more than just your average Thread title, this one is becoming a content description
whether Bush "knew" that intel info was bogus and/or too weak to support as justification for war, as it seems Colin Powell "knew" when he allegedly threw up papers "full of crap" he was being asked to read to the UN, might be one issue.
if the briefing guy quote pans out, it seems pretty clear that he was told.
whether Bush cared?
(badges... we don't need no steenkin badges!). nope.
the war to get revenge on the "man who tried to kill my daddy" was long planned. inconveniences like no "imminent threat of WMD" shouldn't get in the way of some carefully stage-managed yelling like Chicken Little serving FUD in order to fulfill such a long-itched-for-payback.
facts that don't conform get massaged. staple of politics. doctored evidence is de rigeur with some bosses... j.e.hoover and many in Washington since.
whether Bush was bright enough to realize that those skeptical before the war would see such bogus claims for the transparent propaganda they seemed to be, get reminded daily by the near total lack of WMD found in Iraq in the three months of intensive searching since and begin to ask questions...
no... i don't think GWB had the neurons to see that wheel coming around
beware leaders more interested in conformity with preset chosen views than in hearing conflicting evidence.
yes-men don't do the checks and balances thing very well
I'd like to see that quote linked please. Somehow I doubt your word.
And, apparently "Disingenuous Debate Tactics 2003 Day" continues with your coninued use of Strawman technique. I didn't say the "entire Bush administration". You did. The report was wrong. If Bush knew it, then we have a problem. If someone else knew it, he/she has a problem. If someone suspected the repport was wrong, but didn't bring it to President's attention, that person again has a problem.
The Bush administration is "corrupt as hell"? Come on. If you were anymore polarized you'd be a battery. My God...take a step back. Get some perspective...perhaps take a vacation.
Anders:
Oh My God. The President is presented with information. If the information is wrong, he cannot be held responsible. The person or persons that PRESENTED the info to him must be held responsible.
giant and jimmac:
You not agreeing with me doesn't mean a thing. 10,000 people, 50,000 or the entire population of France (apparently) won't disuade me. Bush used information which has now been proven inaccurate. The only question is: Did he know it at the time? There is no evidence of that. There is no evidence Bush lied to start a war, as you are so fond of claiming. There is no case for impeachment. The hunt for WMD is not over and has not been totally fruitless. The war did not violate any domestic or international law, was not without merit and was not for the purposes of enriching Bush's friends, pampering white males, empire building or the conquest of Iraqi natural resources.
But by all means, continue. Wait 'till you see the thread I start on Election night 2004.
I believe you. I have never really thought any of us would change your mind. It's just that there are probably more people out there like you that bothers me. So as this latest soap opera for the whitehouse unfolds at least I get some satisfaction this time to see someone like you proven wrong.
No one has said that Bush was told. That's the whole point.
Although I just posted this a few posts back, I'll repost it here for your sake. Please read it this time:
"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."
Although I just posted this a few posts back, I'll repost it here for your sake. Please read it this time:
"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."
This interested me for 10 seconds, then I stopped reading, which is why I leave it as a question. Thought you boys might have some fun with it.
We were just discussing that here at work. We think it's clear there is more to the story. Note that he checked with numerous people and verified that Terry Wilkinson was real and they knew him. So it seems likely that he is in fact real.
It's very interesting, and it would be good to look out in the future for anything more on this. It's clear that there is something we aren't being told.
"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld said.
This is not news, but some of you haven't been able to accept it. The expressed purpose of the Office of Special Plans was to pour over existing info and make the case for war.
However, MANY posters on AI (and FC) said we didn't have access to the same info, even when it was clear we did.
This is just another nail in the coffin for the belief in Closed Intel.
Bullshit. I want the quote from the guy that you said was in the room when the President was told the Niger report was false. Go ahead. Show me.
Quote:
Since we actually know for a fact that all major offices, Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, Rice's and Powell's, were notificed multiple times that one of the most crucial elements of their case was totally invalid, we know for a fact that that information was intentionally withheld. End of story. Bush Admin decieved the american people.
But, now you have to acknowlege that Bush was personally informed of the fact on multiple occasions, as stated above. As such, he knew what he was saying had been discredited.
