Republican Hypocracies

[Squatch347]

The sources provided outlined what they had.

No, there were claims by the Administration that it contained precursors to chemical weapons. Those claims were admitted to have been made absent any intelligence evidence.

Have you offered any evidence that there was specific intelligence offered by the Administration? Please be specific.

There's no other way they could be provided, perhaps by declassifying them?

Declassifying them is a possibility to be sure. Though arguing that they are dragging their feet by not doing so is unwarranted speculation. You'll notice that Rep. Schiff, after seeing the documents hasn't asked for them to be declassified.

Often classified information is classified for a reason..because it contains sources or methods that risk national security if publically revealed.

I think I already said that was her assertion based on the intelligence from other protests.

Well you implied that yes. But your link contradicted you so you haven't really offered any evidence for that assertion.

To whit, your quote was:

Michael Morell, former deputy director and acting director of the CIA, wrote in his May 2015 book The Great War of Our Time that while the CIA knew “the demonstration and violence in Cairo were sparked by people upset over a YouTube video,” intelligence “analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks.” (p. 205-206)

So is there any evidence that Susan Rice's statements were based on intelligence reports and not political reports?

[CowboyX]

So is there any evidence that Susan Rice's statements were based on intelligence reports and not political reports?

"Michael Morell, former deputy director and acting director of the CIA, wrote in his May 2015 book The Great War of Our Time that while the CIA knew “the demonstration and violence in Cairo were sparked by people upset over a YouTube video,”"

---------- Post added at 11:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ----------

Well you implied that yes. But your link contradicted you so you haven't really offered any evidence for that assertion.

To whit, your quote was:

Michael Morell, former deputy director and acting director of the CIA, wrote in his May 2015 book The Great War of Our Time that while the CIA knew “the demonstration and violence in Cairo were sparked by people upset over a YouTube video,” intelligence “analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks.” (p. 205-206)

So is there any evidence that Susan Rice's statements were based on intelligence reports and not political reports?

“soil samples taken outside the plant had shown the presence of a substance known as Empta, whose only function was to make the nerve gas VX.” The plant, they said, “was heavily guarded . . . and it showed a suspicious lack of ordinary commercial activities.”

---------- Post added at 11:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 AM ----------

You'll notice that Rep. Schiff, after seeing the documents hasn't asked for them to be declassified.

I don't know that.

"And another source said there's "absolutely" no smoking gun in the reports, urging the White House to declassify them to make clear there was nothing alarming in the documents."

Keeping them classified does keep the president's story going, as well as lending credence.

[Squatch347]

"Michael Morell, former deputy director and acting director of the CIA, wrote in his May 2015 book The Great War of Our Time that while the CIA knew “the demonstration and violence in Cairo were sparked by people upset over a YouTube video,”"

That is great, but it is about Cairo, not Benghazi. The full quote, for the third time is:

•Michael Morell, former deputy director and acting director of the CIA, wrote in his May 2015 book The Great War of Our Time that while the CIA knew “the demonstration and violence in Cairo were sparked by people upset over a YouTube video,” intelligence “analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks.” (p. 205-206)

So is there any evidence that Susan Rice's statements ON BENGHAZI were based on intelligence reports and not political reports?

“soil samples taken outside the plant had shown the presence of a substance known as Empta, whose only function was to make the nerve gas VX.” The plant, they said, “was heavily guarded . . . and it showed a suspicious lack of ordinary commercial activities.”

Should we review your link a bit?

Let's take the entire quote, with context (emphasis mine)

When it was pointed out to the Clinton administration that they had just eliminated one of Sudan’s major medical suppliers, spokespeople “claimed the plant was actually a disguised chemical weapons factory.” They insisted that “soil samples taken outside the plant had shown the presence of a substance known as Empta, whose only function was to make the nerve gas VX.” The plant, they said, “was heavily guarded . . . and it showed a suspicious lack of ordinary commercial activities.”

All of this turned out to be false. As Richard Bernstein explained:

A British engineer, Thomas Carnaffin, who worked as a technical manager during the plant’s construction between 1992 and 1996, emerged to tell reporters there was nothing secret or heavily guarded about the plant at all, and that he never saw any evidence of the production of an ingredient needed for nerve gas. The group that monitors compliance with the treaty banning chemical weapons announced that Empta did have legitimate commercial purposes in the manufacture of fungicides and antibiotics. The owner of the Shifa factory gave interviews in which he emphatically denied that the plant was used for anything other than pharmaceuticals, and there was never persuasive evidence to contradict his assertion. At the same time, members of the administration retreated from claims they made earlier that Osama bin Laden had what [Defense Secretary William] Cohen called “a financial interest in contributing to this particular facility.” It turned out that no direct financial relationship between bin Laden and the plant could be established.

Ok, so even your source points out that no intelligence evidence was present to support those claims. Hence why, in my original source, it was acknowledged by the Administration that there was no intelligence support for the strike.

So... Have you offered any evidence that there was specific intelligence offered by the Administration? Please be specific.

I don't know that.

Well, in the interview, which was after he saw the documents in the link you sent he doesn't ask for them to be declassified does he?

I'm open to evidence against that, but in all the interviews we've offered and in those we can find online, he doesn't seem to request that, even though he knows it is an option (he asked President Obama to do the same thing in 2014).


So given that the ranking Democrat on the committee isn't asking for them to be declassified after having seen them, I think it is hard to make an argument that that is why they are dragging their feet. Unless, of course, you mean the Democrats are dragging their feet too.

"And another source said there's "absolutely" no smoking gun in the reports, urging the White House to declassify them to make clear there was nothing alarming in the documents."

Keeping them classified does keep the president's story going, as well as lending credence.

We also don't know if it isn't a smoking gun since we have no idea what is actually in the documents. You are correct that it does keep the President's story going, but that is just an inference in motive without evidence.

The problem with the whole story, on both sides, is that it is being postulated as something absent any actual evidence by anyone, the President included.

[CowboyX]

That is great, but it is about Cairo, not Benghazi. The full quote, for the third time is:

•Michael Morell, former deputy director and acting director of the CIA, wrote in his May 2015 book The Great War of Our Time that while the CIA knew “the demonstration and violence in Cairo were sparked by people upset over a YouTube video,” intelligence “analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks.” (p. 205-206)

So is there any evidence that Susan Rice's statements ON BENGHAZI were based on intelligence reports and not political reports?

"Rice said, “I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning (and) was provided to me and my colleagues - and indeed to Congress - by the intelligence community. And that’s been well validated in many different ways since.”"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4843489.html

Which reflects what Morell said above.

---------- Post added at 01:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 PM ----------

Let's take the entire quote, with context (emphasis mine)

When it was pointed out to the Clinton administration that they had just eliminated one of Sudan’s major medical suppliers, spokespeople “claimed the plant was actually a disguised chemical weapons factory.” They insisted that “soil samples taken outside the plant had shown the presence of a substance known as Empta, whose only function was to make the nerve gas VX.” The plant, they said, “was heavily guarded . . . and it showed a suspicious lack of ordinary commercial activities.”

All of this turned out to be false. As Richard Bernstein explained:

A British engineer, Thomas Carnaffin, who worked as a technical manager during the plant’s construction between 1992 and 1996, emerged to tell reporters there was nothing secret or heavily guarded about the plant at all, and that he never saw any evidence of the production of an ingredient needed for nerve gas. The group that monitors compliance with the treaty banning chemical weapons announced that Empta did have legitimate commercial purposes in the manufacture of fungicides and antibiotics. The owner of the Shifa factory gave interviews in which he emphatically denied that the plant was used for anything other than pharmaceuticals, and there was never persuasive evidence to contradict his assertion. At the same time, members of the administration retreated from claims they made earlier that Osama bin Laden had what [Defense Secretary William] Cohen called “a financial interest in contributing to this particular facility.” It turned out that no direct financial relationship between bin Laden and the plant could be established.

