PDA

View Full Version : "George Bush, in Denial" - NY Times


Frankie
01-29-2004, 02:48 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/29/opinion/29THU2.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=

January 29, 2004
TESTING TWO LEADERS
George Bush, in Denial

While Tony Blair was cooperating with a British investigation into his handling of the lead-up to the Iraqi invasion, the Bush White House continued to follow its strategy of spin and evade. Because Mr. Blair was compelled to take the risk that objective investigators would find that he had acted honorably and honestly, Britain is now able to move on to the next logical step finding out why its intelligence was so completely wrong. Americans, however, are still stuck in stage one. President Bush needs to move things forward by starting or allowing Congress to start an independent investigation that goes beyond the British inquiry and looks into all aspects of the apparent intelligence failures on Iraq.

Mr. Bush, whose aides had been plotting a war against Iraq practically since Inauguration Day, has dodged questions about why the American intelligence about Iraq was just as wrong as Britain's intelligence. Vice President Dick Cheney continues to make outsized claims about Iraq's prewar weapons programs, and the administration's allies continue to grasp at straws. It was painful yesterday morning to watch John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, trying to drag some positive nuggets from David Kay, the former chief weapons inspector. After Dr. Kay said he had found no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and concluded that none would be found, Mr. Warner pounced on the idea that Dr. Kay said he had accounted for "only" 85 percent of Iraq's military programs. So that, Mr. Warner said triumphantly, leaves 15 percent. Yes, and in a few months it will be 10 percent, and months after that 5 percent, and the answers will almost certainly be the same: Iraq destroyed its weapons and weapons programs long ago under the pressure of the same United Nations inspectors that Mr. Bush and his aides vilified in the months leading up to the war. American intelligence was wrong in concluding that weapons existed, and that robust programs to develop more were continuing.

Dr. Kay has repeatedly told the administration just that. It has responded by trying to edit the rhetoric. Rather than addressing the alarming failures of American intelligence, Mr. Bush and his aides have gone from talking about weapons to talking about weapons programs, and then, in the State of the Union address, "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." It is time to stop refining the spin and make a serious attempt to find out where and how American intelligence went wrong. The public also needs to know, as authoritatively as possible, whether the administration made ambiguous intelligence seem certain for political reasons or, worse, whether analysts were pressured to exaggerate their intelligence.

It is easy to understand, tactically, why Mr. Bush is reluctant to do that in an election year. No matter how he and his aides try to change the subject to how tyrannical Saddam Hussein was, it was the presence of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq that Mr. Bush gave as his justification for rushing into a war without real international backing. Dr. Kay said yesterday that he had seen no evidence of politically twisted intelligence reporting before the war. But he put it well when he said that "it's important to acknowledge failure." Only an independent panel can be trusted at this point to find out what went wrong in Iraq and give the public some hope that another big intelligence failure can be prevented in the future.

jeffrho68
01-29-2004, 02:56 PM
why the American intelligence about Iraq was just as wrong as Britain's intelligence :hmmm: Maybe it's because the liberal pols in this country have been trying to dismantle our intellegence agencies for decades. You reap what you sow...

KC Jones
01-29-2004, 03:43 PM
Yes, somehow it's all the fault of those damn liberals. I also hear they are the ones responsible for bitterly cold winters and unbearbly hot and humid summers, to say nothing of drought or hail storms.

HolyHandgernade
01-29-2004, 03:46 PM
I'm sorry, Jeff, but that is just ignorant polemic rubbish. The question isn't was the intel good enough, it is why did this administration push so hard for war based on information that must have been questionable at best. When I raised these questions before we invaded, I was repeatedly told I don't have all the information that the administration does. I admitted that I indeed did not, but none of the "reasons" this administration tried to say was evidence ever convinced me. Remember Coni Rice: "I hope the smoking gun isn't in the form of a mushroom cloud." You can't make statements like that as the National Security Advisor without a pretty good knowledge that such things are at least close to being a reality.

They chose to villify Ritter who repeatedly said the threat this administration is painting is not possible. I was told he doesn't "have all the information" again. But, if you know what it takes to produce these kinds of weapons, and the methods you take to make sure those weapons are destroyed, and what it would take to reconstitute those weapons, then it was foolish for this administration to disregard it.

So, is your claim that because the budgets were so drastically reduced that the intelligence community just started making stuff up? I've read articles that Wolfowitz disregarded info that didn't build the case for war while emphasizing sketchy reports that did. Maybe the problem isn't with the agencies as much as it was who was filtering the information from those agencies for the President.

You know the saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." IMO, begining a pre-emptive war needs those extraordinary proofs. So, if the new line is that intelligence was faulty, I want to see the "faulty extraordinary proof" that swayed this administration's towards its incorrect justifications for such an action.

Sorry, but I'm just not a "My President, right or wrong" kind of guy.

-HH

jeffrho68
01-29-2004, 03:48 PM
I also hear they are the ones responsible for bitterly cold winters and unbearbly hot and humid summers, to say nothing of drought or hail storms.Really? I thought Al Gore said it was because of GWB's environmental policies :p

Donger
01-29-2004, 03:54 PM
Yes, somehow it's all the fault of those damn liberals. I also hear they are the ones responsible for bitterly cold winters and unbearbly hot and humid summers, to say nothing of drought or hail storms.

Just curious, but have you read Bill Gertz' book Breakdown?

Bootlegged
01-29-2004, 03:55 PM
No way!! The NY Times with an anti-Bush editorial??? I can't believe it.



But there IS no liberal media, right?

KC Jones
01-29-2004, 04:00 PM
Just curious, but have you read Bill Gertz' book Breakdown?

No, I have not read that book.

jeffrho68
01-29-2004, 04:02 PM
I'm sorry, Jeff, but that is just ignorant polemic rubbish. The question isn't was the intel good enough, it is why did this administration push so hard for war based on information that must have been questionable at best. When I raised these questions before we invaded, I was repeatedly told I don't have all the information that the administration does. I admitted that I indeed did not, but none of the "reasons" this administration tried to say was evidence ever convinced me. Remember Coni Rice: "I hope the smoking gun isn't in the form of a mushroom cloud." You can't make statements like that as the National Security Advisor without a pretty good knowledge that such things are at least close to being a reality.

They chose to villify Ritter who repeatedly said the threat this administration is painting is not possible. I was told he doesn't "have all the information" again. But, if you know what it takes to produce these kinds of weapons, and the methods you take to make sure those weapons are destroyed, and what it would take to reconstitute those weapons, then it was foolish for this administration to disregard it.

So, is your claim that because the budgets were so drastically reduced that the intelligence community just started making stuff up? I've read articles that Wolfowitz disregarded info that didn't build the case for war while emphasizing sketchy reports that did. Maybe the problem isn't with the agencies as much as it was who was filtering the information from those agencies for the President.