This was "an" element, not a "crucial" one. Nice try. And we DON'T KNOW the information was intentionally withheld. We DON'T know that at all. You haven't shown me that Bush was informed. Show me the link.
Quote:
You are also a liar. The board is repeatly hitting you on the head and you still claim there is no board.
Meaningless. Unless you are saying that you are the board (with all of it's properties such as *density* and *rigitiy*), in which case I'd agree.
Quote:
he ONLY evidence that exists AT ALLpoint to Bush knowing. The only defense put forward has been Ari Fleischer's contorted denials coupled with your inability to think clearly. Have you even read the transcripts of the exchange? I didn't think so.
What evidence. Show me. There is NO EVIDENCE that Bush knew in advance. None. Where do you get this shit?
curious:
Quote:
more than just your average Thread title, this one is becoming a content description
whether Bush "knew" that intel info was bogus and/or too weak to support as justification for war, as it seems Colin Powell "knew" when he allegedly threw up papers "full of crap" he was being asked to read to the UN, might be one issue.
if the briefing guy quote pans out, it seems pretty clear that he was told.
whether Bush cared?
(badges... we don't need no steenkin badges!). nope.
the war to get revenge on the "man who tried to kill my daddy" was long planned. inconveniences like no "imminent threat of WMD" shouldn't get in the way of some carefully stage-managed yelling like Chicken Little serving FUD in order to fulfill such a long-itched-for-payback.
facts that don't conform get massaged. staple of politics. doctored evidence is de rigeur with some bosses... j.e.hoover and many in Washington since.
whether Bush was bright enough to realize that those skeptical before the war would see such bogus claims for the transparent propaganda they seemed to be, get reminded daily by the near total lack of WMD found in Iraq in the three months of intensive searching since and begin to ask questions...
no... i don't think GWB had the neurons to see that wheel coming around
beware leaders more interested in conformity with preset chosen views than in hearing conflicting evidence.
yes-men don't do the checks and balances thing very well
and blind obedience is twice as tough on the dog
edit: boy I'm grumpy today.
Translation:
1. George Bush is stupid.
2. George Bush wanted war for a personal vendetta
3. There was no threat...(even though the search for WMD isn't over).
4. He was told....(except there is no evidence of that).
Very original. You left me speechless. Congratulations.
jimmac:
Quote:
I believe you. I have never really thought any of us would change your mind. It's just that there are probably more people out there like you that bothers me. So as this latest soap opera for the whitehouse unfolds at least I get some satisfaction this time to see someone like you proven wrong.
I can't wait for election night eithe
And people like you scare me, jimamc. If it's proven Bush lied...he loses my vote. If no WMD are found (and sorry, but we've already gotten pretty close to declaring they have been, from chemical suits, to banned warheads and missles, to nuclear centrifuge components), that doesn't mean he lied. That's really all I'm saying. Time will tell...as I said.
giant:
Quote:
WOW! I didn't realize he actually said this:
"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld said.
This is not news, but some of you haven't been able to accept it. The expressed purpose of the Office of Special Plans was to pour over existing info and make the case for war.
However, MANY posters on AI (and FC) said we didn't have access to the same info, even when it was clear we did.
This is just another nail in the coffin for the belief in Closed Intel.
Why does his statement mean anything? What does "new" mean? OF COURSE they made the case for war. Duh. And who is "we", giant? The public didn't know. But I forget...you're Super-Intellectual and Really Informed Guy (TM).
This was "an" element, not a "crucial" one. Nice try. And we DON'T KNOW the information was intentionally withheld. We DON'T know that at all. You haven't shown me that Bush was informed. Show me the link.
No. It was a crucial one. The head editor of US News put it well on Hardball Wednesday night, pointing out that nuclear weapons are in a class of their own and that the gulf between accusing Iraq of chem/bio and nuclear is large. Every piece of info presented about a possible nuclear program was either entirely fabricated (Bush citing ficticious IAEA reports) or discredited before hand (aluminum tubes and niger docs). The only reason the Niger docs are such a big deal is because they made it into the State of the Union, which is sacred. Go look at the transcript and note that Bush doesn't even state that Saddam has chemical weapons in it, because he knew that after the war was over he would have caught shit. The bush admin tried to slip this past by pinning it on britain, but that has failed. Now they are trying to pin it on the CIA.
