You don't think he could launder weapons to terrorists? The receipts wouldn't have shown they came from Iraq. I think he'd love the idea. Before this run-up to war, he probably figured that without "smoking gun" proof, the US was handcuffed to do anything. Always was true before.
yes, quite possible, in fact this theory was being tossed around a month or so ago, with Syria being a possible middleman and some European and Asian fronts being the outlet.
I'm trying really hard to figure out what this has to do with citing exactly what bio/chem weapons Saddam had, but am unable to do so. Oh, now I see. You read my post wrong. In the future, respond to what I am actually talking about or don't respond at all.
Quote:
Saddam likely had a map as to where each component was hidden, where each expert he had went...They would like to see America wiped out.
No, he likely did not. Apparently you have a very underinformed and unsophisticated definition of 'component', or maybe you are talking about some film you saw. By the way, it would be an extremely good idea to realize that the world is a bit more complex, to put it mildly, than "They would like to see America wiped out." That's the kind of statement that only works when you say it with your lip tucked under you top teeth and your eyes crossed.
You don't think he could launder weapons to terrorists? The receipts wouldn't have shown they came from Iraq. I think he'd love the idea. Before this run-up to war, he probably figured that without "smoking gun" proof, the US was handcuffed to do anything. Always was true before.
As one CIA analyst phrased it: Hollywood Rinky-Dink.
That's not what I said. As for statement number two, that's ridiculous.
Al Qeada + Saddam's possible and previously proven WMD + Hatred of US=potential threat.
nonono. Remember, the current president was VERY careful not to make that claim. He said "certain al Qaeda-type organizations." OBL and Hussein didn't like one another much, by all accounts.
Ahh yes that may be. But that has excatly zero to do with terrorism.
Liberals: "Give us the case for war"
Conservatives: "Well, Saddam has had and used WMD which he might give to Al-Qaeda. We can't verify if he has them now, but he hasn't accounted for what he DID have. He's had five years to redevelop his WMD programs and give years to hide them. We know he had them because we sold some of them to him, and he's also used them against his own people.
Liberals: " There's no poof of that....we want a smoking gun!!!"
Conservative: "We've seen no proof he's gotten rid of them. He's violated 17 resolutions and had twelve years to renounce his WMD programs. He hasn;t complied and the risk is too great to United States".
Liberals "We have to go to the UN"
Conservatives: "OK"
Liberals: "The UN said no!"
Conservatives: "No, it just refuses to back up resolution 1441 which states "serious consequences" will take place if Saddam doesn't disarm. We have to act.
Liberals: "Why now?...More time for the inspectors to find the weapons Saddam doesn't have, we say!"
Conservatives: "More time will not be effective. We thought you said he didn;t have any weapons. Which is it?"
Liberals: "Unialteralists!! Give us the case for taking the US to war! WMD is not enough!
Conservatives: "He's a mass murderer, has targeted and fired on coalition aircraft, and violated the 1991 ceasefire agreement, and has definite ties to terrorism. He's also exceptionally anti-US.
Liberals: "You're changing the subject!...It thought you said we were going in for WMD reasons!?!"
Conservatives: "That's a major reason, perhaps the first reason".
Liberals: "Saddam hasn't done anything to us! Give is the case for war".
I'm trying really hard to figure out what this has to do with citing exactly what bio/chem weapons Saddam had, but am unable to do so. Oh, now I see. You read my post wrong. In the future, respond to what I am actually talking about or don't respond at all.
Hey man if we're going to resort to personal jabs, I can take the kid gloves off.
I was making an analogy using the fairytale farfetch literary device you made use of to begin with. I don't know if you are from the US or not but in the US I know I can make comparisons of Saddams regime to my Grandmother's recipe for dog soup, and you don't have to listen. So, instead of being a snide prick keep comments on the arguments instead of trying to be an elitist git.
Conclusion, we are making arguments here and some of the points that we all make may or may not influence others on this board, but more than likely Bush, Chirac, Putin, Schroeder, Blair or any other world leader is not going to base their policy on what's posted on this board, so cool it buddy.
Hey man if we're going to resort to personal jabs, I can take the kid gloves off.
