or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Bad Intelligence. Uh oh
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bad Intelligence. Uh oh - Page 3  

post #81 of 272
Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House said a claim in the president's State of the Union address that Iraq sought large quantities of uranium in Africa was not accurate.

CIA Director George Tenet issued a statement late Friday saying his agency made a mistake in clearing the language in the president's speech.

Democrats have stepped up their criticism of Bush in recent days over the statement and the president's reasons for going to war.


CNN congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl talked to Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean about the dispute Friday before Tenet's statement was released:

KARL: The president and his national security adviser are saying that the CIA, and George Tenet specifically, cleared this speech and signed off on it. Does that get the president off the hook?

AN: We don't know that. The fact is that [former U.S.] Ambassador [to Niger Joseph] Wilson, in a public statement in The New York Times, has indicated that his report showing that there was no involvement between Niger and Iraq in terms of the uranium deal went to the office of the vice president, the secretary of state and the CIA. So I don't know what the president knew and when the president knew it, but I know that this intelligence-handling is a disaster for the administration at best, and either no one got to the secretary of defense or the president, or his own senior advisors withheld information.

So this is a serious credibility problem, and it's a lot deeper than just the Iraq-Niger deal, it has to do with assertions by the secretary of defense that he knew where weapons were that turned out not to be there, it has to do with assertions by the vice president there was a nuclear program that turned out not to exist, and assertions made by the president himself, not just about the acquisition of uranium, but also about the ability of [deposed Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] to use chemical weapons on the United States. We need a full-blown public investigation not held in Congress but by an outside bipartisan commission.

KARL: Condoleezza Rice specifically mentioned George Tenet, and now the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is specifically saying that George Tenet had a responsibility to tell the president about this but didn't.
DEAN: It's beginning to sound a little like Watergate. They start throwing people over the side. The deeper you go, the more interesting it will be. It's very clear that it may be George Tenet's responsibility, but that information also existed in the State Department and it also existed in the vice president's office, so they will not get away with simply throwing George Tenet over the side.

KARL: How big a deal is this?

DEAN: The big deal is not so much that we went to war over a deal between Iraq and Niger which didn't exist and that the administration knew ahead of time it didn't exist. The big deal is the credibility of the United States of America and the credibility of the president in telling the American people the truth and the rest of the world the truth. That's a very big deal.

KARL: What about your colleagues as presidential candidates? A number of them who supported very strongly the president's action going to war with Iraq are out there like you raising strong questions about this.

DEAN: Well, I think those that voted for the war in Iraq are on very thin ice. They did not exercise their senatorial requirement to advise and consent knowing all the facts. They jumped five months ahead of time, voted for a pre-emptive strike based now on what appears to be evidence that they did not question. I think that's a problem for them as well.

KARL: Do you think they were fooled?

DEAN: I can't speak to that, but you have to ask why they didn't ask the questions I was asking at the same time. I'm not even from Washington, and I could figure out that the president wasn't making the case, and the question is why didn't they figure that out.

KARL: You put out a very strong statement saying somebody should resign for this.

DEAN: I believe that.

KARL: Who?

DEAN: Well, we don't know yet. ... I hope we'll get to that conclusion soon.

KARL: Is there a larger question regarding Iraq and the continued violence? Has the president really leveled with the American people?

DEAN: We had estimates before we went into Iraq that this was going to be over within 18 months, then it got to two years, then four years. I believe that we are going to be there for a very long time. I have repeatedly called for the internationalization of the occupation force in Iraq, both with NATO and United Nations troops. They have a better record of peacekeeping than we do, they have a better record of administering foreign countries than we do that are under protectorates. We need to start pulling our reserve units out of Iraq, and we cannot do that. We cannot afford to lose the peace in Iraq under any circumstances, and yet this president seems to be handcuffed in terms of his ability to straighten the situation out over there.

KARL: The conventional wisdom has been that if the Democrats are going to beat Bush they're going to beat him on the economy and that national security is his strong suit.

DEAN: I have said that I think I am the most electable candidate because people have continually underestimated me. My national security people who I was just meeting for an hour and a half before you got here are pretty smart people. I've been talking to them for a year and a half. Don't underestimate governors from small states. We can learn in a hurry.


Lee Majors , Oswald, Tenent


Fall guys...

Conde and other's putting out Tenent's name just reeks of planning to me.

