Bush officials defend Iraq intelligence

Rick Middleton
09-29-2003, 04:44 AM
What's a Monday morning without a debate between left wing fruitcakes and right wing nuts?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/28/sprj.irq.wmd/index.html

Just some gems from the story

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the administration relied on "an enrichment" of 5-year-old intelligence in its claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.


Enrichment = sexed up to say what you want it to say


The letter to CIA Director George Tenet was sent last week by Rep. Porter Goss of Florida, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Jane Harman of California, the committee's ranking Democrat.

The committee spent the past several months going through 19 volumes of classified material Bush officials used to make their case for war with Iraq, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

Porter and Harman told Tenet they found "significant deficiencies" in the U.S. intelligence community's ability to collect fresh intelligence on Iraq after U.N. weapons inspectors left in 1998, the Post reported.

They said intelligence agencies instead relied on "past assessments" and "some new 'piecemeal' intelligence" that "were not challenged as a routine matter," the Post reported.


What?!?! US Intelligence wasn't accurate about WMD? Go figure.


The CIA responded by saying it stood "fully behind its findings and judgments" concerning its intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.


We no dumb. We smart. SMRT smart. We don't need to look and find out if old information still applies. World flat. Bishops said so back in 700 AD, so it still apply.


Saddam, [Rice] said, was known to have had weapons of mass destruction before the Persian Gulf War of 1991.



Well congratulations Captain Obvious! You win a prize. Lemme see, here you go, a shiny new penny. Enjoy!

Dr Love
09-29-2003, 04:46 AM
5-year-old intelligence

Yup, that's what it seems like sometimes, doesn't it?

Rick Middleton
09-29-2003, 04:49 AM
Yup, that's what it seems like sometimes, doesn't it?

ZING!

dempsey_k*
09-29-2003, 04:55 AM
I want to see a "Rumsfeld : Too Hot For TV" with all of his bloopers and such, like when he slipped on a banana and you could see his left nipple. Or when Ari Fleischer said that we should contain North Korea before they cause a nuclear holocaust, and Rumsfeld calmly sleeping the corner mumbles loudly "there was no holocaust".

Dr Love
09-29-2003, 05:00 AM
I want to see a "Rumsfeld : Too Hot For TV" with all of his bloopers and such, like when he slipped on a banana and you could see his left nipple. Or when Ari Fleischer said that we should contain North Korea before they cause a nuclear holocaust, and Rumsfeld calmly sleeping the corner mumbles loudly "there was no holocaust".

http://www.satiricum.de/images/a2001-12/tn20011230-osama-rumsfeld.jpg

Rummy says "simmer down, it's coming."

Hoot
09-29-2003, 06:08 AM
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — In making the case for war against Iraq, Vice President Cheney has continued to suggest that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with a Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker five months before the attacks, even as the story was falling apart under scrutiny by the FBI, CIA and the foreign government that first made the allegation. More Cheney lies (http://www.msnbc.com/news/973241.asp?0cv=CB10)

Hoot
09-29-2003, 06:18 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,927963,00.html

"You just killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,927750,00.html)

HABitual
09-29-2003, 06:26 AM
Speaking of California recall... ;)

Rick Middleton
09-29-2003, 12:25 PM
And the beat goes on

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,490156,00.html?cnn=yes

BMRBruins
09-29-2003, 02:30 PM
http://i.timeinc.net/time/images/covers/1101031006cov_white.gif
"MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED"
HOW BUSH MISJUDGED THE TASK OF FIXING IRAQ






This weeks cover of time says it all. The media is really starting to turn up the pressure on this administration. Things wont get any eaiser with the CIA requisting an investigation of the Whitehouse by the Justice department over the whole Joseph Wilson fiasco.

canucksfan
09-29-2003, 02:37 PM
http://i.timeinc.net/time/images/covers/1101031006cov_white.gif
"MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED"
HOW BUSH MISJUDGED THE TASK OF FIXING IRAQ






This weeks cover of time says it all. The media is really starting to turn up the pressure on this administration. Things wont get any eaiser with the CIA requisting an investigation of the Whitehouse by the Justice department over the whole Joseph Wilson fiasco.
It looked like Bush was going to get another term easily 4 months ago but as everyday goes along it looks more and more unlikely. Unemployment is still rising and they are still having brave men and women dying in Iraq.

