Look Like Bush might get his own version of Watergate

[DrDetroit]

Bushice, though I know you do not have an open mind about this issue, you would benefit from reading this:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Produ ... vance.html

Fopr example, re: your comment about the administration pressuring agencies:

The Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004 report, while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it"

did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities.

The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same conclusion, finding

no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. . . . [A]nalysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments.

Now these reports were heavily reported on in the media. If you didn't know about them, then you're simply posting ignorant bullshit. If you did know about them (and I suspect you did because I do think you try to be informed), then you're simply lying.

Bushice, which is it?

[Mister Bushice]

What was the percentage of the American population that knew what Al Q was up to prior to 9-11 ?

We're talking about overall performance rating based on what he is doing now as president. What does Pre 9-11 have to do with it?

Opinions are like assholes, 37% of the assholes think Bush is doing a bad job, 67% percent of the assholes think Bush doing an okay job.

What percentage of the American Assholes have ALL the intel, to make an accurate assessment ... as opposed to a kneejerk opinion ?

This is one American Asshole who does not. Further, this is one asshole who will not join the 37% based solely on a carefully planned election strategy by the DNC.

Meanwhile, while all us assholes are busy doing what assholes do ... farting out our opinions .... Americans are busy killing and dying for one another, their service, and their countrymens' ability to fart freely.

i.e. They wouldn't be there if it wasn't considered to be in the best interest of this country. If time and history prove that this decision was not good for America and that the intel contradicting the other intel was more accurate, so be it. But you really have to work a bit harder to convince me a president of the U.S. would get kids killed for something other than national interests.

Looks like the stategy is working, the dems are winning, they'll take back some house seats next year and maybe the presidency in 2008, then guess what ?

Yep you guessed it, just like in the last Dem presidency, some other lunatic in the middle east will have nukes and the intel will go unquestioned, air strikes will ensue, and talk of regime change will go on.

Then when a Republican actually does it in 2012, the bitching and moaning will start again.

Sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.

Tom, umm your numbers are a bit backwards.

37% approve

63% disapprove

Just sayin' that might be wishful thinking on your part. :)

[Mister Bushice]

Oh and some reading from the haters:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/p ... 7606.shtml

I especially liked the part where it says:

Bush, whose obscenity-laced temper tantrums increase with each new setback and scandal, abruptly ended one Camp David meeting by telling everyone in the room to “go fuck yourselves” before he stalked out of the room

Senior aides describe Bush as increasingly “edgy” or “nervous” or “unfocused.” They say the President goes from apparent coherent thought one moment to aimless rambles about political enemies and those who are “out to get me.”

“It’s worse than the days when Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s began setting in,” one longtime GOP operative told me privately this week. “You don’t know if he’s going to be coherent from one moment to the next. What scares me is if he lapses into one of those fogs during a public appearance.”

It sounds so, Nixon-ish. ;)

[OCmike]

“It’s worse than the days when Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s began setting in,” one longtime GOP operative told me privately this week. “You don’t know if he’s going to be coherent from one moment to the next. What scares me is if he lapses into one of those fogs during a public appearance.”

Hey, at least Bush is awake. Can't he get partial credit? :D

[Mister Bushice]

Bushice, though I know you do not have an open mind about this issue, you would benefit from reading this:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Produ ... vance.html

Fopr example, re: your comment about the administration pressuring agencies:

The Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004 report, while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it"

did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities.

The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same conclusion, finding

no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. . . . [A]nalysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments.

Now these reports were heavily reported on in the media. If you didn't know about them, then you're simply posting ignorant bullshit. If you did know about them (and I suspect you did because I do think you try to be informed), then you're simply lying.

Bushice, which is it?

Yes, Yes, And I can counter that with the British Briefing papers, which show a much different picture from the One he paints.

GO google search these:

British Iraq Options Paper
Manning Paper
Meyer Paper
Ricketts Paper
Straw Paper
British Legal Background Paper

It'll all come out in the end. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Tom In VA]

Opinions are like assholes, 37% of the assholes think Bush is doing a bad job, 67% percent of the assholes think Bush doing an okay job.

Tom, umm your numbers are a bit backwards.

37% approve

63% disapprove

Just sayin' that might be wishful thinking on your part. :)

37 + 67 = 104

1. I was told there'd be no math

2. I meant 63%

[DrDetroit]

Oh and some reading from the haters:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/p ... 7606.shtml

I especially liked the part where it says:

Bush, whose obscenity-laced temper tantrums increase with each new setback and scandal, abruptly ended one Camp David meeting by telling everyone in the room to “go fuck yourselves” before he stalked out of the room

Senior aides describe Bush as increasingly “edgy” or “nervous” or “unfocused.” They say the President goes from apparent coherent thought one moment to aimless rambles about political enemies and those who are “out to get me.”