(ok maybe i will if she asks me nicely...)
\
post #82 of 272
One, Dean is never going to get the nomination...just to sober you up there.

Two, we're talking about an opinion from a guy who is hugely anti-war and is running against the man he is criticizing. Perhaps he has a motive here? Nooooo.... And really..Watergate? He wishes....from the bottom of his heart.

bunge:

You haven't been saying like what Tenet said. Not at all. Your position is that Bush knowingly used false intel. That's been proven to be false in ITSELF.

Quote:
Technically it wasn't a lie, even though we knew it wasn't true.'

That's going to be tough to prove, even if I agreed with you. So changes were made...so what? It seems to me they were trying to be as accurate as possible by getting into specifics such as amounts of materials, etc. (that's only my interpretation...there are several other possible ones).

It doesn't matter now anyway, because the Dirrector of the CIA has publicly said it was his fault...that he should have told the President but didn't. That's pretty much the end...unless someone can prove beyond any real doubt that Bush was told.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #83 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You haven't been saying like what Tenet said. Not at all. Your position is that Bush knowingly used false intel.

They shifted the intelligence from the CIA (because the CIA's intelligence did not support the Niger info) to Britain so Bush could use it. Not because it was accurate. That's what I've been saying. That's what Tenet says.

Yes, it will take some time to unfold, and I guess because of this you and Bush both need to take the attitude that "This is meaningless, it's over" or you'll risk things getting worse.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #84 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
They shifted the intelligence from the CIA (because the CIA's intelligence did not support the Niger info) to Britain so Bush could use it. Not because it was accurate. That's what I've been saying. That's what Tenet says.

Yes, it will take some time to unfold, and I guess because of this you and Bush both need to take the attitude that "This is meaningless, it's over" or you'll risk things getting worse.

Stop trying to paint me as a blindly partisan tool, bunge. Oh, and let me pre-empt any comment about to made such as "well, that's what you're portraying yourself as".

The bottom line is the CIA cleared it. That's the end of the story.

Condoleeza Rice: "If [the CIA] said take the information out....it would have been out of there".

I'm not talking about Britain, I'm talking about OUR intelligence services which cleared the speech. In other words, it was up to them to find inaccuracies. That's WHY it goes through them first.

You may suspect, speculate, suggest, doubt...whatever. But, that's all it will be. You have no proof AT ALL that Bush knew.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #85 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Stop trying to paint me as a blindly partisan tool, bunge. Oh, and let me pre-empt any comment about to made such as "well, that's what you're portraying yourself as".

The bottom line is the CIA cleared it. That's the end of the story.

Condoleeza Rice: "If [the CIA] said take the information out....it would have been out of there".

I'm not talking about Britain, I'm talking about OUR intelligence services which cleared the speech. In other words, it was up to them to find inaccuracies. That's WHY it goes through them first.

You may suspect, speculate, suggest, doubt...whatever. But, that's all it will be. You have no proof AT ALL that Bush knew.


Oh SDW? Did you click on the link to that same text and read the poll like I asked? I know you would like to think this is over but I have a feeling this is just the begining. Look even groverat admits he thinks Bush lied. Any thinking unpartisan person would come to that conclusion. This still means that the main reason we went to war was false! This whole Iraq has WOMD and is a threat is sounding really half baked. I think the voters are starting to realize that also. Mix that with a litttle bad economics and.....well you know. The morning paper here in Salem just said ( right on the front page ) Oregon's unemployed has just jumped to 8.5. It hasn't been that since 1986! Tell me again how the economy's going to improve! Even a little.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #86 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
The bottom line is the CIA cleared it. That's the end of the story.

Are you dense? What did the CIA clear? They cleared the fact that the CIA was no longer implicated in the claim. They cleared the fact that the Brits said X was true because the Brits said X was true. If the CIA thought it were true the State of the Union Address would have been about Tenent saying it was true, not the Brits.

I know this is a scary time for you, but please try and be reasonable.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #87 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's the end of the story.

Whoops.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #88 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's the end of the story.

"Turn your head, cough."
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #89 of 272
ooohhh! The Guardian and Time magazine! I'm convinced. Just before I came here this morning, I read the time article. Literally, I just read it the second before.

It's ridiculous. And I quote:

...
Quote:
It was a line that had launched a dozen memos, several diplomatic tugs of war and some mysterious, last-minute pencil editing.

Please. Oh no! Last minute editing! I smell deception!

