'Dead Wrong:' Inside an Intelligence Meltdown

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

What did 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

NOTHING!!!!

On the contrary. It has opened our eyes to these precise intelligence failures.

Text

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

And then Clinton took 150,000 troops and jumped into Iraq to find nothing...oh wait!

Failures, as you call it, were "COOKED". Game over...too bad.

This is about Bush's cooking of the intelligence, not Clinton. Clinton is gone, get over him or start your own thread.

Back to what was cooked....already in progress.

 

[zendari]

So who did this alleged "cooking", and when? Was it Texas governor George Walker Bush in the mid 90s?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari
So who did this alleged "cooking", and when? Was it Texas governor George Walker Bush in the mid 90s?

It was president George Walker Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield (and Powell fell into it but indications are that he was led that way). Clinton had nothing to do with the fvcked up mess that is now Iraq, so run along and quit trolling this thread with that trash.

Bush and the PNAC crew selectively dismissed intelligence that clearly showed that Iraq didn't have what they were preaching ....WMD's.

A lie.....sadly.

Of course, you toe the partisan line so strongly that you have no clue.

 

[DealMonkey]

Just a few thoughts here . . .

What do you call it when someone only tells you part of the story -- the parts that are likely to convince you to do something or agree to something while concealing the other parts of the story?

What do you call it when someone presents what amounts to their best guess or mere speculation as a cold, hard fact?

What do you call it when someone rushes you to a decision before the proper research is completed because the research thus far hasn't supported their theories and the outcome of the research is likely damaging to their position?

What if they did all three? If you didn't think this person was engaging in a systematic campaign of deception in order to convince you or get you to do something, then you're simply not paying attention.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Engineer

Why of course you don't comment on the "cooked books" and false intelligence that we went to war on. Of course you don't make a comment on Powell saying (after his UN speech to go to war with Iraq):

"I wonder what it will feel like if we put 500k troops in Iraq, march from one end to the other, and find nothing."

Of course you dismiss the pouring through 65,000 pages of information for 10 years that showed NO connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and was then dismissed by the administration.

Of course you don't mention any of these things...you simply sling your partisan bullshit trolling.

Nearly 1,800 men and women, who serve our country proudly, have died for a lie. Over 10,000 wounded. Over $200,000,000,000 spent on a farse.


I tell you what, take your troll attitude and go find a pretzel and choke on it. :|

PNAC fanboy can't take the truth!!! booooo-hoooooo!

Why don't you present your evidence to an arch-Lib lawyer... I'm sure you'll make a good case in court :roll:

Your screechy tirades are just that: Empty noise without meaning. You people talk and talk and talk about lies and more lies, yet where's the action? Why isn't Bush being impeached? How come there's no investigations and hearings?

Oh yeah... there's not a single piece of proof that will hold water. Bush-hating fanboys can't take the truth, and simply continue to scream lies at the wall. It's like reality TV... kinda sad, yet mildly amusing.

As I thought...all of those people on the inside including Powell, his chief of staff, David Kay, CIA people....they're all liers in yours eyes.....otherwise, Bush would be going down. He should be...he should be.

I'm glad you find this war amusing. It was a worthless lie...and the American people are waking up to that fact.....so get used to it. You PNAC boys had better come up with something to scare the public before 2006 elections, or things might be slightly realigned.

What's this truth you speak of? Oh, I already answered it above...EVERYONE is lying except Bush. The evidence was solid and those people who said that Bush wouldn't take no for an answer were lying. It's a conspiracy, I tell you. :roll:

Bah, you're full of yourself and your PNAC attitude. Let's see you guys fool the American public again!

Once again I'll ask: If Bush is a liar and all these other people are telling the truth, why isn't he toast?

Answer: Bush wasn't lying and the other people aren't accusing him of lying.

How hard is that to understand? Hate is one thing, but as least ground it in some sort of reality please.

Maybe Bush will be toast before this is all said and done with. I hope he gets his just rewards in this lifetime.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: raildogg
face it, Bush is and was a wartime president. 9/11 helped the Republicans more than the Democrats and the Republicans were smarter than the Democrats in using 9/11 as propaganda. they made the right moves and control all of government

yes, Bush wanted war in Iraq. did he knowingly lie? don't know.

if Bush knew there were no wmd's in Iraq and still went to war, then he should be removed from office. but i doubt that was the case, but who knows

as for the 2006 elections, i still see no major victories for the democrat party. they are a party of no ideas but just endless attacks on Bush.

i used to support the democratic party, but they have left me. especially after 9/11

i think Hillary Clinton is the best hope for them. she is smart and knows how to play the game of politics. Bill taught her a few tricks and she already is very bright. if its Arnold vs Hillary, I would pick Hitlery.