Quote:
What evidence. Show me. There is NO EVIDENCE that Bush knew in advance. None. Where do you get this shit?
All of the many people stating that the Bush admin was informed.
Quote:
Why does his statement mean anything? What does "new" mean?
do you mean like what does 'is' mean? Here's a clue, get a dictionary
Quote:
OF COURSE they made the case for war. Duh. And who is "we", giant? The public didn't knowy
'We' doesn't include you. 'We' includes everone that actually looked at the reports. If the public didn't know, it was because they were lied to.
No. It was a crucial one. The head editor of US News put it well on Hardball Wednesday night, pointing out that nuclear weapons are in a class of their own and that the gulf between accusing Iraq of chem/bio and nuclear is large. Every piece of info presented about a possible nuclear program was either entirely fabricated (Bush citing ficticious IAEA reports) or discredited before hand (aluminum tubes and niger docs). The only reason the Niger docs are such a big deal is because they made it into the State of the Union, which is sacred. Go look at the transcript and note that Bush doesn't even state that Saddam has chemical weapons in it, because he knew that after the war was over he would have caught shit. The bush admin tried to slip this past by pinning it on britain, but that has failed. Now they are trying to pin it on the CIA.
Crucial vs. not cruicial is an opinion. I'm getting nitpicky now, but technically it wasn't IAEA "reports", it was an IAEA report, not referenced by name, number, etc. To say it was fabricated is a bit of a stretch. That's semantics though, so I'll leave it be. As far as the CIA, I'm not sure how you can refute their statement. If the CIA did clear it, then well, they cleared it and it is they who are responsible. You may suspect Bush of of knowing, even strongly, suspect him, but the fact is there is asbsolutely no evidence he knew.
Quote:
All of the many people stating that the Bush admin was informed.
You've referenced one man's quote (earlier) and have failed to provide the link. I want the quote from the guy that was supposedly there when Bush was told.
Quote:
do you mean like what does 'is' mean? Here's a clue, get a dictionary
This is as valid a point as the old standby: "What did he/she know and when did he/she know it?". Does "new" mean the last 3 months? One year? Ten years? So, we acted on intelligence we already had. Is that a bad thing? Was there a requirement for new intelligence? Was Clinton wrong to bomb in 1998 based on the nearly the same intelligence? What Rumsefled was saying, I think, is that there wasn't new revelation that caused everyone to sit up and take notice. Rather, it was existing intelligence as seen through 9/11-colored glasses that promted action.
In Bush at War Bob Woodward notes that Bush thought of Saddam immediately after 9/11. He said that it was his feeling that Saddam might even be proven to be behind it (though there is no evidence of this now, this shows that Iraq was on his radar immediately after 9/11 and the early days of the WOT). Bush considered Iraq to be part of the WOT, and the administration used existing intelligence to yes, SELL the war. Of course they did! They wanted to take out Saddam, whom they considered a threat, a maniacal murderer, and a violator of all agreements he had ever made with respect to WMD, Oil for Food, etc. What were they going to do...NOT try and convince the public? Woodward notes that it was Powell who talked Bush and Rumsfeld out of going after Iraq immediately. My point here is that Rumsfeld was clarifying the fact that we already had the intelligence, and it wasn't as if they woke up one day and saw a report that said "NEWSFLASH: Saddam has new chemcial weapons he might give to Al-Qaeda". The action was a pre-emption based on what we already knew. I don't see how Rumsefeld's statement supports your argument in any way.
Quote:
'We' doesn't include you. 'We' includes everone that actually looked at the reports. If the public didn't know, it was because they were lied to.
There you go again! You are basing a point on a false assumption, namely, that you know all the facts. The FACT is that you (nor I) cannot begin to know "what the Bush administration knew". Your closed intel vs. open intel argument is nothing but a distraction. You can do all the research you want, but if you actually think you have access to exactly what the upper eschelon of the government did, think again. Please tell me you don't really believe this.