Quote:
The line"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"wasn't the Bush team's strongest evidence for the case that Saddam wanted nuclear weapons. It was just the most controversial, since most government experts familiar with the statement believed it to be unsupportable.

(emphasis added)

Oh really...which experts. Talk about irony. Where't the *support* for that statement?

Quote:
Last week the White House finally admitted that Bush should have jettisoned the claim. Designed to end a long-simmering controversy, the admission instead sparked a bewildering four days of changing explanations and unusually nasty finger pointing by the normally disciplined Bush team.

Notice the added characterization of "nasty finger pointing" and the rather obvious implication that the Bush Team was falling apart.



Quote:
If so many doubted the uranium allegations, who inside the government kept putting those allegations on the table?

So many? Who?

Quote:
In what looked like a command performance of political sacrifice, the head of the agency that expressed some of the strongest doubts about the charge took responsibility for the President's unsubstantiated claim.

It just keeps getting better. The first sentence is blatant, unsupported opinion.

Quote:
Yet the controversy over those 16 words would not have erupted with such force were they not emblematic of larger concerns about Bush's reasoning for going to war in the first place.

Such colorful writing. "Erupted with such force". The second part should read "Time's concerns over going to war in the first place".

Quote:
He wrapped the evidence in the even more controversial doctrine of pre-emption, saying America could no longer wait for proof of its enemies' intentions before defending itself overseasit must sometimes strike first, even without all the evidence in hand. Much of the world was appalled by this logic, but Congress and the American public went along. Four months after the war started, at least one piece of key evidence has turned out to be false, the U.S. has yet to find weapons of mass destruction, and American soldiers keep dying in a country that has not greeted its liberators the way the Administration predicted it would. Now the false assertion and the rising casualties are combining to take a toll on Bush's standing with the public.

Wow...just when I thought it safe to open my eyes. "Wrapped the evidence". People dying! The Iraqis want us out! The horror! The shame!

Quote:
How did a story that much of the national-security apparatus regarded as bogus wind up in the most important speech of Bush's term? The evidence suggests that many in the Bush Administration simply wanted to believe it.

Three words: Criminal Liberal Media

Quote:
Cheney's interest hardly came as a surprise: he has long been known to harbor some of the most hard-line views of Saddam's nuclear ambitions.

Hard Line views of a nuclear Iraq. Imagine!


I'll stop there. Nearly every paragraph of the artcile shows the absoltutely INCREDIBLE bias with which it is written. It looks like a damn Maureen Dowd Column for God's own sake.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #90 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Are you dense? What did the CIA clear? They cleared the fact that the CIA was no longer implicated in the claim. They cleared the fact that the Brits said X was true because the Brits said X was true. If the CIA thought it were true the State of the Union Address would have been about Tenent saying it was true, not the Brits.

I know this is a scary time for you, but please try and be reasonable.

Your first line is a direct violation of the posting guidelines. Let's not be giant-esque here...agreed?

The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety. That's what they cleared. Your last sentence doesn't even make sense. The State of the Union is run through the CIA to make sure it doesn't contain any false information (or overly sensitive information). The CIA officially cleared the speech. Let me say that again: The speech. One more time, all together now: THE SPEECH IN ITS ENTIRETY.

As I said, you may suspect Bush of knowing before hand, but you have no real evidence. No one does. Every single charge to that effect is totally unsubstantiated.

I for one don't believe he lied at all. I have two reasons:

1) I've seen no real evidence he lied.
2) I believe Bush means what he says and is an honest man.

I know you, giant, jimmac et al think that's insane. Think what you will.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #91 of 272
SDW,

Are there any magazines, news channels, newspapers etc. that AREn't commie, liberal, pinko, jane fonda loving, katie coric felatio giving, mouthpieces of the ho-chin-min hand holding, Mayday celebrating, stalin savioring, politcal left?*

just wondering....




*and by politcal left i mean the welfare giving, taxing to death joe main street, death penalty reversing, fetus destroying, immigrant embracing, hollywood sleeping with, media manipulating, gay marriage endorsing, socializing medicine party on the other side of the politcal aisle.
post #92 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
SDW,

Are there any magazines, news channels, newspapers etc. that AREn't commie, liberal, pinko, jane fonda loving, katie coric felatio giving, mouthpieces of the ho-chin-min hand holding, Mayday celebrating, stalin savioring, politcal left?*

just wondering....