Hoot
09-29-2003, 02:49 PM
It looked like Bush was going to get another term easily 4 months ago but as everyday goes along it looks more and more unlikely. Unemployment is still rising and they are still having brave men and women dying in Iraq.

Yes, I am a bit surprised that it looks like the media is finally beginning to wake up. That is bad new for Bush. The media has the mentality of a pack of dogs and if the media hunt gets going there are severe problems ahead for the Bushies. It reminds me of the days before Monicagate, the media new they had a gigantic story but seemed to hesitate before they cut loose and really ripped the story to shreds.

Wild Thing
09-29-2003, 02:59 PM
Yes, I am a bit surprised that it looks like the media is finally beginning to wake up. That is bad new for Bush. The media has the mentality of a pack of dogs and if the media hunt gets going there are severe problems ahead for the Bushies. It reminds me of the days before Monicagate, the media new they had a gigantic story but seemed to hesitate before they cut loose and really ripped the story to shreds.

Nobody wants to be the first to get it wrong on a story of that scale and ruin their own career. The stakes are very high, and once a reporter or a media organization starts down that road they're pretty much committed - even the simple act of backing off on a story (not retracting it, but simply letting it drop) can easily end your career or sink your publication. Because then the pack turns on you.

In addition to that, everyone knows how much of a free ride the media have been giving the Bushers over the last couple of years - hell, for the last 3 or 4 years, really. If they turn on him now, they may have to admit they were too easy on him before, and most reporters don't have the stones or the integrity for that. So it may take a while - but if they smell enough blood in the water, they may very well turn on him and write the damned stories they ought to have been writing for the last 4 years.

Hoot
09-29-2003, 03:11 PM
Nobody wants to be the first to get it wrong on a story of that scale and ruin their own career. The stakes are very high, and once a reporter or a media organization starts down that road they're pretty much committed - even the simple act of backing off on a story (not retracting it, but simply letting it drop) can easily end your career or sink your publication. Because then the pack turns on you.

In addition to that, everyone knows how much of a free ride the media have been giving the Bushers over the last couple of years - hell, for the last 3 or 4 years, really. If they turn on him now, they may have to admit they were too easy on him before, and most reporters don't have the stones or the integrity for that. So it may take a while - but if they smell enough blood in the water, they may very well turn on him and write the damned stories they ought to have been writing for the last 4 years.

There is plenty of blood in the water now. Everybody in the Bush adminstration is on the defensive now and backpedaling like crazy (except Cheney who is sticking to his guns even though it makes him look ridiculous). Condi Rice, for example, is developing a severe case of "Idon'trecallitis", which is strange for a former Stanford Professor and national security adviser, and this whole no WMD issue plus the leaking of the identity of Wilson's wife identity as a CIA undercover agent etc etc.

I think if the media does get going the media will overcompensate and try to show everybody that they are the best "Bushbuster".

XX
09-29-2003, 03:21 PM
they may very well turn on him and write the damned stories they ought to have been writing for the last 4 years.

A shame they can do that for Bush, but no one for Clinton?

He was just as astonishing with his lack of skill in world politics, and did more harm than good. I wonder why most of you shrug off the fact that Saddam has simply ignored an internationaly recognized body of law for a decade, as if it doesnt matter.

The economy is just one big cycle, looks like Bush picked the wrong year to run for president. Funny how it is that the most important pres in recent history isnt even recognized as such, none other than Reagan. Hes responsible for our military today, and the economic upswing of the 90s.

Bush isnt a great president, I doubt anyone ever has been. For what its worth hes handled the situation well. He will get his second term, because the stupid dems cant get it together and get a decent opponent.

