CIA Analyst: 'No President has lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably'

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Shanti
If Bush is so dishonest, why didn't he just have a CIA team plant some Sarin or something. Seems like it would have been an easy thing to do.

Because he didn't inherit his daddy's respect in the organization.

He could have them do whatever he wanted.

And yet all they're doing is blasting him. Do you really think Bush likes the stuff the CIA is saying about him?

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: Jmman
I have to laugh. Every left-wing democratic organization has a piece published by these "Sanity" guys on their website. I am no conspiracy theorist, but it makes you go "hmm"....

no need to flirt with conspiracy. leave those demons with the partisans who know how to tame them.

dr. kay's preliminary report proved what the administration long suspected, that saddam hussein continued to hide wmd
capabilities, possessed wmd materiel, and, not too surprisingly, had begun to explore the potential of wonderful new poisons.
brilliant as usual, saddam.

read the report, the very preliminary report. if you want a chuckle, assuming you're not already aware of this, read the report
and then compare the text with the liberal's interpretation. you'll quickly discover under just what psychological circumstances
a person's reading comprehension abilities turn on them.

Oh crap! I didn't know this. If I had...
Because I distinctly remember our president addressing the nation and stating "We are going to war because we have solid evidence that Iraq continues to hide WMD capabilities, possessed WMD material, and had begun to explore the potential of wonderful new poisons." (OK, I have no clue what you're saying with that last one)

yes, you are clueless. kay's report confirms that the hussein regime was in direct violation of u.n. resolution 1441. the evidence was
discovered firsthand. the evidence presented by powell, for example, in february 2003, was based on the best available intelligence. the
particulars of powell's presentation were gathered without the benefit of the freedom of movement dr. kay was blessed with, and therefore
the powell evidence required 'interpretation', because of the distance, secondhand nature of it. powell's overall portrait though was more or
less accurate, in certain areas dead-on, in others he under-estimated hussein's progress, and in yet others the evidence to substantiate has
not been discovered so far (any al-qaeda/iraq relationship).

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: syzygy
yes, you are clueless. kay's report confirms that the hussein regime was in direct violation of u.n. resolution 1441.

No, it doesn't. That's wishful thinking by YABAs desperate for any justification for Bush-lite's invasion.

the evidence was discovered firsthand. the evidence presented by powell, for example, in february 2003, was based on the best available intelligence. the particulars of powell's presentation were gathered without the benefit of the freedom of movement dr. kay was blessed with, and therefore the powell evidence required 'interpretation', because of the distance, secondhand nature of it. powell's overall portrait though was more or less accurate, in certain areas dead-on, in others he under-estimated hussein's progress, and in yet others the evidence to substantiate has not been discovered so far (any al-qaeda/iraq relationship).

No, according to the guy responsible for analyzing Iraqi intelligence for Powell, Powell's presentation to the U.N. was more nonsense than substance. The article was posted and discussed here just a few weeks ago. They were embarrassed by Powell's claims. Meanwhile, a U.N. inspector said they laughed out loud at parts of Powell's presentation. This was discussed in the same article. I'll trust their well-informed analysis over yours any day, thank you very much.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I called it! It only took some jackhole less than 40 minutes to do so...

Which is eight times longer than it took for you to come in the thread and start jacking off Bowfinger.

This is exactly why you have NO credibility.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I called it! It only took some jackhole less than 40 minutes to do so...

Which is eight times longer than it took for you to come in the thread and start jacking off Bowfinger.

This is exactly why you have NO credibility.

Ummm - looks to me like his statement was pretty dasm accurate. 5min X 8 = 40mins which is what DM stated. Credibility?

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Does it really matter why the thug was removed? . . .

Yes. It matters. It matters more than almost anything else.

Do you think it's OK for a used car salesman to lie about cars in order to sell them? Is it OK for spammers to lie about their wares to sell them? Then why don't you expect at least as much from the President of the United States? Why do otherwise intelligent and honest people excuse Bush's lies to sell his invasion, an unprovoked attack that killed thousands of innocent people and cost us hundreds of Billions of dollars?

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: syzygy
yes, you are clueless. kay's report confirms that the hussein regime was in direct violation of u.n. resolution 1441.