*and by politcal left i mean the welfare giving, taxing to death joe main street, death penalty reversing, fetus destroying, immigrant embracing, hollywood sleeping with, media manipulating, gay marriage endorsing, socializing medicine party on the other side of the politcal aisle.

[climbs out from pile of sarcastic goo]

I have said many times there are. Fox News and The Wall Street Joural are two major examples. There's also the Washington Times and the New York Post.

But then, there's:

Time Magazine
The NYT
The LA Times
The Washington Post
MSNBC
ABC
CBS
CNN
The Guardian


Have a nice day.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #93 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
the New York Post.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH

if you were from NY you would know the ridiculousness of that claim...

the post is a tabloid with decent circulation...

you may want to take a look at the New York Sun instead. I think you will like it... I haven't read it since it re-opened two years ago or so...
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
post #94 of 272
Fox News:

You do now that Fox News is run by Roger Ailes and that they have a direct line to the white house which the white house is more than happy to answer. (and call back - collect)

NY Post:

A tabloid.

Both of these are doing what you claim katie and the rest of the liberal media is doing, only to the policatl opposite.

<picks himself up off the floor from laughing his ass off his aereon super chair>

I don't know how to put this but if you honestly consider these sources to honest, objective and ones that have more then a sliver of jounalist intengrity then...

god i don't know what to say. You've made me speechless...
post #95 of 272
Today's NY Post cover:




post #96 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
As I said, you may suspect Bush of knowing before hand, but you have no real evidence. No one does. Every single charge to that effect is totally unsubstantiated.

Rice knew, Cheney knew, Powell knew, Tenent knew, the U.K. knew, everyone knew. If Bush was kept in the dark that holds as much trouble as if he did know.

It's Bush's job to know what all of these people know. And if they're keeping him in the dark as you claim, the entire administration is undermined.

Take your pick, choose your own poison. We can debate either one to the same end.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #97 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Rice knew, Cheney knew, Powell knew, Tenent knew, the U.K. knew, everyone knew. If Bush was kept in the dark that holds as much trouble as if he did know.

It's Bush's job to know what all of these people know. And if they're keeping him in the dark as you claim, the entire administration is undermined.

Take your pick, choose your own poison. We can debate either one to the same end.



Maybe he's just like a hood ornament on a car!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #98 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Today's NY Post cover:



Typical tabloid. Claiming Bush is a woman
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #99 of 272
Actually Bush does cheat on his wife:

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix_u.htm



post #100 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I for one don't believe he lied at all. I have two reasons:

1) I've seen no real evidence he lied.
2) I believe Bush means what he says and is an honest man.

I know you, giant, jimmac et al think that's insane. Think what you will.

I don't think it's insane, just dogmatic.

This should be some food for thought. If not for you, for some others here.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #101 of 272
Well that cleared things up. The white house blame CIA, they take responsibility and Bush say he has 100% confiedence in Tenet. No need to investigate that
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #102 of 272
Crap...I meant the the NY Sun. My mistake there.

keyboard:

Quote:
You do now that Fox News is run by Roger Ailes and that they have a direct line to the white house which the white house is more than happy to answer. (and call back - collect)

Please.

Quote:
I don't know how to put this but if you honestly consider these sources to honest, objective and ones that have more then a sliver of jounalist intengrity then...

god i don't know what to say. You've made me speechless..

I know you all hate Fox News, but they are one hell of a lot better than goddamn ABC, CBS and wait for it......The Guardian!

Fox News is conservative. . I know that. The difference is I can admit that and see them for what they are. They are not the polarized Bush mouthpiece you make them out to be, but they do lean conservative. As a conservative, I watch Fox News frequently. But I can put it in perspective.

Liberals though, cannot see the other networks for what they are. The worst, IMO is probably CBS, followed by a close second ABC. Then, we have MSNBC...which is vying for the top spot recently (this surpirsed me given its affiliation with M$....but it's happening nonetheless). CNN has done a bit better in recent years, but they still lean left...no question. The Guardian, The NYT, The LAT, The Washington Post are all absolute Leftist mouthpieces. Period. The NYT is about to print ANOTHER major correction. The NYT is perhaps even worse than the others, because it has the reputation (or did) or reliability. Do you even read its headlines? Did you see their ridiculous War coverage?