You know the saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." IMO, begining a pre-emptive war needs those extraordinary proofs. So, if the new line is that intelligence was faulty, I want to see the "faulty extraordinary proof" that swayed this administration's towards its incorrect justifications for such an action.

Sorry, but I'm just not a "My President, right or wrong" kind of guy.

-HHThis is the same intel that everyone including the UN, French, Germans, Russians, etc used to claim that Iraq still had vast quantities of WMD and weapons programs. Are you saying they intentionally misrepresented this intel too? You claim that the Bush administration intentionally lied to the world about the justification about going to war. Sorry, I dont buy it.

Calcountry
01-29-2004, 04:07 PM
I'm sorry, Jeff, but that is just ignorant polemic rubbish. The question isn't was the intel good enough, it is why did this administration push so hard for war based on information that must have been questionable at best. When I raised these questions before we invaded, I was repeatedly told I don't have all the information that the administration does. I admitted that I indeed did not, but none of the "reasons" this administration tried to say was evidence ever convinced me. Remember Coni Rice: "I hope the smoking gun isn't in the form of a mushroom cloud." You can't make statements like that as the National Security Advisor without a pretty good knowledge that such things are at least close to being a reality.

They chose to villify Ritter who repeatedly said the threat this administration is painting is not possible. I was told he doesn't "have all the information" again. But, if you know what it takes to produce these kinds of weapons, and the methods you take to make sure those weapons are destroyed, and what it would take to reconstitute those weapons, then it was foolish for this administration to disregard it.

So, is your claim that because the budgets were so drastically reduced that the intelligence community just started making stuff up? I've read articles that Wolfowitz disregarded info that didn't build the case for war while emphasizing sketchy reports that did. Maybe the problem isn't with the agencies as much as it was who was filtering the information from those agencies for the President.

You know the saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." IMO, begining a pre-emptive war needs those extraordinary proofs. So, if the new line is that intelligence was faulty, I want to see the "faulty extraordinary proof" that swayed this administration's towards its incorrect justifications for such an action.

Sorry, but I'm just not a "My President, right or wrong" kind of guy.

-HH

LMAO, thats an easy one. You liberal tree huggers wouldn't let him drill for Oil in Alaska, so he went to Iraq and got it so that you can drive your SUV's up to the mountains and hug trees.

Donger
01-29-2004, 04:07 PM
No, I have not read that book.

It is quite interesting reading. If you are interested to learn about how Clinton (and to a lesser extent Carter) dealt with our intelligence agencies, I'd recommend it.

Ugly Duck
01-29-2004, 04:08 PM
Stuff that I don't get about the situation:

Kay resigned because the Bush Admin reduced his resources to search for WOMD. But if Kay really believes that there are no WOMD, whats the big deal about having fewer resources to search for something that he thinks does not exist?

The Bush Admin is more optimistic than the weapons inspectors. They believe that WOMD might be there, but they just haven't been found yet. And it sure as heck would take the wind out of the Dem sails to find them before election time. So, why then did they reduce Kay's resources to search for them?

Frankie
01-29-2004, 04:17 PM
LMAO, thats an easy one. You liberal tree huggers wouldn't let him drill for Oil in Alaska, so he went to Iraq and got it so that you can drive your SUV's up to the mountains and hug trees.

ROFL I begrudgingly admit. That's funny.

the Talking Can
01-29-2004, 04:21 PM
what hasn't been reported yet, but deserves serious mention and reflection, is Kay's comment on Night Line. When asked what this intelligence failure means to the policy of Pre-emptive War, Kay gave a shockingly honest answer, to the effect of, "A policy of pre-emption requires pristine (his word) intelligence...you can't have faulty intelligence"...

he's right, and this has been the obvious flaw and danger with this absurd new policy...in the wrong hands "pre-emption" becomes a pretext for ideological madness...as has been now laid bare in the case of Iraq...who, in the world, in our own country, would believe this administration the next time they say we have to invade a country??

besides Oliver North, no one...

BIG_DADDY
01-29-2004, 04:23 PM
For some reason the liberals feel that if they just keep talking about this WMD topic long enough they will somehow get in the white house. IT's a freaking joke. Why don't they just give us a decent candidate to vote for that doesn't want to take our guns, raise our taxes and start a bunch of new social programs? :shrug:

jiveturkey
01-29-2004, 04:26 PM
How much of the faulty intel is the CIA trying to get out of? Weren't they trying to get out of the intel that was used in the faulty State of the Union speech a year ago?

melbar
01-29-2004, 04:27 PM
The bigger question is if they had actually disposed of the WOMD's(which everyone knows he had and had used) why did they refuse to show evidence of of their destruction- not to mention complying with the UN's deadlines.Sounds to me like they must have something to hide if they were so determined not to cooperate.

Chief Henry
01-29-2004, 04:31 PM
Yes, somehow it's all the fault of those damn liberals. I also hear they are the ones responsible for bitterly cold winters and unbearbly hot and humid summers, to say nothing of drought or hail storms.


Sherman,

I think your on to something...

Ugly Duck
01-29-2004, 04:46 PM
Sounds to me like they must have something to hide if they were so determined not to cooperate.Maybe Sodom wuz afraid that the Iraqi Shiites and Kurds would gouge out his eyes and snip off his balls if they found out that he didn't have no more chemicals to massacre them with.

NewChief
01-29-2004, 04:51 PM
Maybe Sodom wuz afraid that the Iraqi Shiites and Kurds would gouge out his eyes and snip off his balls if they found out that he didn't have no more chemicals to massacre them with.

Iraqi scientists have said as much. Basically that Saddam was pulling a major bluff in order to make it appear that he had WoMD. Totally idiotic considering the size of the hardon that Dubya was sporting for him, but no one's arguing that Saddam is exactly right in the head.

Calcountry
01-29-2004, 04:51 PM
what hasn't been reported yet, but deserves serious mention and reflection, is Kay's comment on Night Line. When asked what this intelligence failure means to the policy of Pre-emptive War, Kay gave a shockingly honest answer, to the effect of, "A policy of pre-emption requires pristine (his word) intelligence...you can't have faulty intelligence"...

he's right, and this has been the obvious flaw and danger with this absurd new policy...in the wrong hands "pre-emption" becomes a pretext for ideological madness...as has been now laid bare in the case of Iraq...who, in the world, in our own country, would believe this administration the next time they say we have to invade a country??

besides Oliver North, no one...
But we have to go to another country, Pakistan, haven't you heard. Only this time the ruling authority is inviting us in.

We will go wherever necessary to kick arse and take names.

I am deeply sorry for you talking can, that Sadaam is not in power, and we are no longer playing games with Al faraday, or the seat at the UN round table.