WTF What does the Democratic party have to with 9/11???

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer

It was president George Walker Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield (and Powell fell into it but indications are that he was led that way). Clinton had nothing to do with the fvcked up mess that is now Iraq, so run along and quit trolling this thread with that trash.

Bush and the PNAC crew selectively dismissed intelligence that clearly showed that Iraq didn't have what they were preaching ....WMD's.

A lie.....sadly.

Of course, you toe the partisan line so strongly that you have no clue.

Curious then how President Clinton and everyone else believed that same WMD "lie" 7 years ago.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

It was president George Walker Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield (and Powell fell into it but indications are that he was led that way). Clinton had nothing to do with the fvcked up mess that is now Iraq, so run along and quit trolling this thread with that trash.

Bush and the PNAC crew selectively dismissed intelligence that clearly showed that Iraq didn't have what they were preaching ....WMD's.

A lie.....sadly.

Of course, you toe the partisan line so strongly that you have no clue.

Curious then how President Clinton and everyone else believed that same WMD "lie" 7 years ago.

Curious how President Clinton didn't invade Iraq 7 years ago.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Your screechy tirades are just that: Empty noise without meaning.

You people talk and talk and talk about lies and more lies, yet where's the action?

Why isn't Bush being impeached?

How come there's no investigations and hearings?

How sad. You have no clue to how Washington works.

There is no balance of power thanks to the brainwashed sheeple that have put so many of the Republican liars in Office.

Keep voting Republican :thumbsup:

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

It was president George Walker Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield (and Powell fell into it but indications are that he was led that way). Clinton had nothing to do with the fvcked up mess that is now Iraq, so run along and quit trolling this thread with that trash.

Bush and the PNAC crew selectively dismissed intelligence that clearly showed that Iraq didn't have what they were preaching ....WMD's.

A lie.....sadly.

Of course, you toe the partisan line so strongly that you have no clue.

Read up on it. I don't care about what Clinton did/didn't do at this point. He didn't jump falsly into Iraq though.

This is about Bush and PNAC crew taking the evidence at hand, which said that Iraq didn't have the vast WMD's and nuclear ambitions that were alleged, and then cooked the books through selective evidence and outright lie (speeches that weren't based on anything but fantasy).

Start your own Clinton thread if you want, not here.

Curious then how President Clinton and everyone else believed that same WMD "lie" 7 years ago.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: raildogg
face it, Bush is and was a wartime president. 9/11 helped the Republicans more than the Democrats and the Republicans were smarter than the Democrats in using 9/11 as propaganda. they made the right moves and control all of government

yes, Bush wanted war in Iraq. did he knowingly lie? don't know.

if Bush knew there were no wmd's in Iraq and still went to war, then he should be removed from office. but i doubt that was the case, but who knows

as for the 2006 elections, i still see no major victories for the democrat party. they are a party of no ideas but just endless attacks on Bush.

i used to support the democratic party, but they have left me. especially after 9/11

i think Hillary Clinton is the best hope for them. she is smart and knows how to play the game of politics. Bill taught her a few tricks and she already is very bright. if its Arnold vs Hillary, I would pick Hitlery.

WTF What does the Democratic party have to with 9/11???

not much. i feel they are not right in dealing with this country's foreign policies. Clinton's regime showed that. Bush isn't much better

if I had a choice to vote between a democrat and a republican, I would always choose democrat. that is why i was for Gore in 2000 and felt Bush lost

we're going after the wrong enemies, while our true enemies are our friends ... Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, etc.

note i don't mean take military action against them. i'm always for a peaceful policy that is **beneficial** to America.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Curious how President Clinton didn't invade Iraq 7 years ago.

Well, according to you he couldn't handle both his blowjob and his trial at the same time. My guess is he was too preoccupied for an invasion.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Curious how President Clinton didn't invade Iraq 7 years ago.

Well, according to you he couldn't handle both his blowjob and his trial at the same time. My guess is he was too preoccupied for an invasion.

Then Bush would have been best served to get a blowjob....instead, he fvcked the US and lied us into a war in Iraq that, even they themselves are starting to admit, isn't going anywhere.

