Gates: U.S. has evidence of Iran helping insurgents

[sirs]

<<"...that was not found convincing by many other countries .."...  Many , most, who do you mean? The list of those who agreed with the assesment of Saddam as a hoarder of WMD is often visited here .>>

More countries did not buy it than those who did buy it. 

While the vast majority of those country's intel services did "buy it" (Saddam and his stockpiles of WMD)  Go figure

[Michael Tee]

<<While the vast majority of those country's intel services did "buy it" (Saddam and his stockpiles of WMD)  Go figure>>

I'll figure it out for you, because you're obviously incapable of doing so for yourself.  When you last voted, did you vote for a President or did you vote for the heads of a "vast majority of your country's intel services?"

Answer:  You voted for a "President."  (But you knew that, didn't you.)

NEWSFLASH sirs:  A President is not supposed to be a mouthpiece speaking for "the vast majority" of his country's "intel services."  He's not supposed to be their agent.  He's actually their employer.  WOW.  Radical concept, huh, sirs?   It is his job to supervise them, review their results, and considering the results, using some intelligence, knowledge and experience, make a decision based upon them.  (Note that the process just described does not exclude use of a healthy sense of skepticism, a little probing or a healthy dose of common sense.)

So this "all the intelligence services of all the nations of all the world" bullshit is just one more load of crap.  Whether it's true or not - - and I kind of suspect that it's not, I would suspect for example that the intelligence services of the State of Israel knew very well that it was a crock of shit - - I don't really know, because not a single one of those intelligence agencies has chosen to bare their soul to me, Michael Tee.  And I have to tell you, I am deeply, deeply wounded to learn that they apparently have all chosen to make YOU their confidante.  I don't know WHY they have chosen to confide in you but not in me, but I don't like it one bit.  But anyway, assuming that it IS true, it doesn't get your man off the hook in any way, because:  the leadership of a great many nations DID NOT CHOOSE, even with this "intelligence" [which wasn't all that intelligent after all, it seems] TO INVADE IRAQ, now did they?  Only your "President" was dumb enough to believe that shit.  Well, not ONLY your "President," they also got the President of Poland and I think Nicaragua and a few other U.S. satellites had to pretend to believe it too.  All in all, a pretty sorry spectacle, I'd say.

[sirs]

<<While the vast majority of those country's intel services did "buy it" (Saddam and his stockpiles of WMD)  Go figure>>

When you last voted, did you vote for a President or did you vote for the heads of a "vast majority of your country's intel services?"  You voted for a "President."  (But you knew that, didn't you.)  NEWSFLASH sirs:  A President is not supposed to be a mouthpiece speaking for "the vast majority" of his country's "intel services."  

NEWSFLASH Tee; our OWN intel said "slam dunk", which basically was cooroborated by the "vast majority".  So our "mouthpiece" was indeed speaking for the U.S.  But you knew that.  The irony is if it were only the CIA making these conclusions, you'd be foaming at the mouth how Bush or the CIA didn't demonstrate any coorboration from any other country's intel agency.  Kinda like what you're trying to do know, but since we do have such cooroboration, now you're having to distort it to make it about using the intel to go to war, vs simply what their conclusions were.

Go back to sarcasm, Tee.  Objective debate is again, not your strength.  At least when it comes to Bush and our military

[Plane]

<<While the vast majority of those country's intel services did "buy it" (Saddam and his stockpiles of WMD)  Go figure>>

I'll figure it out for you, because you're obviously incapable of doing so for yourself.  When you last voted, did you vote for a President or did you vote for the heads of a "vast majority of your country's intel services?"

Answer:  You voted for a "President."  (But you knew that, didn't you.)

NEWSFLASH sirs:  A President is not supposed to be a mouthpiece speaking for "the vast majority" of his country's "intel services." 

President Bush has a duty to interpret the facts laid before him , his assessment is of the conflicting findings.

His verdict was not diffrent from the previous two presidents , and why should  president givet he beneit of the doubt to the word of Saddam?

Rather it would seem prudent t err on the side of safety and squash the threat , risking embarrasment if the threat turns out to be small and destruction if the threat turned out to be great.

[Michael Tee]

<<His verdict was not diffrent from the previous two presidents , and why should  president givethe beneit of the doubt to the word of Saddam?>>

Really?  So they invaded Iraq too, eh?  I just wasn't aware of it.

[Amianthus]

Really?  So they invaded Iraq too, eh?  I just wasn't aware of it.

Canada helped us out.

[Plane]

<<His verdict was not diffrent from the previous two presidents , and why should  president givethe beneit of the doubt to the word of Saddam?>>

Really?  So they invaded Iraq too, eh?  I just wasn't aware of it.

Saddam was constantly complaining about it , how did you miss that?

[Michael Tee]

<<NEWSFLASH Tee; our OWN intel said "slam dunk", which basically was cooroborated by the "vast majority".>>

Uh, NO, sirs, it DIDN'T say "slam dunk" till it was "fixed" to say so, and it WASN'T corroborated by a vast majority of anybody or anything.  Or if it was, I've never seen any evidence of it, and when last I checked you were going to try and find some.

<<  So our "mouthpiece" was indeed speaking for the U.S. >>

So now your "mouthpiece" is the American intelligence establishment and IT speaks for the country?  So then what's the "President" and whom does he speak for?

Or maybe you meant your mouthpiece was the "President" and HE was speaking for the U.S.?  But you say he just followed what the intelligence services told him and he believed them.  Wasn't he really just speaking for the intelligence services then?

<<The irony is if it were only the CIA making these conclusions, you'd be foaming at the mouth how Bush or the CIA didn't demonstrate any coorboration from any other country's intel agency. >>

I thought I was already foaming at the mouth because the other intelliegence services were too smart to follow this line of BS.