Hoot
09-29-2003, 03:39 PM
A shame they can do that for Bush, but no one for Clinton?

He was just as astonishing with his lack of skill in world politics, and did more harm than good. I wonder why most of you shrug off the fact that Saddam has simply ignored an internationaly recognized body of law for a decade, as if it doesnt matter.

The economy is just one big cycle, looks like Bush picked the wrong year to run for president. Funny how it is that the most important pres in recent history isnt even recognized as such, none other than Reagan. Hes responsible for our military today, and the economic upswing of the 90s.

Bush isnt a great president, I doubt anyone ever has been. For what its worth hes handled the situation well. He will get his second term, because the stupid dems cant get it together and get a decent opponent.

Do you have any specifics as to why Clinton was so horrible? Most independent American political scholars considers Clinton, for all his personal flaws, to be the most naturally gifted US politician of the latter part of the 20th century. Even the latest TIME magazine issue has this to say about Clinton: "Clinton was the genius political escape artist of the American presidency—and a good part of his success is attributable to the little things: great political antennae, an exquisite sense of how the political calendar works (when to move, when to delay), intellectual and tactical nimbleness.

Those are God-given gifts that no recent U.S. politician can match. But Clinton also succeeded because he knew how to steal his opponents' best ideas, sand off the rough edges and get them enacted. Deficit reduction, free trade, an emphasis on law enforcement (remember Clinton's 100,000 new cops) and welfare reform were traditional Republican ideas and winners all—especially welfare reform, which was an essential component of Clinton's 1996 re-election strategy."

As for your claim for Reagan. Again that is a strange take on what happened. Reaganomics was a mixed success at best, the rich got richer (surprise) and the deficit increased. Sure Reagan rebuilt the military but with artificial means. The true power of the US is not it's military.

And btw. why can't you talk about Bush without bringing up the subject of Clinton?

XX
09-29-2003, 09:14 PM
(when to move, when to delay), intellectual and tactical nimbleness.

As for your claim for Reagan. Again that is a strange take on what happened. Reaganomics was a mixed success at best, the rich got richer (surprise) and the deficit increased. Sure Reagan rebuilt the military but with artificial means. The true power of the US is not it's military.

And btw. why can't you talk about Bush without bringing up the subject of Clinton?

Tactial nimbleness? As in, not utilizing military action at all? And when he did, he messed up the situation horribly! The fact he passed several laws that basically trampled the constitution (Ex: Gun control) doesnt help his rep either, and bush is continuing this. The sad part is, he has a means of justification which causes some to look the other way.

Mixed Success? Trickle down theory is responsible for the whole economic uprising of the 90s my friend, clinton had little to do with it. The rich got richer? How is that a bad thing when the top 5% pay 75% of the taxes in the US? The tax system is sick and wrong, Its completely unfair to the middle class. People at the bottom pay nothing, and people at the top get shanked.
Deficit increase? Oh god, I guess you exmpted the whole desert storm thing which was just a minor cost from your statement. :rolleyes: The buildup of the military was needed under Reagan, Im glad someone thought AHEAD for once.

Artificial means? He put in motion many of the new chain of command ideas, and started a great number of new programs responsible for the vast majority of our new high tech weapons. Clinton was bad, Bush is starting to be bad. Personally, I think they are all crap tainted with big business contributions and personal agendas, but thats just me.

Why bring up Clinton? Because I have a hunch he did more damage than Bush would do given 4 terms.

dempsey_k*
09-29-2003, 10:23 PM
Do you have any specifics as to why Clinton was so horrible?

Somalia. Not downsizing of the military, but the degrading of it. Bush is treating the military like a prostitute though, but at least a well-oiled up prostitute.

Rick Middleton
09-30-2003, 04:16 AM
Somalia. Not downsizing of the military, but the degrading of it. Bush is treating the military like a prostitute though, but at least a well-oiled up prostitute.