Ok, so even your source points out that no intelligence evidence was present to support those claims. Hence why, in my original source, it was acknowledged by the Administration that there was no intelligence support for the strike.

So... Have you offered any evidence that there was specific intelligence offered by the Administration? Please be specific.

What happened after the fact when Carnaffin "emerged" is of no concern.

"The key piece of physical evidence linking the Al-Shifa facility to production of chemical weapons was the discovery of EMPTA in a soil sample taken from the plant during a CIA clandestine operation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shi...utical_factory

https://books.google.com/books?id=SX...vities&f=false

[Squatch347]

I think we've reached a consensus on the original foot dragging claim. There doesn't seem to be anything of note that has been shown showing either:

1) The Republicans as a group are delaying the investigation

2) The Committee itself is doing anything specific to "drag its feet."

3) President Trump certainly has a vested interest in the documents remaining not widely available, but given Rep. Schiff's lack of calls to declassify, we can't fully be sure of the non-political nature of that interest.

4) Any speculation that the document contains a smoking gun or that the claim of collection is false are pure speculation.


I appreciate the discussion, glad we could come to a common ground on this.

"Rice said, “I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning (and) was provided to me and my colleagues - and indeed to Congress - by the intelligence community. And that’s been well validated in many different ways since.”"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4843489.html

Which reflects what Morell said above.

I get that Rice claimed it came from the Intelligence Community, but do you have evidence of that? Morell said: "...analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks."

Morell is specifically undermining Rice's claims. I'm asking if you have any evidence to support Rice's claim, that the Intelligence Community said that the Benghazi attack was precipitated by the YouTube video.

What happened after the fact when Carnaffin "emerged" is of no concern.

It absolutely does, because he is validating what the Administration admitted later. There was no intelligence evidence at the time of approving of the attack that validated the suspicion of chemical weapons. He is also countering an initial claim (that the plant was heavily guarded), which the Administration also admitted was true. Carnaffin is an additional source validating statements by the Clinton Administration that there was no evidence to support the claims of chemical weapons.


Again, in your wiki citation you have a very selective quoting ability. From your source (emphasis mine):

Directly after the strike the Sudanese government demanded that the United Nations Security Council conduct an investigation of the site to determine if it had been used to produce chemical weapons or precursors. Such an investigation was opposed by the U.S., which has also blocked an independent laboratory analysis of the sample allegedly containing EMPTA. Michael Barletta concludes that there is no evidence the Al-Shifa factory was ever involved in production of chemical weapons, and it is known that many of the initial U.S. allegations were wrong.[5]

I should note that the cited source is the official UN report.

And from your book, which you don't offer a quote, later in the source:

The group that monitors compliance with the treaty banning chemical weapons announced that Empta did have legitimate commercial purposes... The owner of the Shifa factory gave interviews in which he emphatically denied that the plant was used for anything other than pharmaceuticals, and there was persuasive evidence to contradict his assertion. At the same time, members of the administration retreated from claims they made earlier..."

So let's review the body of evidence on this point. Here is who agree that the Administration conducted the attacks with "no intelligence basis:"

1) The UN agency monitoring the proliferation of chemical weapons
2) Human Rights Watch
3) The New York Times
4) Slate
5) The Guardian
6) The Boston Globe
7) Pulitzer Prize winning author Lawrence Wright, who won the prize for his work on this subject
8) Peer-Reviewed articles in Scholarly Commons a reputable law journal
9) Richard Bernstein in the book you linked to
10) The CIA's Director of Clandestine Operations at the time (who resigned not long after the attack after writing President Clinton a personal letter arguing against the strike)
11) Tim Weiner in "Legacy of Ashes": "the decision to target al Shifa continues a tradition of operating on inadequate intelligence about Sudan." [It triggered the CIA to make] "substantial and sweeping changes" [to prevent] "a catastrophic systemic intelligence failure."
12) Cowboy's Jacobin Link
13) The State Department which filed a formal request for information on the Intelligence the attack was based on and was answered, there is no additional evidence to offer.
14) Mr. Carnafinn, a british engineer with operational experience inside the plant and fundamental expertise on its operations.



15) And last, but certainly not least: The Clinton Administration




To counter this consensus we have:


1) Cowboy



What's worse, about half of the above sources come from your links! So it isn't as if it is really likely that you even believe there was intelligence sources supporting for the attack as you can't help but cite sources saying it was a baseless claim.

[CowboyX]

I get that Rice claimed it came from the Intelligence Community, but do you have evidence of that? Morell said: "...analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks."

Morell is specifically undermining Rice's claims. I'm asking if you have any evidence to support Rice's claim, that the Intelligence Community said that the Benghazi attack was precipitated by the YouTube video.

I don't think I ever said there was, or, if I did, I changed it.

---------- Post added at 11:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 AM ----------

What's worse, about half of the above sources come from your links! So it isn't as if it is really likely that you even believe there was intelligence sources supporting for the attack as you can't help but cite sources saying it was a baseless claim.

All of which came after he fact and does nothing to retreat my original claim. I provided evidence that they had intelligence (from a "CIA clandestine operation") in hand - regardless of how wrong it turned out later to be.

_________


Backing up a bit, did you take any pictures of the rape rooms you toured?

[DethKnot]

Well aren't you just the greatest moderator on here? First of all, aren't moderators supposed to be MODERATE? Cause if not, then this website may just be illegitament. Second of all, if you want to voice your opinion logically, feel free to do so. But if you must mock the other opinion at some point, that just makes you look bad and this website as a whole since you are supposed to be a moderator. Whats the point of a debate website if only one side is backed by the mods? Another thing, I see you have what looks like your daughter in your profile picture. Would she be looking at a good example if she saw you mocking another opinion online with strangers? Could she maybe take that to school and cause trouble? ALSO, given that you are from Louisiana, one of the least educated states in America that constantly relies on federal help for many things, do you especially have the right to mock others for a different opinion? Nobody should be MOCKING other opinions whether from Louisiana or not, but paticularly this seems rather peculiar as you may have a low education standern personally and yet are mocking people like they are dumber. You should be rather DEBATING them. There is a difference. I will ask other mods to see what should be done about your rude comment. It's very bad to see this if a website is to be promoted. Please work on how you approach this. And once it's fixed, I'll be more than happy to add my two cents on the topic

---------- Post added at 11:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 PM ----------