To this end, there is one fact about the lead-up to war that will NEVER cease to amaze me. That fact is this: Elitist pseudo-academic liberals (you), Hollywood celebrities and anti-war leaders in general consistently believe themselves to not only be MORE informed than The President and his cabinet.. they also consider themselves to posess superior judgement (especially on matters of national security). This is perhaps the most absurd notion in politics today.
The fact that you claim to know "all there is to know" on this situation is the very definition of arrogance. Let's post it in large text so everyone can see:
giant thinks he knows everything the government knows as it pertains to secret intelligence and surveillance of foreign powers!
As far as the CIA, I'm not sure how you can refute their statement. If the CIA did clear it, then well, they cleared it and it is they who are responsible.
No, they didn't 'clear' his use of the statement so much as they refused to let him pin it on the CIA.
They can't stop the President from saying anything in a State of the Union address, but they can tell him they don't support a position. They 'cleared' the SotU Address means that in their eyes Bush isn't using any CIA information erroneously, not that everything in the Address is accurate.
It's not the CIA's job to spell check the SotU Address.
What so amazing about you is that you think you know about something that you have spent absolutlely zero time studying. The stupidity is amazing.
giant, are you trying for the most despised Ai'er around ?
B-Coz if you are, then you'd win hands down...
Condition of Ai is very clear ..giant...
" By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."
Be nice giant..people might actually come to like you...
What so amazing about you is that you think you know about something that you have spent absolutlely zero time studying. The stupidity is amazing.
Quite frankly, I'm not the one claiming to know "everything" (literally...everything) about the Iraq War and its intelligence. It's an absurd position, based on YOUR INTERPRETATION of "intelligence reports". Please, explain to me your case for knowing all the government knows. Go ahead. I'm listening.
bunge:
Quote:
No, they didn't 'clear' his use of the statement so much as they refused to let him pin it on the CIA.
They can't stop the President from saying anything in a State of the Union address, but they can tell him they don't support a position. They 'cleared' the SotU Address means that in their eyes Bush isn't using any CIA information erroneously, not that everything in the Address is accurate.
It's not the CIA's job to spell check the SotU Address.
"The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound," the Tenet statement said. "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president."
The CIA director also said, "I am responsible for the approval process in my agency."
bunge, we have the CIA director making a public statement saying they cleared the speech. End of story. But according to you, the Evil Bush White House (TM) submitted a speech with known false information (from the CIA, btw) and the CIA skimmed it to see if they were claiming the earth was flat, the sun rotated around the earth, or Clinton had character. Since they didn't do any of that, they just slapped the old "approved" stamp on there and went to the bar. Please.
bunge, we have the CIA director making a public statement saying they cleared the speech.
We have the CIA director saying exactly what I've been saying:
Quote:
"Officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues," Tenet said. "Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa."
'Technically it wasn't a lie, even though we knew it wasn't true.'
Quite frankly, I'm not the one claiming to know "everything" (literally...everything) about the Iraq War and its intelligence. It's an absurd position, based on YOUR INTERPRETATION of "intelligence reports". Please, explain to me your case for knowing all the government knows. Go ahead. I'm listening.
bunge, we have the CIA director making a public statement saying they cleared the speech. End of story. But according to you, the Evil Bush White House (TM) submitted a speech with known false information (from the CIA, btw) and the CIA skimmed it to see if they were claiming the earth was flat, the sun rotated around the earth, or Clinton had character. Since they didn't do any of that, they just slapped the old "approved" stamp on there and went to the bar. Please.
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.
Comments
whether Bush "knew" that intel info was bogus and/or too weak to support as justification for war, as it seems Colin Powell "knew" when he allegedly threw up papers "full of crap" he was being asked to read to the UN, might be one issue.
if the briefing guy quote pans out, it seems pretty clear that he was told.
whether Bush cared?
