DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on September 21, 2007, 07:50:01 PM
-
With the really outlandish tact, Tee was using to claim how the U.S. wouldn't annex Iraqi oil fields, because Germany never specifically annexed only oil fields, I have a hypothetical that I'd like to offer to those with some basic military understanding.
Pretend for the moment that Bush is a 21st century Hitler, commander of the biggest baddest low hanging military this world has ever known, and that we went into Iraq to gain control of their oil
Question(s); Would it be possible (or more so probable) to simply annex iraq's oil wells, surround it with some platoons, Abrams tanks, & Patriot batteries, and claim it payment for taking out Saddam?
Or would that be too logisitically complicated, given the above pretense?
How would Bushler reasonably take over Iraq's oil wells? Would it be via the tact he's currently using?
-
Would it be possible (or more so probable) to simply annex iraq's oil wells, surround it with some platoons, Abrams tanks, & Patriot batteries, and claim it payment for taking out Saddam?
Possible, if we were to go against the entire UN; I don't believe they allow the winner of a war to claim the loser's territory any more. Which is one of the reasons for the resolutions against Israel for refusing to return territory they took from Syria and Jordan.
How would Bushler reasonably take over Iraq's oil wells? Would it be via the tact he's currently using?
Which is what, winning the war but losing the peace?
-
Would it be possible (or more so probable) to simply annex iraq's oil wells, surround it with some platoons, Abrams tanks, & Patriot batteries, and claim it payment for taking out Saddam?
Possible, if we were to go against the entire UN; I don't believe they allow the winner of a war to claim the loser's territory any more.
Point taken. Just remember, Bush is Hitler II in this scenario, and our military is the 2nd coming of the SS. Did Hitler abide by the treaties imposed upon Germany, while he was in power?
How would Bushler reasonably take over Iraq's oil wells? Would it be via the tact he's currently using?
Which is what, winning the war but losing the peace?
No, taking control of Iraq's oil.....you know, the reason we went into Iraq, in the 1st place, according to some teeleaf logic. Peace was never the goal. Perpetual occupation to feed the military corporate machine, and control of Iraq's oil to feed Big oil. That's why we went in. So, how has Bush managed to mangle those objectives so badly, given the premice of how evil he is, and how monstrous our military is
-
Juniorbush could not grab the oilfields because he does not have the troops in Iraq to do so. In addition, an attempt to grab the oil and the pipelines exclusively would be seen for what it was.
The plan was for the Iraqis to welcome the troops as conquering heroes, after which the Saddamists would all be arrested and jailed and the remaining Iraqis would gratefully accept a deal by which they could share their oil with ExxonMobil and friends. After all, they didn't get any real money from Saddam for the oil (certainly nothing like what the Kuwaitis get from their Emir).
Juniorbush asnd his retinue were unspeakable ignorant of Iraqi politics, and just as they thought they could invade on the cheap, they thought that the Iraqis would share the oil.
Of course, oil companies tend to never share their oil or their money. Has anyone here got a free tank of gas or a check from Exxon lately?
-
The easy way would have been to pay Saddam , he would make a good deal as long as his personal cut was large.
During the oil embargo Saddam went contrary to the rest of the Arab members of OPEC and sold us oil while wewere paying real money for it.
If Bush is "Hitler" what prevented Saddam from being a "Franco"?
-
So, how has Bush managed to mangle those objectives so badly, given the premice of how evil he is, and how monstrous our military is
Because he just ain't that bright.
-
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
-
<<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>>
That's an indictment of your society, not an indication of Bush's intellectual power. It was a simultaneous failure of the MSM and the political opposition and the fault lies in cowardice (Democrats) and corporatism (MSM.) Plus a massive dose of public ignorance and a death-culture that worships the military and violent solutions to almost every problem. The U.S.A. is one fucked up country, and Bush is in many respects its natural leader. But he's still a dunce - - why? Because with all that going for him, he still fucked it all up.
-
For someone supposedly not so bright, he sure had a massive amount of folks fooled into believing his WMD cover.
I know. It's depressing that that doesn't say much for the intelligence of the average American.
-
Excuses Keep on Coming, by Charley Reese
The evolution of excuses for blundering into and maintaining the Iraq War is becoming comical.
The first excuse was weapons of mass destruction. Do you remember the constant talk about weapons of mass destruction, "the worst weapons in the hands of the worst dictator"? Do you remember how President Bush said the sole reason for the war was to disarm Saddam Hussein? Do you remember how we were warned about a smoking gun that could be a mushroom cloud? Do you remember how Iraq was an "imminent" threat to the world? Do you remember how a 65-year-old dictator, widely acknowledged as not the smartest guy in the world, was compared to Hitler, who had put together a regime and an army that conquered Europe?
Well, oops. Not a single weapon of mass destruction was found in the country. Furthermore, the Iraqis had said there were no weapons of mass destruction. To cover their behinds, U.S. officials started peddling the story that Saddam wanted people to believe he had weapons of mass destruction. That U.S. lie didn't fly because Saddam and his government repeatedly denied that the weapons existed. Furthermore, Iraq had invited in U.N. inspectors who were verifying the absence of weapons, which was one reason Bush forced the inspectors out by going to war. He had to start his war before the inspectors proved his bogus intelligence amounted to a pack of lies.
Enter the second excuse: Bush wants to spread democracy in the Middle East, starting with Iraq. That never progressed past elections because, as everyone familiar with the country knew or should have known, a vote would elect a Shia majority with two fractious minorities, Kurds and Sunnis. This is the government that has proven to be totally ineffective. It also greatly increased the influence of Iran. It has sparked the civil war in Iraq.
Bush lately has hinted that his faith in democracy is weakening by implying that a reasonable authority would be acceptable. Trouble is, the U.S. can't even find a dictator willing to take the job, given the present situation.
Now, when the issue has become getting Americans home from a war that has lasted longer than World War II, the final excuse is to trot out the empire's favorite ambiguity: stability. If we leave Iraq, instability will result. It's hard to believe anyone can say that with a straight face. Iraq is unstable already. It's in the midst of civil war, with a million refugees and displaced people, hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded, its economy a total wreck, and virtually all work on repairing the infrastructure at a standstill.
Ironically, the last time Iraq was stable was when Saddam was in power. Iraq is unstable because we made it unstable. We destroyed Iraq's infrastructure, its economy and its government. We did. One of the most shameful lies peddled by the Bush administration has been to blame the poor state of Iraq's infrastructure on Saddam. We destroyed that infrastructure with wars, bombings and medieval sanctions. The miracle is that with all we were doing, Saddam managed to produce more electricity and more oil than our occupation has been able to produce.
Finally, how is it the U.S. can claim that after four years, there is no trained Iraqi army and police force able to handle security? We send kids into combat with about 16 weeks of training. And why is the U.S. building the largest embassy in the world in a Third World country that is in chaos?
What "Herbert Hoover" Bush has done is destroy the credibility of the U.S., sully our reputation almost beyond repair, demonstrate the weakness of our leadership and the vulnerability of our military, and convince many people in the world that we are an evil nation of idiots led by fools. Let's at least hope that he destroys the Republican Party, too. It deserves a zero existence.
July 16, 2007
-
"Oooops" doesn't translate into that there was intel that most everyone largely believed, NOR does it mean there's some need to find another supposed "excuse", when it was theoretical slam dunk we'd find them.
