information ended up being inaccurate, doesn't that make it the CIA's fault?

[Kasumi of Vientown]

Wendigo

Kasumi of Vientown

Example: what if Al Qeada had been planning another attack on American soil, and there was information about a terrorist cell here, and they were not in contact with the rest of Al Qeada and had no knowledge of what had happened to Bin Laden, but intelligence there revealed who and where they were.

Erm, it is contrary to the purpose of a network of covert cells to publish a phone book for your superiors that lists all of your operatives' home addresses. Penetration at any level is only supposed to compromise the people with whom one is in direct contact. Goes for upper level management as well as lower level flunkies.

Identities, locations, and plans must, necessarily, be communicated as little as possible. To prevent exactly that situation from happenin'. This is endemic to a covert cell network - it was engineered in. The whole idea is to minimize damage from leaks, betrayals or raids.

Quote:

Now imagine for a moment if they saw on the news that Bin Laden was dead and intelligence was collected, and they went into hiding as a result and were not captured. The Intelligence Community needed time to fully figure out what it had.

Well, here's what I imagine. Somewhere, a contingency plan has been made and memorized in case there is a raid in Abbottabad and the senior leadership is killed or captured. One day, helicopters and gunmen drop from the sky and their target is obvious. Watchful sentinels scramble into action, without waiting to see the outcome. They'd contact whoever they've been told to contact in an emergency, reporting whose compound has been raided, when, and how likely he was able to get out and destroy everything important.

The phone tree would light up over the following hours - hours, not days - as contacts make known that there has been a shake-up at the bin Laden compound, all feared lost. The few VIPs with whom bin Laden would make direct contact would move their operations to more secure locations and dig in, much as bin Laden had, restricting communication to what is strictly necessary, and conducting their affairs more through intermediaries.

"Sleeper" cells in (let's say) New York would not be included in this, because it makes no nevermind to them whether bin Laden is alive or dead. As they communicate with flappers of his flappers of his flappers, on the very fringes of the organization. Nobody on their end would have a number to call to reach the "boss," nor would he have one to reach them.

Far's scrutinizing terabytes of information to find out whether any of it is useful...that's man-years of work. Might still miss the important stuff or place undue stress on the crap.

You can speculate all you want, but the fact is that the intelligence community should have gotten a chance to try to decipher what they could in a reasonable period of time, and Obama shouldn't claim that any other president would have done anything differently in that situation. All he had to do was say yes and have the SEALS go risk their lives and do their thankless jobs.

[Ban]

Kasumi of Vientown

Well, the fact is that the case for war with Iraq was based upon evidence from the CIA. Granted, the Bush administration apparently exaggerated a bit about how imminent the threat was, but Bush's decision was still based upon the evidence that was given to him.

That's their job. They give intelligence. He makes the decision. It's not surprising the decision he made, given that there's a lot of stuff floating out there that he was looking to invade Iraq days after 9/11, if not before.

Kasumi of Vientown

And I agree that there was no known link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, but in a post 9/11 world it was an understandable fear that an Iraq with WMD's might share them with terrorist organizations.

Except those same intelligence organizations said there was no link. You're not being consistent. It's not Bush's fault when he draws bullshit conclusions from intel reports, and it's not Bush's fault when he draws bullshit conclusions with no intel to back it up whatsoever.

When would it be Bush's fault?

Kasumi of Vientown

Anyway, I never mentioned George Tenet because much of this information was probably collected before he became head of the CIA,

Whatever happened to "The Buck Stops Here"? Command responsibility? He was head of the CIA. He gave the intel to Bush. It was his name on the letterhead.

It seems you want to find fault in an organization, but not in any of the leaders that were controlling policy.

Kasumi of Vientown

so cant blame him individually, but it seems inappropriate to blame Bush too. He might have exaggerated how soon that Iraq could be a threat, but the information did say that Iraq would eventually be a threat, and I guess he just felt it better to put the threat down before it got serious.

Yeah, great success at that.

Still wondering how Bush can be the humble one after flying onto an aircraft carrier in a fighter plane, and giving a speech about the successes of his War on Terror with a giant Mission Accomplished banner behind him.

[Kasumi of Vientown]

Ban

Kasumi of Vientown

Well, the fact is that the case for war with Iraq was based upon evidence from the CIA. Granted, the Bush administration apparently exaggerated a bit about how imminent the threat was, but Bush's decision was still based upon the evidence that was given to him.

That's their job. They give intelligence. He makes the decision. It's not surprising the decision he made, given that there's a lot of stuff floating out there that he was looking to invade Iraq days after 9/11, if not before.

Kasumi of Vientown

And I agree that there was no known link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, but in a post 9/11 world it was an understandable fear that an Iraq with WMD's might share them with terrorist organizations.

Except those same intelligence organizations said there was no link. You're not being consistent. It's not Bush's fault when he draws bullshit conclusions from intel reports, and it's not Bush's fault when he draws bullshit conclusions with no intel to back it up whatsoever.

When would it be Bush's fault?

Kasumi of Vientown

Anyway, I never mentioned George Tenet because much of this information was probably collected before he became head of the CIA,

Whatever happened to "The Buck Stops Here"? Command responsibility? He was head of the CIA. He gave the intel to Bush. It was his name on the letterhead.

It seems you want to find fault in an organization, but not in any of the leaders that were controlling policy.