At least I know what I'm watching and reading.

bunge:

Quote:
Rice knew, Cheney knew, Powell knew, Tenent knew, the U.K. knew, everyone knew. If Bush was kept in the dark that holds as much trouble as if he did know.

It's Bush's job to know what all of these people know. And if they're keeping him in the dark as you claim, the entire administration is undermined.

Take your pick, choose your own poison. We can debate either one to the same end.

False dilemma. And, nice try. Please post your evidence that the above parties knew. I've seen no evdience. What I do see is Time magazine articles and anonymous quotes from low-level staffers. I see specualtion, and a whole boat load of partisan politics. I see the Democratic party knowing that the economy is turning around (with the Dow up 27% since March, and the Nasdaq up about 40%) and realizing that this is REALLY the only issue left for them. If the election was this year it might matter. But it's not. Poor Dems...the timing is just bad.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #103 of 272
Quote:
Senator Jay Rockefeller, from an interview today on NPR ...

"I cannot believe that Condi Rice... directly, from Africa, pointed the finger at George Tenet, when she had known -- had to have known -- a year before the State of the Union."
"The entire intelligence community has been very skeptical about this from the very beginning," Rockefeller says. "And she has her own director of intelligence, she has her own Iraq and Africa specialists, and it's just beyond me that she didn't know about this, and that she has decided to make George Tenet the fall person. I think it's dishonorable."

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/fea...e_1335540.html
post #104 of 272
It's interesting that the only place the admin can go is to rest on the legalistic defence built into the statement:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/13/in...=all&position=

Which is what they have been doing all along. Ever since Bush cited the fictitious IAEA reports, most statements written for him to say have had back doors. Look at the State of the Union. He doesn't even actually claim in it that Iraq has any chemical weapons, which is as good as an admission that the admin knew at that time that it was likely that there were none.
post #105 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Crap...I meant the the NY Sun. My mistake there.

keyboard:



Please.



I know you all hate Fox News, but they are one hell of a lot better than goddamn ABC, CBS and wait for it......The Guardian!

Fox News is conservative. . I know that. The difference is I can admit that and see them for what they are. They are not the polarized Bush mouthpiece you make them out to be, but they do lean conservative. As a conservative, I watch Fox News frequently. But I can put it in perspective.

Liberals though, cannot see the other networks for what they are. The worst, IMO is probably CBS, followed by a close second ABC. Then, we have MSNBC...which is vying for the top spot recently (this surpirsed me given its affiliation with M$....but it's happening nonetheless). CNN has done a bit better in recent years, but they still lean left...no question. The Guardian, The NYT, The LAT, The Washington Post are all absolute Leftist mouthpieces. Period. The NYT is about to print ANOTHER major correction. The NYT is perhaps even worse than the others, because it has the reputation (or did) or reliability. Do you even read its headlines? Did you see their ridiculous War coverage?

At least I know what I'm watching and reading.

bunge:



False dilemma. And, nice try. Please post your evidence that the above parties knew. I've seen no evdience. What I do see is Time magazine articles and anonymous quotes from low-level staffers. I see specualtion, and a whole boat load of partisan politics. I see the Democratic party knowing that the economy is turning around (with the Dow up 27% since March, and the Nasdaq up about 40%) and realizing that this is REALLY the only issue left for them. If the election was this year it might matter. But it's not. Poor Dems...the timing is just bad.


That's funny. Those points don't seem to be having the effect your wishing for with the economy. Also they were talking about the question of the validity of the war in Iraq on the Today Show this morning again. Oh, I'm sorry I forgot Katie Couric is on that show!


Yup, that story just isn't going away.

The economy isn't good either. The fact of the matter is the jobless rate is the highest since 1994 and in my state of Oregon it's even higher ( the highest unemployement since 1986 ). Interest rates are still at a 45 year low. Lets say that again so it can sink in a 45 year low!. These things show that something is rotten at the core and all it would take is one small event to push us over the edge into another recession.

Most people are living on a balloon of credit. It wouldn't take much to pop it.

Those numbers are a lot more telling than some movement in the market. Sure they are hopeful with this recent surge. I'd be too. But I don't think it will last. The U.S. economy isn't well at all. It's also not showing signs of getting better. Stop focusing on those 2 figures which don't really show the true or whole picture. Times are good for the big companies and the rich though.I suppose that means you're depending on the trickle down effect.

By the way this is what happened in the 70's and the 80's. Things would seem to get better then we'd slide back into bad times. Surely you're not asking us to accept that again?