“It’s worse than the days when Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s began setting in,” one longtime GOP operative told me privately this week. “You don’t know if he’s going to be coherent from one moment to the next. What scares me is if he lapses into one of those fogs during a public appearance.”

It sounds so, Nixon-ish. ;)

Goota love articles that rely wholly on the reporters perception of a person and all the anonymous sources they cite to confirm it...:roll:

[DrDetroit]

Bushice, I just proved that you were either lying or you're merely ignorant. Either way, your credibility is fucking shot to hell.

And that author I cited didn't "paint" anything. He cited two independent, bi-partisan reports concluding that the administration did not pressure analysts.

You lied.

And what about those papers you cited? What's in those that I should consider?

Well?

Googling "British Iraq Options Paper" I got tons of links to the Downing Street Memo," which has been spun into the allegation that the administration was fabricating intelligence evidence.

That'd be surprising given that the administration's conclusions from that intelligence was the same conclusion reached every year since 1998. Why fabricate more evidence to bolster a conclusion that was widely accepted across two separate administrations and four sessions of Congress?

Engage your brain, Bushice.

[Mister Bushice]

Bushice, I just proved that you were either lying or you're merely ignorant. Either way, your credibility is fucking shot to hell.

You say this in EVERY Thread to EVERY one you reply to. It's a little old already.

And that author I cited didn't "paint" anything. He cited two independent, bi-partisan reports concluding that the administration did not pressure analysts.

This was not merely about pressuring, that was only one aspect of it. There is the part about ignoring every contrary report that came in because it didn't match the war concept, and all of those links I provided quoted named sources in the various agencies.

You lied.

You say this way too much, too.

And what about those papers you cited? What's in those that I should consider?

The fact that muultiple independent sources in the British government all felt exactly the same way - that the Bush Administration was trying hard to find the facts to wrap around the war concept. Multiple reliable sources also all came to the same conclusion - the justification for invasion was not there, it was created because that was the intention all along, real facts be damned.

Googling "British Iraq Options Paper" I got tons of links to the Downing Street Memo," which has been spun into the allegation that the administration was fabricating intelligence evidence.

Then you should have googled the individual papers instead of googling what YOU wanted to see.

That'd be surprising given that the administration's conclusions from that intelligence was the same conclusion reached every year since 1998. Why fabricate more evidence to bolster a conclusion that was widely accepted across two separate administrations and four sessions of Congress?

They didn't FABRICATE, they selectively chose that which supported their argument and ignored that which did not.

Engage your brain, Bushice.

Why? This is just a discussion with you. ;)

[DrDetroit]

Sheesh, Bushice....what are you struggling with? Just because a policy preference of yours was not adhered to by the administration does not mean that the information you think supports your preference was ignored.

Who the fuck do you think you are? Do you think you have a unique monopoly on perfect information?

Bushice:

You say this in EVERY Thread to EVERY one you reply to. It's a little old already.

Bushice...I just PROVED it. I just showed that either you were lying or you were ignorant of the facts when you asserted that the administration pressured analysts.

It's right there in black and white.

This was not merely about pressuring, that was only one aspect of it. There is the part about ignoring every contrary report that came in because it didn't match the war concept, and all of those links I provided quoted named sources in the various agencies.

1) You asserted that the administration pressured analysts. I posted two independent panles that concluded otherwise. Now I know you were aware of those reports. Otherwise, you wouldn't speak on this because you present yourself as an informed person. Thereofre, the only proper conclusion is that you know of these two reports and you still posted that assertion. You lied.

2) Considering and weighing information and than making a decision is not called ignoring information, you fucking asshole.

You say this way too much, too.

I just proved it.

The fact that muultiple independent sources in the British government all felt exactly the same way - that the Bush Administration was trying hard to find the facts to wrap around the war concept. Multiple reliable sources also all came to the same conclusion - the justification for invasion was not there, it was created because that was the intention all along, real facts be damned.

Wrong.

Why would the administration have to find facts to wrap around a conclusion that was settled back in 1998 and readily acknowledged and agreed with by two US administrations, four sessions of Congress, the British, French, Germans, Russia, Israel, etc.??

Do you get it, yet?

There simply was no reason for the administration to lie.

They didn't FABRICATE, they selectively chose that which supported their argument and ignored that which did not.

So the fuck what? We all do it. When we settle on a side of an argument we rely on the information we think weighs most heavily.

