For those with military background

[Mr_Perceptive]

For someone supposedly not so bright, he sure had a massive amount of folks fooled into believing his WMD cover.  Even all those before he took office.  Pretty impressive indeed, for a dunce

What I don't understand is why they didn't take some WMD in there with them.

Do people not read Sun Tzu or Machiavelli any more?

Ethics?

[_JS]

For someone supposedly not so bright, he sure had a massive amount of folks fooled into believing his WMD cover.  Even all those before he took office.  Pretty impressive indeed, for a dunce

What I don't understand is why they didn't take some WMD in there with them.

Do people not read Sun Tzu or Machiavelli any more?

Ethics?

I'd believe that if there wasn't so much evidence to the contrary.

[sirs]

For someone supposedly not so bright, he sure had a massive amount of folks fooled into believing his WMD cover.  Even all those before he took office.  Pretty impressive indeed, for a dunce

What I don't understand is why they didn't take some WMD in there with them.

Well, you got me there Js.  If Bush were as evil as Tee keeps claiming he is, he'd have not only a WMD stash to plant, but several of them, likely with "Iraqi fingerprints" all over them.....especially if we're to believe that he knew Saddam didn't have any in the 1st place, but took us into war anyways.  It defies any sense of logic....IF

[_JS]

Well, you got me there Js.  If Bush were as evil as Tee keeps claiming he is, he'd have not only a WMD stash to plant, but several of them, likely with "Iraqi fingerprints" all over them.....especially if we're to believe that he knew Saddam didn't have any hinself, but took us into war anyways.  It defies any sense of logic....IF

I'm not ashamed to say that I would have.

I don't think I would have ever gone into such a war in the first place. But if my entire basis of war was to destroy WMD, I can guarantee you that there would have been some in Iraq, even if they had to be flown in from the U.S.A.

[BT]

the coverup is always worse than the crime.

[Mr_Perceptive]

the coverup is always worse than the crime.

So says Richard Nixon.

[sirs]

Well, you got me there Js.  If Bush were as evil as Tee keeps claiming he is, he'd have not only a WMD stash to plant, but several of them, likely with "Iraqi fingerprints" all over them.....especially if we're to believe that he knew Saddam didn't have any hinself, but took us into war anyways.  It defies any sense of logic....IF

I'm not ashamed to say that I would have.  I don't think I would have ever gone into such a war in the first place. But if my entire basis of war was to destroy WMD, I can guarantee you that there would have been some in Iraq, even if they had to be flown in from the U.S.A.

And you're not even the evil re-personification of Hitler.  Go figure

[BT]

So says Richard Nixon.

He should know.

[Michael Tee]

sirs:  <<Well at least it's offical, you're the one that can't read.  The reference was in what Hersh was reporting, NOT that which Pollack was agreeing with. >>

OK, moron, once again, the actual quote FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE, VIA YOUR OWN LINK:

<<As Seymour Hersh, among others, has reported, Bush Administration officials also took some actions that arguably crossed the line between rigorous oversight of the intelligence community and an attempt to manipulate intelligence. They set up their own shop in the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans, in order to sift through the information on Iraq themselves. To a great extent OSP personnel "cherry-picked" the intelligence they passed on, selecting reports that supported the Administration's pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest.>>

What your primitive excuse for a brain seems to have missed was the word "as."   He did not say, "Seymour Hersh has reported that . . . ."  THAT would have been a reference to what Hersh was reporting.  Here's something that right-wing morons like yourself repeatedly fail to recognize, sirs:  WORDS HAVE MEANINGS.  Even little, tiny words like "as" mean something.  Study them.  Learn what they mean. 

[sirs]

sirs:  <<Well at least it's offical, you're the one that can't read.  The reference was in what Hersh was reporting, NOT that which Pollack was agreeing with. >>

OK, moron, once again, the actual quote FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE, VIA YOUR OWN LINK:

<<As Seymour Hersh, among others, has reported, Bush Administration officials....