Booyah!!!!! Ride 'em cowboy ...

YEEHAW!!!

Bluenote13
09-30-2003, 06:21 AM
[QUOTE=Hoot]
As for your claim for Reagan. Again that is a strange take on what happened. Reaganomics was a mixed success at best, the rich got richer (surprise) and the deficit increased. Sure Reagan rebuilt the military but with artificial means. The true power of the US is not it's military. QUOTE]

Ok, i'm half way with ya on this one - I agree with what you're saying about Reagan, but 'The True power of the US is not its military' ?

Spell it out for me, i'm a slow learner ;)

Hoot
09-30-2003, 06:30 AM
[QUOTE=Hoot]
As for your claim for Reagan. Again that is a strange take on what happened. Reaganomics was a mixed success at best, the rich got richer (surprise) and the deficit increased. Sure Reagan rebuilt the military but with artificial means. The true power of the US is not it's military. QUOTE]

Ok, i'm half way with ya on this one - I agree with what you're saying about Reagan, but 'The True power of the US is not its military' ?

Spell it out for me, i'm a slow learner ;)

Only totalitarian and fascist regimes believe that military power is the one and only power. The true power of the USA is the values that are expressed in its constitution. The values of democracy, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of religion etc.

"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W Bush

Bluenote13
09-30-2003, 07:17 AM
Only totalitarian and fascist regimes believe that military power is the one and only power. The true power of the USA is the values that are expressed in its constitution. The values of democracy, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of religion etc.

"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W Bush

Oh. Very well, I thought you might've meant something else. The GWB quote really does fit him doesn't it :p

dempsey_k*
09-30-2003, 09:56 AM
'Somalia.'

Somalia was George, Sr's little adventure.

Explain that one, Clinton pulled the trigger on the "blackhawk down" op which sealed the deal. Essentially pulling a Rumsfeld/McNamara *cute ways of fighting wars that fail*.

Dr Love
09-30-2003, 10:11 AM
http://i.timeinc.net/time/images/covers/1101031006cov_white.gif
"MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED"
HOW BUSH MISJUDGED THE TASK OF FIXING IRAQ






This weeks cover of time says it all. The media is really starting to turn up the pressure on this administration. Things wont get any eaiser with the CIA requisting an investigation of the Whitehouse by the Justice department over the whole Joseph Wilson fiasco.

Now would be a really good time for a kick ass Democrat [or even Republican] to run for President. Oh well...

Rick Middleton
09-30-2003, 10:31 AM
Under the title of "some people never learn"

Blair: I'd do same again on Iraq
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/09/30/blair.conference/index.html

To quote the story


"Imagine you are PM, and you receive this intelligence and not just about Iraq but about the whole murky trade in WMD .... So what do I do?

"Say 'I've got the intelligence but I've a hunch it's wrong?'''


Psst. That's what Jean Chretien did, MORON! Or more likely, he read the "intelligence" and saw right through it.

And under the title "Things Dubya doesn't want to hear"

"There was no easy choice. So whatever we each of us thought, let us agree on this. We who started the war must finish the peace."


Errr ... aren't you and Dubya trying to get the UN to come in and clean up your mess?

dempsey_k*
09-30-2003, 10:33 AM
'Explain that one, Clinton pulled the trigger on the "blackhawk down" op which sealed the deal.'

Bush, Sr sent the troops in. One of his last acts. The commanders on the ground had operational command, Clinton may have given the order for the operation to go ahead but he certainly didn't plan it. If anyone takes the blame for effing up, it's the planners on the ground.

Do you also blame Eisenhower for Vietnam because he was a republican ?

I've never read the books on 'blackhawk down' but everything I've seen on the history channel, which is utlimately political in it's presidentations said that Clinton did set the political parameters in that specific mission. "no tanks, no big show of force, no news cameras" ie: let's go for Dieppe all over again when we have the power to do Overlord.