Nonetheless, they didn't "ignore" information. Stop fucking lying.

Just stop fucking lying that the administration "ignored" data. You don't know either way. And they didn't have to ignore anything to draw the same conclusion that the prior administration concluded, four sessions of Congress concluded, and that the intelligence communities in Britian, France, Germany, Israel, and Russia had all concluded for several years.

[Mister Bushice]

Sheesh, Bushice....what are you struggling with? Just because a policy preference of yours was not adhered to by the administration does not mean that the information you think supports your preference was ignored.

Who the fuck do you think you are? Do you think you have a unique monopoly on perfect information?

Bushice:

You say this in EVERY Thread to EVERY one you reply to. It's a little old already.

Bushice...I just PROVED it. I just showed that either you were lying or you were ignorant of the facts when you asserted that the administration pressured analysts.

It's right there in black and white.

This was not merely about pressuring, that was only one aspect of it. There is the part about ignoring every contrary report that came in because it didn't match the war concept, and all of those links I provided quoted named sources in the various agencies.

1) You asserted that the administration pressured analysts.

That was one aspect of what this thread was about, and I was not the one who asserted it, it was these guys. You remember, the post you ignored:

JANUARY, 2002 – TENET DOES NOT MENTION IRAQ IN NUCLEAR THREAT REPORT: "In CIA Director George Tenet's January 2002 review of global weapons-technology proliferation, he did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]

FEBRUARY 6, 2002 – CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NOT PROVIDED WMD TO TERRORISTS: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials." [Source: NY Times, 2/6/02]

APRIL 15, 2002 – WOLFOWITZ ANGERED AT CIA FOR NOT UNDERMINING U.N. REPORT: After receiving a CIA report that concluded that Hans Blix had conducted inspections of Iraq's declared nuclear power plants "fully within the parameters he could operate" when Blix was head of the international agency responsible for these inspections prior to the Gulf War, a report indicated that "Wolfowitz ‘hit the ceiling’ because the CIA failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program." [Source: W. Post, 4/15/02]

SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: "In the late summer of 2002, Sen. Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies--noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA's classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]

SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS: "An unclassified excerpt of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq's chemical warfare program in which it stated that there is ‘no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.’" The report also said, "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions." [Source: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 6/13/03; DIA report, 2002]

SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: "Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence." [Source: UPI, 9/20/02]

OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa." [Source: Washington Post, 7/23/03]

OCTOBER 2002 — STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES: The State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. "The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons." INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium. [Source, Declassified Iraq NIE released 7/2003]

OCTOBER 2002 – AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The government organization most knowledgeable about the United States' UAV program -- the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center -- had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons" – a WMD claim President Bush used in his October 7 speech on Iraqi WMD, just three days before the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force. [Source: Washington Post, 9/26/03]

2003: WH Pressures Intel Agencies to Conform; Ignores More Warnings

Instead of listening to the repeated warnings from the intelligence community, intelligence officials say the White House instead pressured them to conform their reports to fit a pre-determined policy. Meanwhile, more evidence from international institutions poured in that the White House’s claims were not well-grounded.

LATE 2002-EARLY 2003 – CHENEY PRESSURES CIA TO CHANGE INTELLIGENCE: "Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated trips to CIA headquarters in the run-up to the war for unusual, face-to-face sessions with intelligence analysts poring over Iraqi data. The pressure on the intelligence community to document the administration's claims that the Iraqi regime had ties to al-Qaida and was pursuing a nuclear weapons capacity was ‘unremitting,’ said former CIA counterterrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, echoing several other intelligence veterans interviewed." Additionally, CIA officials "charged that the hard-liners in the Defense Department and vice president's office had 'pressured' agency analysts to paint a dire picture of Saddam's capabilities and intentions." [Sources: Dallas Morning News, 7/28/03; Newsweek, 7/28/03]

JANUARY, 2003 – STATE DEPT. INTEL BUREAU REITERATE WARNING TO POWELL: "The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the State Department's in-house analysis unit, and nuclear experts at the Department of Energy are understood to have explicitly warned Secretary of State Colin Powell during the preparation of his speech that the evidence was questionable. The Bureau reiterated to Mr. Powell during the preparation of his February speech that its analysts were not persuaded that the aluminum tubes the Administration was citing could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium." [Source: Financial Times, 7/30/03]

FEBRUARY 14, 2003 – UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND: "In their third progress report since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November, inspectors told the council they had not found any weapons of mass destruction." Weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council they had been unable to find any WMD in Iraq and that more time was needed for inspections. [Source: CNN, 2/14/03]