No, it doesn't. That's wishful thinking by YABAs desperate for any justification for Bush-lite's invasion.

thats it ? oooh, ok, i'll take your word for it

resolution 1441 politely asked the butcher for full-compliance. given what kay discovered, the butchered failed, oh, for the upteenth
time to comply. none of this will penetrate the gourd of any liberal. it can't be made any simpler. i really don't think its possible to water
down the obvious anymore. you should read kay's findings/report. it has color pictures for your viewing pleasure ! ! !

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I called it! It only took some jackhole less than 40 minutes to do so...

Which is eight times longer than it took for you to come in the thread and start jacking off Bowfinger.

This is exactly why you have NO credibility.

Ummm - looks to me like his statement was pretty dasm accurate. 5min X 8 = 40mins which is what DM stated. Credibility?

CkG

Well, Sir Cad, since you seem to think gratuitous vulgarity is OK, blow me.

It's funny how you whine about the lack of civility in this forum, yet openly condone obnoxious behavior by people like UQ and Galt. I'm sure it's merely a coincidence that they happen to share your worship of Bush-lite.

Hypocrite with a capital H.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: maluckey
Does it really matter why the thug was removed? . . .

Yes. It matters. It matters more than almost anything else.

Do you think it's OK for a used car salesman to lie about cars in order to sell them? Is it OK for spammers to lie about their wares to sell them? Then why don't you expect at least as much from the President of the United States? Why do otherwise intelligent and honest people excuse Bush's lies to sell his invasion, an unprovoked attack that killed thousands of innocent people and cost us hundreds of Billions of dollars?

Bow - Do I know you? IRL? I could have sworn I heard that exactly argument from a guy I know around here...but then again a different freind said he heard the same type thing from one of his die-hard Liberal Iowan freinds. Meh - it must be a new paragraph in the Dem handbook cuz I'm sure you've looked in my profile and I've stated where I live. Just had to ask since it seems quite a few people around here like to stay anonymous.

CkG

 

[308nato]

McGovern has written for the Executive Intelligence Review. Why don't you Google who owns that extremely credible Intelligence organization.

Where's KAMAZON when you need him ?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I called it! It only took some jackhole less than 40 minutes to do so...

Which is eight times longer than it took for you to come in the thread and start jacking off Bowfinger.

This is exactly why you have NO credibility.

Ummm - looks to me like his statement was pretty dasm accurate. 5min X 8 = 40mins which is what DM stated. Credibility?

CkG

Well, Sir Cad, since you seem to think gratuitous vulgarity is OK, blow me.

It's funny how you whine about the lack of civility in this forum, yet openly condone obnoxious behavior by people like UQ and Galt. I'm sure it's merely a coincidence that they happen to share your worship of Bush-lite.

Hypocrite with a capital H.

No - I will not "blow" you. And no I didn't "whine" about civility - I merely asked for it and hope for it. It doesn't seem to have taken hold(civility) so it becomes a waste of time to acknowledge it. I do however agree that he should have said "giving a high five" or something to that effect would have been a better way to say it - but the point is still on target.
And I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to call someone a Hypocrite for "condoning" vulgarity and then in the same post tell someone to "blow me". Meh - to each his own I guess.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: maluckey
Does it really matter why the thug was removed? . . .

Yes. It matters. It matters more than almost anything else.

Do you think it's OK for a used car salesman to lie about cars in order to sell them? Is it OK for spammers to lie about their wares to sell them? Then why don't you expect at least as much from the President of the United States? Why do otherwise intelligent and honest people excuse Bush's lies to sell his invasion, an unprovoked attack that killed thousands of innocent people and cost us hundreds of Billions of dollars?

Bow - Do I know you? IRL? I could have sworn I heard that exactly argument from a guy I know around here...but then again a different freind said he heard the same type thing from one of his die-hard Liberal Iowan freinds. Meh - it must be a new paragraph in the Dem handbook cuz I'm sure you've looked in my profile and I've stated where I live. Just had to ask since it seems quite a few people around here like to stay anonymous.

CkG

Yes, I know where you live. I am much closer than you think, though I don't believe we've met. Nonetheless, I don't see that it has anything to do with my comment here. Much as I'd love to take credit for it, it is hardly a new or original sentiment. Many Americans think the President should be an honest and decent person, someone with the utmost integrity. We are confused by those who think it's OK for him to lie through his teeth.