Kasumi of Vientown

so cant blame him individually, but it seems inappropriate to blame Bush too. He might have exaggerated how soon that Iraq could be a threat, but the information did say that Iraq would eventually be a threat, and I guess he just felt it better to put the threat down before it got serious.

Yeah, great success at that.

Still wondering how Bush can be the humble one after flying onto an aircraft carrier in a fighter plane, and giving a speech about the successes of his War on Terror with a giant Mission Accomplished banner behind him.

Example A:
If the information that the CIA gave the Bush Administration was wrong, then in my opinion it would be more the CIA's fault. Yes, the Bush Administration exaggerated a bit, but the core facts that there decision was based on came from the CIA.

Example B:
It is also possible that the CIA's information was correct, but Saddam anticipated the invasion and hid his bio weapons in some secret bunker, though that seems more and more unlikely every day. If there was a secret bunker, we probably would have found it by now. In this example the invasion would have been completely justified with no one at fault.



Now, I don't expect everyone to agree with my opinion, but that's what I believe. I believe that George W Bush believed based on the evidence that Saddam would become a serious threat and that another administration might not handle it until it was too late, so they took the proof that they had and hyped it up, and built a case using a little exaggeration.

And there was nothing wrong with the giant mission accomplished sign. He, at least, gave credit to the med and women of our armed forces who truly deserved it, and took no credit for himself.

[Ban]

Kasumi of Vientown

Example A:
If the information that the CIA gave the Bush Administration was wrong, then in my opinion it would be more the CIA's fault. Yes, the Bush Administration exaggerated a bit, but the core facts that there decision was based on came from the CIA.

Example B:
It is also possible that the CIA's information was correct, but Saddam anticipated the invasion and hid his bio weapons in some secret bunker, though that seems more and more unlikely every day. If there was a secret bunker, we probably would have found it by now. In this example the invasion would have been completely justified with no one at fault.

Example C: Bush was looking to invade anyway, before he even got intelligence. [1] So, he took what evidence he had, trumped it up, and used it to go to war.

Now, whether the reports of Rumsfeld, Tenet, and Herskowitz can all be trusted might be a question up to debate. What I'm wondering, assuming these accounts are true, and given your apparent liberal interpretation of the laws of treason, shouldn't Bush receive equal abuse? You want to pin the death of 30 soldiers on Obama for making a speech. If Bush purposefully ignored intelligence in order to go to into Iraq, leading to the death of 4486 U.S. soldiers in that country, why doesn't he deserve equal, if not greater condemnation?

Kasumi of Vientown

Now, I don't expect everyone to agree with my opinion, but that's what I believe. I believe that George W Bush believed based on the evidence that Saddam would become a serious threat and that another administration might not handle it until it was too late, so they took the proof that they had and hyped it up, and built a case using a little exaggeration.

What evidence? The evidence you were just critiquing as bad? The evidence that contained caveats saying that there was no solid intel on the "types or quantities of weapons, agents, or stockpile" available? The intel that said he wasn't a danger in the foreseeable future? The intel that said invasion would only create the possibility of cooperation with terrorists?

Kasumi of Vientown

And there was nothing wrong with the giant mission accomplished sign. He, at least, gave credit to the med and women of our armed forces who truly deserved it, and took no credit for himself.

Yes, he did. Because, again, he tied it into the War on Terror:

Bush, after flying a ******** fighter jet onto an aircraft carrier

Nineteen months ago I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight nearly one half of Al Qaida's senior operatives have been captured or killed.

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding.

And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th, the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got.

Our war against terror is proceeding according to the principles that I have made clear to all.

[N3bu]

Was it CIA information? I was under the impression that part of the reason the ball dropped on Iraq is because CIA advice had be ignored.

In particular:

Quote:

Throughout the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, George Bush and Tony Blair were explicit that they were concerned about a "single question" from the chief UN weapons inspector: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?[26] The U.S. government based their allegations that Iraq was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction, including nuclear weapons, upon documents that the CIA and others believed were unreliable.[27]

[Heimdalr]

N3bu

Was it CIA information? I was under the impression that part of the reason the ball dropped on Iraq is because CIA advice had be ignored.

In particular:

Quote:

Throughout the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, George Bush and Tony Blair were explicit that they were concerned about a "single question" from the chief UN weapons inspector: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?[26] The U.S. government based their allegations that Iraq was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction, including nuclear weapons, upon documents that the CIA and others believed were unreliable.[27]

The conflicting evidence was deemed inconsequential since it did not conform to the curriculum supporting the development of war.

[Wendigo]

Kasumi of Vientown

You can speculate all you want, but the fact is that the intelligence community should have gotten a chance to try to decipher what they could in a reasonable period of time, and Obama shouldn't claim that any other president would have done anything differently in that situation. All he had to do was say yes and have the SEALS go risk their lives and do their thankless jobs.

Just take a look at the intel we got from Ahmad Chalabi and the INC about WMDs in Iraq! Screwed up that analysis something proper. Went from the facts as they stand - that all signs point to Hussein destroying the bulk of his chemical weapons after 1991, with some rusty, denatured shells lying around useless - to chemical weapons labs north, south, east and west of Baghdad, portable labs on tractor trailers (which don't exist, btw), and a reactivated nuclear program that requires yellowcake uranium from Nigeria. (Neglectin' that Hussein still had physical access to the Al Tuwaitha compound, if he really wanted to flout sanctions.)

I mean, imagine Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon, right?