Now for my personal opinion, I truly do believe Republicans are in fact hypocrites. In order to prove this, look what republican synonyms are. One in particular is Conservative. Now, conservative means more cautious about things. This can be just certain aspects of politics, or socially too. Easily, it can be agreed most conservatives are in fact more religious than liberals. Religion, mind you, i supposed to be a particular standard in which one lives life. What does not seem to be clear to many is that one religion is not international law. It is possibly hard to comprehend this when taught that religion rules life from childhood to adulthood, but it's a fact that can't be denied. Another big thing about religion is that it is usually used to teach morals and principles on how to live one's life. However, these morals can often become very corrupted based on what topic it's on. And the world doesn't have patience usually for petty religious demands that only a select amount of people want. Most things are decided by majority. But not one opinion of a viewpoint is always going to be EXACT as another. The best strategy to this is negotiation. Religion sometimes does not have room for negotiation and this is often where trouble starts. There's often little that can be done to negotiate something to make everyone 100% happy, but instead of being partially happy on both sides, religious people sometimes tend to hog that 100% greed. In America in particular, it can be agreed most have some sort of monotheistic Judeo-Christian religion. The common beliefs in this most certainly include the ten commandments among other things. It can also be said that within the common morals the main religions hold, it includes respect of one neighbor and love for the enemy. Beginning with "love thy enemy", it can be seen that there is HUGE hypocrisy. People that are that into religion shouldn't pick and choose which parts to believe at least when it comes down to human vs human. It should be noted before I continue, human vs human should be regarded as the more important aspect as it it affects reality where as parts involving between one self and a god for example, should be put second if one wants to be able to fit into society. Greed comes in this area as often being between one and a god is WAY easier than between one and a random stranger. This is because relationship with a god or idol is often based more personally than between a human and human interaction. In a human and human interaction, full 100% happiness that may be achieved when obeying commandments of an idol or god is often harder and requires more learning, compassion, and understanding. That all being said, it is VERY sad to see conservatives as they are today. They often pick on liberals putting them really far down the drain and just inject so much fear and hatred about them rather than sitting down and talking it out to find common ground. And these same conservatives often claim to believe in a JUST God. If that is true, God wouldn't want liberals or conservatives constantly insulted with death wished upon another. Especially on the conservative side since they are seen to be "more godly" they should technically be the friendlier and more loving ones if their god or what they believe in is so good. Maybe it is good, but not for EVERYBODY but just for the SELVES. But right there, that's hypocrisy again, as I'm sure god doesn't approve of that much selfishness. It can also be noted that a very praised person and philosopher among conservatives is Ayn Rand. She was an ATHEIST and felt things like greed above all, rich above poor, etc. Now I'm pretty sure that does NOT allign with most Judeo-Christian beleifs, but these same Judeo-Christian beleivers often LOVE Ayn Rand. What does that say? Maybe exactly what she emphasized. Greed and selfishness, exactly as I said earlier with the example of the relationship of a person and god. Maybe it's not a belief in god at all. Rather, a belief in ONESELF as a god or similarly a God in ones own image. Not what the actual God had intended I think, but I believe it makes perfect sense. I actually find it peculiar that people that believe so much in a just loving God are so conservative and greedy and selfish and rude. I call it FAKE. I call it HYPOCRISY. Cause notice that organizations associated with HUMANISISM, SOCIAL RIGHTS, and FREE THOUGHT are all more secular in thought. Ayn Rand also MOCKED religion. So we have lots of opposites taking place. I will try to type more later.

[MindTrap028]

Well aren't you just the greatest moderator on here?

Mey sha, Dat's aw full nice O ya to say. down on da bayou, we done love us some fans.

Easily, it can be agreed most conservatives are in fact more religious than liberals. Religion, mind you, i supposed to be a particular standard in which one lives life. What does not seem to be clear to many is that one religion is not international law. It is possibly hard to comprehend this when taught that religion rules life from childhood to adulthood, but it's a fact that can't be denied. Another big thing about religion is that it is usually used to teach morals and principles on how to live one's life. However, these morals can often become very corrupted based on what topic it's on. And the world doesn't have patience usually for petty religious demands that only a select amount of people want. Most things are decided by majority. But not one opinion of a viewpoint is always going to be EXACT as another. The best strategy to this is negotiation. Religion sometimes does not have room for negotiation and this is often where trouble starts. There's often little that can be done to negotiate something to make everyone 100% happy, but instead of being partially happy on both sides, religious people sometimes tend to hog that 100% greed.

Not sure on much of what you wrote, so is this section saying that republicans are hypocritical, because the world runs on majority rule, and America is a Republic (IE not majority rule).
or is it saying they are hypocritical as a party because they are accurately representing people who do not like compromise?

In general it seems to be a hasty generalization fallacy. Such as ... "religious people tend to hog that 100% greed".

In America in particular, it can be agreed most have some sort of monotheistic Judeo-Christian religion. The common beliefs in this most certainly include the ten commandments among other things. It can also be said that within the common morals the main religions hold, it includes respect of one neighbor and love for the enemy. Beginning with "love thy enemy", it can be seen that there is HUGE hypocrisy. People that are that into religion shouldn't pick and choose which parts to believe at least when it comes down to human vs human. It should be noted before I continue, human vs human should be regarded as the more important aspect as it it affects reality where as parts involving between one self and a god for example, should be put second if one wants to be able to fit into society. Greed comes in this area as often being between one and a god is WAY easier than between one and a random stranger. This is because relationship with a god or idol is often based more personally than between a human and human interaction. In a human and human interaction, full 100% happiness that may be achieved when obeying commandments of an idol or god is often harder and requires more learning, compassion, and understanding. That all being said, it is VERY sad to see conservatives as they are today. They often pick on liberals putting them really far down the drain and just inject so much fear and hatred about them rather than sitting down and talking it out to find common ground. And these same conservatives often claim to believe in a JUST God. If that is true, God wouldn't want liberals or conservatives constantly insulted with death wished upon another. Especially on the conservative side since they are seen to be "more godly" they should technically be the friendlier and more loving ones if their god or what they believe in is so good.

Here your saying that religious people don't love their neighbor. This again seems to be a hasty generalization fallacy, and no reason to accept it as true is apparent.

Maybe it is good, but not for EVERYBODY but just for the SELVES. But right there, that's hypocrisy again, as I'm sure god doesn't approve of that much selfishness. It can also be noted that a very praised person and philosopher among conservatives is Ayn Rand. She was an ATHEIST and felt things like greed above all, rich above poor, etc. Now I'm pretty sure that does NOT allign with most Judeo-Christian beleifs, but these same Judeo-Christian beleivers often LOVE Ayn Rand. What does that say? Maybe exactly what she emphasized. Greed and selfishness, exactly as I said earlier with the example of the relationship of a person and god. Maybe it's not a belief in god at all. Rather, a belief in ONESELF as a god or similarly a God in ones own image. Not what the actual God had intended I think, but I believe it makes perfect sense. I actually find it peculiar that people that believe so much in a just loving God are so conservative and greedy and selfish and rude. I call it FAKE. I call it HYPOCRISY. Cause notice that organizations associated with HUMANISISM, SOCIAL RIGHTS, and FREE THOUGHT are all more secular in thought. Ayn Rand also MOCKED religion. So we have lots of opposites taking place.

How is it a hypocrisy to like a philosophers thoughts on certain topics? Is it her mocking of religion that is held up, but then put down when democrats do it? Because that is what hypocrisy would look like.
I also don't see the republican position as being inherently selfish at all, care to expound on that idea?

Thanks for the comments and welcome to ODN.

[Squatch347]

I don't think I ever said there was, or, if I did, I changed it.

If that claim was retracted, fair enough, but then your underlying claim of hypocrisy loses support because you used the assumption that she was correct as evidence of Republican Hypocrisy.

No worries if that was a false start during the debate, but I just wanted to follow the consequences back.

All of which came after he fact and does nothing to retreat my original claim. I provided evidence that they had intelligence (from a "CIA clandestine operation") in hand - regardless of how wrong it turned out later to be.

Well no. You showed evidence that the claimed to have CIA evidence. However, the sources you offered along with the sources I offered, said that the evidence didn't exist in the manner they claimed it did.

How do you reconcile the Clinton Administration's later admission 'we had no evidence' with your assertion that they did?

Backing up a bit, did you take any pictures of the rape rooms you toured?

Absolutely. Send me your SIPR email address and I'll forward them along to you.

[CowboyX]

Absolutely. Send me your SIPR email address and I'll forward them along to you.

I don't have one of those, is it necessary? Can't you just send me them here?