I'm pretty sure there are some fellas on this board who are more versed in the history of the event than us.

dempsey_k*
09-30-2003, 10:41 AM
Errr ... aren't you and Dubya trying to get the UN to come in and clean up your mess?

From a non Dubya point of view for progressive nation building, utilizing the UN is not the wrong thing to do. Nobody wants to build a nation behind a black wall of deceit and then let them play with all of the other children when we feel like it looking like Frankenstein missing body parts and proper funding for plastic surgery.

Safir*
09-30-2003, 10:58 AM
Surprise Surprise!

Told y'a'll before the war that it was about oil, but one thing is sure. This plan didn't work.

No Oil and profits for Bush' supporters. I bet that they now use reserve funds, created to cover for such a situation.

Those frequent attacks on the oil pipelines force BushCo to pay for the reconstructions of Iraq with US-Tax-Dollars, instead of Iraqi Oil.

dempsey_k*
09-30-2003, 11:02 AM
'Do you also blame Eisenhower for Vietnam because he was a republican ?'

No, I blame him because he listened to that ******* JF Dulles and got us involved in the wrong area for the wrong reasons.

Good point, but I personally blame Woodrow Wilson's people for turning Ho Chi Minh away at the Versailles treaties. And Truman's people for turning him away after World War II when he asked for a treaty of alliance and soverignty from the French.

'which is utlimately political in it's presidentations said that Clinton did set the political parameters in that specific mission'

Political parameters are not operational parameters no matter what you might think. No overt use of force does not mean that you cannot use the necessary means to protect your forces. The contingent in Somalia were Rangers and light infantry who at best had lav's (light armored vehicles). The mistake the military made then, just as it made in Iraq, was to think that a high-tech machine like the helicopters used were impervious to conventional fire. This is not Clinton's fault, this is the commander on the scene being overconfident.

I don't think you understand, the political parameters were to have it be covert, Clinton said no lav's (tanks like I said before, depends on your definition) because that would have been a political situation, but it would have worked is the difference. My question is, if you don't want it to be a political situation Clinton, why were we there ?

You're right in your other response though, Clinton was 100% completely solid in Kosovo. But in today's perspective, not only do I not want to give Bush another term to learn his lessons like Clinton did, I don't think he's either capable of learning those lessons or his intentions were spelled correctly with all the i's dotted and t's crossed in our Iraqi endeavour.

dempsey_k*
09-30-2003, 11:08 AM
Surprise Surprise!

Told y'a'll before the war that it was about oil, but one thing is sure. This plan didn't work.

No Oil and profits for Bush' supporters. I bet that they now use reserve funds, created to cover for such a situation.

Those frequent attacks on the oil pipelines force BushCo to pay for the reconstructions of Iraq with US-Tax-Dollars, instead of Iraqi Oil.

Any more input from the Peanut Gallery ?

Dr Love
09-30-2003, 11:10 AM
Told y'a'll before the war that it was about oil

You want a cookie for that? So did thousands of new age hippie pot smokers who didn't know who Hans Blix is or carried signs like "BUSH=NUCLEAR TERRORIST." It doesn't make you special. Or right.

jfont
09-30-2003, 11:12 AM
relax guys...relax...

dempsey_k*
09-30-2003, 11:18 AM
relax guys...relax...

The moderation of this board is futile, when human nationalistic feelings are reaching the pitch of anger in Mesopotamia and the Levant to the point people are dying in conflict on a daily basis.

We can sit back and have a calm cool and collect conversation about what's going on but it will be wholly disconnected from the reality of what's going on with our brothers and sisters in the middle east.

Safir*
09-30-2003, 11:18 AM
You want a cookie for that? So did thousands of new age hippie pot smokers who didn't know who Hans Blix is or carried signs like "BUSH=NUCLEAR TERRORIST." It doesn't make you special. Or right.

You can't compare me to any NA hippies.

Oh btw I never went to any protest, never smoked pot in my life plus I know, who Hans Blix and also Barradei are.