FEBRUARY 15, 2003 – IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE: The head of the IAEA told the U.N. in February that "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." The IAEA examined "2,000 pages of documents seized Jan. 16 from an Iraqi scientist's home -- evidence, the Americans said, that the Iraqi regime was hiding government documents in private homes. The documents, including some marked classified, appear to be the scientist's personal files." However, "the documents, which contained information about the use of laser technology to enrich uranium, refer to activities and sites known to the IAEA and do not change the agency's conclusions about Iraq's laser enrichment program." [Source: Wash. Post, 2/15/03]

FEBURARY 24, 2003 – CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ‘NO DIRECT EVIDENCE’ OF WMD: "A CIA report on proliferation released this week says the intelligence community has no ‘direct evidence’ that Iraq has succeeded in reconstituting its biological, chemical, nuclear or long-range missile programs in the two years since U.N. weapons inspectors left and U.S. planes bombed Iraqi facilities. ‘We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs,’ said the agency in its semi-annual report on proliferation activities." [NBC News, 2/24/03]

MARCH 7, 2003 – IAEA REITERATES TO WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES: IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes or specialized ring magnets for centrifuge enrichment of uranium. For months, American officials had "cited Iraq's importation of these tubes as evidence that Mr. Hussein's scientists have been seeking to develop a nuclear capability." ElBaradei also noted said "the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that documents which formed the basis for the [President Bush’s assertion] of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic." When questioned about this on Meet the Press, Vice President Dick Cheney simply said "Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong." [Source: NY Times, 3/7/03: Meet the Press, 3/16/03]

MAY 30, 2003 – INTEL PROFESSIONALS ADMIT THEY WERE PRESSURED: "A growing number of U.S. national security professionals are accusing the Bush administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the $30 billion intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq . A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terrorist groups. This team, self-mockingly called the Cabal, 'cherry-picked the intelligence stream' in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a official at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The DIA was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he said. Greg Thielmann, an intelligence official in the State Department, said it appeared to him that intelligence had been shaped 'from the top down.'" [Reuters, 5/30/03 ]

JUNE 6, 2003 – INTELLIGENCE HISTORIAN SAYS INTEL WAS HYPED: "The CIA bowed to Bush administration pressure to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs ahead of the U.S.-led war in Iraq , a leading national security historian concluded in a detailed study of the spy agency's public pronouncements." [Reuters, 6/6/03]

I posted two independent panles that concluded otherwise. Now I know you were aware of those reports. Otherwise, you wouldn't speak on this because you present yourself as an informed person. Thereofre, the only proper conclusion is that you know of these two reports and you still posted that assertion. You lied.

There you go with the lying thing again. How can that be when I base it on first hand quotes from individuals within the various departments?

The fact that muultiple independent sources in the British government all felt exactly the same way - that the Bush Administration was trying hard to find the facts to wrap around the war concept. Multiple reliable sources also all came to the same conclusion - the justification for invasion was not there, it was created because that was the intention all along, real facts be damned.

Wrong.

Why would the administration have to find facts to wrap around a conclusion that was settled back in 1998 and readily acknowledged and agreed with by two US administrations, four sessions of Congress, the British, French, Germans, Russia, Israel, etc.??

Wrong.

Memo after memo right before the invasion contradicts your claims. 1998 is irrelevant to 2003 because time showed a change reflected by those memos. The fact is both national and international agencies reported that there was no evidence of WMDs nor any justification for war prior to the war, and that has been proven true.
Do you get it, yet?

There simply was no reason for the administration to lie.

Sure there was, but I don't think they lied, I think they selectively ignored the facts.

They didn't FABRICATE, they selectively chose that which supported their argument and ignored that which did not.

So the fuck what? We all do it. When we settle on a side of an argument we rely on the information we think weighs most heavily.

Oooh, We select our facts in an argument? Is that what the invasion of Iraq was, an argument between two internet losers that has absolutely no relevance or impact on anyone else?

Don't you think a 300 billion dollar "argument" that has cost 10s of thouands of lives should have been more thoroughly reviewed and researched before any action took place, especially given the volume of contradictory reports?

I know you don't, but I do, and so do many, many others.

Nonetheless, they didn't "ignore" information. Stop fucking lying.

Then how do you explain all of the memos that contradict their own words? Is there a speech where Colin powell says " we have reports that show both sides of this issue, but we believe the ones that say he has WMDs. Did Bush ever mention the reports and memos that contraindicated war?

The answer is NO to both of the above.

However those memos did exist, they were sent, they are out there.