---------- Post added at 04:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:31 AM ----------

Well no. You showed evidence that the claimed to have CIA evidence. However, the sources you offered along with the sources I offered, said that the evidence didn't exist in the manner they claimed it did.

How do you reconcile the Clinton Administration's later admission 'we had no evidence' with your assertion that they did?

Ah, no, that's not what my support said at all.

---------- Post added at 04:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 AM ----------

If that claim was retracted, fair enough, but then your underlying claim of hypocrisy loses support because you used the assumption that she was correct as evidence of Republican Hypocrisy.

No worries if that was a false start during the debate, but I just wanted to follow the consequences back.

No, my original argument was that they ran with sketchy intelligence - or an interpretation of intelligence - and there was no response from the republican side. Not so when it happens to a democrat.

I'll also add what I've postulated elsewhere - that it could've had a sincere counterintelligence benefit in deflating an otherwise successful attack (whether intended or not - I have no support of either).

Should we, for example, now make a big deal about the "miscues" about the Carl Vinson?

Why were the American people lied to? I seem to remember things similar being railed about the Benghazi video claim?

Seems to me like a success - with the supposed show of force and the missile failure leaving North Korea and it's leader with egg on their face and seriously deflated.

Why not tear it all down...oh, there's a republican president. Forgot.

[DethKnot]

Well first of all, bless your heart hun. I live in Texas and my family is from both Shreveport and New Orleans so two can play at that game . I also noticed how it was the END that you welcomed me. Interesting. Wouldn't it have been nice to say that right off the bat? Now for actual debate, I did have a part on majority rule and I meant to delete parts of it because it wasn't flowing. There was a distraction at the time I was writing and my whole train of thought crashed a bit. Also, I said SOMETIMES religious people encourage the 100% greed of their opinion being presented. This can be shown over wide variety of examples. The KKK believed Christ wanted them to kill certain people no matter whether told not to. Muslims believed God had told them to take down the twin towers without even daring to get a better opinion. And Jews often gain lots of power and wealth, but are ok with it as some think they have right to it since they are the chosen people. This is all based in being raised with an ideology and not letting outside opinions in at all. Therefore, there is no way to say it is wrong until it breaks common law. But even as it breaks common law, and often KNOWN that it will, it is done anyways because it is thought as MORE righteous than common law. Basically, beliefs that can be very dangerous are put above common law because going around or complying with common law is a lot harder. Now, these same religious people have a tendency to vote Republican. These same people are known to constantly mock other opinions like you did to me and Cowboy. I could ask you personally, would God or Jesus be ok with it? Would they say go to a stranger and mock their opinion? Or would they say go and give them love anyway even though they seem as the enemy? I do realize this is more of a question of religion rather than political party, but since it is fact that most conservatives do in fact have a Judeo-Christianic religion, I feel this is the root of the hypocrisy. If conservatives were Atheistic like Ayn Rand, I wouldn't have much to say, because it fits exactly as she would want. But the religious beliefs makes it a huge difference. And in this, I DID in fact say religious people often SAY they love their neighbor, but they don't ACT on it. And it is seen. It's VERY noticeable in society. IF religious people loved their neighbor and enemy like the Ten Commandments say to, then why do are conservative outlets so harsh on liberal ideologies? Turn on the Blaze and the like, which are conservative and indirectly Christian media outlets, and you can see how much hate is outward towards liberals. Ironically, Liberals are likely LESS religious on average but HOWEVER, they turn to media that is COMEDIC. It pokes friendly jokes at conservatives without wishing death upon them or name calling. Being less religious, one would think Ayn Rand's ideology would be a lot more welcome, but it ISN'T. Atheism is often associated these days, thankfully, with ideologies of acceptance, humanism, Liberalism, Diversity, and peace. A just God, you would think, would LOVE those ideas. But the people who are fans of God the most, aka Conservatives, don't seem to like those ideas at all, as Liberals are called LIBERALS because they are OPEN to those ideas. and they are OK with those ideas. They are also called PROGRESSIVE as they want to make PROGRESS in society instead of doing the same ways that have been done before by the Grand OLD Party, the CONSERVATIVES that like OLD ideas like religion. It makes scene that also Republicans tend to be OLDER. They like the ideas they were fed as kids and struggle with any NEW ideas like those of more liberal ideologies. Given that you are conservative, you DIRECTLY gave an example of how RUDE your political party can be. I am new here, yet the first thing you do, ESPECIALLy as a mod, is MOCK me. Put my idea aside as if it's not worth on the same level as yours. MANY conservatives I know have done that. YET they are all WAY more religious. THIS is a problem. The religious values are NOT truly kept. OR they have been changed to feed SELF INTEREST. Also, it would be nice of you too be more noticeable of my careful wording. You seem ready to make assumptions than actually debate, another common characteristic often seen in Republicans.

[Squatch347]

I don't have one of those, is it necessary? Can't you just send me them here?

I know, sorry it was a bit tongue in cheek. When I saw the rooms it was 2004 and I was there as part of a combat patrols. The pictures I took were, along with the SD card were automatically classified as Secret since they were taken as part of ongoing combat operations. The best I can offer you are the images taken by the sources I offered in the original post.

I'm happy to expand on any specific questions you have about it though.

Ah, no, that's not what my support said at all.

Actually, yes it did. Hence why I quoted it.

Let's review your sources:

Michael Barletta concludes that there is no evidence the Al-Shifa factory was ever involved in production of chemical weapons, and it is known that many of the initial U.S. allegations were wrong.

Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980's.

Empta, whose only function was to make the nerve gas VX.” The plant, they said, “was heavily guarded . . . and it showed a suspicious lack of ordinary commercial activities.”

All of this turned out to be false

No, my original argument was that they ran with sketchy intelligence - or an interpretation of intelligence

Well, again, no. Your claim was that the CIA told her that the video prompted the incident. That statement was 100% incorrect. The CIA made no such allegation. Nor did Rice use an interpretation of any intelligence to make her claim. Rather, she (as supported) was operating off of talking points put forward by the White House. Now she may well thought those were backed by Intelligence, we don't have insight into her mind, but she didn't make a claim based on intelligence or an interpretation of intelligence.

---

If you really wanted to point out some areas of hypocrisy, President Trump's recent congratulations of Turkish President Erdrogan's referendum win and their silence on his "Buy American" EO would be much more fruitful areas than the ones you've chosen.


Now that said, you would have a hard time painting Mr. Trump as hypocritical on these issues given that he has never been overly supportive of representative democracy or free trade. But back when Republicans were Conservative primarily they generally were supporters of individual economic freedom and republican institutions. Conservatives have still pushed back, but as of yet Republicans have not.

[CowboyX]

I know, sorry it was a bit tongue in cheek. When I saw the rooms it was 2004 and I was there as part of a combat patrols. The pictures I took were, along with the SD card were automatically classified as Secret since they were taken as part of ongoing combat operations. The best I can offer you are the images taken by the sources I offered in the original post.

I'm happy to expand on any specific questions you have about it though.




Actually, yes it did. Hence why I quoted it.

Let's review your sources:

Michael Barletta concludes that there is no evidence the Al-Shifa factory was ever involved in production of chemical weapons, and it is known that many of the initial U.S. allegations were wrong.

Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980's.

Empta, whose only function was to make the nerve gas VX.” The plant, they said, “was heavily guarded . . . and it showed a suspicious lack of ordinary commercial activities.”

All of this turned out to be false

"later"..."turned out"

---------- Post added at 07:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:19 AM ----------

Well, again, no. Your claim was that the CIA told her that the video prompted the incident. That statement was 100% incorrect. The CIA made no such allegation. Nor did Rice use an interpretation of any intelligence to make her claim. Rather, she (as supported) was operating off of talking points put forward by the White House. Now she may well thought those were backed by Intelligence, we don't have insight into her mind, but she didn't make a claim based on intelligence or an interpretation of intelligence.