Clinton thread is that way --------->

 

[CessnaFlyer]

I don't watch the Communist News Network

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer
I don't watch the Communist News Network

I'm sure it's Faux News for you.

 

[CessnaFlyer]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer
I don't watch the Communist News Network

I'm sure it's Faux News for you.

Yes, they are Fair and Balanced!

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer
I don't watch the Communist News Network

I'm sure it's Faux News for you.

Yes, they are Fair and Balanced!

Sure they are.

Are you just going to troll, or comment on the fearless liar and the manipulations used to start an unjust Iraq war?

Thought so....troll.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer
I don't watch the Communist News Network

I'm sure it's Faux News for you.

Yes, they are Fair and Balanced!

Sure they are.

Are you just going to troll, or comment on the fearless liar and the manipulations used to start an unjust Iraq war?

Thought so....troll.

Don't let them get under your skin. Notice how they wax eloquent when they are preaching, but when confronted with the reality of the situation, they bring in Clinton and anything but Bush.

Something else to consider. One card the NeoCons have not played yet is the grounds for impeachment. If evidence they could not refute came to light, lying to the people and starting a war is not illegal. Morally criminal, but what statute does it break? Remember this, they will claim to be righteous and preach their moral superiority when they can, but will fall back on legal maneuvers when they have to, and then it will be the nasty liberals picking on them again. Never expect them to admit that they are wrong. Ever.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer
I don't watch the Communist News Network

I'm sure it's Faux News for you.

Yes, they are Fair and Balanced!

Sure they are.

Are you just going to troll, or comment on the fearless liar and the manipulations used to start an unjust Iraq war?

Thought so....troll.

Don't let them get under your skin. Notice how they wax eloquent when they are preaching, but when confronted with the reality of the situation, they bring in Clinton and anything but Bush.

Something else to consider. One card the NeoCons have not played yet is the grounds for impeachment. If evidence they could not refute came to light, lying to the people and starting a war is not illegal. Morally criminal, but what statute does it break? Remember this, they will claim to be righteous and preach their moral superiority when they can, but will fall back on legal maneuvers when they have to, and then it will be the nasty liberals picking on them again. Never expect them to admit that they are wrong. Ever.

Good advice. Think 2 or better yet 3 steps ahead of them. It really isn't that hard to do with a little practice.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

It was president George Walker Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield (and Powell fell into it but indications are that he was led that way). Clinton had nothing to do with the fvcked up mess that is now Iraq, so run along and quit trolling this thread with that trash.

Bush and the PNAC crew selectively dismissed intelligence that clearly showed that Iraq didn't have what they were preaching ....WMD's.

A lie.....sadly.

Of course, you toe the partisan line so strongly that you have no clue.

Curious then how President Clinton and everyone else believed that same WMD "lie" 7 years ago.

Which only makes matters worse. This fool Bush you insist on defending was not only skewing the intelligence but he was working on seven year old intel to boot???

Criminal.

 

[mylok]

it is sad to see so many people still support Bush. At best he made a huge mistake which cost the lives of thousands or at worst he lied and cost the lives of thousands. Either way thousands died because of him. WTF does Clinton have to do with any of this? I love it how the right bring up Clinton anytime Bush comes under fire. I hope Americans wake up and see where our country is going.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BBond

Which only makes matters worse. This fool Bush you insist on defending was not only skewing the intelligence but he was working on seven year old intel to boot???

Criminal.

So who skewed the intelligence before Bush came into office?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BBond

Which only makes matters worse. This fool Bush you insist on defending was not only skewing the intelligence but he was working on seven year old intel to boot???

Criminal.

So who skewed the intelligence before Bush came into office?

Hey genius, the more time passed after the first Gulf War the less reliable that intel became. So when Junior was installed as president he was looking at seven year old intel because it fit his agenda. Get it now?

 

[shrumpage]

If Bush knowlingly lied about WMD in Iraq, he would know full well that none would be found, making him look bad. Why wouldn't he just go and "plant" the evidence of WMD after the invasion?

As choatic is it is now, and was during the invasion, it would have been pretty easy to hide a few suit case bombs, or a warhead, maybe even some spent uraninium tubes, just to have them "found" later. He comes out looking good, USA, gets to say 'told ya so o the rest of the world. Definately would be a whole lot easier (for the admin) then the current situation.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BBond

Which only makes matters worse. This fool Bush you insist on defending was not only skewing the intelligence but he was working on seven year old intel to boot???

Criminal.

So who skewed the intelligence before Bush came into office?

ahh,, another blame clinton post