By the way the people suffering are the one's that will vote ( or not) for your boy.

Oh, by the way from Cnn today........

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...tel/index.html

Yup! It's not just going away. People are begining to question the rhetorical answers the Bush people have been giving for months now.

Wake up! Hello! McFly! Anybody in there?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #106 of 272
post #107 of 272
I was driving today listening to the radio.

They had a little sound bite of Bush:

"The intelligence I get is darn good intelligence"

darn good?



Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #108 of 272
Quote:

HAHAHAHAHA :
Quote:
"This revisionist notion that somehow this is now the core of why we went to war, a central issue of why we went to war, a fundamental underpinning of the president's decisions, is a bunch of bull," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Monday.

oh man!... the point isn't that it is the core... but to deny that the WOMD threat wasn't a central issue is bullshit... a load of crap...

"revisionist"! where is a mirror when you need one?

here is another good quote:

Quote:
Bush said, "When I gave the speech, the line was relevant."

really... I thought the CIA stated that it was their fault that the info was there in the first place BECAUSE IT WAS INCORRECT!!!
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
post #109 of 272
"Darn Good"

What a choice of words....

The more Bush opens his mouth the more I worry about what he is doing to the country.

Statements like "Bring it on"

and now:

"Darn Good"

My God... The Dixie Chicks were not so wrong...

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #110 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by Paul
... I thought the CIA stated that it was their fault that the info was there in the first place BECAUSE IT WAS INCORRECT!!!

It sounds to me like you're trying to catch Bush in another lie! OH MY!
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #111 of 272
Quote:
Please.

Please what?

Please let it not be true?

Sorry. It is. Ailes has direct conversations with the white house.

I'm sure they are talking about the price of tea in china though, since they are such a bastion of journalistic integrity..

post #112 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

The more Bush opens his mouth the more I worry about what he is doing to the country.

this was my reaction from the earliest times I heard him speak in the '90s

totally stunned that such a poor communicator got to the oval office in the first place.

maybe the US birthplace requirement would need waving for Arnie to run for President, but if there's only going to be one change in the requirements for the White House, how about merit testing of qualifications like intelligence and leadership (both of which are let down pretty badly by the Bush family's notoriously unclear diction).
Anne Richards would have said it comes from being born with a Silver Foot in their mouths.
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
post #113 of 272
Jimmac

Quote:
The economy isn't good either. The fact of the matter is the jobless rate is the highest since 1994 and in my state of Oregon it's even higher ( the highest unemployement since 1986 ). Interest rates are still at a 45 year low. Lets say that again so it can sink in a 45 year low!. These things show that something is rotten at the core and all it would take is one small event to push us over the edge into another recession.

More doom and gloom from our friend jimmac. Interest rates are low, and unemployment is at 6.4%. I suppose it depends on one's point of view. Unemployment is a trailing indicator, and is still lower than than AVERAGE unemployment. The markets tend to be leading indicators. That's why many say the "recession" really began in March 2000, not March 2001. As far as something "rotten to the core", I disagree. We had the tech collapse, rising energy prices and interest rates, then the biggest error attack in the history of the world...and two wars. With all of this, the recession (which wasn't one by historical definition) was very moderate. We're experiencing growth now, and actually have never had two consecutive quarters of negative growth. You point to low rates as a bad thing. I see it as a good thing.
Rotten at the core? What? You don't actually mean to tell me that George Bush and the Republican party caused a recession by CUTTING taxes do you?

Quote:
Most people are living on a balloon of credit. It wouldn't take much to pop it.

Agreed on the first clause. Disagreed on the second...assuming you mean on a large scale.



Quote:
Those numbers are a lot more telling than some movement in the market. Sure they are hopeful with this recent surge. I'd be too. But I don't think it will last. The U.S. economy isn't well at all. It's also not showing signs of getting better. Stop focusing on those 2 figures which don't really show the true or whole picture. Times are good for the big companies and the rich though.I suppose that means you're depending on the trickle down effect.

The economy isn't as bad as you think. Manufacturing data is getting better, as is consumer confidence. And...hello? Times are good for the big companies and the rich? My god, is this really how you see things? If the large coporations are doing well (actually doing well...not "Enron" well) then the markets will do well. Manufacturing and tech will do well. The economy is business. "Big bad rich corporations" ARE the economy.
Duh.