Wait, what? Did I get my support wrong somewhere? The CIA said the protests in other cities were indeed in response to the video. You're saying she didn't have that?

---------- Post added at 07:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 AM ----------

I know, sorry it was a bit tongue in cheek. When I saw the rooms it was 2004 and I was there as part of a combat patrols. The pictures I took were, along with the SD card were automatically classified as Secret since they were taken as part of ongoing combat operations. The best I can offer you are the images taken by the sources I offered in the original post.

I'm happy to expand on any specific questions you have about it though.

Why would they still be classified? Are the images of the same place? I'll go back and look.

[Squatch347]

"later"..."turned out"

And? Is your defense of this that the Administration made a false claim at first? I'm not sure them attempting to say something they knew to be false is praiseworthy.


Ok, so let's review again which sources agree with this statement: "The Clinton Administration knew there was no intelligence basis for the attack when they decided to attack."

1) The UN agency monitoring the proliferation of chemical weapons
2) Human Rights Watch
3) The New York Times
4) Slate
5) The Guardian
6) The Boston Globe
7) Pulitzer Prize winning author Lawrence Wright, who won the prize for his work on this subject
8) Peer-Reviewed articles in Scholarly Commons a reputable law journal
9) Richard Bernstein in the book you linked to
10) The CIA's Director of Clandestine Operations at the time (who resigned not long after the attack after writing President Clinton a personal letter arguing against the strike)
11) Tim Weiner in "Legacy of Ashes": "the decision to target al Shifa continues a tradition of operating on inadequate intelligence about Sudan." [It triggered the CIA to make] "substantial and sweeping changes" [to prevent] "a catastrophic systemic intelligence failure."
12) Cowboy's Jacobin Link
13) The State Department which filed a formal request for information on the Intelligence the attack was based on and was answered, there is no additional evidence to offer.
14) Mr. Carnafinn, a british engineer with operational experience inside the plant and fundamental expertise on its operations.



15) And last, but certainly not least: The Clinton Administration

Wait, what? Did I get my support wrong somewhere? The CIA said the protests in other cities were indeed in response to the video. You're saying she didn't have that?

I think that must be the confusion. You did offer support that the video was a factor in the Cairo attacks. However, your source also said: "analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks."

Your initial claim was about Benghazi, not Cairo: "The way Hillary and Rice were for the Benghazi video (which turned out to not be a lie at all)."

Thus that claim must be withdrawn. And with it, by extension its nature as support for an example of "hypocrisy."

Why would they still be classified? Are the images of the same place? I'll go back and look.

Because the natural classification timeline for Secret documents is 50 years unless declassed by the original classifier, a classification agent (in this case SECDEF), or via a FOIA committee.

[CowboyX]

And? Is your defense of this that the Administration made a false claim at first? I'm not sure them attempting to say something they knew to be false is praiseworthy.


Ok, so let's review again which sources agree with this statement: "The Clinton Administration knew there was no intelligence basis for the attack when they decided to attack."



[indent]
1) The UN agency monitoring the proliferation of chemical weapons

We'll take them one at a time. Please support (using your source) that "The Clinton Administration knew there was no intelligence basis for the attack when they decided to attack."

CHALLENGE

---------- Post added at 08:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 AM ----------

I think that must be the confusion. You did offer support that the video was a factor in the Cairo attacks. However, your source also said: "analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks."

Your initial claim was about Benghazi, not Cairo: "The way Hillary and Rice were for the Benghazi video (which turned out to not be a lie at all)."

Right, so no lie. A mistaken assumption drawn from the intelligence, maybe (maybe something else as I've speculated).

[Squatch347]

We'll take them one at a time. Please support (using your source) that "The Clinton Administration knew there was no intelligence basis for the attack when they decided to attack."

Sigh, all of these were supported when they were originally listed. And I'll remind you that the majority of these sources were provided by you originally, I just bothered to read them. And rather than letting you chase this down a rat hole, I'll offer them up all at the same time so we can set this to rest.



1) The UN agency monitoring the proliferation of chemical weapons

[indent]

The UN agency responsible for monitoring proliferation noted that multiple uses for EMPTA have been documented and, additionally, it is often a by product of the decomposing of certain fertilizers and insecticides prevalent in the region. The agency also noted that the presence in the soil outside the plant made little sense for VX production and it is a viscous substance unlikely to be "accidentally" transplanted.


"Although there are sound reasons to be wary of accepting Sudanese government claims, officials’ actions in the wake of the attack are not what one would expect if their statements were mere propaganda. Government ministers arrived at Shifa while the plant was still burning from the attack, which presumably would have been personally hazardous if the plant had been involved in CW production. Press accounts indicated no government or other effort to deny access to the facility, and contrary to their past practice of impeding foreign access to the Sudan, officials began approving visas for journalists almost immediately upon request.

Contrary to U.S. allegations, it is now clear that the plant was not a closed, secretive, or military-run facility. Irish film producer Irwin Armstrong, who visited the plant in 1997, said, “the Americans have got this completely wrong. In other parts of the country I encountered heavy security but not here. I was allowed to walk about quite freely.” Bishop H.H. Brookins of the African Methodist Episcopal Church of Nashville and Arkansas businessman Bobby May told New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh that they had toured Shifa days before the U.S. attack and were free to move about the plant as they observed workers packaging medicines. On learning of the attack, Brookins said he believed “somebody made a mistake,” while May recounted watching CNN coverage of the attack from the Khartoum Hilton: “I’m lying in bed and watching the White House talking about this place being a heavily guarded chemical factory. I couldn’t believe my ears. Until then, I had a lot of faith in our intelligence services.” Other accounts indicated that the facility often received guests, including the president of Niger, the British ambassador to the Sudan, and groups of Sudanese schoolchildren. Foreigners were allowed to enter the facility freely, it had no special security constraints, and prominent road signs directed visitors to al-Shifa.

Testimony that the plant produced medicine and was not heavily guarded contradicts some initial U.S. claims, but does not preclude the possibility that the Shifa facility may also have been involved in CW production. However, U.S. allegations that the Shifa plant produced a chemical weapon precursor have also been disputed by many sources that are independent or critical of the Sudanese government.

Foreign engineers and managers familiar with the construction and operation of the plant said that it was not suitably designed or operated to permit CW production. The U.S. consultant who designed Shifa, Henry R. Jobe, said that it was not constructed with equipment necessary for nerve agent production. The plant’s Italian supplier, Dino Romanatti, said that he had full access to the facility during visits in February and May1998, and saw neither equipment nor space necessary for CW production. Romanatti described plant resources as very limited; “the availability of tools in the factory was close to zero. You couldn’t get a piece of steel, a screw, a saw. To imagine a plant that makes chemical weapons is absolutely incredible.”

…

A Jordanian engineer who supervised plant production in 1997, Mohammed Abul Waheed, said “the factory was designed to produce medicine and it would be impossible to convert it to make anything else.” The former co-owner of Shifa, Salem Ahmed Baboud, likewise said the plant was designed only to manufacture particular medicines, and could not have been used for any other purpose.

…The German Ambassador to the Sudan, Werner Daum, reported to Bonn by coded telex the evening of the U.S. attack that the plant was neither secret nor disguised. The report said Shifa could “in no way be described as a chemical plant,” but was instead “Sudan’s largest pharmaceutical plant,” and that it used materials imported from China and Europe.