By all means.
Quote:
I was making an analogy using the fairytale farfetch literary device you made use of to begin with. I don't know if you are from the US or not but in the US I know I can make comparisons of Saddams regime to my Grandmother's recipe for dog soup, and you don't have to listen. So, instead of being a snide prick keep comments on the arguments instead of trying to be an elitist git.
Conclusion, we are making arguments here and some of the points that we all make may or may not influence others on this board, but more than likely Bush, Chirac, Putin, Schroeder, Blair or any other world leader is not going to base their policy on what's posted on this board, so cool it buddy.
So that didn't do much to clear it up. Why not be an adult, admit you read the post wrong and be done with it?
If somehow your post about 9.11 has something to do with naming the exact chem/bio weapons that Saddam had, then please explain it to me. Here let me help you:
Quote:
Originally posted by LiquidR
I've got another fantastical fairytale. Once upon a time a bunch of crazy terrorists hijacked a set of Airliners with box cutters. Then they took those airliners and flew them into our largest city and slammed into 2 of our largest buildings where a great deal of our financial institutions lay. There was a 3rd one that flew into our capital and slammed into our military HQ. And a 4th that crashed in the middle of nowhere, bur who knows where it was going, and who knows how many more were targets on that same day but were thwarted by the quick actions by the FAA to ground all planes.
Wakeup call. I respect descent to the popular view, I also respect and encourage descent to the views of the government. But I would also like all to realize is that those terrorists weren't trying to just disrupt our lives they were trying to completly destroy it in one grand gesture. Saddam is known to support terrorism, recently, remember the cash rewards offered to suicide bombers. There were components hidden, perhaps a decade ago, were they forgotten, I doubt it. Saddam likely had a map as to where each component was hidden, where each expert he had went. Neither he nor bi Laden care if you disagree with Bush, Blair or your own grandmother. They would like to see America wiped out.
Well, I see nothing here that has anything to do with naming specific chemical weapons.
So maybe we could just stick to the facts. How does that sound, chief?
nonono. Remember, the current president was VERY careful not to make that claim. He said "certain al Qaeda-type organizations." OBL and Hussein didn't like one another much, by all accounts.
Cheers
Scott
That's a line repeated by the anti-war crowd ad naseum. It's really an unproven statement, and there is plenty of evidence linking Saddam to terror anyway. For example, we know about the suicide bombers and their funding. Once a terrorist, always a terrorist.
That's a line repeated by the anti-war crowd ad naseum.
That's because it's apparently true, unlike some things.
Quote:
It's really an unproven statement, and there is plenty of evidence linking Saddam to terror anyway.
I said nothing about Hussein NOT being linked to "terror." I said he wasn't linked to al Qaeda. The current president was VERY specific in his statements about Hussein's links to terrorist groups, and he EXPLICITLY said "al qaeda-type groups," not al Qaeda itself. They tried at one point to make that connection, and they couldn't.
Quote:
For example, we know about the suicide bombers and their funding. Once a terrorist, always a terrorist.
See above.
Cheers
Scott
PS
Do I have it right that you're a homebuilder? Would you mind if I pm'd you a few questions? I'm in the process of buying my first house.
Okay giant, further clarification, my point was to show that your opinion of a scenario being far fetched to the point that you would compare it to mythical beasts doesn't amount to doggle. Before 911, if anyone would have approached you with that scenario you would have laughed and thought the cretin was pitchin a new Hollywood military thriller. Obviously men like Osama and Saddam are far more dynamic in their thought processes than you. For the record I stil think you are an insuferable git who lacks the chutzpah for real thinking, a real dialogue. Instead you resort to personal jibes. Grow some cajones and act like that to people in their face and see where they tell you to shove it. Or get some sense and communicate like a human. Like I said I doubt what you have to say is so important that Daschle is going to knock on your door to ask for your opinion on the Democratic strategy.
Okay giant, further clarification, my point was to show that your opinion of a scenario being far fetched to the point that you would compare it to mythical beasts doesn't amount to doggle. Before 911, if anyone would have approached you with that scenario you would have laughed and thought the cretin was pitchin a new Hollywood military thriller. Obviously men like Osama and Saddam are far more dynamic in their thought processes than you.