Therefore the only logical conclusion was they were ignored.

Just stop fucking lying that the administration "ignored" data. You don't know either way. And they didn't have to ignore anything to draw the same conclusion that the prior administration concluded, four sessions of Congress concluded, and that the intelligence communities in Britian, France, Germany, Israel, and Russia had all concluded for several years.

US military intelligence officers concluded that al-Libi lacked "specific details on the Iraqis involved, the... materials associated with the assistance and the location where training occurred," the report said.

"It is possible," the document went on to say, "he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers."

The DIA suggested al-Libi, who had been under interrogation for several weeks, "may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest."

Just the same, president Bush insisted during an October 2002 trip to Cincinnati, Ohio, that his administration had learned that "Iraq has trained Al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

He repeated the same charge in February 2003.

Later Al LIbi recanted his story.

yet DESPITE this, Bush INSISTED that They had learned that Iraq has trained AL Q members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases.

How could they have learned that as fact, when the report that initially revealed that "fact" was soon after brought into question as suspect?

The answer is because the follow up documents were disregarded.

Not hard to see that logical chain at all, unless you are a BA apologist like yourself.

[Mister Bushice]

Ok, but NOTHING was fact, everything was intel, and clearly, they did not address the negative intel.

Either that or everyone who made those allegations in every agency and from every group around the world are all lying, right?

[DrDetroit]

Bushice, you posted, "The BA pressured agencies to paint a false picture."

You lied. And even if you were simply passing along someone else's comment, you're just as guilty.

There you go with the lying thing again. How can that be when I base it on first hand quotes from individuals within the various departments?

Not first-hand quotes. You posted it as a summation of someone else's compilation of lies, distortions, etc.

Like I said, I posted the conclusions of two independent, bi-partisan panels that prove you wrong on this account.

Now, I know that you were aware of these two committees and that you were aware of their conclusions. Hence, you still asserting that the amdinistration pressured analysts is simply an outright lie.

Now, if you want to now tell us that you didn't know wtf you were talking about, then please do so. You put yourself in this untenable position, Bushice.

Wrong.

Memo after memo right before the invasion contradicts your claims. 1998 is irrelevant to 2003 because time showed a change reflected by those memos. The fact is both national and international agencies reported that there was no evidence of WMDs nor any justification for war prior to the war, and that has been proven true.

Those memos show no such thing. Dumbshit, Iraq admitted to developing and possessing huge quantities of bio and chem weapons.

Why do you ignore this?

Don't you think a 300 billion dollar "argument" that has cost 10s of thouands of lives should have been more thoroughly reviewed and researched before any action took place, especially given the volume of contradictory reports?

What do you mean more thoroughly?

Do you think consideration of the intelligence relevant to Iraq simply was shelved between 1998 and 2002?

The national intelligence estimates by the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, Israel re: Iraqi wmd's did not change.

Really, what are you struggling with?

So stop with this bullshit that Bush ignored intelligence. The government does not fucking ignore intelligence, idiot.

[DrDetroit]

Evidence Did Not Show Much Advance In Iraq’s Weapons Programs: “Even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on [the] nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.” [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]

--The war in Iraq didn't rest on the whether Iraq had advanced development programs.

Evidence Was Thin on Iraq/Al Qaeda Ties: “US is scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al [Qaida] is so far frankly unconvincing.” [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]

--Both the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 Commission conclude that there were, in fact, connections.

“No Credible Evidence” On Iraq/Al Qaeda Link: “There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaida.” [Straw Paper, 3/25/02]

--Again, the two panels I cited above disagree.

Wolfowitz Knew Supposed Iraq/Al Qaeda Link Was Weak: Wolfowitz said that “there might be doubt about the alleged meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker on 9/11, and Iraqi intelligence (did we, he asked, know anything more about this meeting?).” [Meyer Paper, 3/18/02]

--The question of a relationship between Iraq and AQ did not hinge on whether this meeting took place.

So what do we see here...nothing.

[Mister Bushice]

Evidence Did Not Show Much Advance In Iraq’s Weapons Programs: “Even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on [the] nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.” [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]

--The war in Iraq didn't rest on the whether Iraq had advanced development programs.

You're kidding, Right? The war in iraq Rested on the so called existence of WMDs. Please do tell how those can be created if the programs did not show any advancement?

Evidence Was Thin on Iraq/Al Qaeda Ties: “US is scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al [Qaida] is so far frankly unconvincing.” [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]

--Both the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 Commission conclude that there were, in fact, connections.

well now that's a lie. A thin, but visible lie:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

“No Credible Evidence” On Iraq/Al Qaeda Link: “There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaida.” [Straw Paper, 3/25/02]

--Again, the two panels I cited above disagree.