Thus, according to foreign consultants and diplomats familiar with its recent operations and some independent Sudanese sources, there were no indications of suspicious activities and Shifa apparently had neither equipment nor space for CW production. These multiple accounts, the size of the plant, and the diversity of its pharmaceutical production together suggest that it is highly unlikely that large-scale CW production could have been under way at Shifa.

…

However, the available evidence does contradict many of the initial U.S. assertions. The factory was neither closed, nor secretive, nor guarded by Sudanese troops, nor in any discernible way part of Sudan’s “military industrial complex.” Likewise, no evidence has emerged of any direct financial or other obvious link between bin Laden and the plant. U.S. officials acknowledged a month after the attack that they had no evidence directly connecting bin Laden to Shifa when President Clinton ordered the factory’s destruction. Their account of the target selection process, moreover, suggests that desire to act swiftly led them to draw firm conclusions from inconclusive evidence. U.S. officials explained that intelligence officers searched commercial databases and Sudanese internet sites, including Shifa’s, for information. Because they did not find any list of medicines for sale by the plant, they mistakenly concluded that it did not produce pharmaceuticals. U.S. officials have also admitted to uncertainty as to whether their own evidence indicated that precursor chemicals were produced at Shifa, or only stored or shipped through the plant. And Clinton administration officials eventually acknowledged that the factory did produce pharmaceuticals."
http://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-c...r/barlet61.pdf





2) Human Rights Watch

Again, this was from your Jacobin source. He links to: https://www.hrw.org/news/1998/09/15/...ory-inspection

He quotes HRW as saying, "The US government has not explained why its investigation of the site was sufficiently diligent in light of the fact that US officials now admit that they did not know the plant manufactured legitimate pharmaceuticals...."

The link also states: "It has not yet been established by the evidence in the public domain that the U.S. military planners did everything "feasible" to establish that the al Shifa factory met the definition of a legitimate military target, or even that it was a legitimate military target at the time of the attack...

But the U.S. government has not explained why its investigation of the site was sufficiently diligent in light of the fact that U.S. officials now admit that they did not know the plant manufactured legitimate pharmaceuticals. The evidence these officials cite for their belief that the plant had no legitimate civilian purpose - unlike the web sites of other known pharmaceutical manufacturers in Sudan, this company's web site did not mention any products - is hardly conclusive.

...

Moreover, the U.S. government's disclosure that a soil sample taken months before the attack contained Empta shows only that this chemical had been present in the past, not that it continued to be present. The soil sample would have been compatible, for example, with the past, discontinued storage of Empta, or the past production of Empta, and does not necessarily suggest that the plant continued to store or produce the chemical. The law requires that for a target to be legitimate it must be serving a military purpose "at the time of the attack." The U.S. government should disclose whatever additional information it has to suggest that the factory remained involved in some way with Empta at the time the attack was launched."

3) The New York Times

There are multiple versions that can be used to support this. From your Jacobin site: https://partners.nytimes.com/library...9us-sudan.html

"“[o]fficials throughout the Government raised doubts up to the eve of the attack about whether the United States had sufficient information linking the factory to either chemical weapons or to bin Laden, according to participants in the discussions.”

"In the aftermath, some senior officials moved to suppress internal dissent, officials said. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and a senior deputy, they said, encouraged State Department intelligence analysts to kill a report being drafted that said the bombing was not justified. "


Or we can use my original NYT article which states: "Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980's. " http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/20/wo...t-us-wont.html

4) Slate

Quoted also by your Jacobin source Slate wrote: "
It's probably worth noting, too, that nobody who sifted through the rubble afterward found evidence that the plant had manufactured or contained anything other than pharmaceuticals.


But all this analysis is based on what could be learned in 1998"


And

"
One weak link in the EMPTA argument is the question of who procured the sample. Citing a "veteran intelligence agent," the journalist Jason Vest pointed out in March 1999 that since 1996 the CIA had treated Sudan as a "denied area"— off-limits to actual CIA officers. This led the CIA to depend on either recruiting a foreign national or one on loan from a friendly neighboring intelligence service. Egypt has no love for Sudan, and Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Uganda all receive "non-lethal" U.S. military aid used to help the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement fight the Islamist regime in Khartoum. While declining to confirm specifics about how the sample was collected, the agent stated that the choice of operative for the mission likely did not lend itself to ensuring entirely objective results.

Another potential problem for the EMPTA argument, widely noted at the time, is that pesticide traces in the soil are apparently easy to mistake for EMPTA."

IE: the source of the EMPTA sample was probably known to have not been a US intelligence asset at the time of the bombing.

5) The Guardian

Cited in your Jacobin article, https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tan.terrorism3

""The evidence was not conclusive and was not enough to justify an act of war," concedes Donald Petterson, former American ambassador to Sudan. With a £35m compensation claim working its way through the American courts, that is as much as any official will say on the record. The evidence was supposed to consist of incriminating soil samples; they have never been produced. Sudan's proposal that the UN should investigate was vetoed by America. And Washington is currently trying to fight the case by pleading sovereign immunity. But shortly after filing his suit, the factory's owner, Salah Idris, had his American bank accounts quietly unfrozen."



6) The Boston Globe

This link is cited primarily by your source, Jacobin, though he doesn't offer a contemporary internet link. He cites it more in the relation to the disaster caused by removing the largest producer of life saving drugs. He is referring to "Allied Doubts Grow about the US Strike on Sudanese Plant" Boston Globe where it discusses the fact that multiple engineers responsible for providing the plant with equipment from Germany, the UK, and the US as part of the UN program to produce anti-malarial drugs that the US State Department approved of and knew about testified that no equipment for producing VX was possible and that no security existed at the plant nor were there off limits locations.

7) Pulitzer Prize winning author Lawrence Wright, who won the prize for his work on this subject

This source was cited and explained in posts 215 and 217.

8) Peer-Reviewed articles in Scholarly Commons a reputable law journal

Referenced earlier in thread, http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu...AABgAAALWWAAA=

The relevant material can be found on pages 493 and 494 where the author points out that this did not meet the minimum requirements under the Self Defense legal doctrine because no evidence was presented or available to support a threat.

9) Richard Bernstein in the book you linked to

Again, this is your link, and I reviewed the evidence in the work in post 223

10) The CIA's Director of Clandestine Operations at the time (who resigned not long after the attack after writing President Clinton a personal letter arguing against the strike)

I should clarify that she did not resign until quite a while later and her title was actually Director of Intelligence Operations a higher role on the NSC than the Director of Clandestine Operations. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/wa...the-rules.html. She noted, in a letter to the president, that there was no real evidence for chemical weapons and that the consensus in the analyst community was that this was something to prompt more investigation at most.

That the actual analysts looking into the evidence didn't support the conclusion was known to the Clinton Administration at the time of the attack and caused what was a minor rebellion within the community. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...=.e01e4ebd39cb

"However, in a three-page analytical paper written late last July, well before the embassy bombings or the retaliatory targeting of El Shifa, CIA analysts raised questions about what conclusions could safely be drawn from the soil sample.

According to officials familiar with the paper, the CIA analysts considered the presence of EMPTA to be a virtually sure-fire indicator that the plant had something to do with chemical weapons. But they could not be sure whether the plant actually manufactured VX or merely served as a warehouse or transshipment point for chemicals used in making nerve gas. Nor could they be sure how recently that activity might have occurred.

The paper, which was reviewed at senior levels in the CIA and disseminated to the National Security Council staff, recommended covert efforts to obtain more soil samples to try to answer those questions."

11) Tim Weiner in "Legacy of Ashes": "the decision to target al Shifa continues a tradition of operating on inadequate intelligence about Sudan." [It triggered the CIA to make] "substantial and sweeping changes" [to prevent] "a catastrophic systemic intelligence failure."