(badges... we don't need no steenkin badges!). nope.
the war to get revenge on the "man who tried to kill my daddy" was long planned. inconveniences like no "imminent threat of WMD" shouldn't get in the way of some carefully stage-managed yelling like Chicken Little serving FUD in order to fulfill such a long-itched-for-payback.
facts that don't conform get massaged. staple of politics. doctored evidence is de rigeur with some bosses... j.e.hoover and many in Washington since.
whether Bush was bright enough to realize that those skeptical before the war would see such bogus claims for the transparent propaganda they seemed to be, get reminded daily by the near total lack of WMD found in Iraq in the three months of intensive searching since and begin to ask questions...
no... i don't think GWB had the neurons to see that wheel coming around
beware leaders more interested in conformity with preset chosen views than in hearing conflicting evidence.
yes-men don't do the checks and balances thing very well
and blind obedience is twice as tough on the dog
edit: boy I'm grumpy today.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I'd like to see that quote linked please. Somehow I doubt your word.
And, apparently "Disingenuous Debate Tactics 2003 Day" continues with your coninued use of Strawman technique. I didn't say the "entire Bush administration". You did. The report was wrong. If Bush knew it, then we have a problem. If someone else knew it, he/she has a problem. If someone suspected the repport was wrong, but didn't bring it to President's attention, that person again has a problem.
The Bush administration is "corrupt as hell"? Come on. If you were anymore polarized you'd be a battery. My God...take a step back. Get some perspective...perhaps take a vacation.
Anders:
Oh My God. The President is presented with information. If the information is wrong, he cannot be held responsible. The person or persons that PRESENTED the info to him must be held responsible.
giant and jimmac:
You not agreeing with me doesn't mean a thing. 10,000 people, 50,000 or the entire population of France (apparently) won't disuade me. Bush used information which has now been proven inaccurate. The only question is: Did he know it at the time? There is no evidence of that. There is no evidence Bush lied to start a war, as you are so fond of claiming. There is no case for impeachment. The hunt for WMD is not over and has not been totally fruitless. The war did not violate any domestic or international law, was not without merit and was not for the purposes of enriching Bush's friends, pampering white males, empire building or the conquest of Iraqi natural resources.
But by all means, continue. Wait 'till you see the thread I start on Election night 2004.
I believe you. I have never really thought any of us would change your mind. It's just that there are probably more people out there like you that bothers me. So as this latest soap opera for the whitehouse unfolds at least I get some satisfaction this time to see someone like you proven wrong.
I can't wait for election night either!
Originally posted by SDW2001
No one has said that Bush was told. That's the whole point.
Although I just posted this a few posts back, I'll repost it here for your sake. Please read it this time:
"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."
Originally posted by bunge
Although I just posted this a few posts back, I'll repost it here for your sake. Please read it this time:
"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."
Maybe he was sleep walking.
(on power, booze, the belief he actually EARNED his way to the white house, yadda yadda, yadda.)
This interested me for 10 seconds, then I stopped reading, which is why I leave it as a question. Thought you boys might have some fun with it.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...wmd/index.html
Originally posted by groverat
Is the Capitol Hill Blue story true? click
This interested me for 10 seconds, then I stopped reading, which is why I leave it as a question. Thought you boys might have some fun with it.
We were just discussing that here at work. We think it's clear there is more to the story. Note that he checked with numerous people and verified that Terry Wilkinson was real and they knew him. So it seems likely that he is in fact real.
It's very interesting, and it would be good to look out in the future for anything more on this. It's clear that there is something we aren't being told.
Originally posted by jimmac
Funny things happen at times like these. But the meat of this story has appeared elsewhere.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...wmd/index.html
WOW! I didn't realize he actually said this:
"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld said.
This is not news, but some of you haven't been able to accept it. The expressed purpose of the Office of Special Plans was to pour over existing info and make the case for war.
However, MANY posters on AI (and FC) said we didn't have access to the same info, even when it was clear we did.
This is just another nail in the coffin for the belief in Closed Intel.
Why, because everything I've posted has been demonstrated true? Anyway, here's a bone, doggy:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artm...icle_2518.shtml
Bullshit. I want the quote from the guy that you said was in the room when the President was told the Niger report was false. Go ahead. Show me.
Since we actually know for a fact that all major offices, Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, Rice's and Powell's, were notificed multiple times that one of the most crucial elements of their case was totally invalid, we know for a fact that that information was intentionally withheld. End of story. Bush Admin decieved the american people.