Again, the 9-11 committee said otherwise, and the SSIC Document I could not find, but I'll bet the connection is wispy thin and not recent.

While I look around, read some quotes on why this whole thing is clearly as fucked up as it is:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
--Dick Cheney, 8/26/02, Speech to VFW.

"There is no doubt that (Saddam Hussein) has chemical weapons stocks."--Colin Powell, 9/8/02, Fox News Sunday.

"(We) do know, with absolute certainty, that (Saddam Hussein) is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs…to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon."
--Dick Cheney, 9/8/02, Meet the Press.

"…(The tubes) are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."
--Condoleeza Rice, 9/8/02, Late Edition, CNN

{Note: The 7/7/04 Senate Select Committee Report found that dissents within the Intelligence Community on the tubes were rejected by CIA due to a mindset disposed to conclude WMD. We now know that DOE experts rejected the theory that the tubes were intended as centrifuges.}

"…(O)n at least one occasion, we have reporting that places (Mohammad Atta) in Prague with a senior Iraqi Intelligence Official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center."
--Dick Cheney, 9/08/02, Meet the Press.

" We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda network share a common enemy….We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts….Some of these Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq….We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases…. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists….The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." --George W. Bush, 10/7/02, Speech in Cincinnati. {Note: The 9/11 Commission found no connection between Iraq and 9/11. The Duelfer Report found Iraq had no WMD.}

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." --George W. Bush, 1/28/03, State of the Union.

{Note: George Tenet admitted these words should not have been in the President's speech.}

"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid evidence." --Colin Powell, 2/5/03, addressing U.N. Security Council.

"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets…."
--George W. Bush, 3/6/03, Press Conference.

"And we believe (Saddam Hussein) has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons."
--Dick Cheney, 3/16/03, Meet the Press.

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised…"
--George W. Bush, 3/17/03, Speech to Nation.

"We know where they (WMD) are. They are…around Tikrit and Baghdad."
--Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03, This Week with George Stephanopoulos..

Wolfowitz Knew Supposed Iraq/Al Qaeda Link Was Weak: Wolfowitz said that “there might be doubt about the alleged meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker on 9/11, and Iraqi intelligence (did we, he asked, know anything more about this meeting?).” [Meyer Paper, 3/18/02]

The law does not require a lie to find deceit. If you say something is true when it's not, and you are consciously indifferent to its truth, that's deceit.

[Mister Bushice]

Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here....The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.

It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.

Right back at ya. ;)

The case of Iran, a nuclear program that the Iranians admit was 18 years on, that we underestimated. And, in fact, we didn't discover it. It was discovered by a group of Iranian dissidents outside the country who pointed the international community at the location.

The Libyan program recently discovered was far more extensive than was assessed prior to that.

So in other words - we invaded the wrong country?

[Cuda]

Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here....The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.

It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.

Right back at ya. ;)

The case of Iran, a nuclear program that the Iranians admit was 18 years on, that we underestimated. And, in fact, we didn't discover it. It was discovered by a group of Iranian dissidents outside the country who pointed the international community at the location.

The Libyan program recently discovered was far more extensive than was assessed prior to that.

So in other words - we invaded the wrong country?

Christ, you're a fucking idiot, Babshice.

Could you be any more intellectually dishonest, btw?

[Mister Bushice]

Right back at nothing. You're the idiot peddling a bullshit story and trying to rewrite history.

Bah. It has nothing to do with rewriting history. The basic premise of this thread was that intelligence that did not fit the war model was ignored, and intelligence that fit the war model was referred to as "Fact" and "absolute certainty" by everyone in the Bush adminsitration at some point in time or another prior to the invasion, when that could not have been farther from the truth.

So you post testimony from a weapons guy who praises his people, says they were all wrong but were not pressured, and that they were hampered by limited access, which only points out more clearly that they based "fact" "certainty" and "without a doubt" on at best sketchy intel regarding the existence of WMDs.

[Mister Bushice]

Perhaps to you. There are people throughout the US and the world don't see things quite the same way, and not only are their opinions documented and not fabricated, most of the BA admits they were wrong about their premise for war which was the existence of WMDS and the threat of nuclear proliferation in Iraq.

The failure of Saddam to comply with resolutions was also part of it, but we all know how much heel dragging the useless UN was willing to do, and the UN was against the US led invasion, so really, this is all about the case for war re: The WMDS that did not exist.