I linked and offered the explanation in my original post.

I could add that this argument has also taken shape in the professional literature within the intelligence community as well, of political appointees overriding the information of technical analysts to push a conclusion. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...06002753412874

12) Cowboy's Jacobin Link

Do I really need to provide you the link to your own source?" I sourced the information on how your own source disagrees with you in post 223.

13) The State Department which filed a formal request for information on the Intelligence the attack was based on and was answered, there is no additional evidence to offer.

I provided the link and support in post 225.

14) Mr. Carnafinn, a british engineer with operational experience inside the plant and fundamental expertise on its operations.

This should be relatively easy, but again from your Jacobin source, he cites Richard Bernstein's interview here

"A British engineer, Thomas Carnaffin, who worked as a technical manager during the plant’s construction between 1992 and 1996, emerged to tell reporters there was nothing secret or heavily guarded about the plant at all, and that he never saw any evidence of the production of an ingredient needed for nerve gas. The group that monitors compliance with the treaty banning chemical weapons announced that Empta did have legitimate commercial purposes in the manufacture of fungicides and antibiotics. The owner of the Shifa factory gave interviews in which he emphatically denied that the plant was used for anything other than pharmaceuticals, and there was never persuasive evidence to contradict his assertion. At the same time, members of the administration retreated from claims they made earlier that Osama bin Laden had what [Defense Secretary William] Cohen called “a financial interest in contributing to this particular facility.” It turned out that no direct financial relationship between bin Laden and the plant could be established."

Note that you see him quoting the UN report I reference above.

I'm going to add one more source as part of collecting this data. From your Jacobin source, the US Ambassador to Sudan stated: "“[t]he evidence was not conclusive and was not enough to justify an act of war.”

Right, so no lie. A mistaken assumption drawn from the intelligence, maybe (maybe something else as I've speculated).

Well, no. She had no intelligence on this issue Cowboy that at all implied, or could have led to an assumption that the video caused Benghazi. From your link: "analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks."

The only talking points she had about the Benghazi attacks concerning the you tube video were political talking points she got from the White House.

If you want to continue to maintain that she was assuming the connection from some intelligence talking points, you need to at least cite exactly which talking points you are referring to. The only ones introduced from an Intelligence source in this thread specifically didn't make that connection.

[CowboyX]

Well, no. She had no intelligence on this issue Cowboy that at all implied, or could have led to an assumption that the video caused Benghazi. From your link: "analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks."

The only talking points she had about the Benghazi attacks concerning the you tube video were political talking points she got from the White House.

If you want to continue to maintain that she was assuming the connection from some intelligence talking points, you need to at least cite exactly which talking points you are referring to. The only ones introduced from an Intelligence source in this thread specifically didn't make that connection.

Since she was a part of the administration it sounds like she go them from herself by your logic.

As supported, she did have intelligence about the protests in other areas and, unless I'm mistaken, she made the later shown to be mistaken conclusion that the attacks were related to protests.

Further, the support "analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks." doesn't rule out that there were protests in Benghazi at the time, just that the attacks were unrelated.

---------- Post added at 10:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 AM ----------

1) The UN agency monitoring the proliferation of chemical weapons

[indent]

The UN agency responsible for monitoring proliferation noted that multiple uses for EMPTA have been documented and, additionally, it is often a by product of the decomposing of certain fertilizers and insecticides prevalent in the region. The agency also noted that the presence in the soil outside the plant made little sense for VX production and it is a viscous substance unlikely to be "accidentally" transplanted.


"Although there are sound reasons to be wary of accepting Sudanese government claims, officials’ actions in the wake of the attack are not what one would expect if their statements were mere propaganda. Government ministers arrived at Shifa while the plant was still burning from the attack, which presumably would have been personally hazardous if the plant had been involved in CW production. Press accounts indicated no government or other effort to deny access to the facility, and contrary to their past practice of impeding foreign access to the Sudan, officials began approving visas for journalists almost immediately upon request.

Contrary to U.S. allegations, it is now clear that the plant was not a closed, secretive, or military-run facility. Irish film producer Irwin Armstrong, who visited the plant in 1997, said, “the Americans have got this completely wrong. In other parts of the country I encountered heavy security but not here. I was allowed to walk about quite freely.” Bishop H.H. Brookins of the African Methodist Episcopal Church of Nashville and Arkansas businessman Bobby May told New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh that they had toured Shifa days before the U.S. attack and were free to move about the plant as they observed workers packaging medicines. On learning of the attack, Brookins said he believed “somebody made a mistake,” while May recounted watching CNN coverage of the attack from the Khartoum Hilton: “I’m lying in bed and watching the White House talking about this place being a heavily guarded chemical factory. I couldn’t believe my ears. Until then, I had a lot of faith in our intelligence services.” Other accounts indicated that the facility often received guests, including the president of Niger, the British ambassador to the Sudan, and groups of Sudanese schoolchildren. Foreigners were allowed to enter the facility freely, it had no special security constraints, and prominent road signs directed visitors to al-Shifa.

Testimony that the plant produced medicine and was not heavily guarded contradicts some initial U.S. claims, but does not preclude the possibility that the Shifa facility may also have been involved in CW production. However, U.S. allegations that the Shifa plant produced a chemical weapon precursor have also been disputed by many sources that are independent or critical of the Sudanese government.

Foreign engineers and managers familiar with the construction and operation of the plant said that it was not suitably designed or operated to permit CW production. The U.S. consultant who designed Shifa, Henry R. Jobe, said that it was not constructed with equipment necessary for nerve agent production. The plant’s Italian supplier, Dino Romanatti, said that he had full access to the facility during visits in February and May1998, and saw neither equipment nor space necessary for CW production. Romanatti described plant resources as very limited; “the availability of tools in the factory was close to zero. You couldn’t get a piece of steel, a screw, a saw. To imagine a plant that makes chemical weapons is absolutely incredible.”

…

A Jordanian engineer who supervised plant production in 1997, Mohammed Abul Waheed, said “the factory was designed to produce medicine and it would be impossible to convert it to make anything else.” The former co-owner of Shifa, Salem Ahmed Baboud, likewise said the plant was designed only to manufacture particular medicines, and could not have been used for any other purpose.

…The German Ambassador to the Sudan, Werner Daum, reported to Bonn by coded telex the evening of the U.S. attack that the plant was neither secret nor disguised. The report said Shifa could “in no way be described as a chemical plant,” but was instead “Sudan’s largest pharmaceutical plant,” and that it used materials imported from China and Europe.

Thus, according to foreign consultants and diplomats familiar with its recent operations and some independent Sudanese sources, there were no indications of suspicious activities and Shifa apparently had neither equipment nor space for CW production. These multiple accounts, the size of the plant, and the diversity of its pharmaceutical production together suggest that it is highly unlikely that large-scale CW production could have been under way at Shifa.

…

However, the available evidence does contradict many of the initial U.S. assertions. The factory was neither closed, nor secretive, nor guarded by Sudanese troops, nor in any discernible way part of Sudan’s “military industrial complex.” Likewise, no evidence has emerged of any direct financial or other obvious link between bin Laden and the plant. U.S. officials acknowledged a month after the attack that they had no evidence directly connecting bin Laden to Shifa when President Clinton ordered the factory’s destruction. Their account of the target selection process, moreover, suggests that desire to act swiftly led them to draw firm conclusions from inconclusive evidence. U.S. officials explained that intelligence officers searched commercial databases and Sudanese internet sites, including Shifa’s, for information. Because they did not find any list of medicines for sale by the plant, they mistakenly concluded that it did not produce pharmaceuticals. U.S. officials have also admitted to uncertainty as to whether their own evidence indicated that precursor chemicals were produced at Shifa, or only stored or shipped through the plant. And Clinton administration officials eventually acknowledged that the factory did produce pharmaceuticals."
http://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-c...r/barlet61.pdf

"It remains possible that Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory
may have been involved in some way in producing
or storing the chemical compound EMPTA, which can
be used in the production of VX nerve gas. However,
review of the evidence available in open sources offers
only limited support for the U.S. allegation."