Re. the Democratic handbook, I'll defer to your expertise. While I am on several Republican mailing lists -- presumably due to my business position and demographics -- I don't get anything from the Democrats. I've received invitations to dine with Bush (for $1,000 a plate, or maybe it was more), but I've never been invited to Harkin's big steak fry.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to call someone a Hypocrite for "condoning" vulgarity and then in the same post tell someone to "blow me". Meh - to each his own I guess.

CkG

See "irony". That was intentional, to make a point.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to call someone a Hypocrite for "condoning" vulgarity and then in the same post tell someone to "blow me". Meh - to each his own I guess.

CkG

See "irony". That was intentional, to make a point.

sure whatever.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to call someone a Hypocrite for "condoning" vulgarity and then in the same post tell someone to "blow me". Meh - to each his own I guess.

CkG

See "irony". That was intentional, to make a point.

sure whatever.

CkG

Give your knee-jerk partisanship a rest. " ... since you seem to think gratuitous vulgarity is OK, blow me." I know your instinct is to attack everything I say, but even you should be able to see the intentional irony in that sentence. Lighten up.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yes, I know where you live. I am much closer than you think, though I don't believe we've met. Nonetheless, I don't see that it has anything to do with my comment here. Much as I'd love to take credit for it, it is hardly a new or original sentiment. Many Americans think the President should be an honest and decent person, someone with the utmost integrity. We are confused by those who think it's OK for him to lie through his teeth.

Re. the Democratic handbook, I'll defer to your expertise. While I am on several Republican mailing lists -- presumably due to my business position and demographics -- I don't get anything from the Democrats. I've received invitations to dine with Bush (for $1,000 a plate, or maybe it was more), but I've never been invited to Harkin's big steak fry.

It was just a question since it was presented in almost the exact same wording by a guy I talked with a bit ago. Just curious is all. But yeah - I don't get any political mailings here now- I did at my old address...I must have been removed from the lists or they keep sending them to my old address Harkin's steak fry was on my list to go to, but I was busy and couldn't attend(and yes I was "invited" by a freind to go...but not "officially")

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
It was just a question since it was presented in almost the exact same wording by a guy I talked with a bit ago. Just curious is all.

Obviously an intelligent fellow. You should spend more time with him.

 

[DealMonkey]

So let me get things straight: 1/2 the people think the president is a lying PoS and the other 1/2 think he's golden boy can-never-do-no-wrong? Huh, how about that.... Why don't we all just stand about a block apart and throw rocks at each other. It would be about as meaningful...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
It was just a question since it was presented in almost the exact same wording by a guy I talked with a bit ago. Just curious is all.

Obviously an intelligent fellow. You should spend more time with him.

Actually he makes me laugh a lot...just like some of the people on here do.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I called it! It only took some jackhole less than 40 minutes to do so...

Which is eight times longer than it took for you to come in the thread and start jacking off Bowfinger.

This is exactly why you have NO credibility.

Ummm - looks to me like his statement was pretty dasm accurate. 5min X 8 = 40mins which is what DM stated. Credibility?

CkG

Well, Sir Cad, since you seem to think gratuitous vulgarity is OK, blow me.

It's funny how you whine about the lack of civility in this forum, yet openly condone obnoxious behavior by people like UQ and Galt. I'm sure it's merely a coincidence that they happen to share your worship of Bush-lite.

Hypocrite with a capital H.

No - I will not "blow" you. And no I didn't "whine" about civility - I merely asked for it and hope for it. It doesn't seem to have taken hold(civility) so it becomes a waste of time to acknowledge it. I do however agree that he should have said "giving a high five" or something to that effect would have been a better way to say it - but the point is still on target.
And I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to call someone a Hypocrite for "condoning" vulgarity and then in the same post tell someone to "blow me". Meh - to each his own I guess.

CkG

I seem to remember you throwing a little hissy fit and calling for a ban(more than once) when BOBDN (I believe) made mention of a spittle rag containing something other than spittle.