[Mister Bushice]

Perhaps to you. There are people throughout the US and the world don't see things quite the same way, and not only are their opinions documented and not fabricated,

Their opinions don't count for shit. The bulk of evidence to the contrary was far too vast and far too well established with every intelligence agency on the face of the earth to ignore.

Why? Because it makes the BA look foolish? Face it, the case for war was predetermined, not by existing fact, but by dependence on unreliable intel and an unwillingness on their part to contain, rather than invade.

The fact that stockpiles of chemicals did not exist is irrelevant. The programs were in place to ramp up production the second the sanctions were lifted and it has become abundantly clear that Iraq outsourced a great deal of their research to Libya. To suggest that Saddam had no continuing interest in WMD is a dangerous lie.

Never implied that he had no interest, obviously he did, but who was talking about lifting sanctions? He hadn't reached full compliance with existing mandates and had violate resolutions, and lifting sanction wasn't even on the table until those issues were resolved. Libyas part in all this would have been made clear as time went on, and I seriously doubt monitoring of Iraq would have ended any time soon.

As long as he and his shit kids were in charge of Iraq, it was a threat to regional stability.

No doubt of that, although iran is not exactly a stable entity, either. The question still remains of the timing, preparation, and ultimate reason for the invasion of Iraq on our part. It was premature, poorly planned from the top down, and because of that it has become an extremely unpopular financial and logistic quagmire we will not get out from under for a long time to come, and it has done little to end or slow the global "war on terror"

[Tom In VA]

But it has done wonders in ensuring that Saddam Hussein cannot contribute to it, with monies, weapons ... both conventional and otherwise, and it has placed the U.S. in a strategically sound position to compel Iran and Syria to cooperate ..... one way or another.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

... strategically sound ...

Oh yeah... rock solid.
Uh-huh.

[Variable]

... strategically sound ...

Oh yeah... rock solid.
Uh-huh.

You might have a bit more credibility on this topic if your military didn't still tow cannons with horses.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

My military and all militaries can go fuck themselves.

[Gunslinger]

... strategically sound ...

Oh yeah... rock solid.
Uh-huh.

You might have a bit more credibility on this topic if your military didn't still tow cannons with horses.

You ever been in the military?

[Mister Bushice]

Well that's the wrong question to ask him. :)

[Variable]

Well that's the wrong question to ask him. :)

Should I give him the 47-page answer? :D Naw, I'll just give him the cliff's notes...

I served in the Navy from 1992-1998, including Operation Desert Strike at the tail end of the gulf war. Unlike many of the yay-hoos around here who like to act like they know what the fuck they're talking about, I've actually been to Jordan, Kuwait, Dubai and even an extremist country like Bahrain.

My military and all militaries can go fuck themselves.

Interesting viewpoint, considering you and I wouldn't have our respective countries without one.

The militaries of the world can be dismantled the day charismatic, ambitious, megalomaniacal psychos stop coming to power, which unfortunately will be right around never. We humans love a good pep rally.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Interesting viewpoint, considering you and I wouldn't have our respective countries without one.

Fuck countries too.

How's about this. Just go about your daily routine, and if anyone comes up to your door trying to fuck your shit up, you blow their fucking heads off.

Interesting concept for living, no?

And you poke the Libs for clamouring for a welfare/nanny state?
You want the same thing, only exchange welfare/nanny state for muscular daddy/high school quarterback boyfriend state.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

We sheep love a good herding.

[Variable]

Interesting viewpoint, considering you and I wouldn't have our respective countries without one.

Fuck countries too.

Interesting theory. Good luck with roads, medical care, police, etc. That was tried in the past. Everyone died at age 35. It sucked.

How's about this. Just go about your daily routine, and if anyone comes up to your door trying to fuck your shit up, you blow their fucking heads off.

That was tried too. It was called "the old west" and it was run by gangs of outlaws who had lots of guns. Everyone died at age 40. It sucked.

Interesting concept for living, no?

Not unless you're down with a diet of grubs and berries, no.

And you poke the Libs for clamouring for a welfare/nanny state?
You want the same thing, only exchange welfare/nanny state for muscular daddy/high school quarterback boyfriend state.

You know what I want? I want to be happy and content. Life is pretty simple, but most people go out of their way to make it difficult and unpleasant.

The particular party in power doesn't affect me much, as I'm a non-union computer professional who constantly improves his skill set. I work hard and know my shit. People like me need neither a welfare state, nor a quarterback boyfriend state and don't have much respect for those who need either.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

You know what I want? I want to be happy and content. Life is pretty simple, but most people go out of their way to make it difficult and unpleasant.