There are doubts about the credibility of U.S. allegations
about the plant in part because of the haste and
secrecy of the decisionmaking that led to the attacks,"

I don't see how that's any different from anything I've said. It certainly wasn't "no intelligence" as you've argued. 'Hasty', maybe even sloppy, eh, that part of the world is a big place.

It certainly wasn't an "aspirin factory" as has been continuously asserted by the right and their mouthpieces.

Did they produce aspirin there at all?

on to #2

[Squatch347]

Since she was a part of the administration it sounds like she go them from herself by your logic.

As supported, she did have intelligence about the protests in other areas and, unless I'm mistaken, she made the later shown to be mistaken conclusion that the attacks were related to protests.

Further, the support "analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks." doesn't rule out that there were protests in Benghazi at the time, just that the attacks were unrelated.

There are quite a few problems with this statement.

1) Do you have evidence that she had the Cairo Intelligence points at the time of her statement? It is important because she couldn't possibly have drawn that inference if she didn't have that intelligence yet.


2) That isn't how public statements are done. Administration officials (outside of the current President on twitter for some reason) don't make policy statements on national TV off the top of their head. Those statements are reviewed and approved by public affairs officers and lawyers. We also know for a fact that her talking points were approved and vetted by the White House in prep calls on Saturday, September 15, 2012 (support was given in post 210).


3) We know that she didn't, in fact, infer the idea. She was directed to make the connection by the White House, as already supported in post 210. In fact, as revealed by the email chain in that support, the specific line tying the video to Benghazi was repeated nearly word for word in her actual comments.



The conclusion that Rice's comments that the attacks were driven by an internet video were, in fact, false (contrary to your claim) and not driven by an intelligence source (as you claimed). Rather they were, as supported, driven by political operatives at the White House, which she knew at the time of the statement.

I don't see how that's any different from anything I've said. It certainly wasn't "no intelligence" as you've argued. 'Hasty', maybe even sloppy, eh, that part of the world is a big place.

Another excellent example of taking a limited section out of context. You did notice that they also pointed out that EMPTA has valid commercial uses and that false positives are common given the nature of Sudan's pesticide and fertilizer compounds.

IE, "a chemical, whose presence is commercially valid, likely was falsely detected." That isn't intelligence. Hence why the analysts responsible for processing of the information, and literally the rest of the report, determined there was no valid intelligence support for the conclusion drawn.

on to #2

Feel free to respond to the support offered as you wish. The overwhelming nature of the consensus that the US acted absent valid intelligence conclusions so far hasn't been countered with a single argument or piece of evidence by you, only a single press statement.

[CowboyX]

I'll accept that you've moved your argument from "no intelligence basis" to

absent valid intelligence conclusions

as a compromise and we can move on.

---------- Post added at 11:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 AM ----------

2) That isn't how public statements are done. Administration officials (outside of the current President on twitter for some reason) don't make policy statements on national TV off the top of their head. Those statements are reviewed and approved by public affairs officers and lawyers. We also know for a fact that her talking points were approved and vetted by the White House in prep calls on Saturday, September 15, 2012 (support was given in post 210).


3) We know that she didn't, in fact, infer the idea. She was directed to make the connection by the White House, as already supported in post 210. In fact, as revealed by the email chain in that support, the specific line tying the video to Benghazi was repeated nearly word for word in her actual comments.



The conclusion that Rice's comments that the attacks were driven by an internet video were, in fact, false (contrary to your claim) and not driven by an intelligence source (as you claimed). Rather they were, as supported, driven by political operatives at the White House, which she knew at the time of the statement.

That was he 14th, you're saying Rice had nothing to do with this for 3 days?

---------- Post added at 11:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 AM ----------

Another excellent example of taking a limited section out of context. You did notice that they also pointed out that EMPTA has valid commercial uses and that false positives are common given the nature of Sudan's pesticide and fertilizer compounds.

IE, "a chemical, whose presence is commercially valid, likely was falsely detected." That isn't intelligence. Hence why the analysts responsible for processing of the information, and literally the rest of the report, determined there was no valid intelligence support for the conclusion drawn.

Sure. I also noticed there was problems with the chain of custody. I'd also bet that it wasn't the most complex sample collection mission ever. I doubt someone parachuted in there and escaped over the border or out through a submarine. Probably a local, native operative walked inside and scooped something up...if he even bothered to do that.

[Squatch347]

I'll accept that you've moved your argument from "no intelligence basis" to absent valid intelligence conclusions as a compromise and we can move on.

Because I used slightly different verbiage with an identical meaning does not mean I changed the claim. The source offered pointed out that there was no valid evidence to support the administration's claims. IE that there was no intelligence basis for the conclusion. Your attempt to salvage your defense was, essentially, to point out that it "still could have been true."

Sure, it could have. However, because something could be true is not the same thing as saying, "we have solid evidence that it is, in fact, true." What this report offered was a point on the latter, that there was no valid existing evidence that showed the presence of chemical weapons at the plant.


Unless you have an evidence based retort of this source, there is no basis for rejecting the claim.

That was he 14th, you're saying Rice had nothing to do with this for 3 days?

No, I'm pointing out that the talking point directing that she blame the attack on the video came from a call with the White House. The email is pretty clear that they were drawing up the talking point for political reasons and doesn't mention Rice at all.


I'm also not sure how it helps you if she was involved. Given that there existed no intelligence estimate at all arguing that the attack was from the video during that 3 days, what does her input during that time matter? All that would change is to argue that she assisted the White House to make up the claim out of whole cloth.

Sure. I also noticed there was problems with the chain of custody. I'd also bet that it wasn't the most complex sample collection mission ever. I doubt someone parachuted in there and escaped over the border or out through a submarine. Probably a local, native operative walked inside and scooped something up...if he even bothered to do that.

You're definitely correct there. In fact, it would be an understatement given that it wasn't a mission at all. The collection of the EMPTA wasn't a CIA collection mission, it was a purchase from a contact that was known to be untrustworthy. Hence why the analyst community argued they needed an independent sample collected by SAD. They were skeptical of both the nature of the chemical, and its location. Why does a highly viscous material that is expensive end up on the ground outside? These were all concerns brought up in the formal estimate that were seemingly ignored by Tennet.

---

Unrelated, but more in the spirit of the thread. I wouldn't call this hypocritical (since he isn't actually breaking a rule he has established) so much as inconsistent. But the inconsistency is pointed out very cleverly by an economist I enjoy:

Here’s a letter to the Wall Street Journal:


Pres. Trump’s push to have Uncle Sam “buy American” is a slap in the face of the many people who voted for him because of his alleged business acumen (“In ‘Buy American’ Push, Trump Is Starting in a Hole,” April 21).

Good business executives ensure that their firms do not incur costs that are unnecessarily high. Well-run businesses do not produce for themselves inputs that they can acquire from others at lower costs. Profitable firms spend shareholders’ money only to create value and never to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs.

And yet Trump is actively trying to force American taxpayers to spend more than is necessary on the provision of government services. This supposedly brilliant businessman fancies that he’ll somehow make us richer by draining more money from our pockets. Such an incompetent chief executive deserves to be fired.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

http://cafehayek.com/2017/04/dont-buy-it.html