Consistancy, CAD. Consistancy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I seem to remember you throwing a little hissy fit and calling for a ban(more than once) when BOBDN (I believe) made mention of a spittle rag containing something other than spittle.

Consistancy, CAD. Consistancy.

No - that wasn't a hissy fit - BOBDN's posts were consistanly bad. He on more than one occasion and post had demonstrated his "vulgarity" that night and my comments were very deserved(and guess what? the MODS thought so too). And believe me - I have "mentioned" it to other people...even if they are on "my" side. So you both can take your little holier than thou attitude elsewhere. I am not a MOD - but if I was - everyone would get warnings for saying such things. I'm sure you guys would whine like hell if commented everytime someone "flamed" someone else. So yes - I will make comments when I feel neccessary - the rest is up to the MODs.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
I seem to remember you throwing a little hissy fit and calling for a ban(more than once) when BOBDN (I believe) made mention of a spittle rag containing something other than spittle.

Consistancy, CAD. Consistancy.

No - that wasn't a hissy fit - BOBDN's posts were consistanly bad. He on more than one occasion and post had demonstrated his "vulgarity" that night and my comments were very deserved(and guess what? the MODS thought so too). And believe me - I have "mentioned" it to other people...even if they are on "my" side. So you both can take your little holier than thou attitude elsewhere. I am not a MOD - but if I was - everyone would get warnings for saying such things. I'm sure you guys would whine like hell if commented everytime someone "flamed" someone else. So yes - I will make comments when I feel neccessary - the rest is up to the MODs.

CkG

Feel free to continue to make comments when you feel it's necessary. Just remember, when you preach 'consistancy' as you have so much, you must always keep on your toes. You never know when a member of the 'practice-what-you-preach' crowd is watching.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Feel free to continue to make comments when you feel it's necessary. Just remember, when you preach 'consistancy' as you have so much, you must always keep on your toes. You never know when a member of the 'practice-what-you-preach' crowd is watching.

No - you still don't seem to understand. I don't go after EVERY attack - just the ones that cross over my line of decency. You see - I don't comment every time someone on "your side" does it - just like I don't when someone on "my side" does it. You can call it what you want and see it how you wish but if it were up to me(if I was a MOD) the line would be drawn alot stricter than the line I use - but since I can't do anything about it anyway - I let alot of it pass. You know as well as I do that if I posted about every single one - there'd be whiners jumping all over me.

So yes - I will use my line to comment on them.

CkG

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I called it! It only took some jackhole less than 40 minutes to do so...

Which is eight times longer than it took for you to come in the thread and start jacking off Bowfinger.

This is exactly why you have NO credibility.

Oh no! One of the YACS says I don't have any credibility on a lame ass internet message board. I guess my life's over.

Why isn't Ray's name all over the mainstream media? Why isn't he testifying in front of Congress if he has all this "inside info"? I'll tell you why, it's because he doesn't have any more than what he reads in the paper, just like everyone else. Read anything he's written, any interview, and all it is is a regurgitation of what has already been reported elsewhere. Yet everytime he's interviewed one of the YACS will cut and paste a thread and the rest of them will follow up with what they do best.

Somebody let me know when he says something new or better yet when he, or anyone else, can prove any of their accusations. Preferrably under oath in front of Congress.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Which is eight times longer than it took for you to come in the thread and start jacking off Bowfinger.

This is exactly why you have NO credibility.

Oh no! One of the YACS says I don't have any credibility on a lame ass internet message board. I guess my life's over.

Why isn't Ray's name all over the mainstream media? Why isn't he testifying in front of Congress if he has all this "inside info"? I'll tell you why, it's because he doesn't have any more than what he reads in the paper, just like everyone else. Read anything he's written, any interview, and all it is is a regurgitation of what has already been reported elsewhere. Yet everytime he's interviewed one of the YACS will cut and paste a thread and the rest of them will follow up with what they do best.

Somebody let me know when he says something new or better yet when he, or anyone else, can prove any of their accusations. Preferrably under oath in front of Congress.

I won't hold my breath.

Yawn. We've had this discussion twice before. McGovern has direct experience with the people and agencies involved. McGovern has established credentials. You don't. Get over it.

(McGovern also seems to be able to express himself without constant, gratuitous vulgarities. You don't. Strike two.)