Calcountry
01-29-2004, 04:54 PM
Iraqi scientists have said as much. Basically that Saddam was pulling a major bluff in order to make it appear that he had WoMD. Totally idiotic considering the size of the hardon that Dubya was sporting for him, but no one's arguing that Saddam is exactly right in the head.
You got to know when to hold up, know when to fold up, know when to walk away, and know when to run.

W called Mr Sadaams hand, and we found out he was bluffing. Better not bluff W in a game of Texas holdem because he has the cards.

Qadaffi FOLDED, even though he was holding a pair, he knew that W had the full house.

Frankie
01-29-2004, 04:57 PM
And it sure as heck would take the wind out of the Dem sails to find them before election time.

Well, I guess "finding" them is moot now. So the only recourse left might be "planting" them. Yes I would be ONE PISSED S.O.B. if they do find them before election time. And so should you..

Michael Michigan
01-29-2004, 04:57 PM
The Bush Doctrine.

Frankie
01-29-2004, 05:02 PM
And before the mandatory BB-right-wing piranha attack (for my previous post) I want just one poster to post a convincing reason why PLANTING evidence in Iraq would be impossible.

Michael Michigan
01-29-2004, 05:09 PM
And before the mandatory BB-right-wing piranha attack (for my previous post) I want just one poster to post a convincing reason why PLANTING evidence in Iraq would be impossible.

If they were that dishonest---it would have already have been done.

Boozer
01-29-2004, 05:17 PM
If they were that dishonest---it would have already have been done.

Not necessarily...If one were to do that, wouldn't one want maximum effect? Woudn't maximum domestic effect be achieved in early November?

Michael Michigan
01-29-2004, 05:23 PM
Not necessarily...If one were to do that, wouldn't one want maximum effect? Woudn't maximum domestic effect be achieved in early November?

More like October since the election is November 2nd and millions of absentees will have already been filled out and mailed.

But the quick answer is no. WMD found in May--no more questions. They could have planted them---but they aren't dishonest enough to do it.

Ugly Duck
01-29-2004, 05:26 PM
I want just one poster to post a convincing reason why PLANTING evidence in Iraq would be impossible.Cuz the consequences of getting caught would so devastating to the country that it just ain't worth it?

Calcountry
01-29-2004, 05:32 PM
From the Movie Patton:

"I feel sorry for them(enemy), I really do. Not only are we going to kill them bastards, but we are going to use their living guts,,, to grreeeze our tanks."

The Pedestrian
01-29-2004, 05:33 PM
LMAO, thats an easy one. You liberal tree huggers wouldn't let him drill for Oil in Alaska, so he went to Iraq and got it so that you can drive your SUV's up to the mountains and hug trees.

Psst...we're still buying oil from the Iraqis, and still getting a third of our oil from Venezuala.

mlyonsd
01-29-2004, 05:36 PM
The NY Times. Now there's a credible unpartisan source.

I don't know why these threads keep coming up. For you that think Bush mislead the American people and should be voted out well, then go ahead and do it. Your attempts at making this a bigger issue then it deserves is the typical way your party runs campaigns. Make issues that don't exist.

The rest of us will look at the facts and fully condone what Bush did because we see it that he only made Iraq accountable. Something that needed to be done. We will never see it your way that he lied to us because every country in the UN also agreed Iraq had the weapons. That to us is justification.

You are never going to change our minds so to keep posting these threads shows exactly how low your party will go to win an election. In 2000 your party lost the election because the American people were tired of listening to the negative rhetoric. It will eventually turn independents against you in this campaign as well. Wake up.

Calcountry
01-29-2004, 06:45 PM
Psst...we're still buying oil from the Iraqis, and still getting a third of our oil from Venezuala.
What do you mean STILL?

Before the war in Iraq, we were NOT still getting oil?
That is an assinine statement.

They were only allowed to sell a pittance of their oil in an "oil for food" scheme that primarily benefitted the French. Why do you think they were so opposed to the war? To preserve the status quo.

What does Venezuala have to do with Tree Huggers?

The real benefit of bringing Iraq back on line is that there is more SUPPLY on line, which means lower prices, more stability, and above all less power concentrated in the hands of Saudi Arabia which is the chief sponsor of Terror.

Inspector
01-29-2004, 07:23 PM
Yes, somehow it's all the fault of those damn liberals. I also hear they are the ones responsible for bitterly cold winters and unbearbly hot and humid summers, to say nothing of drought or hail storms.

Oh man, no wonder everyone hated those dang liberals.

Inspector
01-29-2004, 07:39 PM
And before the mandatory BB-right-wing piranha attack (for my previous post) I want just one poster to post a convincing reason why PLANTING evidence in Iraq would be impossible.

Probably not impossible, but how probable would it be that everyone who would be involved could (or would) keep it a secret? Seems like someone would let it leak. But maybe not??

The Pedestrian
01-29-2004, 07:39 PM
What do you mean STILL?

Before the war in Iraq, we were NOT still getting oil?
That is an assinine statement.

They were only allowed to sell a pittance of their oil in an "oil for food" scheme that primarily benefitted the French. Why do you think they were so opposed to the war? To preserve the status quo.

What does Venezuala have to do with Tree Huggers?

The real benefit of bringing Iraq back on line is that there is more SUPPLY on line, which means lower prices, more stability, and above all less power concentrated in the hands of Saudi Arabia which is the chief sponsor of Terror.

No, I was saying that we're still buying oil from them...as in not getting it for free at this time. That was the point.

Also, I shouldn't really have to explain the referrence to Venezuala:
Originally Posted by bunnytrdr
LMAO, thats an easy one. You liberal tree huggers wouldn't let him drill for Oil in Alaska, so he went to Iraq and got it so that you can drive your SUV's up to the mountains and hug trees.

whoman69
01-29-2004, 07:54 PM
The NY Times. Now there's a credible unpartisan source.
I don't know why these threads keep coming up. For you that think Bush mislead the American people and should be voted out well, then go ahead and do it. Your attempts at making this a bigger issue then it deserves is the typical way your party runs campaigns. Make issues that don't exist.
The rest of us will look at the facts and fully condone what Bush did because we see it that he only made Iraq accountable. Something that needed to be done. We will never see it your way that he lied to us because every country in the UN also agreed Iraq had the weapons. That to us is justification.
You are never going to change our minds so to keep posting these threads shows exactly how low your party will go to win an election. In 2000 your party lost the election because the American people were tired of listening to the negative rhetoric. It will eventually turn independents against you in this campaign as well. Wake up.
If every country in the UN believe that he had weapons, why did they not join the fight? The opposite was actually true, that no country was convinced unless weapons inspectors were to find the smoking gun that blew the whole thing apart.
The only sales job Bush was interested in was in getting Congress to believe. Congress wanted to believe the WOMD story and the Bush administration provided the trumped up evidence.
The question is not whether the intelligence was false but whether the administration ordered the intelligence to match the outcome they wanted.
Noone in the Bush administration believes the intelligence that came out. That is why the Saddam arsenal of WMDs became the Saddam WMD program after so much time. They're now trying to get us to believe that even plans for Saddam to have WMDs is the same as the supposed facts that he had the weapons when plans for the war were OKd by Congress.