But, now you have to acknowlege that Bush was personally informed of the fact on multiple occasions, as stated above. As such, he knew what he was saying had been discredited.
This was "an" element, not a "crucial" one. Nice try. And we DON'T KNOW the information was intentionally withheld. We DON'T know that at all. You haven't shown me that Bush was informed. Show me the link.
You are also a liar. The board is repeatly hitting you on the head and you still claim there is no board.
Meaningless. Unless you are saying that you are the board (with all of it's properties such as *density* and *rigitiy*), in which case I'd agree.
he ONLY evidence that exists AT ALLpoint to Bush knowing. The only defense put forward has been Ari Fleischer's contorted denials coupled with your inability to think clearly. Have you even read the transcripts of the exchange? I didn't think so.
What evidence. Show me. There is NO EVIDENCE that Bush knew in advance. None. Where do you get this shit?
curious:
more than just your average Thread title, this one is becoming a content description
whether Bush "knew" that intel info was bogus and/or too weak to support as justification for war, as it seems Colin Powell "knew" when he allegedly threw up papers "full of crap" he was being asked to read to the UN, might be one issue.
if the briefing guy quote pans out, it seems pretty clear that he was told.
whether Bush cared?
(badges... we don't need no steenkin badges!). nope.
the war to get revenge on the "man who tried to kill my daddy" was long planned. inconveniences like no "imminent threat of WMD" shouldn't get in the way of some carefully stage-managed yelling like Chicken Little serving FUD in order to fulfill such a long-itched-for-payback.
facts that don't conform get massaged. staple of politics. doctored evidence is de rigeur with some bosses... j.e.hoover and many in Washington since.
whether Bush was bright enough to realize that those skeptical before the war would see such bogus claims for the transparent propaganda they seemed to be, get reminded daily by the near total lack of WMD found in Iraq in the three months of intensive searching since and begin to ask questions...
no... i don't think GWB had the neurons to see that wheel coming around
beware leaders more interested in conformity with preset chosen views than in hearing conflicting evidence.
yes-men don't do the checks and balances thing very well
and blind obedience is twice as tough on the dog
edit: boy I'm grumpy today.
Translation:
1. George Bush is stupid.
2. George Bush wanted war for a personal vendetta
3. There was no threat...(even though the search for WMD isn't over).
4. He was told....(except there is no evidence of that).
Very original. You left me speechless. Congratulations.
jimmac:
I believe you. I have never really thought any of us would change your mind. It's just that there are probably more people out there like you that bothers me. So as this latest soap opera for the whitehouse unfolds at least I get some satisfaction this time to see someone like you proven wrong.
I can't wait for election night eithe
And people like you scare me, jimamc. If it's proven Bush lied...he loses my vote. If no WMD are found (and sorry, but we've already gotten pretty close to declaring they have been, from chemical suits, to banned warheads and missles, to nuclear centrifuge components), that doesn't mean he lied. That's really all I'm saying. Time will tell...as I said.
giant:
WOW! I didn't realize he actually said this:
"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld said.
This is not news, but some of you haven't been able to accept it. The expressed purpose of the Office of Special Plans was to pour over existing info and make the case for war.
However, MANY posters on AI (and FC) said we didn't have access to the same info, even when it was clear we did.
This is just another nail in the coffin for the belief in Closed Intel.
Why does his statement mean anything? What does "new" mean? OF COURSE they made the case for war. Duh. And who is "we", giant? The public didn't know. But I forget...you're Super-Intellectual and Really Informed Guy (TM).
Originally posted by SDW2001
This was "an" element, not a "crucial" one. Nice try. And we DON'T KNOW the information was intentionally withheld. We DON'T know that at all. You haven't shown me that Bush was informed. Show me the link.
No. It was a crucial one. The head editor of US News put it well on Hardball Wednesday night, pointing out that nuclear weapons are in a class of their own and that the gulf between accusing Iraq of chem/bio and nuclear is large. Every piece of info presented about a possible nuclear program was either entirely fabricated (Bush citing ficticious IAEA reports) or discredited before hand (aluminum tubes and niger docs). The only reason the Niger docs are such a big deal is because they made it into the State of the Union, which is sacred. Go look at the transcript and note that Bush doesn't even state that Saddam has chemical weapons in it, because he knew that after the war was over he would have caught shit. The bush admin tried to slip this past by pinning it on britain, but that has failed. Now they are trying to pin it on the CIA.