Actually, there was a whole lot of indications that the attack was going to happen and that it was going to happen in the way it did. I understand you are accustomed to discussing this with your friends at the mall or the guys at the bar, so it's understandable that you don't know much about intelligence analysis. Until you actually have spent some time learning about it, it would be wise to withhold judgement on the things you think you see.
Quote:
For the record I stil think you are an insuferable git who lacks the chutzpah for real thinking, a real dialogue. Instead you resort to personal jibes. Grow some cajones and act like that to people in their face and see where they tell you to shove it. Or get some sense and communicate like a human. Like I said I doubt what you have to say is so important that Daschle is going to knock on your door to ask for your opinion on the Democratic strategy.
Really? All I pointed out was that you misunderstood the post, and immediately I'm getting a lecture about how I'm a 'snide prick', 'elitist git' and 'insuferable git'. That's about as much of a personal attack as they come, and I don't remember calling you names.
So, as I said before, let's stick to fact, and the facts don't support your theory. If you can provide facts or evidence to back up your theory about Saddam and Osama, then please do so. Until you use real evidence to illustrate your statement, you will have to continue to resort to fairy tales and speculation.
Actually, I don't go to malls, and when I do go to bar it is to have a single beer (Beamish Irish Stout preferably) after work then it is straight to bed or to my photography projects. Right now I've had 1 hour of sleep in 60 hours.
As for my posting, I do believe my statements are correct. As for the fairy tale device, as I posted earlier, I was just repeating the device you used.
As for the intelligence on 9-11 it was at best non-conclusive prior to the attack. If you will remember the intelligence lay in different parts that would only be clear as a whole, but due to the beauracracy of the intelligence community, no one with the ability to put this parts together ever got the whole picture. This goes back to my point near the beginning of the thread. The US intelligence community is in disarray, we do not get 1st hand intelligence, it is mostly filter to us by the British intelligence agencies and other allies.
As for the intelligence on 9-11 it was at best non-conclusive prior to the attack. If you will remember the intelligence lay in different parts that would only be clear as a whole, but due to the beauracracy of the intelligence community, no one with the ability to put this parts together ever got the whole picture. This goes back to my point near the beginning of the thread.
Partially true, but not in relation to sept 11. It is clear that many, many people in the US government knew about the imminent attacks, and there were many reports in mainstream media leading up to the events. The best place to START understand the events leading up to 9.11 is the CCR timeline: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/index.html
Quote:
The US intelligence community is in disarray, we do not get 1st hand intelligence, it is mostly filter to us by the British intelligence agencies and other allies.
The first part of this is a very general statement, and in a general sense it is true, but the second part is not true.
Like I've pointed out to SDW, it's really important to study something before commenting on it. Right now the book that I am reading at work (again!) is The New Craft of Intelligence by Robert David Steele (with the whole list of acronyms after his name: MA,MPA,NWC,USMC,CIA,OSS ). It is the primary reference detailing the roadmap for the changes taking place in the intelligence community. I have been studying the intelligence community for a while now and it has a lot to do with my job as an information specialist. It's understandable that you want to argue since you see things in a certain way due to the mind's tendency to fill in knowledge gaps rather than recognize them. We all do this. However, it is important to realize that those gaps are there and that passing judgement without adequate knowledge can only lead to false beliefs.
I don't want to argue with you, but to portray independent analysis of information as solely a matter of opinion is not at all accurate. These global events are incredibly complex, and there are such twists to 9.11 that it is impossible for a rational person in possesion of the facts to buy into the child-like image so often referred to regarding sept 11.
Former Democratic Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, who was a member of the joint congressional committee that produced the report, confirmed the official's statement.
Asked whether he believed the report will reveal that there was no connection between al-Qaida and Iraq, Cleland replied: "I do ... There's no connection, and that's been confirmed by some of (al-Qaida leader Osama) bin Laden's terrorist followers."
...
"The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war," said Cleland. "What you've seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends."
...
Although the committee completed its work at the end of last year, publication of the report has been delayed by interminable wrangles between the committees and the administration over which parts of it could be declassified.