Boozer
01-29-2004, 08:02 PM
Probably not impossible, but how probable would it be that everyone who would be involved could (or would) keep it a secret? Seems like someone would let it leak. But maybe not??

I think you're barking up the wrong tree...Most people here believe some convoluted conspiracy involving the Mob, the CIA, and extraterrestrials are responsible for the JFK assassination. If they could keep that a secret, certainly a few planted chem. weapons wouldn't be a problem.

Inspector
01-29-2004, 08:13 PM
I think you're barking up the wrong tree...Most people here believe some convoluted conspiracy involving the Mob, the CIA, and extraterrestrials are responsible for the JFK assassination. If they could keep that a secret, certainly a few planted chem. weapons wouldn't be a problem.

Oh yeah. I forgot about that stuff.

Actually I think Kennedy was killed by my neighbors daughter and that wierd time travel machine she plays with. Kids these days......

Boozer
01-29-2004, 08:16 PM
Oh yeah. I forgot about that stuff.

Actually I think Kennedy was killed by my neighbors daughter and that wierd time travel machine she plays with. Kids these days......

So THAT'S why it was raining doughnuts this morning.... Tell her to put the toaster down!

jettio
01-29-2004, 08:21 PM
I'm sorry, Jeff, but that is just ignorant polemic rubbish. The question isn't was the intel good enough, it is why did this administration push so hard for war based on information that must have been questionable at best. When I raised these questions before we invaded, I was repeatedly told I don't have all the information that the administration does. I admitted that I indeed did not, but none of the "reasons" this administration tried to say was evidence ever convinced me. Remember Coni Rice: "I hope the smoking gun isn't in the form of a mushroom cloud." You can't make statements like that as the National Security Advisor without a pretty good knowledge that such things are at least close to being a reality.

They chose to villify Ritter who repeatedly said the threat this administration is painting is not possible. I was told he doesn't "have all the information" again. But, if you know what it takes to produce these kinds of weapons, and the methods you take to make sure those weapons are destroyed, and what it would take to reconstitute those weapons, then it was foolish for this administration to disregard it.

So, is your claim that because the budgets were so drastically reduced that the intelligence community just started making stuff up? I've read articles that Wolfowitz disregarded info that didn't build the case for war while emphasizing sketchy reports that did. Maybe the problem isn't with the agencies as much as it was who was filtering the information from those agencies for the President.

You know the saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." IMO, begining a pre-emptive war needs those extraordinary proofs. So, if the new line is that intelligence was faulty, I want to see the "faulty extraordinary proof" that swayed this administration's towards its incorrect justifications for such an action.

Sorry, but I'm just not a "My President, right or wrong" kind of guy.

-HH

Exactly.

Bush never had a good answer to anyone that called :BS: .

He was not a victim of bad intelligence, he was a victim of his own stupidity and misplaced trust in Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Perle, and Wolfowitz.

2bikemike
01-29-2004, 08:52 PM
Exactly.

Bush never had a good answer to anyone that called :BS: .

He was not a victim of bad intelligence, he was a victim of his own stupidity and misplaced trust in Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Perle, and Wolfowitz.

I guess the intelligence was better when Clinton was in office? Funny how its the same intelligence and drew the same conclusions.

craneref
01-29-2004, 09:05 PM
I guess the intelligence was better when Clinton was in office? Funny how its the same intelligence and drew the same conclusions.

2bike, I will now have to warn you at the increased use of common sense, you keep this up and you will be downright logical, and we already have one of those. I like to consider this bronco politics, it is only cheating if the other teams does it and it is only right if your team does it. GO CHIEFS

KCWolfman
01-29-2004, 09:10 PM
Probably not impossible, but how probable would it be that everyone who would be involved could (or would) keep it a secret? Seems like someone would let it leak. But maybe not??
The most interesting point I have heard is that the destruction of such materials would leave evidence. Hussein admitted he had the weapons prior to Kuwait. He later said he destroyed said weapons, but refused to come up with where they were destroyed and how. Seems to me that if we would have found WMD by now, we would have also found prove of his supposed destruction of said weapons as well.

KCWolfman
01-29-2004, 09:12 PM
Exactly.

Bush never had a good answer to anyone that called :BS: .

He was not a victim of bad intelligence, he was a victim of his own stupidity and misplaced trust in Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Perle, and Wolfowitz.
Who was Clinton the victim of? As he derived the exact same conclusions?

Who was Kay the victim of? As he derived the same conclusions and the man was actually in the country of Iraq for several months.

Hindsight is 20/20. But selective hindsight is just lame excuses.

jettio
01-29-2004, 09:16 PM
I guess the intelligence was better when Clinton was in office? Funny how its the same intelligence and drew the same conclusions.

Well Clinton is not running for President this time, but you are right it would be good to have someone competent as President.

jettio
01-29-2004, 09:21 PM
Who was Clinton the victim of? As he derived the exact same conclusions?

Who was Kay the victim of? As he derived the same conclusions and the man was actually in the country of Iraq for several months.

Hindsight is 20/20. But selective hindsight is just lame excuses.

Don't quote me and act like you want to discuss something with me.

You never apologized for starting all that sh*t, so Get Lost!

Back to ignore for you.

KCWolfman
01-29-2004, 09:23 PM
Don't quote me and act like you want to discuss something with me.

You never apologized for starting all that sh*t, so Get Lost!

Back to ignore for you.

translation - I am sticking my fingers in my ears, I can't hear you, I can't hear you, lalalalalala.


I didn't want to discuss anything with you. I was showing you that you are a whiny hypocrite. As far as apologizing, I did nothing to apologize.

Chiefs Pantalones
01-29-2004, 09:33 PM
http://media3.funnyjunk.com/pictures/georgew.jpg

craneref
01-29-2004, 09:34 PM
translation - I am sticking my fingers in my ears, I can't hear you, I can't hear you, lalalalalala.


I didn't want to discuss anything with you. I was showing you that you are a whiny hypocrite. As far as apologizing, I did nothing to apologize.

I knew this would happen, common sense is contagious, first 2bike and logical and now KCWolfman, I think even I am coming down with it. KCWolfman, you have to apoligize for being who you are, jsut the fact that you exist with your own idea's that are different renders you obscene to the liberal world. I do believe that Jettio wants you to apologize for who you are. By the way, why do you get all the luck of getting ignored by someone you want to ignore you. GO CHIEFS

Ugly Duck
01-30-2004, 12:00 AM
jsut the fact that you exist with your own idea's that are different renders you obscene to the liberal world. Thats kinda silly, dontcha think? The "liberal world" finds individuality obscene? We are not a Borg collective victimizing all who yearn to be free. Or.... maybe I'm not a liberal....