Quote:
By the way this is what happened in the 70's and the 80's. Things would seem to get better then we'd slide back into bad times. Surely you're not asking us to accept that again?

I know you'd like to think this is 1979, but it isn't. The economy of today is completely different. In this general time frame, stagflation was the problem. We have almost zero infaltion now. Some economists are talking about the government delibrately CAUSING inflation to help the economy. Energy prices are fairly high...but not as high as they were then, when adjusted for inflation. Consumer credit is much more widely available and much more secure. The housing market is doing better than it EVER has. The economy is also based on different sectors...more on services and technology than the large industrial Blue Chips. In other words, it's a very different time.

As far as the 1980's are concerned, that's just more of your revisionist liberal history talking. The 1980's were a superb economic decade for the United States. The economy was particularly strong from 1984-1987. In 1987, we had a crash which corrected itself more quickly than expected. There was no recession in the 1980's...after the economy rebounded in late 1983. Of course, we had other problems such as trade deficits and junk bonds...but to lump the 1980's in with the 70's is totally inappropriate. To listen to you, it seems you believe the line you've been fed by your liberal revisionist friends: The economy in the 1990's was the best in history and lasted fromwhen CLinton took office until the day he left. That's not the case. The early 1990's were described as "anemic". In fact, we had a mediocre economy through 1995. That same year we had an economic slowdown as well...not a recession. The fact is that the economy didn't truly get good until 1996...and it didn't boom until the late nineties. So go ahead, keep believing that the 1990's was a Clinton-caused free for all. It wasn't.

As far as people suffering...we'll see. Your statment is contradictory anyway, because I thought "the rich" supported Bush? I thought you said they were fine?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #114 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Jimmac



More doom and gloom from our friend jimmac. Interest rates are low, and unemployment is at 6.4%. I suppose it depends on one's point of view. Unemployment is a trailing indicator, and is still lower than than AVERAGE unemployment. The markets tend to be leading indicators. That's why many say the "recession" really began in March 2000, not March 2001. As far as something "rotten to the core", I disagree. We had the tech collapse, rising energy prices and interest rates, then the biggest error attack in the history of the world...and two wars. With all of this, the recession (which wasn't one by historical definition) was very moderate. We're experiencing growth now, and actually have never had two consecutive quarters of negative growth. You point to low rates as a bad thing. I see it as a good thing.
Rotten at the core? What? You don't actually mean to tell me that George Bush and the Republican party caused a recession by CUTTING taxes do you?



Agreed on the first clause. Disagreed on the second...assuming you mean on a large scale.





The economy isn't as bad as you think. Manufacturing data is getting better, as is consumer confidence. And...hello? Times are good for the big companies and the rich? My god, is this really how you see things? If the large coporations are doing well (actually doing well...not "Enron" well) then the markets will do well. Manufacturing and tech will do well. The economy is business. "Big bad rich corporations" ARE the economy.
Duh.





I know you'd like to think this is 1979, but it isn't. The economy of today is completely different. In this general time frame, stagflation was the problem. We have almost zero infaltion now. Some economists are talking about the government delibrately CAUSING inflation to help the economy. Energy prices are fairly high...but not as high as they were then, when adjusted for inflation. Consumer credit is much more widely available and much more secure. The housing market is doing better than it EVER has. The economy is also based on different sectors...more on services and technology than the large industrial Blue Chips. In other words, it's a very different time.

As far as the 1980's are concerned, that's just more of your revisionist liberal history talking. The 1980's were a superb economic decade for the United States. The economy was particularly strong from 1984-1987. In 1987, we had a crash which corrected itself more quickly than expected. There was no recession in the 1980's...after the economy rebounded in late 1983. Of course, we had other problems such as trade deficits and junk bonds...but to lump the 1980's in with the 70's is totally inappropriate. To listen to you, it seems you believe the line you've been fed by your liberal revisionist friends: The economy in the 1990's was the best in history and lasted fromwhen CLinton took office until the day he left. That's not the case. The early 1990's were described as "anemic". In fact, we had a mediocre economy through 1995. That same year we had an economic slowdown as well...not a recession. The fact is that the economy didn't truly get good until 1996...and it didn't boom until the late nineties. So go ahead, keep believing that the 1990's was a Clinton-caused free for all. It wasn't.

As far as people suffering...we'll see. Your statment is contradictory anyway, because I thought "the rich" supported Bush? I thought you said they were fine?