<< Kinda like what you're trying to do know, but since we do have such cooroboration, now you're having to distort it to make it about using the intel to go to war, vs simply what their conclusions were.>>

I've already stated the distinction between the President's duties and the duties of the intelligence services, and I don't think I distorted anything.  And that is completely apart from the fact that you haven't demonstrated any such "corroboration," in fact you admitted you didn't have it when you undertook to search for it on the internet.  Remember? 

[sirs]

<<NEWSFLASH Tee; our OWN intel said "slam dunk", which basically was cooroborated by the "vast majority".>>

Uh, NO, sirs, it DIDN'T say "slam dunk" till it was "fixed" to say so, and it WASN'T corroborated by a vast majority of anybody or anything.  Or if it was, I've never seen any evidence of it, and when last I checked you were going to try and find some.

So says you.  Sorry, but your credibility in declaring what is and isn't based on no more than your tee-leaf logic, doesn't even get you a cup of coffee, on this topic

<<  So our "mouthpiece" was indeed speaking for the U.S. >>

So now your "mouthpiece" is the American intelligence establishment and IT speaks for the country?  

Try to keep up.  They speak for the intel gathered

So then what's the "President" and whom does he speak for?

Leader, and CnC of the U.S. who speaks for the U.S. & takes the intel presented him, judges its worthiness and takes actions based on that intel.  Gads Tee, even knute could figure that one .......actually, no he couldn't.  Never mind

Or maybe you meant your mouthpiece was the "President" and HE was speaking for the U.S.?  But you say he just followed what the intelligence services told him and he believed them.  Wasn't he really just speaking for the intelligence services then?

You are that dense.  Must feed template...must feed template.  Amazing

<<The irony is if it were only the CIA making these conclusions, you'd be foaming at the mouth how Bush or the CIA didn't demonstrate any coorboration from any other country's intel agency. >>

I thought I was already foaming at the mouth because the other intelliegence services were too smart to follow this line of BS.

No, since no one is claiming that the intel made on Saddam's WMD was the precursur for everyone to join in one big global war against Iraq.  That's your distorted attempt at trying to deflect from the truth and facts of the matter.  The foaming at the mouth is the vitriolic certaining you have at how evil Bush is, and in concluding Bush lied us into war depsite the overwhelming facts & logic to the contrary

<< Kinda like what you're trying to do know, but since we do have such cooroboration, now you're having to distort it to make it about using the intel to go to war, vs simply what their conclusions were.>>

I've already stated the distinction between the President's duties and the duties of the intelligence services, and I don't think I distorted anything. 

Well you are.  And only a fair job at that, since most of us can see it pretty clearly.  Everyone grasps the distinction.  You're the one trying to frame it as Bush either blindly following what the CIA said (regardless of what everyone else wa also saying), or that Bush masterfully was able to convince every other foreign intelligence agency to see things his way....be cause of course, everyone is gonna do Bush's bidding.

And that is completely apart from the fact that you haven't demonstrated any such "corroboration," in fact you admitted you didn't have it when you undertook to search for it on the internet.  Remember?  

Oh, now I'm a computer that's supposed to regurgitate links at your demand, that to which I've read before in the past??  Yea, I remember.  I'll also remember that interesting train of thought next time you don't come up with sources right then and there.  By that piece of Tee logic, you must not have any.  Fascinating

[sirs]

[Michael Tee]

<<Oh, now I'm a computer that's supposed to regurgitate links at your demand, that to which I've read before in the past??  Yea, I remember.  I'll also remember that interesting train of thought next time you don't come up with sources right then and there.  By that piece of Tee logic, you must not have any.  Fascinating>>

IIRC, you yourself volunteered to dig up the sources.  I didn't ask you to.  You wanna welsh, go ahead and welsh.  Don't try to blame me for it, though.

[sirs]

<<Oh, now I'm a computer that's supposed to regurgitate links at your demand, that to which I've read before in the past??  Yea, I remember.  I'll also remember that interesting train of thought next time you don't come up with sources right then and there.  By that piece of Tee logic, you must not have any.  Fascinating>>

IIRC, you yourself volunteered to dig up the sources.  I didn't ask you to.  You wanna welsh, go ahead and welsh.  Don't try to blame me for it, though.

Yet, you then made the illogic leap that such information didn't exist, since I couldn't pull them up at your beck and call.  Like i said, it'll be fun applying that tactic to yourself, when/if I ever feel the need to belittle an irrelevent point as to the timing of providing information.  And said information has been provided you from messers Wilkerson & Pollack, in the "To War or not...." thread.  So, basically I blame you for your continued misrepresentation of me, and blatant distortion of issues being discussed.

[Michael Tee]

<<Yet, you then made the illogic leap that such information didn't exist, since I couldn't pull them up at your beck and call.>>

Well, that certainly wasn't my intention and I'm sorry if that's the impression you got.  If you want more time, WTF?  Take as much time as you need. 

[Michael Tee]

<<Rather it would seem prudent t err on the side of safety and squash the threat , risking embarrasment if the threat turns out to be small and destruction if the threat turned out to be great.>>

That's bullshit.  There was no threat, big or small, and none of them believed that there was.  It was and is absurd to think for a minute that Saddam or anyone else would attack the U.S.A. with nukes.  There is still no evidence whatsoever that he would.  They wanted the oil, faked the threat and invaded.  Fortunately, most people can see that now, even if you can't.

[Michael Tee]

<<and in concluding Bush lied us into war depsite the overwhelming facts & logic to the contrary>>

LOL - - the "overwhelming facts and logic" is that Bush lied you into a war, not to the contrary.