RedNeckRaider
01-30-2004, 12:24 AM
The NY Times :rolleyes: there is a unbiased report :rolleyes: that would be like me quoting Rush on a liberal :shake:

Saggysack
01-30-2004, 12:54 AM
The most interesting point I have heard is that the destruction of such materials would leave evidence. Hussein admitted he had the weapons prior to Kuwait. He later said he destroyed said weapons, but refused to come up with where they were destroyed and how. Seems to me that if we would have found WMD by now, we would have also found prove of his supposed destruction of said weapons as well.

Not to mention if he buried them, they should have found proof from someone who had a hand in burying them.

HolyHandgernade
01-30-2004, 11:26 PM
Sorry to take so long to respond, been busy.

First, I am not a liberal, not that I consider that to be a bad thing, anymore than I consider being a conservative a bad thing. I'm a moderate registered Republican and have been since I was old enough to vote. I find it quite humorous that every time a "consevative" wants to try and disparage something they don't agree with, it is "liberal trash".

Second, yes, I do believe there were many neocons who had as one of their major goals the removal of Saddam Hussein, and that by toppling him and setting up Iraq as a deomcracy would bring stablitiy to the region. The idea isn't completely without merits, but it was short-sighted on logisitcs. Just as with any group, you have moderates, and you have zealots, and I think too many zealots were in critical positions to screen or influence the President's ear. This admistration is the first not to employ a "Yes, but..." person on their staff. Almost every administration hires someone to play the "devil's advocate" to judge what the reaction to policy decisions will be. This administration was stocked with "Yes" men and "Damn YES!" men. The closest thing they had to a "Yes, but..." man was Colin Powell and they isolated him away from major input quickly.

Third, this business about going back to Clinton is silly. The Clinton administration may have drawn the same conclusions about Iraq's WMD, but it didn't conclude it was strong enough to mount an invasion. He did a couple of strikes, but nothing on the scale of a full blown invasion. So, if Clinton had this "intel" and it was the same intel that led W to conclude we needed to invade, I want to see what this damning intel was/is. I mean, if it was good enough to dupe two administrations and Europe, let's get a bi-partisan investigation to at least conclude: "Based on this bad intel it did give the overwhelming impression Iraq posed a serious threat to the security of the United States."

But noooooooooo, this administration doesn't think that is necessary. This is one of the most secretive administrations I have ever seen. It made difficult for me to trust them when they gave as their justification; just trust me, and I am even more distrustful of them now. The truth is, this is a calculated risk. By denying an independant investigation, they are playing to the poll numbers that suggest most Americans just don't care, and since they figure someone like me who does care, probably won't vote for him anyway, why subject themselves to the possibility of being hoodwinked at best, incompetent at worst.

And just for the record, I didn't vote for Clinton either time as well. I guess that makes me 0-3 on the last three elections! And according to most polls, I'll probably be 0-4 this year. Oh well, maybe if I just choose to align myself with a far right or far left position permenantly, I can let others do the thinking for me.

Liberally yours,

-HH

Michael Michigan
01-30-2004, 11:47 PM
Third, this business about going back to Clinton is silly. The Clinton administration may have drawn the same conclusions about Iraq's WMD, but it didn't conclude it was strong enough to mount an invasion.


Rip Van Handgernade

9/11/01

The Bush doctine.

Frankie
01-31-2004, 08:43 AM
Third, this business about going back to Clinton is silly. The Clinton administration may have drawn the same conclusions about Iraq's WMD, but it didn't conclude it was strong enough to mount an invasion.


Rip Van Handgernade

9/11/01

The Bush doctine.


Typical Fox-News tabloid sensationalizing. Neither Iraq, nor Saddam has EVER been shown to have ANYTHING to do with 9/11. Remember some guy named Osama Bin something or other?!...

"Fair and Balanced reporting?".... ROFL

Ari Chi3fs
01-31-2004, 09:10 AM
at first glance, I thought this said. "George Bush. the Devil"

I wasnt going to disagree.

stevieray
01-31-2004, 09:18 AM
the more i read this board, the more I realize how pussified men have become in this country.

LVNHACK
01-31-2004, 09:23 AM
the more i read this board, the more I realize how pussified men have become in this country.



Speak for yourself artist................;)

siberian khatru
01-31-2004, 09:51 AM
Quote:
Typical Fox-News tabloid sensationalizing. Neither Iraq, nor Saddam has EVER been shown to have ANYTHING to do with 9/11. Remember some guy named Osama Bin something or other?!...

"Fair and Balanced reporting?".... ROFL

You completely missed the point.

It's not that Saddam had ties to 9/11. It's that 9/11 changed the way we look at terrorist threats. For more than a decade we treated them as law enforcement issues, and if we responded militarily it was weakly -- by firing a few cruise missiles at some isolated target, while leaving the real danger in place. Heck, we didn't respond at all to the USS Cole bombing.

Those policies brought us 9/11. This administration believed it was time to change strategies. Critics said we didn't believe the worst was possible when deciphering the 9/11 intel -- didn't envision or take seriously the idea that terrorists could be planning what they were planning -- so we began taking a "better safe than sorry" aggressive approach. It looks like Saddam has WMDs, and he has ties to terrorists ... do we back off, play it safe and hope for the best? Or do we go after him and remove all doubt? Each is fraught with potential pitfalls.

But the guiding principle is "No more 9/11s." And you can't just view 9/11 thru the narrow prism of Osama and Al-Qaeda. If you convict John Gotti, does all organized crime suddenly disappear? There are multiple threats out there, and the Bush Doctrine is to aggressively eliminate them "over there," before they reach our shores.

Reasonable people may disagree on what the best strategy is for America's security. But smug mischaracterizations of the policy isn't the way to seek solutions.

stevieray
01-31-2004, 09:58 AM
You completely missed the point.

It's not that Saddam had ties to 9/11. It's that 9/11 changed the way we look at terrorist threats. For more than a decade we treated them as law enforcement issues, and if we responded militarily it was weakly -- by firing a few cruise missiles at some isolated target, while leaving the real danger in place. Heck, we didn't respond at all to the USS Cole bombing.

Those policies brought us 9/11. This administration believed it was time to change strategies. Critics said we didn't believe the worst was possible when deciphering the 9/11 intel -- didn't envision or take seriously the idea that terrorists could be planning what they were planning -- so we began taking a "better safe than sorry" aggressive approach. It looks like Saddam has WMDs, and he has ties to terrorists ... do we back off, play it safe and hope for the best? Or do we go after him and remove all doubt? Each is fraught with potential pitfalls.

But the guiding principle is "No more 9/11s." And you can't just view 9/11 thru the narrow prism of Osama and Al-Qaeda. If you convict John Gotti, does all organized crime suddenly disappear? There are multiple threats out there, and the Bush Doctrine is to aggressively eliminate them "over there," before they reach our shores.