Cleland accused the administration of deliberately delaying the report's release to avoid having its case for war undercut.
"The reason this report was delayed for so long -- deliberately opposed at first, then slow-walked after it was created -- is that the administration wanted to get the war in Iraq in and over ... before (it) came out," he said.
"Had this report come out in January like it should have done, we would have known these things before the war in Iraq, which would not have suited the administration."
...
[A government official who's read the report] went on to suggest that the conclusions drawn from the information about [a key piece of alleged evidence for a Iraq-al Qaida connection] was indicative of a wider-ranging problem with the administration's attitude to intelligence on the alleged Iraq al-Qaida link.
"They take a fact that you could draw several different conclusions from, and in every case they draw the conclusion that supports the policy, without any particular evidence that would meet the normal bar that analytic tradecraft would require for you to make that conclusion," he concluded.
-------------------------------
The buck does not seem to be stopping as condi's assiant took the fall yesterday..
I think the thing that discouraged me about the vice president was uttering those famous words, 'no controlling legal authority.' I felt like that there needed to be a better sense of responsibility of what was going on in the White House. I believe that--I believe they've moved that sign, 'The buck stops here,' from the Oval Office desk to 'The buck stops here' on the Lincoln Bedroom, and that's not good for the country.
George W. Bush
October 3rd, 2000
President Bush on Friday put responsibility squarely on the CIA for his erroneous claim that Iraq tried to acquire nuclear material from Africa, prompting the director of intelligence to publicly accept full blame for the miscue.
Look, I'm glad you are educated and well-informed. No one here disputes that. But, none of us knows about every piece of intelligence the government has. I am absolutely NOT flaming you here, but it's a bit naive....no, very naive to think that you could possibly have this information. It's also exceptionally arrogant to trumpet that fact loudly throughout the board when someone disgarees with you.
Again, I mean no offense. But this implied and stated claim of yours that you know all there is to know re: Iraq is highly suspect and very illogical.
No reasonable eprson would agree that you, or anyone else here, has access to "everything" the government knows and does.
Comments
You don't think he could launder weapons to terrorists? The receipts wouldn't have shown they came from Iraq. I think he'd love the idea. Before this run-up to war, he probably figured that without "smoking gun" proof, the US was handcuffed to do anything. Always was true before.
yes, quite possible, in fact this theory was being tossed around a month or so ago, with Syria being a possible middleman and some European and Asian fronts being the outlet.
Originally posted by LiquidR
I've got another fantastical fairytale.
I'm trying really hard to figure out what this has to do with citing exactly what bio/chem weapons Saddam had, but am unable to do so. Oh, now I see. You read my post wrong. In the future, respond to what I am actually talking about or don't respond at all.
Saddam likely had a map as to where each component was hidden, where each expert he had went...They would like to see America wiped out.
No, he likely did not. Apparently you have a very underinformed and unsophisticated definition of 'component', or maybe you are talking about some film you saw. By the way, it would be an extremely good idea to realize that the world is a bit more complex, to put it mildly, than "They would like to see America wiped out." That's the kind of statement that only works when you say it with your lip tucked under you top teeth and your eyes crossed.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
You don't think he could launder weapons to terrorists? The receipts wouldn't have shown they came from Iraq. I think he'd love the idea. Before this run-up to war, he probably figured that without "smoking gun" proof, the US was handcuffed to do anything. Always was true before.
As one CIA analyst phrased it: Hollywood Rinky-Dink.
Originally posted by Anders
So for you the Iraqi war is also tied to 911? I´m amazed every time that arguments surfaces.
Nothing indicates that Saddam was involved in anything that could cause another terrorist attack on US.
That's not what I said. As for statement number two, that's ridiculous.
Al Qeada + Saddam's possible and previously proven WMD + Hatred of US=potential threat.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's not what I said. As for statement number two, that's ridiculous.
Al Qeada + Saddam's possible and previously proven WMD + Hatred of US=potential threat.
nonono. Remember, the current president was VERY careful not to make that claim. He said "certain al Qaeda-type organizations." OBL and Hussein didn't like one another much, by all accounts.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Anders
Ahh yes that may be. But that has excatly zero to do with terrorism.