No. You want to be coddled by the big muscle-fag that is the homo-erotic military "security
state".

The particular party in power doesn't affect me much, as I'm a non-union computer professional who constantly improves his skill set. I work hard and know my shit. People like me need neither a welfare state, nor a quarterback boyfriend state and don't have much respect for those who need either.

Your "skills" won't mean shit when Uncle Scam thrusts a rifle into your hands and orders you to "off" his former business partners, whoever they may happen to be that week.

[Variable]

We sheep love a good herding.

So I'm a Republican again? I thought I was grouped in with the Democrats last week after I called the Bush Administration "The Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight." You guys should really get together and iron this shit out.

I only care about who's in power if they're ultra-left or ultra-right, as I don't think either serves the best interests of this country. As long as they're somewhere in the middle, I'm good with a President from either party. I agree with a lot of what Bush does, and most of the stuff that I don't agree with either has to do with his Religious Right leanings, or his refusals to secure our southern border just to fellate his corporate donors.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

We sheep love a good herding.

So I'm a Republican again? I thought I was grouped in with the Democrats last week ...

Get over this Republican/Democrat bullshit.
Both parties are beholden to corporate/union/globalist interests.
Their concern for you does not extend beyond the value you can offer the state.
Once the United States of Dracula is done draining your blood, you will barely register as a statistic in the footnotes of history.

[Tom In VA]

Unlike many of the yay-hoos around here who like to act like they know what the fuck they're talking about,

Damn, and I thought I almost had you all fooled.

I do KNOW what I'm talking about .... my opinion. But I like to think I deliver mine with a few shots of Febreeze.

[Variable]

You know what I want? I want to be happy and content. Life is pretty simple, but most people go out of their way to make it difficult and unpleasant.

No. You want to be coddled by the big muscle-fag that is the homo-erotic military "security
state".

Why, because I think of a standing army as a necessary evil? Disbanding an army because you dislike war and agression makes you really, really stupid.

The particular party in power doesn't affect me much, as I'm a non-union computer professional who constantly improves his skill set. I work hard and know my shit. People like me need neither a welfare state, nor a quarterback boyfriend state and don't have much respect for those who need either.

Your "skills" won't mean shit when Uncle Scam thrusts a rifle into your hands and orders you to "off" his former business partners, whoever they may happen to be that week.

Nice try, Slappy. I shredded my ankle while in the service and have had reconstructive surgery on it twice since. You've got a better chance at getting called up to serve in the US Armed Forces than I do.

[Tom In VA]

So I'm a Republican again? I thought I was grouped in with the Democrats last week ...

Get over this Republican/Democrat bullshit.
Both parties are beholden to corporate/union/globalist interests.
Their concern for you does not extend beyond the value you can offer the state.
Once the United States of Dracula is done draining your blood, you will barely register as a statistic in the footnotes of history.

Oh for Pete's sake. Being an anarchist is hardly original. I figure if the crown under which you are subject can last through barbarism, Roman Conquest, Norman Conquest, feudalism, futilism, and Blood Pudding ....

The U.S. can take a hit or two. In fact, a few years back we inflicted more damage on each other than the entire world ever has and guess what ?


That's right ....

We're still here. And we'll be here.

So quit trying to pretend the U.S. invented "greed" and exploitation of resources.

[Variable]

Get over this Republican/Democrat bullshit.
Both parties are beholden to corporate/union/globalist interests.
Their concern for you does not extend beyond the value you can offer the state.
Once the United States of Dracula is done draining your blood, you will barely register as a statistic in the footnotes of history.

A bit melodramatic, don't you think?...not to mention ironic, considering your tax rate is about double ours.

I don't care if my name is scrawled with some rhino horn ink pen in the annals of US history. I don't get off on that type of crap. I only want to live a comfortable life and raise good kids and I'm more than capable of doing so without the teet of the government in my mouth.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't join you in cowering in fear of the big bad USA government who's out to get us all.

You seem angrier than usual today, Marty. Been drinking? Maybe you should get a dog or something.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Disbanding an army because you dislike war and agression makes you really, really stupid.

Authoritarian oppression is participatory. You either go along with it or you don't.
Not wanting to serve some bullshit, outdated concept like "the state" isn't stupid, quite the contrary.

Serve your God, serve your community, serve your family, but tell the federal government to shove it up their ass.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

So quit trying to pretend the U.S. invented "greed" and exploitation of resources.

I never said you invented it. I was only putting it in a context that applied to you, but could easily apply in North Korea, Canada, Uzbekistan...whatever.

[Tom In VA]

How about it could easily apply .... in the fucking mirror ?