Reasonable people may disagree on what the best strategy is for America's security. But smug mischaracterizations of the policy isn't the way to seek solutions.


This post is dead on. The rules of engagement changed on 9/11. I'm glad that CONGRESS< not Bush had the courage to take the necessary steps to be pro-active.

Frankie
01-31-2004, 10:06 AM
You completely missed the point.


In my post I intentionally included HolyHandgernade's statement that Michael Michigan quoted in his reply. I will repeat it here again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade
Third, this business about going back to Clinton is silly. The Clinton administration may have drawn the same conclusions about Iraq's WMD, but it didn't conclude it was strong enough to mount an invasion.

Michigan's reply was only about Iraq's WMD and 9/11. No, I didn't miss the point.
:)

WilliamTheIrish
01-31-2004, 10:53 AM
from BEST OF THE WEB TODAY , January 29, 2004:

"Earlier in the week a New York Times editor "sexed up" the paper's coverage of Kay, leading the paper to publish this embarrassing correction Tuesday:

"'Because of an editing error, a front-page article yesterday about David A. Kay, the C.I.A.'s former weapons inspector, misstated his view of whether the agency's analysts had been pressured by the Bush administration to tailor their prewar intelligence reports about Iraq's weapons programs to conform to a White House political agenda. Mr. Kay said he believed that there was no such pressure, not that there was.
=====================================================

jettio
01-31-2004, 11:28 AM
from BEST OF THE WEB TODAY , January 29, 2004:

"Earlier in the week a New York Times editor "sexed up" the paper's coverage of Kay, leading the paper to publish this embarrassing correction Tuesday:

"'Because of an editing error, a front-page article yesterday about David A. Kay, the C.I.A.'s former weapons inspector, misstated his view of whether the agency's analysts had been pressured by the Bush administration to tailor their prewar intelligence reports about Iraq's weapons programs to conform to a White House political agenda. Mr. Kay said he believed that there was no such pressure, not that there was.
=====================================================

It is funny how David Kay is now perceived as being neutral or something. Bush hired him. Be interesting to know how much he got paid.

If you have a career were every odd while you get hired by President to do something it is best to not burn bridges, and the fact that Bush hired Kay and not Scott Ritter or whoever else might be qualified, says something also.

I am going to presume that the most insular and paranoid administration since Nixon is gong to put some thought into who they hire.

Kay cares enough about his credibility to not make up any evidence that does not exist, but he would do a favor for his boss that paid him, by trying to create an out, or at least a temporary reprieve.

I am quite sure that the CIA would love to have an honest appraisal about the intelligence regarding Iraq, what will ultimately be shown is that Bush and Blair overstated aginst the advice of the agents. There is one analyst in Britain already dead from suicide bacause of that.

When the truth is known it will be clear that it was not the intelligence analysis that was relied upon, but this investigation will not be complete until after the election, and after the election there wil not be any investigation.

If a democrat wins, he will end the investigation because it would be seen as kicking a dead dog. If GWB is re-elected, he'll screw something else up so that this won't even be an issue.

Everybody already knows that nobody changed their mind after Colin Powell's presentation to the Security Council. As a matter fo fact, support among council members for the US position decreased within the weeks after that completely unimpressive presentation.

Funny to see how the press is volunteering themselves to act as if there is somehow some legitimacy to that ridiculus shifting of blame.

Bush did not invade Iraq because of any threat to the USA. It was all part of a plan to do what he was going to do anyway.

Of course, we know that there are plenty of mindless twits that want to believe in GWB, no matter how much he :hump: crams it up their crack, spends all of our money, and gets our boys killed dead, so that his friends can make a few bucks.

But for those who have not surrendered their ability to think. You ought not be that stupid.

WilliamTheIrish
01-31-2004, 12:23 PM
It is funny how David Kay is now perceived as being neutral or something. Bush hired him. Be interesting to know how much he got paid.

If you have a career were every odd while you get hired by President to do something it is best to not burn bridges, and the fact that Bush hired Kay and not Scott Ritter or whoever else might be qualified, says something also.

I am going to presume that the most insular and paranoid administration since Nixon is gong to put some thought into who they hire.

Kay cares enough about his credibility to not make up any evidence that does not exist, but he would do a favor for his boss that paid him, by trying to create an out, or at least a temporary reprieve.

I am quite sure that the CIA would love to have an honest appraisal about the intelligence regarding Iraq, what will ultimately be shown is that Bush and Blair overstated aginst the advice of the agents. There is one analyst in Britain already dead from suicide bacause of that.

When the truth is known it will be clear that it was not the intelligence analysis that was relied upon, but this investigation will not be complete until after the election, and after the election there wil not be any investigation.

If a democrat wins, he will end the investigation because it would be seen as kicking a dead dog. If GWB is re-elected, he'll screw something else up so that this won't even be an issue.

Everybody already knows that nobody changed their mind after Colin Powell's presentation to the Security Council. As a matter fo fact, support among council members for the US position decreased within the weeks after that completely unimpressive presentation.

Funny to see how the press is volunteering themselves to act as if there is somehow some legitimacy to that ridiculus shifting of blame.

Bush did not invade Iraq because of any threat to the USA. It was all part of a plan to do what he was going to do anyway.

Of course, we know that there are plenty of mindless twits that want to believe in GWB, no matter how much he :hump: crams it up their crack, spends all of our money, and gets our boys killed dead, so that his friends can make a few bucks.

But for those who have not surrendered their ability to think. You ought not be that stupid.

This sounds strangely like every lawyer I have ever known. Really.

WilliamTheIrish
01-31-2004, 12:41 PM
Of course, we know that there are plenty of mindless twits that want to believe in GWB, no matter how much he :hump: crams it up their crack, spends all of our money, and gets our boys killed dead, so that his friends can make a few bucks.

But for those who have not surrendered their ability to think. You ought not be that stupid.


How the hell did that "inept" American diplomacy achieve a unanimous 15:0 vote in the UN Security Council to take serious measures against Saddam if he did not comply with UN resolutions?

Not to mention near unanimous support in Congress.

There are lots of folks from both sides of the aisle who were on those intelligence committees.

Oh, they probably surrendered their ability to think. Miraculously, they have regained it. Just in time too.

WilliamTheIrish
01-31-2004, 12:54 PM
Also, I'm curious how many folks watched or read Kay's testimony in front of the SIC?
Certainly the people who have not surrendered their ability to think watched it? Not just the mindless twits?

Rausch
01-31-2004, 01:07 PM
Ironic.....writing an article about inaccuracies and overstatements and using inaccuracies and overstatements in an attempt to make your point.