Liberals: "Give us the case for war"
Conservatives: "Well, Saddam has had and used WMD which he might give to Al-Qaeda. We can't verify if he has them now, but he hasn't accounted for what he DID have. He's had five years to redevelop his WMD programs and give years to hide them. We know he had them because we sold some of them to him, and he's also used them against his own people.
Liberals: " There's no poof of that....we want a smoking gun!!!"
Conservative: "We've seen no proof he's gotten rid of them. He's violated 17 resolutions and had twelve years to renounce his WMD programs. He hasn;t complied and the risk is too great to United States".
Liberals "We have to go to the UN"
Conservatives: "OK"
Liberals: "The UN said no!"
Conservatives: "No, it just refuses to back up resolution 1441 which states "serious consequences" will take place if Saddam doesn't disarm. We have to act.
Liberals: "Why now?...More time for the inspectors to find the weapons Saddam doesn't have, we say!"
Conservatives: "More time will not be effective. We thought you said he didn;t have any weapons. Which is it?"
Liberals: "Unialteralists!! Give us the case for taking the US to war! WMD is not enough!
Conservatives: "He's a mass murderer, has targeted and fired on coalition aircraft, and violated the 1991 ceasefire agreement, and has definite ties to terrorism. He's also exceptionally anti-US.
Liberals: "You're changing the subject!...It thought you said we were going in for WMD reasons!?!"
Conservatives: "That's a major reason, perhaps the first reason".
Liberals: "Saddam hasn't done anything to us! Give is the case for war".
And so forth.
Tenet: Don't use it.
Rice, Cheney Rummy, Junior: But you can't PROVE it didn't happen can you?
Tenet: No i can not do that. Nor can I disprove green men on mars
Rice, Cheney Rummy, Junior: So that's an "affirm" thanks.
Rice, Cheney Rummy, Junior: Speechwriter!!!!!!! Meeting in the oval office. Stat.
I'm trying really hard to figure out what this has to do with citing exactly what bio/chem weapons Saddam had, but am unable to do so. Oh, now I see. You read my post wrong. In the future, respond to what I am actually talking about or don't respond at all.
Hey man if we're going to resort to personal jabs, I can take the kid gloves off.
I was making an analogy using the fairytale farfetch literary device you made use of to begin with. I don't know if you are from the US or not but in the US I know I can make comparisons of Saddams regime to my Grandmother's recipe for dog soup, and you don't have to listen. So, instead of being a snide prick keep comments on the arguments instead of trying to be an elitist git.
Conclusion, we are making arguments here and some of the points that we all make may or may not influence others on this board, but more than likely Bush, Chirac, Putin, Schroeder, Blair or any other world leader is not going to base their policy on what's posted on this board, so cool it buddy.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Hey man if we're going to resort to personal jabs, I can take the kid gloves off.
By all means.
I was making an analogy using the fairytale farfetch literary device you made use of to begin with. I don't know if you are from the US or not but in the US I know I can make comparisons of Saddams regime to my Grandmother's recipe for dog soup, and you don't have to listen. So, instead of being a snide prick keep comments on the arguments instead of trying to be an elitist git.
Conclusion, we are making arguments here and some of the points that we all make may or may not influence others on this board, but more than likely Bush, Chirac, Putin, Schroeder, Blair or any other world leader is not going to base their policy on what's posted on this board, so cool it buddy.
So that didn't do much to clear it up. Why not be an adult, admit you read the post wrong and be done with it?
If somehow your post about 9.11 has something to do with naming the exact chem/bio weapons that Saddam had, then please explain it to me. Here let me help you:
Originally posted by LiquidR
I've got another fantastical fairytale. Once upon a time a bunch of crazy terrorists hijacked a set of Airliners with box cutters. Then they took those airliners and flew them into our largest city and slammed into 2 of our largest buildings where a great deal of our financial institutions lay. There was a 3rd one that flew into our capital and slammed into our military HQ. And a 4th that crashed in the middle of nowhere, bur who knows where it was going, and who knows how many more were targets on that same day but were thwarted by the quick actions by the FAA to ground all planes.