Yea, has reported, NOT, here's what Hersh has determined to which I agree with, or anything close to such a reference

WORDS HAVE MEANINGS.  Even little, tiny words like "as" mean something.  Study them.  Learn what they mean. 

You mean like --> "As best I can tell, these officials were guilty not of lying but of creative omission. They discussed only those elements of intelligence estimates that served their cause".  Not so tiny words, like "not of lying"??   

Fish in a barrel

[Michael Tee]

<<Yea, has reported, NOT, here's what Hersh has determined to which I agree with, or anything close to such a reference>>

OF COURSE, "has reported."  That is what Hersh DOES, he is a reporter.   How could Hersh "determine" anything?   You are really getting desperate, aren't you?

Here's another remedial reading lesson for your obviously challenged pea-sized brain:

If I say, "Hersh has reported that walnuts grow on trees," it means just what it says.  Hersh has reported something and what he reported was that walnuts grow on trees.  The sentence is a simple declarative one, and it declares only what Hersh has reported.

If OTOH I say, "As Hersh has reported, walnuts grow on trees," what we have is a simple declarative sentence (Walnuts grow on trees,) modified by a simple modifying clause, ("As Hersh has reported.")  The declarative sentence (Walnuts grow on trees) could stand by itself, but the speaker has chosen to modify it.  With or without modification, the speaker has uttered a declarative sentence and those are his words, that is his declaration.  He could make it Hersh's declaration simply by omitting the modifying clause:  Example, "Hersh has reported that walnuts grow on trees."   Then it becomes the speaker's declaration, not that walnuts grow on trees, but that Hersh has reported they do.

Anyway, I get the sense I am wasting my time arguing with a moron.  You get it or you don't.  Sorry, pal, I've got better things to do with my life.  Have a nice day.

[_JS]

They set up their own shop in the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans, in order to sift through the information on Iraq themselves. To a great extent OSP personnel "cherry-picked" the intelligence they passed on, selecting reports that supported the Administration's pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest.

That does sound like going too far. Also, this is something that others have claimed as well, but were quickly written off as "disgruntled employees."

There was evidence to the contrary of Saddam's supposed hundreds of thousands of pounds of WMD. I sincerely wonder if our intelligence community was that woefully inadequate.

[Michael Tee]

<<Fish in a barrel>>

I can see who the fish in a barrel is.  You fail to appreciate that the officials who are guilty of "creative omissions" are not the regular CIA operatives, they are the Office of Special Plans, created by PNAC/Zionist Defence Department Undersecretary Douglas Feith for the sole purpose of feeding pro-war propaganda directly to the "President," by-passing the usual chain of filtering and analysis that the professionals would have given it.  This was the "stove-piping" that Hersh described, that even Pollack admits had happened.  But to claim that Bush was ignorant of the origins of a new intelligence agency that just sprang up under Feith's supervision or that it was bypassing official CIA and Defence Intelligence channels is ludicrous.  New information agencies supplanting something as venerable as the CIA don't just spring up like mushrooms after a rain.

[sirs]

And you fail to appreciate that Pollack, as ardent a critic of this administration and this war as there could be, is on record as concluding that Bush didn't lie us into war, not to mention the plethora of official Investigative conclusions that have stated the same. 

But don't let those facts choke you  Must fit template.....must fit template

[_JS]

Yea, has reported, NOT, here's what Hersh has determined to which I agree with, or anything close to such a reference

That has to be one of the lamest retorts I have ever witnessed Sirs. Honestly, not only is it mere semantics, but you are arguing over the word "reported."

I'd like an answer to some questions.

Why did the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz create the Office of Special Plans, headed by Douglas Feith, to specifically supply the administration with unvetted intelligence information on Iraq from September 2002 to June 2003?

I think that deserves an answer, don't you? What good is raw intelligence information when taken without the context of specialists applied to it?

Why would you place a lawyer (Feith), a vicious partisan when it comes to Middle East affairs, in charge of such an organisation?