What evidence. Show me. There is NO EVIDENCE that Bush knew in advance. None. Where do you get this shit?
All of the many people stating that the Bush admin was informed.
Why does his statement mean anything? What does "new" mean?
do you mean like what does 'is' mean? Here's a clue, get a dictionary
OF COURSE they made the case for war. Duh. And who is "we", giant? The public didn't knowy
'We' doesn't include you. 'We' includes everone that actually looked at the reports. If the public didn't know, it was because they were lied to.
No. It was a crucial one. The head editor of US News put it well on Hardball Wednesday night, pointing out that nuclear weapons are in a class of their own and that the gulf between accusing Iraq of chem/bio and nuclear is large. Every piece of info presented about a possible nuclear program was either entirely fabricated (Bush citing ficticious IAEA reports) or discredited before hand (aluminum tubes and niger docs). The only reason the Niger docs are such a big deal is because they made it into the State of the Union, which is sacred. Go look at the transcript and note that Bush doesn't even state that Saddam has chemical weapons in it, because he knew that after the war was over he would have caught shit. The bush admin tried to slip this past by pinning it on britain, but that has failed. Now they are trying to pin it on the CIA.
Crucial vs. not cruicial is an opinion. I'm getting nitpicky now, but technically it wasn't IAEA "reports", it was an IAEA report, not referenced by name, number, etc. To say it was fabricated is a bit of a stretch. That's semantics though, so I'll leave it be. As far as the CIA, I'm not sure how you can refute their statement. If the CIA did clear it, then well, they cleared it and it is they who are responsible. You may suspect Bush of of knowing, even strongly, suspect him, but the fact is there is asbsolutely no evidence he knew.
All of the many people stating that the Bush admin was informed.
You've referenced one man's quote (earlier) and have failed to provide the link. I want the quote from the guy that was supposedly there when Bush was told.
do you mean like what does 'is' mean? Here's a clue, get a dictionary
This is as valid a point as the old standby: "What did he/she know and when did he/she know it?". Does "new" mean the last 3 months? One year? Ten years? So, we acted on intelligence we already had. Is that a bad thing? Was there a requirement for new intelligence? Was Clinton wrong to bomb in 1998 based on the nearly the same intelligence? What Rumsefled was saying, I think, is that there wasn't new revelation that caused everyone to sit up and take notice. Rather, it was existing intelligence as seen through 9/11-colored glasses that promted action.
In Bush at War Bob Woodward notes that Bush thought of Saddam immediately after 9/11. He said that it was his feeling that Saddam might even be proven to be behind it (though there is no evidence of this now, this shows that Iraq was on his radar immediately after 9/11 and the early days of the WOT). Bush considered Iraq to be part of the WOT, and the administration used existing intelligence to yes, SELL the war. Of course they did! They wanted to take out Saddam, whom they considered a threat, a maniacal murderer, and a violator of all agreements he had ever made with respect to WMD, Oil for Food, etc. What were they going to do...NOT try and convince the public? Woodward notes that it was Powell who talked Bush and Rumsfeld out of going after Iraq immediately. My point here is that Rumsfeld was clarifying the fact that we already had the intelligence, and it wasn't as if they woke up one day and saw a report that said "NEWSFLASH: Saddam has new chemcial weapons he might give to Al-Qaeda". The action was a pre-emption based on what we already knew. I don't see how Rumsefeld's statement supports your argument in any way.
'We' doesn't include you. 'We' includes everone that actually looked at the reports. If the public didn't know, it was because they were lied to.
There you go again! You are basing a point on a false assumption, namely, that you know all the facts. The FACT is that you (nor I) cannot begin to know "what the Bush administration knew". Your closed intel vs. open intel argument is nothing but a distraction. You can do all the research you want, but if you actually think you have access to exactly what the upper eschelon of the government did, think again. Please tell me you don't really believe this.