UN CHARTER Chapter VII, Article 51:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and securit

Does that say we need to find chemical weapons to validate an attempt to maintain peace and security in Iraq?

siberian khatru
01-31-2004, 01:34 PM
In my post I intentionally included HolyHandgernade's statement that Michael Michigan quoted in his reply. I will repeat it here again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade
Third, this business about going back to Clinton is silly. The Clinton administration may have drawn the same conclusions about Iraq's WMD, but it didn't conclude it was strong enough to mount an invasion.

Michigan's reply was only about Iraq's WMD and 9/11. No, I didn't miss the point.
:)

Yes, you missed the point.

Why didn't Clinton move as aggressively on the same evidence of Iraq WMD? Because 9/11 made it more imperative. As Stevieray said, the rules of engagement changed. Regime change in Iraq became official U.S. policy under a law passed by Congress and signed by Clinton in 1998. However, 9/11 gave urgency to effecting that change as soon as possible, because it exposed how dangerous it was to let threats fester.

There is no proven direct connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, but Iraq IS part of the larger post-9/11 picture.

Frankie
01-31-2004, 03:20 PM
Yes, you missed the point.

Why didn't Clinton move as aggressively on the same evidence of Iraq WMD? Because 9/11 made it more imperative. As Stevieray said, the rules of engagement changed. Regime change in Iraq became official U.S. policy under a law passed by Congress and signed by Clinton in 1998. However, 9/11 gave urgency to effecting that change as soon as possible, because it exposed how dangerous it was to let threats fester.

There is no proven direct connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, but Iraq IS part of the larger post-9/11 picture.

The U.S., I bet, has documented her desire for a regime change in many countries. That however does not mean by military engagement. Nothing about 9/11 justified a military invasion of Iraq. This looks increasingly like what a lot of us suspected. A bunch of business-men leading a hostile take-over of another business, alegedly (so far) cooked-up from the very day their frontman (GW) took office. And way, it seems, before 9/11. In the meantime, 500+ of our kids have lost their lives and many more maimed. This, if proven true, can end up taking some very prominent characters to court! Nixon's Watergate and Clinton's loose belt will be nothing compared to the possible ramifications here.

Donger
01-31-2004, 03:23 PM
Well Clinton is not running for President this time, but you are right it would be good to have someone competent as President.

Oh, really? Was Clinton competent when he decided not to take up the Sudan on their offer to hand over bin Laden?

Logical
01-31-2004, 03:23 PM
The U.S., I bet, has documented her desire for a regime change in many countries. That however does not mean by military engagement. Nothing about 9/11 justified a military invasion of Iraq. This looks increasingly like what a lot of us suspected. A bunch of business-men leading a hostile take-over of another business, alegedly (so far) cooked-up from the very day their frontman (GW) took office. And way, it seems, before 9/11. In the meantime, 500+ of our kids have lost their lives and many more maimed. This, if proven true, can end up taking some very prominent characters to court! Nixon's Watergate and Clinton's loose belt will be nothing compared to the possible ramifications here.

Evidently a majority of Americans disagree with you Frankie



"Do you think the war with Iraq has or has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States?"......................Has.............Has Not..............No Opinion1/15-18/04......59%...............38%.....................3% http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm "All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?"......................Worth.............Not Worth..............No Opinion.....................Going to.............Going to........................War....................War1/04.................59%...............38%.....................3%

KCWolfman
01-31-2004, 03:30 PM
This sounds strangely like every lawyer I have ever known. Really.
Yup,

Three weeks ago, the libbies all loved Kay and the message. Now that he has stated no Administration should be blamed (including the current one), they are coming up with conspiracy theories faster than running the grassy knolls in Dallas.

Frankie
01-31-2004, 03:31 PM
Evidently a majority of Americans disagree with you Frankie

[/left]http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

But I think those numbers will change IF the allegations I refered to are proven true.

KCWolfman
01-31-2004, 03:32 PM
The U.S., I bet, has documented her desire for a regime change in many countries. That however does not mean by military engagement. Nothing about 9/11 justified a military invasion of Iraq. This looks increasingly like what a lot of us suspected. A bunch of business-men leading a hostile take-over of another business, alegedly (so far) cooked-up from the very day their frontman (GW) took office. And way, it seems, before 9/11. In the meantime, 500+ of our kids have lost their lives and many more maimed. This, if proven true, can end up taking some very prominent characters to court! Nixon's Watergate and Clinton's loose belt will be nothing compared to the possible ramifications here.
False statement, horribly false statement.

Hussein has direct payments to families of homocide bombers in the Palestinian region of Israel. Since the inception of military activity in Iraq, said bombings have reduced by over 70%. While this is not directly our nation, your allusion to the idea that somehow America just wanted someone out of the way, so they cooked up terrorist ties, is utter bullshit.

KCWolfman
01-31-2004, 03:33 PM
But I think those numbers will change IF the allegations I refered to are proven true.
I didn't see you use the word "if" in your original statement on the matter.

But then, conspiracy theories just aren't as much fun when you start saying "possible" instead of "likely" or "if" instead of "does".

Logical
01-31-2004, 03:41 PM
But I think those numbers will change IF the allegations I refered to are proven true.


ROFL like that will happen.

jettio
01-31-2004, 03:59 PM
Also, I'm curious how many folks watched or read Kay's testimony in front of the SIC?
Certainly the people who have not surrendered their ability to think watched it? Not just the mindless twits?

I know I quoted from your post, but I did not think I was includng you when I was complaining about the press completely soaking up this notion that the intelligence reports led to some grand fear of Saddam.

I doubt that there was any genuine fear of Saddam attacking any other country.

I always thought focusing attention on Iraq and pressing the issue with the UN to enforce compliance was a great idea and a positive thing.

But Bush was not genuinely interested in staying with the Congress or the UN. The Congressional Resolution was passed right before the mid-term election for obvious reasons.

Bush only used the UN and Congress as part of his manipulative and dishonest approach to falsely justifying a war.

The intellgence agencies knew exactly what they did know and what they were unsure about and any genuine review of that will show that to be the case.

I am not for the press acting as if Bush was misled by faulty intelligence, that intelligence would have indicated degrees of certainty.

Bush complained about the UN inspections process, but as soon as the Regime was toppled, Bush immediately started talking about how difficult it would be to find anything.

But, more importantly, you are one of the very best guys here and I did not think that I was insulting you with that post.

alanm
01-31-2004, 04:17 PM
Not to mention if he buried them, they should have found proof from someone who had a hand in burying them.Your forgetting that Saddams way of keeping a secret is by burying the workers along side of the bombs. :) Dead men tell no tales.

Frankie
01-31-2004, 04:26 PM
Hussein has direct payments to families of homocide bombers in the Palestinian region of Israel.