Just to clear the record
-
<<"Oooops" doesn't translate into that there was intel that most everyone largely believed . . . >>
How do you know Bush or anyone in his clique actually did believe it? They claimed to believe what a lot of people did not believe. The French didn't believe it. The Russians and Germans did not believe it. The Canadians did not believe it. The Chinese did not believe it. The UN Security Council did not believe it. Just who is this "everybody" who "believed" it?
<< NOR does it [Oooooops] mean there's some need to find another supposed "excuse", when it was theoretical slam dunk we'd find them. >>
Of course it does - - if the original premise was not a slam dunk but in fact a bare-faced lie that its perpetrators knew from the beginning would not be validated - - COULD not be validated - - then even a moron would have known from the outset that a new excuse would have to be found as soon as the old one was exposed as a fake.
<<Just to clear the record>>
Yeah, you cleared the record alright - - you just PROVED that the lying bastard has virtually no defence whatever. Thanks.
-
<<"Oooops" doesn't translate into that there was intel that most everyone largely believed . . . >>
How do you know Bush or anyone in his clique actually did believe it?
ROFL......because Tee, I actually believe Bush is not this monster you wish people would see him as, that if I were in the same position, would have came to the same conclusions, based on the intel, and just as pertinent, COMMON SENSE
The French didn't believe it.
BZZZZZZZZZZ, wrong answer
The Russians and Germans did not believe it.
BZZZZZZZZZ, strike 2
The UN Security Council did not believe it.
BZZZZZZZZZ, strike 3. But we do have some fine parting gifts for you
The Canadians did not believe it. The Chinese did not believe it.
Well, I can't vouch for those, only what's been reported, so I can either take your word for it, ............or............ apply deductive reasoning to the above trend. I think I'll go with the latter
Just who is this "everybody" who "believed" it?
When quoting, try to be accurate. I said nearly everyone. I realize this need you have to claim as having to be all or nothing, but rarely is any statement of proclaimation or accusation made here in the saloon that of 100% or not at all. But to answer your "query", everyone you wish went on record as not, but alas did not
I feel for ya though. Desperate times call for repetation of desperate lies, in this case your good ol "Lied us into war" garbage
-
Despite your repeated lies that French, Germans, Russians and UN Security Council did not believe that the threat of Saddam's (non-existent) WMD was so imminent that the use of force was justified, the inconvenient fact remains that the U.S. abandoned its intention of obtaining Security Council authorization for use of force the night before their motion was to come up for a vote when they realized they could not persuade any of the foregoing to vote their way and that, accordingly, they would lose the Security Council vote. This was one of the most humiliating moments in US diplomatic history, but I guess to you it doesn't prove anything because you just KNOW that all these countries really did believe in the threat.
Oh, and BTW, "Bzzz! Wrong answer!" in most debating circles is not really considered a valid answer to someone else's point. The story of the abandoned attempt to obtain Security Council authorization is kind of widely accepted as evidence that France, Russia, China, Germany and others did NOT believe in Bush's obviously bogus intelligence. Canada's failure to join the U.S. attack on Iraq is widely interpreted here as evidence that Canada did not believe in the "threat" either, the more so since we had (a) already participated in the Afghan campaign and (b) stood to lose just as much as the U.S.A. if WMD attacks were made on our neighbour.
I don't think "Bzzz! Wrong Answer!" is generally accepted as evidence of anything other than a pathetically low IQ on the part of the person using it.
<<When quoting, try to be accurate. I said nearly everyone [believed the intel.]>>
Well, I believe you said "most everyone" but fair enough. So who is this "most everyone?" Turns out there are more exceptions than examples. Hilarious.
-
Despite your repeated lies that French, Germans, Russians and UN Security Council did not believe that the threat of Saddam's (non-existent) WMD was so imminent that the use of force was justified,...
BZZZZZZZ, NOOOO, that was not the question. Sorry you can't seem to play by the rules, but why am I not surprised. The question was on the intel present, and conclusions made by that intel.....that being did Saddam still have his WMD stockpiles. Everyone you listed, outside of Canada & China since I din't read those reports, was that he did.
NOT what they should do as a result of believing Saddam had WMD. Don't try that lie again, is my suggestion >:(
Oh, and BTW, "Bzzz! Wrong answer!" in most debating circles is not really considered a valid answer to someone else's point.
Well considering how you repetatively ignore such reports and links to those reports, such as the one produced by Kevin Pollack & David Kay, the need to repeat the links seem to be a waste of time, at this point
-
Lady Jeaneen last night on bill mahr gave a moving moment of illustrating the tragic pathos that when, on the single day Powell addressed the UN, he had at that moment the chance to respond to his conscience and to change history.
Instead he lied, knowing he lied. Astoundingly, he lied before the largest audience in the world with glib disregard.
Powell was like the Black Eisenhower. No other Black had such potential for national achievement.
He blew it for the backing of Bush and the loose cannon Neocons.
The one thing that Blacks in America need is for a role model that does not do a harikari at the big picnic. Black writers refer to this a lot.
-
OR....................... He didn't
-
<<BZZZZZZZ, NOOOO, that was not the question. Sorry you can't seem to play by the rules, but why am I not surprised. The question was on the intel present, and conclusions made by that intel.....that being did Saddam still have his WMD stockpiles. Everyone you listed, outside of Canada & China since I din't read those reports, was that he did.
<<NOT what they should do as a result of believing Saddam had WMD. Don't try that lie again, is my suggestion>>
Back to basics, sirs. The BIG BUSH LIE was that the WMD that Saddam had represented such an imminent threat to America that there was no more time to be wasted in UN inspections, diplomacy or UN efforts. The threat required the immediate use of force, and America prepared its diplomats to as the UN Security Council to authorize that force.
The case FOR the immanency of the threat and the need for immediate military action was based on phony intelligence, and moreover on intelligence which few outside the Bush administration and nobody inside it believed. So your lying bullshit about "intel" that "most everyone" believed is just that - - pure BS, lying crap which the war criminal Bush and his war criminal administration used to lie the U.S. into war.
I'd like to tell YOU not to try that lie again, but experience teaches that such an admonition would be useless. You'll be back at it, and all your other lies (Tee claims, without a shred of evidence . . . ") as soon as you think this exchange will be forgotten.
-
to lie the U.S. into war.
Actually, according to you, we're not at war. Bush is just using his authorization from Congress to use military force in Iraq. It's not a real war, since Congress didn't say "Declaration of War."
-
<<Actually, according to you, we're not at war. Bush is just using his authorization from Congress to use military force in Iraq. It's not a real war, since Congress didn't say "Declaration of War.">>
Whatever you want to call what he lied them into, it's the biggest foreign policy disaster in U.S. history and it hasn't worked out too well for the people of Iraq either.
Actually, "lied them into war" is a pretty good description of what he lied them into. It's not war in the technical or legal sense, but it's "war" in the popular sense in that there are groups of armed men torturing and killing one another on a fairly large scale and at least one of the groups of killers is armed and uniformed by a national government. It's an informal, as opposed to a formal, war.