To this end, there is one fact about the lead-up to war that will NEVER cease to amaze me. That fact is this: Elitist pseudo-academic liberals (you), Hollywood celebrities and anti-war leaders in general consistently believe themselves to not only be MORE informed than The President and his cabinet.. they also consider themselves to posess superior judgement (especially on matters of national security). This is perhaps the most absurd notion in politics today.
The fact that you claim to know "all there is to know" on this situation is the very definition of arrogance. Let's post it in large text so everyone can see:
giant thinks he knows everything the government knows as it pertains to secret intelligence and surveillance of foreign powers!
There. Someone had to say it
Originally posted by SDW2001
As far as the CIA, I'm not sure how you can refute their statement. If the CIA did clear it, then well, they cleared it and it is they who are responsible.
No, they didn't 'clear' his use of the statement so much as they refused to let him pin it on the CIA.
They can't stop the President from saying anything in a State of the Union address, but they can tell him they don't support a position. They 'cleared' the SotU Address means that in their eyes Bush isn't using any CIA information erroneously, not that everything in the Address is accurate.
It's not the CIA's job to spell check the SotU Address.
Originally posted by SDW2001
giant thinks he knows everything the government knows as it pertains to secret intelligence and surveillance of foreign powers!
What so amazing about you is that you think you know about something that you have spent absolutlely zero time studying. The stupidity is amazing.
Originally posted by giant
What so amazing about you is that you think you know about something that you have spent absolutlely zero time studying. The stupidity is amazing.
giant, are you trying for the most despised Ai'er around ?
B-Coz if you are, then you'd win hands down...
Condition of Ai is very clear ..giant...
" By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."
Be nice giant..people might actually come to like you...
cheers
Originally posted by giant
What so amazing about you is that you think you know about something that you have spent absolutlely zero time studying. The stupidity is amazing.
Quite frankly, I'm not the one claiming to know "everything" (literally...everything) about the Iraq War and its intelligence. It's an absurd position, based on YOUR INTERPRETATION of "intelligence reports". Please, explain to me your case for knowing all the government knows. Go ahead. I'm listening.
bunge:
No, they didn't 'clear' his use of the statement so much as they refused to let him pin it on the CIA.
They can't stop the President from saying anything in a State of the Union address, but they can tell him they don't support a position. They 'cleared' the SotU Address means that in their eyes Bush isn't using any CIA information erroneously, not that everything in the Address is accurate.
It's not the CIA's job to spell check the SotU Address.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jul11.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91619,00.html
and from this link:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ech/index.html
"The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound," the Tenet statement said. "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president."
The CIA director also said, "I am responsible for the approval process in my agency."
bunge, we have the CIA director making a public statement saying they cleared the speech. End of story. But according to you, the Evil Bush White House (TM) submitted a speech with known false information (from the CIA, btw) and the CIA skimmed it to see if they were claiming the earth was flat, the sun rotated around the earth, or Clinton had character. Since they didn't do any of that, they just slapped the old "approved" stamp on there and went to the bar. Please.
Originally posted by SDW2001
bunge, we have the CIA director making a public statement saying they cleared the speech.
We have the CIA director saying exactly what I've been saying:
"Officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues," Tenet said. "Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa."
'Technically it wasn't a lie, even though we knew it wasn't true.'
Originally posted by SDW2001
Quite frankly, I'm not the one claiming to know "everything" (literally...everything) about the Iraq War and its intelligence. It's an absurd position, based on YOUR INTERPRETATION of "intelligence reports". Please, explain to me your case for knowing all the government knows. Go ahead. I'm listening.
bunge:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jul11.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91619,00.html
and from this link:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ech/index.html
bunge, we have the CIA director making a public statement saying they cleared the speech. End of story. But according to you, the Evil Bush White House (TM) submitted a speech with known false information (from the CIA, btw) and the CIA skimmed it to see if they were claiming the earth was flat, the sun rotated around the earth, or Clinton had character. Since they didn't do any of that, they just slapped the old "approved" stamp on there and went to the bar. Please.
FALL GUY!
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ean/index.html
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...)