More alternate reality drival.

Still in check ( what can you say ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #115 of 272
Jobless Recovery.


Of course if your daddy is rich and powerful those two words don't matter much to you...
post #116 of 272
There is something that I think we are all missing here. Who was another major proponent of the war in Iraq? Blair, PM of the UK. And from my understanding the British Intelligence community is far more active and accurate throughout the world than US intelligence, hell we get a good portion of our intelligence from the Brits.

So, was there no intelligence on this matter from the Int. agencies of the matter, hard to believe. If it was contradictory to the fear of WoMD in Iraq then Blair is also implicated in deception of the British people. But does the Bush admin really have that much leverage on a powerful world leader like Blair to coerce him to lie for a war that is still highly controversial. Coerce him to take a stance that could jepordize his entire political career? It is extremely hard for me to believe.
"Beware the Jabberwock , my son! The jaws that bite, the claw that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the the frumious Bandersnatch!"

from Jabberwocky, excerpt from Alice through the looking...
"Beware the Jabberwock , my son! The jaws that bite, the claw that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the the frumious Bandersnatch!"

from Jabberwocky, excerpt from Alice through the looking...
post #117 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by LiquidR
But does the Bush admin really have that much leverage on a powerful world leader like Blair to coerce him to lie for a war that is still highly controversial. Coerce him to take a stance that could jepordize his entire political career? It is extremely hard for me to believe.

This is something I used to believe, prior to the war. I was willing to believe the WMD case based on 'intelligence' that I figured wasn't available to me. It was only when Bush & Blair started shopping that 'intelligence' around and virtually no other major world leader was convinced that I felt it was suspicious.

So, I was left wondering if Bush & Blair were stretching things, or if 100 other world leaders were in cahoots against the U.S. It seems more likely that two guys would join forces than 100 would. So while Blair's position is still an enigma, it's not as convincing as it once would have been. The rest of the world saw the secret info behind closed doors and wasn't impressed. To me that was more telling than even Blair's compliance.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #118 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by LiquidR
There is something that I think we are all missing here. Who was another major proponent of the war in Iraq? Blair, PM of the UK. And from my understanding the British Intelligence community is far more active and accurate throughout the world than US intelligence, hell we get a good portion of our intelligence from the Brits.

And in this case it was a bad idea. MI6 screwed up royally this time. They just had an investigation in GB about where to put the blame on the wrong intelligens. Blair manage to wriggle himself out of the responsibility.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #119 of 272
Well, if my memory serves me, Blair was not for the war at first, lukewarm maybe. But then Bush and Blair had a pow-wow and Blair changed direction.

So, either Bush really had some good stuff to show Blair, or they discussed info Blair and Bush both already had and then went a go for it, or Bush lied to Blair to get him in the US corner, or Bush strong armed him with threats and promises.

The latter seems highly unlikely to me, Blair knew that it was bad stance to take to the people of the UK, no way in hell were the majority for it, and Blair and the UK have enough power to not be easily coerced by the US. And from my understanding is that the US intelligence community when it concerns the world theater, anywhere in the world, it is shiite, not only compared to the Brits but to the just about every other major power. The Brits are supposed to have some of the best intelligence. So, we probably weren't presenting anything new.

Also, remember there were many other countries loosely confederate with the US, British coalition, if not in military forces or money but by verbal support, if we were to coerce other nations to support us wouldn't we demand a more active role in the campaign. Maybe I'm off base.

But I think Bush went to Iraq with legitimate and illegitimate cause. No nation is altruistic, and with the expenditure that the war cost, there was no way that the corporate interests going to back up such a move without some sort of gain in sight. Hopefully, this whole fiasco will lead the Iraqi people to a chance to form a better nation, a truely secular gov. that allows an educated Islammic culture to flourish. Unfortunatly that probably won't be the case.
"Beware the Jabberwock , my son! The jaws that bite, the claw that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the the frumious Bandersnatch!"

from Jabberwocky, excerpt from Alice through the looking...
"Beware the Jabberwock , my son! The jaws that bite, the claw that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the the frumious Bandersnatch!"

from Jabberwocky, excerpt from Alice through the looking...
post #120 of 272
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...International/

Quote:
A top United Nations weapons hunter says it would have been "virtually impossible" for Iraq to revive a nuclear bomb program with equipment recently dug up from a Baghdad backyard, as the United States contends.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Bad Intelligence. Uh oh