I don't think this is more than an 'allegation' either. If not, did he pay them BEFORE 9/11, or AFTER? Saddam had a history of trying to endear himself to radical Arabs by showing his "benevolence" to them and their families. Kinda like John Gotty and Pablo Escobar feeding the poor and building clinics in their neighborhoods. If Hussein's payments were AFTER 9/11, they do not constitute his involvement in 9/11. If you think this connects him to Al Qaeda then why are we not invading Saudi Arabia whose leadership has documented connections to Bin Laden? Could it be because the House of Saud's history of friendship and association with the Bush family is also on the record? :rolleyes:

. .. your allusion to the idea that somehow America just wanted someone out of the way, so they cooked up terrorist ties, is utter bullshit.

Not America. Just Bushes, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc,....

Anyhow, things are mostly in allegation stage right now and until 'facts' surface all we can do is speculate...

Frankie
01-31-2004, 04:29 PM
KCW

I didn't realize you were alluding to other terrorists than the 9/11 ones in your post. I stand corrected. But you know what I mean...

stevieray
01-31-2004, 04:41 PM
we sure do know what you mean...the castigation since the election is well documented. This isn't new, just wishful thinking part 15.

Donger
01-31-2004, 04:50 PM
I don't think this is more than an 'allegation' either. If not, did he pay them BEFORE 9/11, or AFTER? Saddam had a history of trying to endear himself to radical Arabs by showing his "benevolence" to them and their families. Kinda like John Gotty and Pablo Escobar feeding the poor and building clinics in their neighborhoods. If Hussein's payments were AFTER 9/11, they do not constitute his involvement in 9/11. If you think this connects him to Al Qaeda then why are we not invading Saudi Arabia whose leadership has documented connections to Bin Laden? Could it be because the House of Saud's history of friendship and association with the Bush family is also on the record? :rolleyes:



Not America. Just Bushes, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc,....

Anyhow, things are mostly in allegation stage right now and until 'facts' surface all we can do is speculate...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49462,00.html

FYI, Hussein was paying the families BEFORE 9/11.

Frankie
01-31-2004, 05:16 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49462,00.html

FYI, Hussein was paying the families BEFORE 9/11.

But not to the 9/11 terrorists. Nor to their families.

Calcountry
01-31-2004, 05:17 PM
No, I was saying that we're still buying oil from them...as in not getting it for free at this time. That was the point.

Also, I shouldn't really have to explain the referrence to Venezuala:
Originally Posted by bunnytrdr
LMAO, thats an easy one. You liberal tree huggers wouldn't let him drill for Oil in Alaska, so he went to Iraq and got it so that you can drive your SUV's up to the mountains and hug trees.

My issue was the words "STILL buying" as in we just started buying from them. As far as I know, they have been off the market to us prior to the war.
:thumb:

KCWolfman
01-31-2004, 05:20 PM
But not to the 9/11 terrorists. Nor to their families.
No, but my point is still valid. He was funding terrorism - plain and simple.

WilliamTheIrish
01-31-2004, 05:35 PM
I know I quoted from your post, but I did not think I was includng you when I was complaining about the press completely soaking up this notion that the intelligence reports led to some grand fear of Saddam.

I doubt that there was any genuine fear of Saddam attacking any other country.

I always thought focusing attention on Iraq and pressing the issue with the UN to enforce compliance was a great idea and a positive thing.

But Bush was not genuinely interested in staying with the Congress or the UN. The Congressional Resolution was passed right before the mid-term election for obvious reasons.

Bush only used the UN and Congress as part of his manipulative and dishonest approach to falsely justifying a war.

The intellgence agencies knew exactly what they did know and what they were unsure about and any genuine review of that will show that to be the case.

I am not for the press acting as if Bush was misled by faulty intelligence, that intelligence would have indicated degrees of certainty.

Bush complained about the UN inspections process, but as soon as the Regime was toppled, Bush immediately started talking about how difficult it would be to find anything.

But, more importantly, you are one of the very best guys here and I did not think that I was insulting you with that post.


Sorry dude. I took that wrong. My apologies.

Plus I'm a little edgy since KSU is on the road at Columbia tonight.

Plus I agree with a lot of what you say.

WilliamTheIrish
01-31-2004, 07:50 PM
When the truth is known it will be clear that it was not the intelligence analysis that was relied upon, but this investigation will not be complete until after the election, and after the election there wil not be any investigation.

Bush OK's Independent Probe of Prewar Intelligence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1723-2004Jan31.html?nav=hptop_tb)

Goodbye second term.

Donger
01-31-2004, 08:35 PM
Bush OK's Independent Probe of Prewar Intelligence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1723-2004Jan31.html?nav=hptop_tb)

Goodbye second term.

I'd say that's premature in the extreme. If it comes to light that intel weenies were pressured to produce false estimates, that's one thing. If Bush just responded to faulty intelligence, I fail to see how it means "no second term."

Frankie
10-19-2004, 06:26 PM
Just thought this thing is STILL so timely after almost a year that it deserves to be upped.

mlyonsd
10-19-2004, 06:29 PM
Yawwwwnnnnn.

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 06:30 PM
Just thought this thing is STILL so timely after almost a year that it deserves to be upped.
You should read the Times today. It includes an endorsement from Tommy Franks for GWB further stating that Kerry really has no idea what he is speaking on. In fact, he even takes a stab at you for your Tora Bora comment.

Retired U.S. General Attacks Kerry Over Bin Laden
By REUTERS

Published: October 19, 2004


Filed at 5:52 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan on Tuesday disputed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's charge that the Bush administration let Osama bin Laden escape Afghanistan in 2001.

``I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality,'' retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks wrote in a commentary published by The New York Times.

The Kerry campaign took issue with the retired general's comments. ``Franks is a patriot. But in his attempt to campaign for President (George W.) Bush, he's letting political spin get in the way of the facts,'' said campaign spokeswoman Brooke Anderson.

Franks, who has endorsed the Republican president's re-election bid, challenged Kerry's contention that U.S. forces had the fugitive al Qaeda leader surrounded but ``outsourced'' the job of capturing him to Afghan forces in the rugged Tora Bora region of eastern Afghanistan.

The Massachusetts senator has repeatedly charged that Bush was so preoccupied with Iraq -- long before the U.S.-led invasion of that country in March 2003 -- that he took emphasis away from capturing bin Laden, blamed for the September 2001 attacks on America.

U.S.-led forces, which ousted Afghanistan's fundamentalist Taliban rulers, waged a fierce battle in December 2001 in mountainous Tora Bora, known for its extensive cave complex. It is believed bin Laden slipped out of the region around this time, possibly fleeing into Pakistan.

'NEVER WITHIN OUR GASP'

``We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir,'' wrote Franks, who led the invasions of Afghanistan and later Iraq as chief of the U.S. military's Central Command.

``Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Ladary operations in Iraq. Graham is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Hel'n
10-19-2004, 06:30 PM
http://www.electoral-vote.com/cartoons/iraq.gif

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2004, 08:19 PM
In other news,

The NY Times is in Denial: "We are NOT Liberally Biased."