Wakeup call. I respect descent to the popular view, I also respect and encourage descent to the views of the government. But I would also like all to realize is that those terrorists weren't trying to just disrupt our lives they were trying to completly destroy it in one grand gesture. Saddam is known to support terrorism, recently, remember the cash rewards offered to suicide bombers. There were components hidden, perhaps a decade ago, were they forgotten, I doubt it. Saddam likely had a map as to where each component was hidden, where each expert he had went. Neither he nor bi Laden care if you disagree with Bush, Blair or your own grandmother. They would like to see America wiped out.
Well, I see nothing here that has anything to do with naming specific chemical weapons.
So maybe we could just stick to the facts. How does that sound, chief?
Originally posted by midwinter
nonono. Remember, the current president was VERY careful not to make that claim. He said "certain al Qaeda-type organizations." OBL and Hussein didn't like one another much, by all accounts.
Cheers
Scott
That's a line repeated by the anti-war crowd ad naseum. It's really an unproven statement, and there is plenty of evidence linking Saddam to terror anyway. For example, we know about the suicide bombers and their funding. Once a terrorist, always a terrorist.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's a line repeated by the anti-war crowd ad naseum.
That's because it's apparently true, unlike some things.
It's really an unproven statement, and there is plenty of evidence linking Saddam to terror anyway.
I said nothing about Hussein NOT being linked to "terror." I said he wasn't linked to al Qaeda. The current president was VERY specific in his statements about Hussein's links to terrorist groups, and he EXPLICITLY said "al qaeda-type groups," not al Qaeda itself. They tried at one point to make that connection, and they couldn't.
For example, we know about the suicide bombers and their funding. Once a terrorist, always a terrorist.
See above.
Cheers
Scott
PS
Do I have it right that you're a homebuilder? Would you mind if I pm'd you a few questions? I'm in the process of buying my first house.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Okay giant, further clarification, my point was to show that your opinion of a scenario being far fetched to the point that you would compare it to mythical beasts doesn't amount to doggle. Before 911, if anyone would have approached you with that scenario you would have laughed and thought the cretin was pitchin a new Hollywood military thriller. Obviously men like Osama and Saddam are far more dynamic in their thought processes than you.
Actually, there was a whole lot of indications that the attack was going to happen and that it was going to happen in the way it did. I understand you are accustomed to discussing this with your friends at the mall or the guys at the bar, so it's understandable that you don't know much about intelligence analysis. Until you actually have spent some time learning about it, it would be wise to withhold judgement on the things you think you see.
For the record I stil think you are an insuferable git who lacks the chutzpah for real thinking, a real dialogue. Instead you resort to personal jibes. Grow some cajones and act like that to people in their face and see where they tell you to shove it. Or get some sense and communicate like a human. Like I said I doubt what you have to say is so important that Daschle is going to knock on your door to ask for your opinion on the Democratic strategy.
Really? All I pointed out was that you misunderstood the post, and immediately I'm getting a lecture about how I'm a 'snide prick', 'elitist git' and 'insuferable git'. That's about as much of a personal attack as they come, and I don't remember calling you names.
So, as I said before, let's stick to fact, and the facts don't support your theory. If you can provide facts or evidence to back up your theory about Saddam and Osama, then please do so. Until you use real evidence to illustrate your statement, you will have to continue to resort to fairy tales and speculation.
Actually, I don't go to malls, and when I do go to bar it is to have a single beer (Beamish Irish Stout preferably) after work then it is straight to bed or to my photography projects. Right now I've had 1 hour of sleep in 60 hours.
As for my posting, I do believe my statements are correct. As for the fairy tale device, as I posted earlier, I was just repeating the device you used.
As for the intelligence on 9-11 it was at best non-conclusive prior to the attack. If you will remember the intelligence lay in different parts that would only be clear as a whole, but due to the beauracracy of the intelligence community, no one with the ability to put this parts together ever got the whole picture. This goes back to my point near the beginning of the thread. The US intelligence community is in disarray, we do not get 1st hand intelligence, it is mostly filter to us by the British intelligence agencies and other allies.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Once a terrorist, always a terrorist.
dictator, despot, tyrant, warmonger, invader: yes
terrorist: no
Originally posted by LiquidR
As for the intelligence on 9-11 it was at best non-conclusive prior to the attack. If you will remember the intelligence lay in different parts that would only be clear as a whole, but due to the beauracracy of the intelligence community, no one with the ability to put this parts together ever got the whole picture. This goes back to my point near the beginning of the thread.
Partially true, but not in relation to sept 11. It is clear that many, many people in the US government knew about the imminent attacks, and there were many reports in mainstream media leading up to the events. The best place to START understand the events leading up to 9.11 is the CCR timeline: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/index.html
The US intelligence community is in disarray, we do not get 1st hand intelligence, it is mostly filter to us by the British intelligence agencies and other allies.
The first part of this is a very general statement, and in a general sense it is true, but the second part is not true.
Like I've pointed out to SDW, it's really important to study something before commenting on it. Right now the book that I am reading at work (again!) is The New Craft of Intelligence by Robert David Steele (with the whole list of acronyms after his name: MA,MPA,NWC,USMC,CIA,OSS
I don't want to argue with you, but to portray independent analysis of information as solely a matter of opinion is not at all accurate. These global events are incredibly complex, and there are such twists to 9.11 that it is impossible for a rational person in possesion of the facts to buy into the child-like image so often referred to regarding sept 11.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...3-064812-9491r
Former Democratic Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, who was a member of the joint congressional committee that produced the report, confirmed the official's statement.
Asked whether he believed the report will reveal that there was no connection between al-Qaida and Iraq, Cleland replied: "I do ... There's no connection, and that's been confirmed by some of (al-Qaida leader Osama) bin Laden's terrorist followers."
...
"The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war," said Cleland. "What you've seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends."
...
Although the committee completed its work at the end of last year, publication of the report has been delayed by interminable wrangles between the committees and the administration over which parts of it could be declassified.
Cleland accused the administration of deliberately delaying the report's release to avoid having its case for war undercut.
"The reason this report was delayed for so long -- deliberately opposed at first, then slow-walked after it was created -- is that the administration wanted to get the war in Iraq in and over ... before (it) came out," he said.
"Had this report come out in January like it should have done, we would have known these things before the war in Iraq, which would not have suited the administration."
...
[A government official who's read the report] went on to suggest that the conclusions drawn from the information about [a key piece of alleged evidence for a Iraq-al Qaida connection] was indicative of a wider-ranging problem with the administration's attitude to intelligence on the alleged Iraq al-Qaida link.
"They take a fact that you could draw several different conclusions from, and in every case they draw the conclusion that supports the policy, without any particular evidence that would meet the normal bar that analytic tradecraft would require for you to make that conclusion," he concluded.
-------------------------------
The buck does not seem to be stopping as condi's assiant took the fall yesterday..
I think the thing that discouraged me about the vice president was uttering those famous words, 'no controlling legal authority.' I felt like that there needed to be a better sense of responsibility of what was going on in the White House. I believe that--I believe they've moved that sign, 'The buck stops here,' from the Oval Office desk to 'The buck stops here' on the Lincoln Bedroom, and that's not good for the country.
George W. Bush
October 3rd, 2000
President Bush on Friday put responsibility squarely on the CIA for his erroneous claim that Iraq tried to acquire nuclear material from Africa, prompting the director of intelligence to publicly accept full blame for the miscue.
Associated Press
July 11th, 2003
Still no buck stoppage
Look, I'm glad you are educated and well-informed. No one here disputes that. But, none of us knows about every piece of intelligence the government has. I am absolutely NOT flaming you here, but it's a bit naive....no, very naive to think that you could possibly have this information. It's also exceptionally arrogant to trumpet that fact loudly throughout the board when someone disgarees with you.
Again, I mean no offense. But this implied and stated claim of yours that you know all there is to know re: Iraq is highly suspect and very illogical.
No reasonable eprson would agree that you, or anyone else here, has access to "everything" the government knows and does.
Have a nice weekend, giant.