Bad Intelligence. Uh oh

13468914

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 271
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,015member
    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.
  • Reply 102 of 271
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    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
  • Reply 103 of 271
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    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.
  • Reply 104 of 271
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    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?
  • Reply 105 of 271
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
  • Reply 106 of 271
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    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
  • Reply 107 of 271
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    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!!!
  • Reply 108 of 271
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    "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
  • Reply 109 of 271
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    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!
  • Reply 110 of 271
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    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..



  • Reply 111 of 271
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    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.
  • Reply 112 of 271
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,015member
    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?
  • Reply 113 of 271
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    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 ).
  • Reply 114 of 271
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    Jobless Recovery.





    Of course if your daddy is rich and powerful those two words don't matter much to you...
  • Reply 115 of 271
    liquidrliquidr Posts: 884member
    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.
  • Reply 116 of 271
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    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.
  • Reply 117 of 271
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    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.
  • Reply 118 of 271
    liquidrliquidr Posts: 884member
    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.
  • Reply 119 of 271
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    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.



  • Reply 120 of 271
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Bush doesn't lie?





    Quote:

    Look at the president's final remarks from his press opportunity with Kofi Annan yesterday ...



    The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.



    I mean, where do you start with this?

    As the well-worn line goes, I think it's too soon to say we know Saddam didn't have a WMD program. I thought he did. There was lots of evidence to suggest he had at least some chemical and biological weapons programs. And we're still actively looking. (Here's an interesting piece in the new New Republic about how and why he might not have.) But I think our inability thus far to find any clear evidence of a on-going chemical, biological or nuclear weapons program would seem to leave us at least a bit short of being "absolutely" certain that he had one. Am I nitpicking here?



    Like the philandering husband, he seems to be asking us, "Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?"



    And remember when Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in? I totally missed that one.



    Look, you can certainly say that Saddam wasn't cooperating fully with the inspectors, that his people hadn't fully accounted for various chemical and biological munitions which the UN thought he had back in 1990s. Hans Blix said as much. It's true. But, c'mon, he let them in.



    You hear this stuff and you say to yourself: "Well, you can kinda know what he meant, I guess."



    I find myself thinking that. But even that doesn't cut it.



    The disquieting fact is that these whoppers aren't even getting reported any more because it's become a given among reporters and editors that most of what the president is saying on this subject has little connection to anything that's actually going on. And the two keep diverging more and more. It's almost as if the shakier the evidence gets the more certain he becomes about what the evidence was supposed to prove.




    www.talkingpointsmemo.com



    I mean, what the hell does it take for some of you to get it? It wouldn't be surprising if Bush said 'martians took the wmd' and folks like sdw somehow figured out a way to fit it into their make-believe world views.
Sign In or Register to comment.