Dr Love
09-30-2003, 11:21 AM
You can't compare me to any NA hippies.

Oh btw I never went to any protest, never smoked pot in my life plus I know, who Hans Blix and also Barradei are.

When did I say you were one of them? I didn't. I just said that like you, they said the war was all about oil.

dempsey_k*
09-30-2003, 11:22 AM
You can't compare me to any NA hippies.

You went to that Love Parade where people had glitter on their nipples. I think we can all bury the hatchet on this one.

dempsey_k*
09-30-2003, 12:53 PM
What, you aren't salivating at the mere thought of invading Syria in his second term and Iran in his third. (As Republicans get ready to repeal the 22nd Amendment).

Yes ! And Libya and Sudan and Algeria and Pakistan and Colombia and Venezuela and the Phillipines and North Korea and Yemen and Mexico and Cuba but not with Rumsfeld or Bush or any other neo-con degenerate.

Dr Love
09-30-2003, 12:55 PM
What, you aren't salivating at the mere thought of invading Syria in his second term and Iran in his third. (As Republicans get ready to repeal the 22nd Amendment).

Whatever it takes to get kids to learn some geography.

Hoot
09-30-2003, 01:03 PM
Whatever it takes to get kids to learn some geography.

Won't help. Only about 11 per cent of Americans between the ages of 18 to 24 can locate the US on a map! Do you realise that these people are eligible to vote? AAArrrgghhhhhhhh :eek: :p

dempsey_k*
09-30-2003, 01:04 PM
Won't help. Only about 11 per cent of Americans between the ages of 18 to 24 can locate the US on a map! Do you realise that these people are eligible to vote? AAArrrgghhhhhhhh :eek: :p

Okay now that is just pushing it pal, where did you hear that ?

Hoot
09-30-2003, 01:16 PM
Okay now that is just pushing it pal, where did you hear that ?

The National Geographic-Roper 2002 Global Geographic Literacy Survey (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1126_021120_TVGeoRoperSurvey.html) :D

dempsey_k*
09-30-2003, 01:31 PM
The National Geographic-Roper 2002 Global Geographic Literacy Survey (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1126_021120_TVGeoRoperSurvey.html) :D

From the article :

"About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. "

Depressing as it is, that's the opposite of what you said. "Only 11 percent can find it".

dempsey_k*
09-30-2003, 01:33 PM
The National Geographic-Roper 2002 Global Geographic Literacy Survey (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1126_021120_TVGeoRoperSurvey.html) :D

From the article : In France 24 percent did not know that that their own country was a nuclear nation.

Now THAT is funnay.

Hoot
09-30-2003, 01:40 PM
From the article :

"About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. "

Depressing as it is, that's the opposite of what you said. "Only 11 percent can find it".

Darn it, so it says :D Thank God :p (Guess I'm the one who needs to take reading lessons, or get new glasses :p)

XX
09-30-2003, 02:22 PM
You contradict yourself in the very next sentence! Kosovo seems to me to have been a fair success, unless you think that Milosevic is one of the good guys?

'How is that a bad thing when the top 5% pay 75% of the taxes in the US?'

Yes, you've said this before. Guess what moron, that same top 5% earns 90% of the income in the US. Which means that they <b>ain't pulling their fair share</b>.


Kosovo a success? If fumbling around trying to establish a new government is a success, Bush must be a hero! In reality, the UN has done nothing to improve Kosovo other than prosecuting Milosevic.

<i>A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed</i>

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Yes I have said it before, but I fail to see how paying 60% capital gain tax isnt pulling their weight. I guess you enjoy the progressive tax rate which is unfair to the middle class. What exactly is wrong with a flat tax rate again?

I enjoy your arguements, but I dont see the reason why you constantly insult me when I have not done the same to you. This is the internet, and I am trying to have a debate with Hoot. Join in if you wish, for all I know you could be some 40 yr old child molester.

But I wont go there.

The G Man
09-30-2003, 05:36 PM
Closed.

Act your ages.