For those with military background

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[sirs]

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?

[_JS]

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?

[sirs]

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

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

[sirs]

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

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[_JS]

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.

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?

[Michael Tee]

<<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?

[sirs]

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

[_JS]

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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

<<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.

[_JS]

If I'm not mistaken, Sirs believes that the WMD did indeed exist and was all transported to Syria prior to the invasion.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[sirs]

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

[_JS]

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.