-
<<BZZZZZZZ, NOOOO, that was not the question. Sorry you can't seem to play by the rules, but why am I not surprised. The question was on the intel present, and conclusions made by that intel.....that being did Saddam still have his WMD stockpiles. Everyone you listed, outside of Canada & China since I din't read those reports, was that he did. NOT what they should do as a result of believing Saddam had WMD. Don't try that lie again, is my suggestion>>
The BIG BUSH LIE was that the WMD that Saddam had represented such an imminent threat to America that there was no more time to be wasted in UN inspections, diplomacy or UN efforts.
no, that's YOUR lie again, though you do seemed to have moved on from the previous one, that he, and he alone lied about WMD, while apparently most everyone else simply got it wrong. Even though that's been shown to be a sham for all these years, now you seem to be focusing on to the next lie, that "imminent threat of Saddam to America". That has also been shown to be the bald faced lie that it always was. But for you to try and twist it by claiming I was lying about the other countries, because they didn't take the same actions as the U.S., so therefor they must have not believed in the "imminence of the threat", again lays bare your desperate tactics, since IT WAS NEVER ABOUT HOW IMMINENT HE WAS, so the whole asanine notion that other countries didn't see this Saddam imminence is moot, since BUSH DIDN'T EITHER
The threat required the immediate use of force, and America prepared its diplomats to as the UN Security Council to authorize that force.
If you want to focus on one particluar lie of yours, please do. The "threat" of Saddam's WMD getting into hands of terrorists, who had killed 3000+ with simple box cutters is what prompted our military action. NOT the lie that Saddam was about to blow up Boston. The intel conclusions of the UN, France, Germany, Russia, the NIE, Austrialia, England, and probably China & Canada, was that Saddam still had his stockplies. We as a country, defending ourselves from that threat did not require UN authorization, yet we received it anyway in 1441. Now you can play your word games and tee-leaf logic that the UN, France, Germany, etc., didn't agree with the force and there-fore must have changed their minds that Saddam no longer had WMD, point being that at the time we went in, they all did believe it, we simply, with the help of other coaliton forces, did something about it
-
no, that's YOUR lie again, though you do seemed to have moved on from the previous one, that he, and he alone lied about WMD, while apparently most everyone else simply got it wrong. Even though that's been shown to be a sham for all these years, now you seem to be focusing on to the next lie, that "imminent threat of Saddam to America". That has also been shown to be the bald faced lie that it always was. But for you to try and twist it by claiming I was lying about the other countries, because they didn't take the same actions as the U.S., so therefor they must have not believed in the "imminence of the threat", again lays bare your desperate tactics, since IT WAS NEVER ABOUT HOW IMMINENT HE WAS, so the whole asanine notion that other countries didn't see this Saddam imminence is moot, since BUSH DIDN'T EITHER
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 10:24:56 AM
The threat required the immediate use of force, and America prepared its diplomats to as the UN Security Council to authorize that force.
<<If you want to focus on one particluar lie of yours, please do. The "threat" of Saddam's WMD getting into hands of terrorists, who had killed 3000+ with simple box cutters is what prompted our military action. NOT the lie that Saddam was about to blow up Boston. >>
I assume that when Condoleeza Rice said that the U.S. could not afford to wait until the smoking gun turned into a mushroom cloud, she was talking about atomic box cutters. Or non-existent nukes in the hands of "terrorists" whose only proven weapons-handling ability was the ability to handle box cutters. Leaving aside the total absurdity of someone like Saddam or anyone first of all getting WMD and then totally abdicating control over them to a bunch of crazies who would then have a lifetime power of nuclear blackmail over him. Sure, THAT makes sense - - to a fruit-bat.
<<The intel conclusions of the UN, France, Germany, Russia, the NIE, Austrialia, England, and probably China & Canada, was that Saddam still had his stockplies. >>
(a) that's a crock, (b) even if they were dumb enough to believe that, it proves only that they were piss-poor intelligence gatherers, and the "President" was a piss-poor evaluator of intelligence for accepting it and (c) you have absolutely no way of knowing what foreign intelligence really thought about this, just as you have no way of knowing what your own intelligence services really think about this or anything else. The day the director of the CIA decides to take you into his confidence and tell you what he really thinks, please let us know. Until then, we go on circumstantial evidence, plus whatever leaks out through non-official sources, such as the stories that opinions which did not fit the Bush administration's pre-cooked plans for Iraq was sent back for re-thinking, and the total absurdity of the idea advanced that Iraq with or without WMD was a "threat" to the U.S.A. and an imminent threat to boot.
<< We as a country, defending ourselves from that threat . . . >>
There was no threat and you were not defending yourselves, you were carrying out a pre-arranged policy.
<< . . . did not require UN authorization>>
Then why plan to apply for it and why abandon the application only the night before when it was apparent you wouldn't get the votes?
<< yet we received it anyway in 1441. >>
More lies, because why would you prepare to ask for what you already had. Aren't you embarrassed to be caught so many times i lie after lie?
<<Now you can play your word games and tee-leaf logic that the UN, France, Germany, etc., didn't agree with the force and there-fore must have changed their minds that Saddam no longer had WMD, point being that at the time we went in, they all did believe it . . .>>
Why? Simply because you continue to assert that ridiculous bullshit in the face of all evidence to the contrary?
<<we simply, with the help of other coaliton forces >>
which amounted roughly to a hill of beans
<< . . . did something about it>>
About what? About a threat that never existed, that your own administration KNEW never existed, that your own administration had to lie about repeatedly, then and now to the American people and to the world?
-
It is safe to say that the European Community and the members of NATO did not deem Saddam to be a great enough threat to join in on Rummy's, Dummy's and Juniorbush's clever plan to conquer Iraq.
The likelihood of Saddam dropping any atomic device was akin to the probability of Condoleeza giving birth to a herd of Capybaras or perhaps a green iguana with telekinetic powers.
The likelihood of Saddam dropping a nuclear device on the US was akin to an "Aliens" type monster erupting from Dick Cheney's chest, ofr perhaps a covey of Flying Monkeys from OZ dressed in Zouave uniforms emerging from Rummy's rectum.
-
I assume that when Condoleeza Rice said that the U.S. could not afford to wait until the smoking gun turned into a mushroom cloud, she was talking about atomic box cutters.
Actually for those not with reading comprehension problems, what she has always meant was not allowing Saddam to eventually have the means from nuking a neighbor, such as Israel. Though I realize that's the ONLY reference you have to anyone mentioning anything atomic, so obviously (being Bush and how evil he's supposed to be) that translated thru your skewed prism as imminent nuking of someplace like New Orleans, if we didn't go in right then and there. EVERY OTHER reference to any WMD was in reference to his chemical & biological weapons & their being obtained and used by terrorists on the U.S.
<<The intel conclusions of the UN, France, Germany, Russia, the NIE, Austrialia, England, and probably China & Canada, was that Saddam still had his stockplies. >>
(a) that's a crock,
Actuallly those are the facts, demonstrated by the famous tee tacic of.....
(b) even if they were dumb enough to believe that, it proves only that they were piss-poor intelligence gatherers, and the "President" was a piss-poor evaluator of intelligence for accepting it
....the "even if...." redirection, of bascially saying, "So what that I'm wrong, I'm really right because...*fill in the blank*", in this case that they were all bad at intel gathering, which surprise, is not LYING about them, which you seem to be tripping all over yourself in claiming Bush did. But of course he couldn't because then they'd ALL be lying
and (c) you have absolutely no way of knowing what foreign intelligence really thought about this,
ONLY what's been reported by folks who actually have intimate knowledge of such, like Kevin Pollack (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack), who was part of Clinton's National Security Council & initiate with intel related deciphering.
What you have is ZIP evidence that any intel was manufactured to push us into war. All you factually have is the notion that we should have waited longer, let the inspectors back in, etc. But the intel conclusions that Saddam had them, AND that Bush didn't invent any intel or push any Intel Agents into manipulating their conclusions is FACTUAL. Every official report, including the 911 commission, (which was not kind to the Bush administration), has made that finding. Every official report from a Governmental body in England, came to the same conclusions with Blair. With of course the famous Tee comeback being the baseless and factless claim that they're all just trying to cover their asses. Sorry, but I'm taking the plethora of official conclusions, including Pollack's, over your asanine BDS alternative reality version
just as you have no way of knowing what your own intelligence services really think about this or anything else.
"Slam Dunk", as factually on record by Clinton's CIA director, who was quoted such while speaking with Bush, regarding "what they thought" of Saddam's WMD stockpile situation. They were wrong, as was everyone else, but those were their offical & unofficial conclusions. Next?
<< We as a country, defending ourselves from that threat . . . >>
There was no threat and you were not defending yourselves, you were carrying out a pre-arranged policy.
Well, since you're now just going into willdy unproven, factless opinion, time to move on to more substantive matters. I can't imagine what Xo is envisioning now? Naaaa, best not even try :P
-
<< . . . what she [Condi] has always meant was not allowing Saddam to eventually have the means from nuking a neighbor, such as Israel. >>
Well, now that's really novel. Why didn't she or Bush just tell the American people, "Folks, the possibility of Saddam eventually nuking Israel requires America (not Israel) to invade Iraq in the immediate future?" LMFAO. He'd probably be lynched for even suggesting it, let alone sacrificing American lives for such craziness.
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 01:05:13 PM
. . .
<There was no threat and you were not defending yourselves, you were carrying out a pre-arranged policy.> >>
<<Well, since you're now just going into willdy unproven, factless opinion,. . . >>
Wildly unproven, factless? Try these facts: Cheney's, Wolfowicz's and Perle's and Feith's PNAC plan calling for the invasion of Iraq was cooked up years before the invasion, before the "discovery" of the "threat" of "WMD" and before the Bush administration had even come into being; the intelligence, as I have demonstrated, was being cooked to justify an invasion of Iraq; Bush lied about the threat of WMD; pressured intelligence officers to provide evidence justifying invasion; and cherry-picked intelligence data to justify the invasion.
Of course, that is EXACTLY the kind of opinion that in right-wing fruitbat circles WOULD be described as "factless, wildly unproven," etc. As I said before, don't ever argue with the evidence. Just deny that it exists, over and over again. Who knows, maybe somewhere, you can find some dumb schmuck who will believe your pathetic lies that evidence doesn't exist, even as the evidence is waved in front of his face. One thing I gotta admire about you sirs: you are persistent. You will repeat the same shit over and over again, as if the repetition makes it somehow all come true. You are certainly not a quitter.
-
<< . . . what she [Condi] has always meant was not allowing Saddam to eventually have the means from nuking a neighbor, such as Israel. >>
Why didn't she or Bush just tell the American people, "Folks, the possibility of Saddam eventually nuking Israel requires America (not Israel) to invade Iraq in the immediate future?"
Because, as has already been noted, anyone with over a 3rd grade reading comprehension could have figued that out from either of them, since A) Saddam didn't have nukes, and there was no intel presented that claimed he on the verge of getting them, B) no one's comments weren't specific to ONLY Isreal, and C) he had no means of getting one here even if he did have one. It's that dreaded common sense component, springing it's ugly head yet again. Personally, waiting 12yrs was plenty for me, for Saddam to get his act together, so how you jump to "immediate", well, that's not surprising coming from your world
<There was no threat and you were not defending yourselves, you were carrying out a pre-arranged policy.> >>
<<Well, since you're now just going into willdy unproven, factless opinion,. . . >>
Wildly unproven, factless? Try these facts: ....
You mean the ones you just completely ignored regarding Pollack?? The ones presented by Inspector David Kay? The ones presented by the Robb-Silverman Commission, and a Bipartisan Senate Investigation?? Yea, thought so.
LMFAO.
Precisely
-
<<[Condi didn't tell the American people that they had to invade Iraq immediately because it MIGHT eventually nuke Israel] because, as has already been noted, anyone with over a 3rd grade reading comprehension could have figued that out from either of them, since A) Saddam didn't have nukes, and there was no intel presented that claimed he on the verge of getting them, B) no one's comments weren't specific to ONLY Isreal, and C) he had no means of getting one here even if he did have one. It's that dreaded common sense component, springing it's ugly head yet again. >>
OK, so that's what "We can't wait till the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud" means to you? You interpret this as, "well, Saddam doesn't have any nukes now and he's not on the verge of getting them, but he might eventually nuke Israel or eventually gas somebody else or eventually wage germ warfare on somebody, so we can't wait any longer, we can't even wait for the UN inspectors to finish looking for WMD in Iraq, we have to strike now?" This comes back to a problem I have long had with you, sirs: ordinary words just don't mean what they say with you. Whatever the plain words are, you just twist them into meaning whatever you need them to mean to support your absurd and ridiculous theories. It's starting to wear pretty thin by now.
<< Personally, waiting 12yrs was plenty for me, for Saddam to get his act together . . . >>
Well, if in 12 years the guy had not "gotten his act together" as you put it, where was the immediacy at that point in time to spring to violence? You're destroying your own case as you speak. Personal pique at someone's alleged stalling and delaying - - particularly in view of the fact that Saddam had just delivered as requested a voluminous accounting of all his WMD to the UN - - is not one of the generally recognized legitimate reasons for going to war.
<<so how you jump to "immediate", well, that's not surprising coming from your world>>
It was immediate since the sudden emergence of Iraq's WMD as a front-page issue and possible cause for war surfaced right at the end of the 12 years and moved very rapidly to an actual invasion. For 12 years, no such urgency had been claimed or demonstrated. Whatever weapons Iraq had were, correctly, seen as no major threat to the U.S.
<<You mean the ones you just completely ignored regarding Pollack?? The ones presented by Inspector David Kay? The ones presented by the Robb-Silverman Commission, and a Bipartisan Senate Investigation??>>
Ahhh, it seems we are making some progress after all. Now you seem to be abandoning your habitual BS claim that there is "zero, zip, nada" evidence to support the fact that Bush lied and cooked the intelligence to order, and merely trotting out your own tired and corrupt evidence that he didn't as an answer to my evidence that he did. Thank you.
-
OK, so that's what "We can't wait till the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud" means to you? You interpret this as, "well, Saddam doesn't have any nukes now and he's not on the verge of getting them, but he might eventually nuke Israel or eventually gas somebody else or eventually wage germ warfare on somebody, so we can't wait any longer, we can't even wait for the UN inspectors to finish looking for WMD in Iraq, we have to strike now?"
Boy, you really want to push that next generation lie now, don't you. The one that this is all about Saddam's pending attack. Since you refuse to even to deal with reality (that following 911, the clock was put on & that this has always been about WMD getting in the hands of terrorists who wouldn't blink in using them on U.S. soil), we'll just leave it at this; Following 911, we could no longer wait another 12yrs, so Saddam was put on notice. Reading comprehension Tee. Bt nailed this when he referenced how most folks see what they want to see. You've determined that Bush is evil, and that this is all about the oil, that it was never about national defense, irrational & illogical garbage like that. So everything of yours has to be rationalized into that template....EVERYTHING, including the blatant ignoring of so many official reports and conclusions to the contrary, including by Dems and folks in the Clinton administration, that have no support for Bush or the war. Like Pollack Sad, but at least consistent
-
Lady Jeaneen last night on bill mahr gave a moving moment of illustrating the tragic pathos that when, on the single day Powell addressed the UN, he had at that moment the chance to respond to his conscience and to change history.
Instead he lied, knowing he lied. Astoundingly, he lied before the largest audience in the world with glib disregard.
Powell was like the Black Eisenhower. No other Black had such potential for national achievement.
He blew it for the backing of Bush and the loose cannon Neocons.
The one thing that Blacks in America need is for a role model that does not do a harikari at the big picnic. Black writers refer to this a lot.
I have yet to understand why blacks only hold up liberal black Americans as role models instead the full spectrum to include Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Ben Carson (http://www.neuro.jhmi.edu/profiles/carson.html), J.C. Watts et al.
I hear stundets talkin down even Oprah Winfrey and Tiger Woods, calling them "oreo". Does this then imply they only use left-leaning blacks as role models? Or, really AWESOME young men of great character such as Dexter Manley or Michael Vick?
-
I suggest that Black Americans have a perfect right to suggest whichever role model they wish.
Clarence Thomas is the least dynamic justice the Supreme Court has seen in over 100 years, He speaks little or not at all, he participates in only a minimal fashion, and he adds nothing to any debate. He has done nothing to advance the Black cause other than to serve as a bland token of the Black guy who attained his fortune and sealed a deal with Massa Charley.
Condi Rice was National Security Advisor when the worst security breeach in the history of the US occurred. Now she is a rather unsuccessful diplomat in the Middle East. The US is more unpopular than it has been since the Vietnam period.
To many Blacks, Rice and Thomas seem to be role models who could've made a difference and blew it bigtime.
-
and Oprah Winfrey and Tiger Woods?
-
I suggest that Black Americans have a perfect right to suggest whichever role model they wish.
Clarence Thomas is the least dynamic justice the Supreme Court has seen in over 100 years, He speaks little or not at all, he participates in only a minimal fashion, and he adds nothing to any debate. He has done nothing to advance the Black cause other than to serve as a bland token of the Black guy who attained his fortune and sealed a deal with Massa Charley.
Condi Rice was National Security Advisor when the worst security breeach in the history of the US occurred. Now she is a rather unsuccessful diplomat in the Middle East. The US is more unpopular than it has been since the Vietnam period.
To many Blacks, Rice and Thomas seem to be role models who could've made a difference and blew it bigtime.
and one might also wonder why all conservative blacks are called uncle tom's and yet when the dnc get out the vote...and put on all the pomp and circumstance... the vote don't show.
I would love to see the ratio of voting blacks.
-
sirs: <<So everything of yours has to be rationalized into that template....EVERYTHING, including the blatant ignoring of so many official reports and conclusions to the contrary, including by Dems and folks in the Clinton administration, that have no support for Bush or the war. Like Pollack Sad, but at least consistent>>
Like Pollack, eh? You want to talk about Pollack? Fair enough, but first of all you should know a little something about Haim Saban and the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, where Pollack works, and its Director, Martin Indyk.
from Wikipedia:
Haim Saban . . . is a television and media proprietor. With an estimated current net worth of around $2.8 billion, he is ranked by Forbes as the 98th richest person in America. Saban and his family, along with much of the Egyptian Jewish community, fled Egypt for Israel after the 1956 Suez War. He currently resides in Beverly Hills, California, and in Israel. . . . Saban summarized his politics in a 2004 New York Times interview with the statement, "I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel." . . . Saban has donated to the US Democratic Party and the Israeli Labor Party, he has also donated to Republicans including George W. Bush, and has business affiliations with Rupert Murdoch. In the 2001-2002 election cycle, his Saban Capital group donated over $10 million to the Democratic National Committee[3], the largest donation from a single source up to that time. He also founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy[4] at the Brookings Institution, installing Martin Indyk as its director.
Who is Martin Indyk?
from http://www.la.utexas.edu/chenry/usme/sp2000/roles/msg00034.html (University of Texas)
<<In 1982, he [Indyk] became
affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an
organization that is a registered lobbying group, promoting Israel and
its causes. However in 1985, Indyk co-founded the Washington Institute
for Near East Policy (WINEP) to emphasize a more objective, academic
research on Israel and the Middle East, thus separating himself from the
increasingly partisan members of AIPAC.>>
(How far he actually "separated" himself from AIPAC will be seen in the following paragraphs.)
<< . . . the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which he [Indyk] co-founded in February 1985 with Barbi Weinberg of Los Angeles, a former president of the Jewish Federation in Los Angeles and wife of AIPAC Chairman Emeritus Lawrence Weinberg.
<<Barbi Weinberg, who was an AIPAC director herself, became the Washington Institute's president and Indyk, an Australian by birth who was AIPAC deputy director of research, became the Washington Institute's executive director. >>
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0393/9303009.htm
What does any of this have to do with Kenneth Pollack?
Not much, except that Pollack too is involved with Martin Indyk's and Haim Saban's Saban Center. He's their Director of Research. http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/overview.htm But that's not the extent of Pollack's involvement as a paid Israeli propagandist. Far from it.
<<As a scholar at the liberal Brookings Institution, whatever liberal means these days, he [Pollack] advocated invasion of Iraq in the book The Threatening Storm, back in 2002, thereby giving crucial centrist support to the neocons. Pollack argued that the way to peace in the Middle East lay through Baghdad. I.e., convert the Arabs to democracy there and everything else will fall into place.>>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-weiss/kenneth-pollack-iran-exp_b_20248.html
and then there was this . . .
<<A U.S. government indictment alleges that Pollack provided information to former American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) employees Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman during the AIPAC espionage scandal>>
from the Wikipedia article on Pollack
Now then, what were you saying about POLLACK finding no evidence that Bush lied the country into war in Iraq? He didn't find any evidence, eh? Are you really surprised, now?
-
sirs: <<So everything of yours has to be rationalized into that template....EVERYTHING, including the blatant ignoring of so many official reports and conclusions to the contrary, including by Dems and folks in the Clinton administration, that have no support for Bush or the war. Like Pollack Sad, but at least consistent>>
Now then, what were you saying about POLLACK finding no evidence that Bush lied the country into war in Iraq? He didn't find any evidence, eh?
Precisely that, that the global intel community concluded he (Saddam) had stockpiles of WMD, and that there was no cooerciion or manipulation of the intel. What he found was simply intel that Bush focused more so on those credible sources that made those conclusions, vs other sources that raised questions, but by no means any conclusivity. You can keep ignoring the official reports and conclusions made by the various intel agencies, but them there the facts, Tee. Try not to choke on them
-
MT: <<Now then, what were you saying about POLLACK finding no evidence that Bush lied the country into war in Iraq? He didn't find any evidence, eh? >>
sirs: <<Precisely that, that the global intel community concluded he (Saddam) had stockpiles of WMD, and that there was no cooerciion or manipulation of the intel. What he found was simply intel that Bush focused more so on those credible sources that made those conclusions, vs other sources that raised questions, but by no means any conclusivity. >>
LMFAO. You answered a question that I did not ask. You did this by editing out my real question, which allowed you to simply repeat what you had already said before.
Let's try it again. THIS TIME, I will post the question as I actually posed it, not as you altered it. Here's my original question to you:
<<Now then, what were you saying about POLLACK finding no evidence that Bush lied the country into war in Iraq? He didn't find any evidence, eh? Are you really surprised, now?>>
You had already told us that Pollack found no evidence of doctored intelligence. We already knew that's what you had been referring to Pollack for. So - - to put my real question in context - - I showed you how Kenneth Pollack is nothing more than a paid political propagandist for Israel, and that he himself had previously advocated (in his book) the invasion of Iraq. And then I recapped your claim that Pollack had found no evidence that Bush lied the country into a war and simply asked you now (i.e., AFTER Pollack's association with Israeli interest groups had been exposed) whether you were surprised by Pollack's findings.
Why did you go to such lengths so as not to have to answer my simple question?
And knowing, as you do now, of Pollack's close association with Israeli propaganda groups, ARE you surprised now that he found no evidence of Bush lies or manipulation of intelligence?
<<You can keep ignoring the official reports and conclusions made by the various intel agencies, but them there the facts, Tee. >>
I don't actually ignore them. I compare them with other facts - - the Downing Street memo, Richard A. Clarke's recollections, Vincent Cannistraro's recollections, Paul O'Neill's recollections, John Prados' recollections, the recollections of other insiders, the utter improbability of Iraq menacing the U.S. in any way, despite the ingenious but unconvincing fantasies dreamed up by sirs, the PNAC report recommendations, the migration of many of the PNAC founders and principals into the Bush White House, the obvious forgeries found in the evidence for war, and the "President's" refusal to remove the lies from his State of the Union address when the dubiousness of the evidence was pointed out to him, the general lack of integrity in Bush personally (his previous lies to the S.E.C.) and numerous other factors, and when I compared them (the official reports) with the actual facts, it was easier to dismiss the official reports as a bullshit whitewash than to fit the known facts into the official report.
As far as the conclusions of "various intel agencies," we already know the British report was cooked, and we know virtually nothing of other intelligence agencies except your mindlessly repeated mantra, "They believed. They believed. They believed." Actually, we have no way of knowing what they really believed and we never will. Personally, I think most of them believed it was a crock of shit simply by their failure to follow up by endorsing invasion at the Security Council.
-
What We Thought We Knew & The Perils of Prediction (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack)
Facts to a BDS Lib, like Kryptonite to Superman (http://www.nysun.com/article/11597)
which includes "found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs,"
-
<<Intelligence officers who presented analyses that were at odds with the pre-existing views of senior Administration officials were subjected to barrages of questions and requests for additional information. They were asked to justify their work sentence by sentence . . . >>
<<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.>>
the above from YOUR Kenneth Pollack article. Later Pollack goes on to say that there was no manipulation of intelligence. He obviously can't deny Seymour Hersh without destroying his own reputation, because Hersh is an experienced reporter with excellent sources and many scoops to his credit, whereas Pollack is just an ex-academic working in a think tank, which is just a bunch of flacks assembled by well-heeled pressure groups to back up their special agendas with pseudo-academic opinions. So the way he neutralizes Hersh is to quote some of his suff, qualify it where possible ("arguably crossed a line." arguably)
The other source you quoted was worthless garbage. Just reiterates how tough it is to get a picture of what's going on in Iraq, but doesn't even attempt to deal with Hersh's allegations, Richard A. Clarke's allegations, and all the rest of them. Total waste of time reading it.
-
"Later Pollack goes on to say that there was no manipulation of intelligence. He obviously can't deny Seymour Hersh without destroying his own reputation
Obviously he CAN. MUST fit that template.
Hersh is an experienced reporter with excellent sources
Which of course trumps a man who actually is connected and KNOWS 1st hand the situational intelligence. Obviously MUST go with the reporter and his "sources" vs the fella that actually IS a primary source. Gotta stick with that template
The other source you quoted was worthless garbage.
Yea, a reference to the official report on whether intel was manipulated or agents coerced. Yea, just garbage. Gotta stick with that template, ya know ::)
-
<<Obviously he CAN.[deny Hersh] MUST fit that template.>>
Well, the fact is that he did not.
<<[Hersh being a seasoned reporter with excellent sources] of course trumps a man who actually is connected and KNOWS 1st hand the situational intelligence. >> [sarcasm]
The situational intelligence was not the issue to which my remarks about Hersh were directed. The issue there was whether pressure had been put on the intelligence analysts by the Bush administration to cook the intel in favour of their preconceived plans. Hersh's "excellent sources" to which I referred were obviously NOT sources of foreign intelligence, but sources within the U.S. intelligence establishment who could testify as to administration pressure. THAT is why I said that Pollack would not take Hersh on directly over this issue.
<<Yea, a reference to the official report on whether intel was manipulated or agents coerced. Yea, just garbage. Gotta stick with that template, ya know >>
No, it's worthless garbage becuase it makes absolutely no attempt to deal with the specific allegations of specific people that pressure was put on agents to cook their reports
-
The situational intelligence was not the issue to which my remarks about Hersh were directed. The issue there was whether pressure had been put on the intelligence analysts by the Bush administration to cook the intel in favour of their preconceived plans.
Which of course had been concluded officially as having not, corroborated by one of Bush's biggest critics on the war, Kevin Pollack. Not that those facts matter.....must fit template, must fit template
-
sirs: <<Which of course [Bush admin pressure on analysts to cook their intel] had been concluded offcially as having not, corroborated by one of Bush's biggest critics on the war, Kevin Pollack. Not that those facts matter.....must fit template, must fit template>>
Can't you fucking READ? Once again here's the Pollack quote, from the very link YOU posted:
<<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.>>
-
sirs: <<Which of course [Bush admin pressure on analysts to cook their intel] had been concluded offcially as having not, corroborated by one of Bush's biggest critics on the war, Kevin Pollack. Not that those facts matter.....must fit template, must fit template>>
Can't you fucking READ? Seymour Hersh, among others, has reported.....
Apparently someone can't, since I coulda swore I was referring to Pollack, you know the fella who IS a source, not just some reporter, who you yourself referenced as pretty much cooroborating the Robb-Silverman report. Apparently you can't read anything contrary to your preconceived made up mind.
Must fit template....must fit template
-
sirs: <<Apparently someone can't [read] since I coulda swore I was referring to Pollack, you know the fella who IS a source, not just some reporter, who you yourself referenced as pretty much cooroborating the Robb-Silverman report. Apparently you can't read anything contrary to your preconceived made up mind.>>
I'll put this as simply as I can. READ WHAT I QUOTED FROM POLLACK. Pollack is usually a source of nothing more than endless bullshit, but where I quoted Pollack, he was AGREEING WITH what Hersh had reported, i.e. that the Bush administration was cooking the intelligence.
You can't make it into something different just because you don't like what it says. What part of "To a great extent OSP personnel cherry-picked the intelligence they passed on" do you not understand? OSP was organized by the Bush administration to produce intelligence for them because they refused to rely on the traditional sources of intelligence such as the CIA.
-
sirs: <<Apparently someone can't [read] since I coulda swore I was referring to Pollack, you know the fella who IS a source, not just some reporter, who you yourself referenced as pretty much cooroborating the Robb-Silverman report. Apparently you can't read anything contrary to your preconceived made up mind.>>
Pollack is usually a source of nothing more than endless bullshit,
Well, of course, he doesn't believe Bush lied, so he has to be full of BS ::)
...but where I quoted Pollack, he was AGREEING WITH what Hersh had reported, i.e. that the Bush administration was cooking the intelligence.
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. As I've already referenced, Pollack's biggest criticism was that Bush focused on the plethora of intel that most all other intel sources had also concluded, while ignoring the intel that had questionable conclusions as to Saddam's WMD disposition. QUOTE: "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"
MUST fit template, MUST fit template
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
the coverup is always worse than the crime.
-
the coverup is always worse than the crime.
So says Richard Nixon.
-
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
-
So says Richard Nixon.
He should know.
-
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: <<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
-
<<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.
-
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.
-
<<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.
-
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
-
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?
-
<<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. >>
POLLACK is a paid agent of the pro-Zionist propaganda mill and has spent his entire professional life in that capacity, government service aside. He works with and under people with similar committments to the Zionist agenda. This "ardent critic of . . . this war" actually wrote a book ("Coming Thunder") that argued FOR the invasion of Iraq. He would never utter one word delegitimizing the entire war that he dreamed of by suggesting that it was achieved by lies peddled to the American people by their "President" let alone by Zionist propaganda like his own book and other writings. This war has, without costing a single Israeli life, led to the seemingly permanent neutralization of one of Israel's most ardent enemies. And Pollack is gonna say that America was lied into it?
You're talking out of your ass as usual.
-
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."
Semantics my ass. He referenced a report being produced by Hersh. Reporting X doesn't automatically make X factual, or even one he actually believes wholeheartedly. Made more the point, as Pollack himself has referenced that the evil Bush & co, were apparently well intentioned, albeit wreckless in his opinion, and did not lie us into war, which is Tee's garbage. I mean, did everyone miss that quote?? Made all the more so corroborated by the various Committee conclusions, such as Robb-Silverman. Made even MORE so by your own referencing that if it were you who had invaded Iraq, you would have darn well had some WMD to plant as back-up. and I don't consider you "evil"
The whole Bush is evil, he lied us into war crap is so transparently void of any validating substance, I question why you're even bringing it up. If Bush were this evil diabolical mastermind, who actually knew Saddam didn't have any WMD but took us into war anyways, he would have had his own WMD ready to plant as soon as Saddam was taken out. NO?
-
So answer the 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?
-
<<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. >>
POLLACK is a paid agent of the pro-Zionist propaganda mill and has spent his entire professional life in that capacity, government service aside.
Must fit template......must fit template
-
I don't have an answer for you Js. What I do have are Pollack's conclusions, the Bipartisan Robb-Silverman conclusions, the Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Investigation conclusions, the 911 Comittee conclusions, not to mention the Butler report, logic & common sense. What you have is a reporter
-
<<The whole Bush is evil, he lied us into war crap is so transparently void of any validating substance, I question why you're even bringing it up. If Bush were this evil diabolical mastermind, who actually knew Saddam didn't have any WMD but took us into war anyways, he would have had his own WMD ready to plant as soon as Saddam was taken out. NO?>>
Sure. If he wanted to spend the rest of his life behind bars. Unless he personally transported the evidence hidden on his own person, like the receiver he used to get answers from in his televised "debates," and buried it in the desert with his own shovel, the misuse of government personnel and equipment to plant fake evidence in support of previous lies would probably lead to impeachment and worse. There is no way that an endeavour like that could be kept secret, because too many people would have to be involved.
I said Bush was stupid, sure, but no way would I say he was as stupid as you. It should be obvious to a twelve-year-old why he would never consider such a thing. He COULD have if he had enjoyed a full measure of trust from the American people, but by the time the war had begun, nobody trusted the guy any more except the real die-hards.
-
I don't have an answer for you Js. What I do have are Pollack's conclusions, the Bipartisan Robb-Silverman conclusions, the Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Investigation conclusions, the 911 Comittee conclusions, not to mention the Butler report, logic & common sense. What you have is a reporter
So you don't know why Rumsfeld would create an organisation within the CIA to send unvetted intelligence to the administration, just on Iraq?
Led by Douglas Feith? By the way, if you think Feith is just a good administrator or something, you could not be more wrong, this guy is an extreme nutter when it comes to Israel. Look at this excerpt from A Clean Break which he co-wrote. (Read the whole thing here (http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm).
The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet?s family, the direct descendants of which ? and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows ? is King Hussein.
Do you know what that is saying? It is saying that the Hashemite dynasty should once again rule Iraq (they are Sunni Muslims by the way). They ruled at the invitation of the British, when chemical weapons were first used on the Kurds and Shi'a back before Ba'athists even existed.
Sirs, all you are doing is saying "my expert trumps yours." That is a useless argument.
Don't you want to know why this group existed inside the intelligence community? By the way, the former and current CIA directors have said that they could not stand Feith, nor what he was doing. Doesn't that sound the least bit peculiar?
-
<<I don't have an answer for you Js. >>
Oh, but you are too modest, sirs. In fact you DO have an answer - - << What I do have are Pollack's conclusions [the conclusions of the Director of Research of the Saban Center for Middle East Studies, financed by billionaire Zionist Haim Saban] the Bipartisan Robb-Silverman conclusions [Robb being the DINO providing "bipartisan" cover to Laurence Silberman, a Reagan campaign adviser and judicial nominee who has participated in every kind of Republican dirty trick including the Iran-Contra scandal and the Anita Hill smear job,who has been called by Ralph Neas, past president of People for the American Way "the most partisan and most political federal judge in the country"] the the Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Investigation conclusions, ["Nobody fooled us, we investigated whether somebody fooled us or not and our conclusion is that nobody fooled us"] the 911 Comittee conclusions [comparable to another Warren Commission Report?] not to mention the Butler report [an English whitewash similar to the Robb-Silberman report] logic & common sense. [logic? common sense? how? what's logical about any of that crap? LOGIC and COMMON SENSE say Bush lied.]
<< What you have is a reporter>>
ANOTHER one of sirs' fucking lies. What you have is a reporter with whom even Pollack had to agree as to the improper influence exerted on intelligence gathering by Bush administration officials. But in addition to that you also have Richard A. Clarke. You have John Prados. You have Vincent Cannistraro. You have the Downing Street Memo. There's other stuff as well, but what's the point? As often as it's enumerated, that's how many times sirs will either say "You have only one source" or "You have zero, zip, nada." The guy lies like a trooper. There is absolutely no point in debating anything with him. When a clear-cut admission (like even Pollack's admission) is laid out in black and white before his very eyes, he just baldly denies that it says what it says. Later on, he'll even deny it existed.
The dilemma posed by a chronic liar like sirs is this: do you waste hours of your time rebutting his lies over and over again? Or do you just say "fuck it" and resolve to ignore the guy? But if you ignore him, he keeps repeating the same fucking lies over and over again. Is it right to let him get away with it? I guess basically the question is, what's the harm done if he does?
-
I don't have an answer for you Js. What I do have are Pollack's conclusions, the Bipartisan Robb-Silverman conclusions, the Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Investigation conclusions, the 911 Comittee conclusions, not to mention the Butler report, logic & common sense. What you have is a reporter
So you don't know why Rumsfeld would create an organisation within the CIA to send unvetted intelligence to the administration, just on Iraq? Led by Douglas Feith? By the way, if you think Feith is just a good administrator or something, you could not be more wrong, this guy is an extreme nutter when it comes to Israel.
Which has what to do with my point about the official conclusions regarding the crap that Bush lied us into war, again?
Sirs, all you are doing is saying "my expert trumps yours." That is a useless argument.
No, all I'm saying is the plethora or experts, including those who are intimate with the intelligence community (while a devoted critic of Bush & the war I might add) & bipartisan investigations, and not simply a reporter, have come to the conclusions that Bush didn't lie us into war. That domain remains with the Elvis faction of the left
-
Which has what to do with my point about the official conclusions regarding the crap that Bush lied us into war, again?
I think you have the questions reversed. I don't give a damn about who likes or dislikes Bush and why.
I want to know why an organisation was created within the intelligence community specifically to pass unvetted Iraq intelligence to the administration. Why was it headed by an extremely partisan (and I don't mean Democrat or Republican in using that term) Douglas Feith?
Don't you want to know why? Why weren't the CIA and other intelligence services trusted on their own account?
Your question is merely political ass covering. Who cares? My questions are truly inquisitive. I really want to know the answers, whatever they are.
No, all I'm saying is the plethora or experts, including those who are intimate with the intelligence community (while a devoted critic of Bush & the war I might add) & bipartisan investigations, and not simply a reporter, have come to the conclusions that Bush didn't lie us into war. That domain remains with the Elvis faction of the left
Yet, all the experts hated Feith and this group, cinluding the current and former CIA director. Why?
What was the purpose? You seem so intent on covering asses for your president, that you've left all of your curiosity behind.
-
<<The whole Bush is evil, he lied us into war crap is so transparently void of any validating substance, I question why you're even bringing it up. If Bush were this evil diabolical mastermind, who actually knew Saddam didn't have any WMD but took us into war anyways, he would have had his own WMD ready to plant as soon as Saddam was taken out. NO?>>
===========================================================================
Well, no he wouldn't.
Suppose you were a member of a small, highly secret group who was charged to plant WMD's in Iraq. One assumes that anyone who was chosen for this would have to be fairly intelligent. Anyone of any intelligence at all would realize after a short time that (a) they are not going to be punished for telling the truth, and (b) there is a vast FORTUNE to be made by anyone who writes the book exposing Juniorbush as a lying Machiavellian creepoid.
If there were such a plot, it would not stay secret or long.
Of course, you could also sent out brain waves on some weird frequency to convince a few wackos that WMD's were actually found.
Such might explain the problem that Sirs seems to have.
-
If I'm not mistaken, Sirs believes that the WMD did indeed exist and was all transported to Syria prior to the invasion.
-
<<If I'm not mistaken, Sirs believes that the WMD did indeed exist and was all transported to Syria prior to the invasion.>>
I am not sure if he still believes or ever believed that but I'm through for the time being worrying about what sirs thinks any more. I don't have the time or the energy.
-
If I'm not mistaken, Sirs believes that the WMD did indeed exist and was all transported to Syria prior to the invasion.
Actually I believe "much" (vs all) of Saddam's WMD was EITHER transported to Syria or buried, likely both. Common sense & the intel at the time also reinforces the position that most everyone else believed Saddam had WMD stockpiles as well. I also believe, now that we've gone into Iraq, his WMD stockpiles were likely not as vast as the original intel determined them to be.
Again, it's ludicrous, if not idiotic, to believe that if Bush were this evil meglomaniac who KNEW Saddam didn't have WMD, he would have a whole stockpile of his own to strategic place, the moment Saddam was overthrown. And being in charge of the largest military, and covert units a plenty, there'd have been no problem with such planting, especially with the likelyhood that the Evil Bush would have threatened the death of not just the leaker in the unit(s), but their family as well. Make it look like a mafia hit, or even gang bangers.
IF he were this evil Hitler impersonator. Instead we have to deal with the Elvis factor
-
Yet you have no interest in why this special organisation was set up to pass unvetted intelligence information to the administration? Why it was headed by Douglas Feith, someone who is FAR from unbiased on Middle Eastern politics?
That was a political decision Sirs, clearly even you see that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but my question is - why?
You can't simply gloss over the giant elephant in the room without answering the questions. Bush and company didn't install this group in the middle of the intelligence community to look pretty one imagines.
-
Yet you have no interest in why this special organization was set up to pass unvetted intelligence information to the administration?
Perhaps the administration felt that there were competing agendas at the CIA and felt a fresh look at the raw data might be helpful.
Not like the CIA hasn't acted independently of the WH previously.
-
So you don't know why Rumsfeld would create an organisation within the CIA to send unvetted intelligence to the administration, just on Iraq?
Hmmmmmm....
Might getting unvetted iformation be a good idea?
I can imagin the -vetter- haeing practicly the power of the presidency in his ability to filter the presidents knoledge .
-
<<Might getting unvetted iformation be a good idea?>>
You can see for yourself. Was it? Do you interpret your own X-rays?
(Disclaimer: I don't for a moment accept that the "President" was the victim of "bad intel." The fact is, he, or more accurately, the powerful interests represented by this clown and his entourage, had already determined, well before 9-11, to invade Iraq for reasons totally unrelated to WMD or the "war on terrorism" and were not really in need of any information on Iraq - - what they were really looking for was excuses to do what they had already determined had to be done. And they stacked the deck to make sure that's exactly what they would get.)
-
<<Might getting unvetted iformation be a good idea?>>
You can see for yourself. Was it? Do you interpret your own X-rays?
(Disclaimer: I don't for a moment accept that the "President" was the victim of "bad intel." The fact is, he, or more accurately, the powerful interests represented by this clown and his entourage, had already determined, well before 9-11, to invade Iraq for reasons totally unrelated to WMD or the "war on terrorism" and were not really in need of any information on Iraq - - what they were really looking for was excuses to do what they had already determined had to be done. And they stacked the deck to make sure that's exactly what they would get.)
I don't guess you need any evidence to have faith in this vision.
But are you really saying that this entire discussion is moot to you?
-
I don't for a moment accept that the "President" was the victim of "bad intel." The fact is, he, or more accurately, the powerful interests represented by this clown and his entourage, had already determined, well before 9-11, to invade Iraq for reasons totally unrelated to WMD or the "war on terrorism" and were not really in need of any information on Iraq - - what they were really looking for was excuses to do what they had already determined had to be done. And they stacked the deck to make sure that's exactly what they would get.).....It didn't suddenly become moot, it was always a non-starter for me
And thus EVERYTHING must fit this template, including all facts & official conclusions to the contrary
-
<<I don't guess you need any evidence to have faith in this vision.>>
Bad guess. You need evidence to support just about any belief, with the possible exception of belief in God.
<<But are you really saying that this entire discussion is moot to you?>>
"Moot" isn't the right word. It describes an issue that has already been decided, often during the course of the argument - - do we eat tonight at Harvey's or the Burger King? Moot point: Harvey's just burnt down.
I'm just saying, the whole premise that Bush & Co. were the victims of bad intel is laughable bullshit, but that even granting your premise for the sake of argument, it would have been as idiotic for anyone to attempt to make sense of unfiltered, raw intelligence data as it would be to try to interpret one's own X-rays. Particularly in the case of someone whose intellectual capacities are as questionable as your "President's."
I think "moot" implies that the issue at one point was genuinely debatable - - was Bush the victim of "bad intel" or not? - - but I don't concede that that was ever a genuine issue for debate. It didn't suddenly become moot, it was always a non-starter for me.