Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Santorum read an "UNCLASSIFIED" WMD Report, NOT a "DECLASSIFIED" report

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 12:05 PM
Original message
Santorum read an "UNCLASSIFIED" WMD Report, NOT a "DECLASSIFIED" report
Edited on Thu Jun-22-06 12:07 PM by npincus
as the MSM is trumpeting all over the place. The NGIC "keypoints" faxed to Santorum from the Director of National Intelligence are stamped "UN-classified"!

Why is this worth noting? Because Santorum and the MSM LIED about the nature of the material- it's status as "de-classified" makes it new, important, previously unknown information that is probably TRUE and CREDIBLE. However, this "UN-classified information that Santorum passed along was widely disseminated, is known and discredited.

Here is the proof of the media and Santorum perpetuating the WMD Hoax/ Iraq War justification on Americans who are not paying attention.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Honestly though. what possible difference could it make.
That report has no substance regardless of it's classification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. 'De-classified" info implies it's previously unknown
to the public, as in a new disclosure, confusing the fact that there may be "something there" that was previously unknown.

Yes WE know he's full of SHIT, but calling his rhetoric bassed on "declassified" information gives it an import to the wider public that is does not have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Probably 100% of "classified" information is known to the public
Edited on Thu Jun-22-06 12:33 PM by The_Casual_Observer
apparently they are classifying newspaper clippings again, and reclassifying old newspaper clippings that were once de-classified.
"Classified" is a lot different than "Secret" or "Top Secret". The process is totally different.
It's a tragic waste of money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Sad but true, classification with this bunch is a joke.
Some from Congress (dems) kid about this admin. has the rubber stamp for each piece of paper crossing their desks. You gotta know the shredders are smoking. bush can declassify with the stroke of a pen. Remember Valerie and the cover corporation? He can declassify a CIA agent. It is called CYA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. Excellent point. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
4. He may be referencing the original report which may have been classified.
The SUMMARY (what you show in your post) was unclassified.

The source report may have been classified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. But if the info was declassified
the excerpts or summary should also have been noted "declassified". So I believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. What I'm suggesting is that the SUMMARY might have been unclassified
while the source report, while once classified, has since been declassified.

If that were the case, Santorum's statement would, technically, be truthful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. Hey, I got my final confirmation on there being *no* WMDs from...
a report by Uber-conservative David Kay.

If he says there are no WMDs... There are no WMDs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. Santorium needs to explain to the people why we left unattended
Stock piles of weapons including bombs when we invaded and made our dash to Baghdad. As I recall our media vaguely mentioned during our dash "thousands" of bombs in storage buildings, etc. were found. They were not secured, blown up or destroyed, Just Left where they found them.

Right, this is not news. Apparently when making this dash to Baghdad they did some type of testing to see if they were WMD or the usual bombs. Who knows for sure? For sure they were left to be confiscated by anyone intered in those weapons. It was reported later that they no doubt were stolen by Iraqis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
9. Simple enough distinction.
Ricky S. read an unclassified report. It was derivative. The larger, source report was entirely classified, until somebody came along and declassified portions. They could release the redacted version, or make it easier going for the non-cleared reader. They decided to make it easier. So somebody (else?) reviewed the declassified portions and produced the derivative report.

In Sept. 2002 there was and National Intelligence Estimate produced. It was classified. A summary of declassified information was released. We saw one set of facts, those with clearance saw another. Summer '03, an additional subset of the original report was declassifed (possibly almost all of it), and another summary was produced. It happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. What's with the Sept. 02 NIE?
This report is sopposed to pertain to 03 and 04? If bush baby had Any verified confirmation of WMD's he would have spread the word far and wide. Remember he got excited about the trailers that he was sure were WMD mobile factories? Right, they were floating weather ballons or whatever from them. No a trace of WMDs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
13. Would a "conservative" know the difference?
ricky trying to subliminally send messages to his base??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
14. K & R - lets get this on greatest
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
15. Just out of curiosity
Where did you find this graphic report from, and do you have a link to it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 15th 2024, 03:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC