How Powerful Can 16 Words Be?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYFor Christ's sake DM, aren't you tired of aiding hypocrits? I didn't say that it excused or justified anything Bush did, infact I think I made that point quite clear - please re-read the thread. Clinton had a big hand in how this Iraq situation played out - so YES what he did IS relevant and open for discussion. If people who are criticizing Bush can't admit that Clinton used the same REASONS then they are hypocrits. I repeat - I'm not looking to justify Bush's actions - only to ask where the outrage was/is that Clinton used the SAME REASONS to attack Iraq and wether or not we should follow the intel trail back to it's origin. Heck if it goes back to and through Bush 1 - then fine.

CkG
Cad, I know you had a disclaimer in there, but seriously, asking "...where the outrage was/is that Clinton used the SAME REASONS..." is a pointless question. Either the outrage was there, or it wasn't. Would it help if I told you I was outraged about Clinton right now? Grrrrrrr, stupid Clinton! There. Can we move on now?

Why not, instead of merely comparing the reasons, actually compare the intel behind each decision, since that seems to be the relevant issue here. Right? So tell me, was Clinton's intel good or not? Can it be shown he manipulated the intel to justify his attack? To me that seems more relevant than simply equating A=B here...

Exactly the questions that aren't being asked! :) Thanks - you finally realized my point. If people are so hell bent on dragging Bush through the intel mud - then they sure as hell better keep on going back - this is not currently being done. Clinton wasn't called on his intel - it was just assumed that it was correct and justified. I'm not saying that we shouldn't dig through the intel to make sure everything was up to snuff - but what I'm saying is that if we start digging - we better not stop with G.W. Bush, it better go back all the way. Currently it reeks of partisan election posturing -we'll see if these people have the balls to dig through Clintons intel.

CkG
Well, I guess for historical purposes you could go back and examine the facts all you want. Let me throw an analogy out there just to see how you react:

Imagine on Monday, some guy robs the liquor store and gets away with it. There are no cops around, or they're all busy eating donuts or whatever. He gets away clean. On Tuesday, some other guy robs the same store. This time, the cops are waiting and he gets nailed. Should we allow the Tuesday criminal to get away with it because the Monday criminal did?

Of course not. And I'm not suggesting anyone's a criminal necessarily - it's just an analogy :)

If Clinton attacked Iraq using the same justification as Bush and there was no hubub, that doesn't necessarily preclude us from examining and/or criticising Bush's actions independently of Clinton's actions. You seem to miss the point that we're not talking about Clinton anymore. He's not the president, and it is possible to isolate and discuss what's happening right now without bringing the rest of history into it.

Besides, I thought we've already had this discussion before. Deja Vu?
You were so close...then slipped back away.:p

You forget that I'm not trying to say we need to let "tuesday's robber" free because we didn't catch Monday's. I would say however that once Tuesday's robber is "caught" it shouldn't mean that monday's robber should get off free. You had your analogy backwards;) The investigation should go all the way back. I won't hold my breath though;)

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYYou were so close...then slipped back away.:p

You forget that I'm not trying to say we need to let "tuesday's robber" free because we didn't catch Monday's. I would say however that once Tuesday's robber is "caught" it shouldn't mean that monday's robber should get off free. You had your analogy backwards;) The investigation should go all the way back. I won't hold my breath though;)

CkG
It's only backwards for you ;)

So, since we can't go back in time (correct me if I'm wrong), tell me what you're proposing here? Do we retroactively investigate Clinton or something? Even if we do, how does that necessarily excuse Bush? Or does that not matter, because we're gonna "get" Clinton? Is that really the point?

Do you want to install some kind of forum-wide rule that disallows talking about Bush without also talking about Clinton? Just to be fair? I mean, I seriously don't get it.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Listening to Koni whine really makes it worthwhile to post here. Evidently he fails to recognize the fallacy of his own argument:

Nowhere does it say what you imply: that you can only reprint some or part of the whole document.
I said, nor implied, no such thing.

It suggest merely that the portion of the document that is reprinted be considered while determining whether the use is fair.
Ahh, now I think we're getting somewhere. Tell me Koni, would posting a fresh article by the NYT, verbatim and in it's entirety, cause harm to the NYT? How about when no link to the article was even provided?

You claimed this was "settled". Item number 3 clearly casts doubt on whether BOBDN's post would be deemed "fair use", especially when considering if "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" is also weighed.

It is one thing to post an entire copyrighted article verbatim, say in the classroom. How many members here at AT? Over 100K? Because of what BOBDN did, nearly 100K people would not be inclined to visit the NYT website. Please tell me that doesn't have a significant effect on the potential market or value to the NYT.

Oh, and one other thing, AT is a commercial website, earning money from subscriptions and advertisements. While BOBDN may not benefit monetarily from posting an entire NYT article verbatim, AT arguably does.

 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Did you even read Clinton's speech? Clinton stated that there was a clear threat to peace and security as long as he was in power. I don't see how you can claim the reasons weren't the same. Just admit it - its OK, it's not like he wasn't justified in the stikes(IMO). But to be consistent if you criticize Bush, you must also criticize Clinton - and that wasn't and isn't happening. You can nitpik semantics but if you claim Bush "hyped" intel or flat out lied then where was/is you criticism of Clinton's strikes.

CkG
Heck you are the one nitpiking semantics and ignoring the fact that Clinton had a 4 day missle strike and Bush had month long all out invasion that up to today, we are still paying with American soldier's life. How you come to the conclusion that you can compare those two is just beyond my comprehension. I am just pointing out that from semantics point of view, every thing that Clinton cliamed was acutrate. Unlike Bush, he did not cited BS intel to support his cliam. Go ahead and read it again and prove me wrong.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYYou were so close...then slipped back away.:p

You forget that I'm not trying to say we need to let "tuesday's robber" free because we didn't catch Monday's. I would say however that once Tuesday's robber is "caught" it shouldn't mean that monday's robber should get off free. You had your analogy backwards;) The investigation should go all the way back. I won't hold my breath though;)

CkG
It's only backwards for you ;)

So, since we can't go back in time (correct me if I'm wrong), tell me what you're proposing here? Do we retroactively investigate Clinton or something? Even if we do, how does that necessarily excuse Bush? Or does that not matter, because we're gonna "get" Clinton? Is that really the point?

Do you want to install some kind of forum-wide rule that disallows talking about Bush without also talking about Clinton? Just to be fair? I mean, I seriously don't get it.
Do you only selectively read my posts? I think I have specifically stated multiple times that it does not "excuse" or justify what Bush did. The point isn't to "get" Clinton either, but logically since HE used the same reasons for attacking that Bush did, the intel question goes deeper than just Bush. To solve a problem(in this case supposed intel shortfalls) don't you trace it back to it's roots? So YES, if there is an inquiry as to our intelligence failures they possibly need to go back futher than just Bush to find the source because Clinton used the same reasoning (both supported by intel) to attack.


rchiu - again you miss the point - the point isn't HOW they attacked - that isn't being put into question - it is the WHY (reasons). But to play your little game - do you have proof that his intel was correct? need I remind you of the aspirin factory? See, I'm not saying people shouldn't question the intel Bush used - I'm saying that there may just be a bigger issue here because both Bush and Clinton's speeches for attacking Iraq are very similar.

Play your party politics if you want but be sure not to dig too hard;) you might not like what you find.

CkG
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Do you only selectively read my posts? I think I have specifically stated multiple times that it does not "excuse" or justify what Bush did. The point isn't to "get" Clinton either, but logically since HE used the same reasons for attacking that Bush did, the intel question goes deeper than just Bush. To solve a problem(in this case supposed intel shortfalls) don't you trace it back to it's roots? So YES, if there is an inquiry as to our intelligence failures they possibly need to go back futher than just Bush to find the source because Clinton used the same reasoning (both supported by intel) to attack.


rchiu - again you miss the point - the point isn't HOW they attacked - that isn't being put into question - it is the WHY (reasons). But to play your little game - do you have proof that his intel was correct? need I remind you of the aspirin factory? See, I'm not saying people shouldn't question the intel Bush used - I'm saying that there may just be a bigger issue here because both Bush and Clinton's speeches for attacking Iraq are very similar.

Play your party politics if you want but be sure not to dig too hard;) you might not like what you find.

CkG
You're the one playing games. I hate to legitimize your Clinton-bashing by responding, but here's two more points for you to dodge:

1. It is quite possible that Clinton's reasons were accurate and justified at the time, while Bush-lite's was outdated garbage. Why? Because, according to Scott Ritter, Clinton's strikes put the final nails in Iraq's nuclear program and destroyed much -- possibly all -- of Iraq's remaining chemical and biological weapons abilities. Bush refused to acknowledge the caveats of his own intelligence agencies. Clinton had up-to-date intelligence. Bush had a chip on his shoulder and mounting domestic problems.

2. It is absurd for you to keep insisting that since their reasons were the same, Bush-lite's invasion is somehow comparable to Clinton's strikes. Let's use an old west analogy since you Bush apologists seem to relate to them well. Saddam the Kid is waving a gun in the air. Sheriff Clinton shoots the gun out of his hand. Cowboy Bush runs him over with a train. Same justification, but much, much different remedies. Clinton's response was temperate and proportional. Bush-lite was a reckless vigilante.

Did I mention that you can't support Bush by bashing Clinton?




 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yawn... I grow bored of the whole non-argument...
me too- of the 16 word argument ;)

But I didn't expect less from Ol Bowfinger - yeah, lets take the word of Ritter and claim that Clinton destroyed it all. Now who is being absurd. And secondly - the HOW isn't in question here. Would it have been OK for Bush to lob a couple hundred Missles into Iraq? And then back up his actions by saying that he destroyed it all? You know full well that Bush wouldn't get a free pass by you people so just admit the hypocracy exists and let the investigation take it's course....ALL the way.

CkG
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
But I didn't expect less from Ol Bowfinger - yeah, lets take the word of Ritter and claim that Clinton destroyed it all. Now who is being absurd. And secondly - the HOW isn't in question here. Would it have been OK for Bush to lob a couple hundred Missles into Iraq? And then back up his actions by saying that he destroyed it all? You know full well that Bush wouldn't get a free pass by you people so just admit the hypocracy exists and let the investigation take it's course....ALL the way.

CkG
Just a few nits. I didn't take Ritter's word for anything, though I have no reason to doubt him. I simply offered one plausible explanation to refute your incessant whining about Bush's reasons being the same as Clinton's. In short, so what? Would it be OK if Bush attacked Japan? After all, if the reasons were good enough for Roosevelt, they should be good enough for Bush. Right?

Can you hear me now? Things change. Bush stands or falls on his own. He can't ride Clinton's coattails.

Second, to answer your question, you are still being absurd. Ritter's opinion is certainly more qualified than yours. It is quite possible he is right. We have yet to find ANY evidence he was wrong.

Third, Clinton isn't the one saying he "destroyed it all". Ritter is the one who made the comments. He said the strikes destroyed all of Iraq's nuclear weapons capabilities, and most -- possibly all -- of Iraq's remaining chemical and biological materials capabilities.

Finally, on the contrary, Bush was getting a free pass from most people while he continued to enforce the no-fly zone -- with the occasional attack on ground targets. Most people didn't get worked up until he decided to unilaterally invade another country. I know this is a subtle distinction, but for some of us, "limited strikes" is not equal to "invasion and occupation". Go figure.

 

Bleep

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,972
0
0
Both used the same REASONS.
There are some consertives on here that are so blinded by their political beliefs that they dont know the truth when they see it.
the quote above was so stupid that I could not help replying, so what if they both used the same reasoning and reasons they did not do the same thing, are you so ignorant to believe that attacking and invading are the same thing? There are also some liberals here that make arguements that are also without merit and sometime out and out lies. Most of the posts here including mine probably should never see the light of day.

Bleep
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Bleep
Both used the same REASONS.
There are some consertives on here that are so blinded by their political beliefs that they dont know the truth when they see it.
the quote above was so stupid that I could not help replying, so what if they both used the same reasoning and reasons they did not do the same thing, are you so ignorant to believe that attacking and invading are the same thing? There are also some liberals here that make arguements that are also without merit and sometime out and out lies. Most of the posts here including mine probably should never see the light of day.

Bleep
Bleep - don't waste your time, 'cause someone will just come along and claim that it doesn't matter that one attacked or one invaded, because they both share the common denominator of "attacking." Or that the REASON is the only thing that matters. Or that 1+1=3. Maybe the sky - earth = my cat's ass. You know, that sorta thing. ;)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Bleep
Both used the same REASONS.
There are some consertives on here that are so blinded by their political beliefs that they dont know the truth when they see it.
the quote above was so stupid that I could not help replying, so what if they both used the same reasoning and reasons they did not do the same thing, are you so ignorant to believe that attacking and invading are the same thing? There are also some liberals here that make arguements that are also without merit and sometime out and out lies. Most of the posts here including mine probably should never see the light of day.

Bleep
Bleep - don't waste your time, 'cause someone will just come along and claim that it doesn't matter that one attacked or one invaded, because they both share the common denominator of "attacking." Or that the REASON is the only thing that matters. Or that 1+1=3. Maybe the sky - earth = my cat's ass. You know, that sorta thing. ;)
DM and Bleep - What you aren't doing is taking into account the accusations that are being thrown at Bush. Bush is being accused of using "faulty" intel to pre-emptively attack a "sovereign" country. Clinton wasn't questioned on his use of intel to pre-emptively attack a "sovereign" country. If you don't see the the similiarity to what Clinton did then I do believe it is YOU who is blinded by partisanship or plain ignorance. **note AGAIN!!! - this is not to excuse or justify Bush's actions - but rather show that if we investigate the intel for Bush's reasons to attack then we better not stop there because the problem may be deeper/older than just Bush's term.

I'm done - you people have shown your unwillingness to look that the facts - you shift it into a "well he didn't invade" question - but you forget that Bush isn't being questioned on that - he's being blasted on uning "faulty" intel as his REASON to attack.

CkG
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Bleep
Both used the same REASONS.
There are some consertives on here that are so blinded by their political beliefs that they dont know the truth when they see it.
the quote above was so stupid that I could not help replying, so what if they both used the same reasoning and reasons they did not do the same thing, are you so ignorant to believe that attacking and invading are the same thing? There are also some liberals here that make arguements that are also without merit and sometime out and out lies. Most of the posts here including mine probably should never see the light of day.

Bleep
Bleep - don't waste your time, 'cause someone will just come along and claim that it doesn't matter that one attacked or one invaded, because they both share the common denominator of "attacking." Or that the REASON is the only thing that matters. Or that 1+1=3. Maybe the sky - earth = my cat's ass. You know, that sorta thing. ;)
DM and Bleep - What you aren't doing is taking into account the accusations that are being thrown at Bush. Bush is being accused of using "faulty" intel to pre-emptively attack a "sovereign" country. Clinton wasn't questioned on his use of intel to pre-emptively attack a "sovereign" country. If you don't see the the similiarity to what Clinton did then I do believe it is YOU who is blinded by partisanship or plain ignorance. **note AGAIN!!! - this is not to excuse or justify Bush's actions - but rather show that if we investigate the intel for Bush's reasons to attack then we better not stop there because the problem may be deeper/older than just Bush's term.

I'm done - you people have shown your unwillingness to look that the facts - you shift it into a "well he didn't invade" question - but you forget that Bush isn't being questioned on that - he's being blasted on uning "faulty" intel as his REASON to attack.

CkG
Stop living in the past. Bush repeatedly lied to get his invasion of Iraq. Now we're stuck in a quagmire that has cost and continues to cost the lives of US soldiers, innocent Iraqi civilians, billions upon billions of dollars, increased instability in the middle east, the credibility of the US around the world, and stretched our forces thin while legitimate threats are left unanswered.

Bush and Co. f'd up, plain and simple. But no matter. They aren't paying the price. As a matter of fact they're profiting.



 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Bush repeatedly lied to get his invasion of Iraq.
You keep saying this but yet offered no proof that he actually and "repeatedly lied". I would like to see some concrete proof of any of Bush's supposed lies. Please, bring it.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Bleep
Both used the same REASONS.
There are some consertives on here that are so blinded by their political beliefs that they dont know the truth when they see it.
the quote above was so stupid that I could not help replying, so what if they both used the same reasoning and reasons they did not do the same thing, are you so ignorant to believe that attacking and invading are the same thing? There are also some liberals here that make arguements that are also without merit and sometime out and out lies. Most of the posts here including mine probably should never see the light of day.

Bleep
Bleep - don't waste your time, 'cause someone will just come along and claim that it doesn't matter that one attacked or one invaded, because they both share the common denominator of "attacking." Or that the REASON is the only thing that matters. Or that 1+1=3. Maybe the sky - earth = my cat's ass. You know, that sorta thing. ;)
DM and Bleep - What you aren't doing is taking into account the accusations that are being thrown at Bush. Bush is being accused of using "faulty" intel to pre-emptively attack a "sovereign" country. Clinton wasn't questioned on his use of intel to pre-emptively attack a "sovereign" country. If you don't see the the similiarity to what Clinton did then I do believe it is YOU who is blinded by partisanship or plain ignorance. **note AGAIN!!! - this is not to excuse or justify Bush's actions - but rather show that if we investigate the intel for Bush's reasons to attack then we better not stop there because the problem may be deeper/older than just Bush's term.

I'm done - you people have shown your unwillingness to look that the facts - you shift it into a "well he didn't invade" question - but you forget that Bush isn't being questioned on that - he's being blasted on uning "faulty" intel as his REASON to attack.

CkG
Stop living in the past. Bush repeatedly lied to get his invasion of Iraq. Now we're stuck in a quagmire that has cost and continues to cost the lives of US soldiers, innocent Iraqi civilians, billions upon billions of dollars, increased instability in the middle east, the credibility of the US around the world, and stretched our forces thin while legitimate threats are left unanswered.

Bush and Co. f'd up, plain and simple. But no matter. They aren't paying the price. As a matter of fact they're profiting.
Stop dwelling on the negatives and also quit proliferating lies. Bush didn't LIE in the SOTU and infact our own intel agencies say that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from three African countries- Niger, Somalia and possibly Congo. Now these are unsubstantiated because we don't know what the Brits have for intel on the uranium situation, but to say his statement was a LIE is itself a lie.
We are FAR from a quagmire, progress is being made - you just turn a blind eye to it since your focus is on the "bad".
I do believe that Both Palestinians and Israelis are looking to Bush for help, Liberia is crying for us, so how can you say our credibility is tarnished?
I do believe that the M.E. includes Israel ;) which is looking for peace by asking for Bush's help - but yeah it's all our fault they kill each other.
I assume you mean NK with your "legitimate threat" quip. Make no mistake - NK is being dealt with ;)

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Bleep
Both used the same REASONS.
There are some consertives on here that are so blinded by their political beliefs that they dont know the truth when they see it.
the quote above was so stupid that I could not help replying, so what if they both used the same reasoning and reasons they did not do the same thing, are you so ignorant to believe that attacking and invading are the same thing? There are also some liberals here that make arguements that are also without merit and sometime out and out lies. Most of the posts here including mine probably should never see the light of day.

Bleep
Bleep - don't waste your time, 'cause someone will just come along and claim that it doesn't matter that one attacked or one invaded, because they both share the common denominator of "attacking." Or that the REASON is the only thing that matters. Or that 1+1=3. Maybe the sky - earth = my cat's ass. You know, that sorta thing. ;)
DM and Bleep - What you aren't doing is taking into account the accusations that are being thrown at Bush. Bush is being accused of using "faulty" intel to pre-emptively attack a "sovereign" country. Clinton wasn't questioned on his use of intel to pre-emptively attack a "sovereign" country. If you don't see the the similiarity to what Clinton did then I do believe it is YOU who is blinded by partisanship or plain ignorance. **note AGAIN!!! - this is not to excuse or justify Bush's actions - but rather show that if we investigate the intel for Bush's reasons to attack then we better not stop there because the problem may be deeper/older than just Bush's term.

I'm done - you people have shown your unwillingness to look that the facts - you shift it into a "well he didn't invade" question - but you forget that Bush isn't being questioned on that - he's being blasted on uning "faulty" intel as his REASON to attack.

CkG
Stop living in the past. Bush repeatedly lied to get his invasion of Iraq. Now we're stuck in a quagmire that has cost and continues to cost the lives of US soldiers, innocent Iraqi civilians, billions upon billions of dollars, increased instability in the middle east, the credibility of the US around the world, and stretched our forces thin while legitimate threats are left unanswered.

Bush and Co. f'd up, plain and simple. But no matter. They aren't paying the price. As a matter of fact they're profiting.
Stop dwelling on the negatives and also quit proliferating lies. Bush didn't LIE in the SOTU and infact our own intel agencies say that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from three African countries- Niger, Somalia and possibly Congo. Now these are unsubstantiated because we don't know what the Brits have for intel on the uranium situation, but to say his statement was a LIE is itself a lie.
We are FAR from a quagmire, progress is being made - you just turn a blind eye to it since your focus is on the "bad".
I do believe that Both Palestinians and Israelis are looking to Bush for help, Liberia is crying for us, so how can you say our credibility is tarnished?
I do believe that the M.E. includes Israel ;) which is looking for peace by asking for Bush's help - but yeah it's all our fault they kill each other.
I assume you mean NK with your "legitimate threat" quip. Make no mistake - NK is being dealt with ;)

CkG
Is it possible - and I'm not saying anything either way - that the intel used by Clinton to attack Iraq was better than the intel used by Bush? If you're willing to entertain that possibility, perhaps that explains this whole thing? And now that I've said that, is there anything to suggest it might be true (or not true for that matter)?

 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Corn
Bush repeatedly lied to get his invasion of Iraq.
You keep saying this but yet offered no proof that he actually and "repeatedly lied". I would like to see some concrete proof of any of Bush's supposed lies. Please, bring it.

Don't you mean, "Bring it on"? Or are those words forbidden like "axis of evil" now? Funny how Bush can get away with ridiculous statements like these in the "liberal" press. Putting soldiers in the field in even greater danger while the draft dodging creep sits on his fat a$$ safely in the White House. But I digress.

So I'll "bring it." :)

----------------------------------------------
Ex-Official: Evidence Distorted for War

Jun 7, 1:35 AM (ET)

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration distorted intelligence and presented conjecture as evidence to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a retired intelligence official who served during the months before the war.

"What disturbs me deeply is what I think are the disingenuous statements made from the very top about what the intelligence did say," said Greg Thielmann, who retired last September. "The area of distortion was greatest in the nuclear field."

Thielmann was director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. His office was privy to classified intelligence gathered by the CIA and other agencies about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.

In Thielmann's view, Iraq could have presented an immediate threat to U.S. security in two areas: Either it was about to make a nuclear weapon, or it was forming close operational ties with al-Qaida terrorists.


Evidence was lacking for both, despite claims by President Bush and others, Thielmann said in an interview this week. Suspicions were presented as fact, contrary arguments ignored, he said.

The administration's prewar portrayal of Iraq's weapons capabilities has not been validated despite weeks of searching by military experts. Alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons have not turned up, nor has significant evidence of a nuclear weapons program or links to the al-Qaida network.

Bush has said administration assertions on Iraq will be verified in time. The CIA and other agencies have vigorously defended their prewar performances.

CIA Director George Tenet, responding to similar criticism last week, said in a statement: "The integrity of our process was maintained throughout, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong." On Friday, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency acknowledged he had no hard evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons last fall but believed Iraq had a program in place to produce them.

Also Friday, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he was not prepared to place blame for any intelligence shortcomings until all information is in.

"There are always times when a single sentence or a single report evokes a lot of concern and some doubt," Warner told reporters after a closed hearing of his committee. "But thus far, in my own personal assessment of this situation, the intelligence community has diligently and forthrightly and with integrity produced intelligence and submitted it to this administration and to the Congress of the United States."

Thielmann suggested mistakes may have been made at points all along the chain from when intelligence is gathered, analyzed, presented to the president and then provided to the public.

The evidence of a renewed nuclear program in Iraq was far more limited than the administration contended, he said.

"When the administration did talk about specific evidence - it was basically declassified, sensitive information - it did it in a way that was also not entirely honest," Thielmann said.

In his State of the Union address, Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The Africa claim rested on a purported letter or letters between officials in Iraq and Niger held by European intelligence agencies. The communications are now accepted as forged, and Thielmann said he believed the information on Africa was discounted months before Bush mentioned it.

"I was very surprised to hear that be announced to the United States and the entire world," he said.

Thielmann said he had presumed Iraq had supplies of chemical and probably biological weapons. He particularly expected U.S. forces to find caches of mustard agent or other chemical weapons left over from Saddam's old stockpiles.

"We appear to have been wrong," he said. "I've been genuinely surprised at that."

One example where officials took too far a leap from the facts, according to Thielmann: On Feb. 11, CIA Director Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq "retains in violation of U.N. resolutions a small number of Scud missiles that it produced before the Gulf War."

Intelligence analysts supposed Iraq may have had some missiles because they couldn't account for all the Scuds it had before the first Gulf War, Thielmann said. They could have been destroyed, dismantled, miscounted or still somewhere in Saddam's inventory.

Some critics have suggested that the White House and Pentagon policy-makers pressured the CIA and military intelligence to come up with conclusions favorable to an attack-Iraq policy. The CIA and military have denied such charges. Thielmann said that generally he felt no such pressure.

Although his office did not directly handle terrorism issues, Thielmann said he was similarly unconvinced of a strong link between al-Qaida and Saddam's government.

Yet, the implication from Bush on down was that Saddam supported Osama bin Laden's network. Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks frequently were mentioned in the same sentence, even though officials have no good evidence of any link between the two.
------------------------------------

Next Bush's own words. If you can't recognize a lie when you hear one please don't try to tell me it isn't a lie.

----------------------------------

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations Address
September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Address
October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
-----------------------------------

I particularly like the one about the unmanned drones attacking the USA with chem/bio weapons. That's really funny. Funnier still is the fact that there are Americans who will actually believe this bullsh!+ and defend the moron who told the lies.

Oh, and to top it all off the former ambassador who was dispatched to Niger to investigate "yellowcakegate" is now on the official White House sh!+ list.........so our patriotic Bush administration leaders publicly attack him and his wife, a CIA operative, revealing her identity, blowing her cover thereby jeopardizing every operation she was and is involved with.

Thank God we have such patriots in the Bush administration. Is there nothing these a$$holes wont stoop to?

Well, there are a few quotes and one comment from a former director of strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

Wake up you blind lemmings. He's lying. His entire administration is lying. While they are conveniently making themselves quite at home in the Iraqi oil fields.

One person asked a truly ridiculous question in another thread. I'll paraphrase: "If they wanted oil why didn't they just go to Alaska?" Well, genius, Alaska only holds a few months oil supply for the gluttenous US oil market. Iraq holds the world's second largest oil reserve. Or should I say Halliburton?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Bleep
Both used the same REASONS.
There are some consertives on here that are so blinded by their political beliefs that they dont know the truth when they see it.
the quote above was so stupid that I could not help replying, so what if they both used the same reasoning and reasons they did not do the same thing, are you so ignorant to believe that attacking and invading are the same thing? There are also some liberals here that make arguements that are also without merit and sometime out and out lies. Most of the posts here including mine probably should never see the light of day.

Bleep
Bleep - don't waste your time, 'cause someone will just come along and claim that it doesn't matter that one attacked or one invaded, because they both share the common denominator of "attacking." Or that the REASON is the only thing that matters. Or that 1+1=3. Maybe the sky - earth = my cat's ass. You know, that sorta thing. ;)
DM and Bleep - What you aren't doing is taking into account the accusations that are being thrown at Bush. Bush is being accused of using "faulty" intel to pre-emptively attack a "sovereign" country. Clinton wasn't questioned on his use of intel to pre-emptively attack a "sovereign" country. If you don't see the the similiarity to what Clinton did then I do believe it is YOU who is blinded by partisanship or plain ignorance. **note AGAIN!!! - this is not to excuse or justify Bush's actions - but rather show that if we investigate the intel for Bush's reasons to attack then we better not stop there because the problem may be deeper/older than just Bush's term.

I'm done - you people have shown your unwillingness to look that the facts - you shift it into a "well he didn't invade" question - but you forget that Bush isn't being questioned on that - he's being blasted on uning "faulty" intel as his REASON to attack.

CkG
Stop living in the past. Bush repeatedly lied to get his invasion of Iraq. Now we're stuck in a quagmire that has cost and continues to cost the lives of US soldiers, innocent Iraqi civilians, billions upon billions of dollars, increased instability in the middle east, the credibility of the US around the world, and stretched our forces thin while legitimate threats are left unanswered.

Bush and Co. f'd up, plain and simple. But no matter. They aren't paying the price. As a matter of fact they're profiting.
Stop dwelling on the negatives and also quit proliferating lies. Bush didn't LIE in the SOTU and infact our own intel agencies say that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from three African countries- Niger, Somalia and possibly Congo. Now these are unsubstantiated because we don't know what the Brits have for intel on the uranium situation, but to say his statement was a LIE is itself a lie.
We are FAR from a quagmire, progress is being made - you just turn a blind eye to it since your focus is on the "bad".
I do believe that Both Palestinians and Israelis are looking to Bush for help, Liberia is crying for us, so how can you say our credibility is tarnished?
I do believe that the M.E. includes Israel ;) which is looking for peace by asking for Bush's help - but yeah it's all our fault they kill each other.
I assume you mean NK with your "legitimate threat" quip. Make no mistake - NK is being dealt with ;)

CkG
Is it possible - and I'm not saying anything either way - that the intel used by Clinton to attack Iraq was better than the intel used by Bush? If you're willing to entertain that possibility, perhaps that explains this whole thing? And now that I've said that, is there anything to suggest it might be true (or not true for that matter)?
I'll humor you - just because I like you ;):p

Sure, it is POSSIBLE, that Clinton's intel (fromCIA, FBI, etc) was better than Bush's intel(from CIA, FBI, etc). So why don't we find out? Lets take a gander ...just to see where the problem stems from. That is what people are clammoring for isn't it? the "Truth". So if the truth needs to be found, no prior adminstration is exempt from criticism and blame.

Go forth you seekers of truth, go forth and show me the validity of our nations actions. Let no man stand in your way, no matter how powerful and influential they be. Bring hither this "axiom" we all desperately desire and do not return without it, lest you be cast into the dungeon of whining hyenas.

/me grabs popcorn and a comfy seat while he waits for General DealMonkey(or insert name your name here) to return from his quest.

;)
CkG
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Corn
Bush repeatedly lied to get his invasion of Iraq.
You keep saying this but yet offered no proof that he actually and "repeatedly lied". I would like to see some concrete proof of any of Bush's supposed lies. Please, bring it.

Don't you mean, "Bring it on"? Or are those words forbidden like "axis of evil" now? Funny how Bush can get away with ridiculous statements like these in the "liberal" press. Putting soldiers in the field in even greater danger while the draft dodging creep sits on his fat a$$ safely in the White House. But I digress.

So I'll "bring it." :)

----------------------------------------------
Ex-Official: Evidence Distorted for War

Jun 7, 1:35 AM (ET)

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration distorted intelligence and presented conjecture as evidence to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a retired intelligence official who served during the months before the war.

"What disturbs me deeply is what I think are the disingenuous statements made from the very top about what the intelligence did say," said Greg Thielmann, who retired last September. "The area of distortion was greatest in the nuclear field."

Thielmann was director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. His office was privy to classified intelligence gathered by the CIA and other agencies about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.

In Thielmann's view, Iraq could have presented an immediate threat to U.S. security in two areas: Either it was about to make a nuclear weapon, or it was forming close operational ties with al-Qaida terrorists.


Evidence was lacking for both, despite claims by President Bush and others, Thielmann said in an interview this week. Suspicions were presented as fact, contrary arguments ignored, he said.

The administration's prewar portrayal of Iraq's weapons capabilities has not been validated despite weeks of searching by military experts. Alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons have not turned up, nor has significant evidence of a nuclear weapons program or links to the al-Qaida network.

Bush has said administration assertions on Iraq will be verified in time. The CIA and other agencies have vigorously defended their prewar performances.

CIA Director George Tenet, responding to similar criticism last week, said in a statement: "The integrity of our process was maintained throughout, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong." On Friday, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency acknowledged he had no hard evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons last fall but believed Iraq had a program in place to produce them.

Also Friday, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he was not prepared to place blame for any intelligence shortcomings until all information is in.

"There are always times when a single sentence or a single report evokes a lot of concern and some doubt," Warner told reporters after a closed hearing of his committee. "But thus far, in my own personal assessment of this situation, the intelligence community has diligently and forthrightly and with integrity produced intelligence and submitted it to this administration and to the Congress of the United States."

Thielmann suggested mistakes may have been made at points all along the chain from when intelligence is gathered, analyzed, presented to the president and then provided to the public.

The evidence of a renewed nuclear program in Iraq was far more limited than the administration contended, he said.

"When the administration did talk about specific evidence - it was basically declassified, sensitive information - it did it in a way that was also not entirely honest," Thielmann said.

In his State of the Union address, Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The Africa claim rested on a purported letter or letters between officials in Iraq and Niger held by European intelligence agencies. The communications are now accepted as forged, and Thielmann said he believed the information on Africa was discounted months before Bush mentioned it.

"I was very surprised to hear that be announced to the United States and the entire world," he said.

Thielmann said he had presumed Iraq had supplies of chemical and probably biological weapons. He particularly expected U.S. forces to find caches of mustard agent or other chemical weapons left over from Saddam's old stockpiles.

"We appear to have been wrong," he said. "I've been genuinely surprised at that."

One example where officials took too far a leap from the facts, according to Thielmann: On Feb. 11, CIA Director Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq "retains in violation of U.N. resolutions a small number of Scud missiles that it produced before the Gulf War."

Intelligence analysts supposed Iraq may have had some missiles because they couldn't account for all the Scuds it had before the first Gulf War, Thielmann said. They could have been destroyed, dismantled, miscounted or still somewhere in Saddam's inventory.

Some critics have suggested that the White House and Pentagon policy-makers pressured the CIA and military intelligence to come up with conclusions favorable to an attack-Iraq policy. The CIA and military have denied such charges. Thielmann said that generally he felt no such pressure.

Although his office did not directly handle terrorism issues, Thielmann said he was similarly unconvinced of a strong link between al-Qaida and Saddam's government.

Yet, the implication from Bush on down was that Saddam supported Osama bin Laden's network. Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks frequently were mentioned in the same sentence, even though officials have no good evidence of any link between the two.
------------------------------------

Next Bush's own words. If you can't recognize a lie when you hear one please don't try to tell me it isn't a lie.

----------------------------------

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations Address
September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Address
October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
-----------------------------------

I particularly like the one about the unmanned drones attacking the USA with chem/bio weapons. That's really funny. Funnier still is the fact that there are Americans who will actually believe this bullsh!+ and defend the moron who told the lies.

Oh, and to top it all off the former ambassador who was dispatched to Niger to investigate "yellowcakegate" is now on the official White House sh!+ list.........so our patriotic Bush administration leaders publicly attack him and his wife, a CIA operative, revealing her identity, blowing her cover thereby jeopardizing every operation she was and is involved with.

Thank God we have such patriots in the Bush administration. Is there nothing these a$$holes wont stoop to?

Well, there are a few quotes and one comment from a former director of strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

Wake up you blind lemmings. He's lying. His entire administration is lying. While they are conveniently making themselves quite at home in the Iraqi oil fields.

One person asked a truly ridiculous question in another thread. I'll paraphrase: "If they wanted oil why didn't they just go to Alaska?" Well, genius, Alaska only holds a few months oil supply for the gluttenous US oil market. Iraq holds the world's second largest oil reserve. Or should I say Halliburton?
Meh - I don't much care for the "truth" of lies BOBDN, but I am interested where the "truth" lies. Please do join DM on that quest.

CkG

 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Corn
Bush repeatedly lied to get his invasion of Iraq.
You keep saying this but yet offered no proof that he actually and "repeatedly lied". I would like to see some concrete proof of any of Bush's supposed lies. Please, bring it.

Don't you mean, "Bring it on"? Or are those words forbidden like "axis of evil" now? Funny how Bush can get away with ridiculous statements like these in the "liberal" press. Putting soldiers in the field in even greater danger while the draft dodging creep sits on his fat a$$ safely in the White House. But I digress.

So I'll "bring it." :)

----------------------------------------------
Ex-Official: Evidence Distorted for War

Jun 7, 1:35 AM (ET)

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration distorted intelligence and presented conjecture as evidence to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a retired intelligence official who served during the months before the war.

"What disturbs me deeply is what I think are the disingenuous statements made from the very top about what the intelligence did say," said Greg Thielmann, who retired last September. "The area of distortion was greatest in the nuclear field."

Thielmann was director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. His office was privy to classified intelligence gathered by the CIA and other agencies about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.

In Thielmann's view, Iraq could have presented an immediate threat to U.S. security in two areas: Either it was about to make a nuclear weapon, or it was forming close operational ties with al-Qaida terrorists.


Evidence was lacking for both, despite claims by President Bush and others, Thielmann said in an interview this week. Suspicions were presented as fact, contrary arguments ignored, he said.

The administration's prewar portrayal of Iraq's weapons capabilities has not been validated despite weeks of searching by military experts. Alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons have not turned up, nor has significant evidence of a nuclear weapons program or links to the al-Qaida network.

Bush has said administration assertions on Iraq will be verified in time. The CIA and other agencies have vigorously defended their prewar performances.

CIA Director George Tenet, responding to similar criticism last week, said in a statement: "The integrity of our process was maintained throughout, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong." On Friday, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency acknowledged he had no hard evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons last fall but believed Iraq had a program in place to produce them.

Also Friday, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he was not prepared to place blame for any intelligence shortcomings until all information is in.

"There are always times when a single sentence or a single report evokes a lot of concern and some doubt," Warner told reporters after a closed hearing of his committee. "But thus far, in my own personal assessment of this situation, the intelligence community has diligently and forthrightly and with integrity produced intelligence and submitted it to this administration and to the Congress of the United States."

Thielmann suggested mistakes may have been made at points all along the chain from when intelligence is gathered, analyzed, presented to the president and then provided to the public.

The evidence of a renewed nuclear program in Iraq was far more limited than the administration contended, he said.

"When the administration did talk about specific evidence - it was basically declassified, sensitive information - it did it in a way that was also not entirely honest," Thielmann said.

In his State of the Union address, Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The Africa claim rested on a purported letter or letters between officials in Iraq and Niger held by European intelligence agencies. The communications are now accepted as forged, and Thielmann said he believed the information on Africa was discounted months before Bush mentioned it.

"I was very surprised to hear that be announced to the United States and the entire world," he said.

Thielmann said he had presumed Iraq had supplies of chemical and probably biological weapons. He particularly expected U.S. forces to find caches of mustard agent or other chemical weapons left over from Saddam's old stockpiles.

"We appear to have been wrong," he said. "I've been genuinely surprised at that."

One example where officials took too far a leap from the facts, according to Thielmann: On Feb. 11, CIA Director Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq "retains in violation of U.N. resolutions a small number of Scud missiles that it produced before the Gulf War."

Intelligence analysts supposed Iraq may have had some missiles because they couldn't account for all the Scuds it had before the first Gulf War, Thielmann said. They could have been destroyed, dismantled, miscounted or still somewhere in Saddam's inventory.

Some critics have suggested that the White House and Pentagon policy-makers pressured the CIA and military intelligence to come up with conclusions favorable to an attack-Iraq policy. The CIA and military have denied such charges. Thielmann said that generally he felt no such pressure.

Although his office did not directly handle terrorism issues, Thielmann said he was similarly unconvinced of a strong link between al-Qaida and Saddam's government.

Yet, the implication from Bush on down was that Saddam supported Osama bin Laden's network. Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks frequently were mentioned in the same sentence, even though officials have no good evidence of any link between the two.
------------------------------------

Next Bush's own words. If you can't recognize a lie when you hear one please don't try to tell me it isn't a lie.

----------------------------------

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations Address
September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Address
October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
-----------------------------------

I particularly like the one about the unmanned drones attacking the USA with chem/bio weapons. That's really funny. Funnier still is the fact that there are Americans who will actually believe this bullsh!+ and defend the moron who told the lies.

Oh, and to top it all off the former ambassador who was dispatched to Niger to investigate "yellowcakegate" is now on the official White House sh!+ list.........so our patriotic Bush administration leaders publicly attack him and his wife, a CIA operative, revealing her identity, blowing her cover thereby jeopardizing every operation she was and is involved with.

Thank God we have such patriots in the Bush administration. Is there nothing these a$$holes wont stoop to?

Well, there are a few quotes and one comment from a former director of strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

Wake up you blind lemmings. He's lying. His entire administration is lying. While they are conveniently making themselves quite at home in the Iraqi oil fields.

One person asked a truly ridiculous question in another thread. I'll paraphrase: "If they wanted oil why didn't they just go to Alaska?" Well, genius, Alaska only holds a few months oil supply for the gluttenous US oil market. Iraq holds the world's second largest oil reserve. Or should I say Halliburton?
Meh - I don't much care for the "truth" of lies BOBDN, but I am interested where the "truth" lies. Please do join DM on that quest.

CkG
Just another BS answer from a Bush fanboy.

How do you defend the statements above? Corn wanted proof. There it is. :D

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Corn
Bush repeatedly lied to get his invasion of Iraq.
You keep saying this but yet offered no proof that he actually and "repeatedly lied". I would like to see some concrete proof of any of Bush's supposed lies. Please, bring it.

Don't you mean, "Bring it on"? Or are those words forbidden like "axis of evil" now? Funny how Bush can get away with ridiculous statements like these in the "liberal" press. Putting soldiers in the field in even greater danger while the draft dodging creep sits on his fat a$$ safely in the White House. But I digress.

So I'll "bring it." :)

----------------------------------------------
Ex-Official: Evidence Distorted for War

Jun 7, 1:35 AM (ET)

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration distorted intelligence and presented conjecture as evidence to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a retired intelligence official who served during the months before the war.

"What disturbs me deeply is what I think are the disingenuous statements made from the very top about what the intelligence did say," said Greg Thielmann, who retired last September. "The area of distortion was greatest in the nuclear field."

Thielmann was director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. His office was privy to classified intelligence gathered by the CIA and other agencies about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.

In Thielmann's view, Iraq could have presented an immediate threat to U.S. security in two areas: Either it was about to make a nuclear weapon, or it was forming close operational ties with al-Qaida terrorists.


Evidence was lacking for both, despite claims by President Bush and others, Thielmann said in an interview this week. Suspicions were presented as fact, contrary arguments ignored, he said.

The administration's prewar portrayal of Iraq's weapons capabilities has not been validated despite weeks of searching by military experts. Alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons have not turned up, nor has significant evidence of a nuclear weapons program or links to the al-Qaida network.

Bush has said administration assertions on Iraq will be verified in time. The CIA and other agencies have vigorously defended their prewar performances.

CIA Director George Tenet, responding to similar criticism last week, said in a statement: "The integrity of our process was maintained throughout, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong." On Friday, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency acknowledged he had no hard evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons last fall but believed Iraq had a program in place to produce them.

Also Friday, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he was not prepared to place blame for any intelligence shortcomings until all information is in.

"There are always times when a single sentence or a single report evokes a lot of concern and some doubt," Warner told reporters after a closed hearing of his committee. "But thus far, in my own personal assessment of this situation, the intelligence community has diligently and forthrightly and with integrity produced intelligence and submitted it to this administration and to the Congress of the United States."

Thielmann suggested mistakes may have been made at points all along the chain from when intelligence is gathered, analyzed, presented to the president and then provided to the public.

The evidence of a renewed nuclear program in Iraq was far more limited than the administration contended, he said.

"When the administration did talk about specific evidence - it was basically declassified, sensitive information - it did it in a way that was also not entirely honest," Thielmann said.

In his State of the Union address, Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The Africa claim rested on a purported letter or letters between officials in Iraq and Niger held by European intelligence agencies. The communications are now accepted as forged, and Thielmann said he believed the information on Africa was discounted months before Bush mentioned it.

"I was very surprised to hear that be announced to the United States and the entire world," he said.

Thielmann said he had presumed Iraq had supplies of chemical and probably biological weapons. He particularly expected U.S. forces to find caches of mustard agent or other chemical weapons left over from Saddam's old stockpiles.

"We appear to have been wrong," he said. "I've been genuinely surprised at that."

One example where officials took too far a leap from the facts, according to Thielmann: On Feb. 11, CIA Director Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq "retains in violation of U.N. resolutions a small number of Scud missiles that it produced before the Gulf War."

Intelligence analysts supposed Iraq may have had some missiles because they couldn't account for all the Scuds it had before the first Gulf War, Thielmann said. They could have been destroyed, dismantled, miscounted or still somewhere in Saddam's inventory.

Some critics have suggested that the White House and Pentagon policy-makers pressured the CIA and military intelligence to come up with conclusions favorable to an attack-Iraq policy. The CIA and military have denied such charges. Thielmann said that generally he felt no such pressure.

Although his office did not directly handle terrorism issues, Thielmann said he was similarly unconvinced of a strong link between al-Qaida and Saddam's government.

Yet, the implication from Bush on down was that Saddam supported Osama bin Laden's network. Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks frequently were mentioned in the same sentence, even though officials have no good evidence of any link between the two.
------------------------------------

Next Bush's own words. If you can't recognize a lie when you hear one please don't try to tell me it isn't a lie.

----------------------------------

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations Address
September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Address
October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
-----------------------------------

I particularly like the one about the unmanned drones attacking the USA with chem/bio weapons. That's really funny. Funnier still is the fact that there are Americans who will actually believe this bullsh!+ and defend the moron who told the lies.

Oh, and to top it all off the former ambassador who was dispatched to Niger to investigate "yellowcakegate" is now on the official White House sh!+ list.........so our patriotic Bush administration leaders publicly attack him and his wife, a CIA operative, revealing her identity, blowing her cover thereby jeopardizing every operation she was and is involved with.

Thank God we have such patriots in the Bush administration. Is there nothing these a$$holes wont stoop to?

Well, there are a few quotes and one comment from a former director of strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

Wake up you blind lemmings. He's lying. His entire administration is lying. While they are conveniently making themselves quite at home in the Iraqi oil fields.

One person asked a truly ridiculous question in another thread. I'll paraphrase: "If they wanted oil why didn't they just go to Alaska?" Well, genius, Alaska only holds a few months oil supply for the gluttenous US oil market. Iraq holds the world's second largest oil reserve. Or should I say Halliburton?
Meh - I don't much care for the "truth" of lies BOBDN, but I am interested where the "truth" lies. Please do join DM on that quest.

CkG
Just another BS answer from a Bush fanboy.

How do you defend the statements above? Corn wanted proof. There it is. :D

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Well, since you don't want to find the truth, and want to dwell on the truth of lies - I'll humor you.

You know Bush lied about have intelligence that said "X". Wow you must have like super duper hot pink rainbow security clearance from multiple agencies. ;) You see BOBDN, what Bush said is correct and verifiable - some of the exact intelligence may have ended up wrong or questionable but what he said was infact true. Our intelligence angencies did say "X" and "X".
A lie can be "A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood" or "Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression." and that would mean someone or something needs to interpret intent. You say it is a lie because you interpret his intent as being decietful, I and others don't, and we take his statements at face value, keeping in mind that out intelligence angencies are fallable. Now if Bush did intentionally lie/decieve us by telling us things he knew to be false then he would be a liar. A liar he has not been shown to be.
Speculation on intent does not a lie make.

CkG
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Guys, this is pointless. Some people are too far into denial to ever show a glimmer of reason. There are people who still see Elvis. There are people who swear Nixon was innocent. There are people who know with certainty that man never walked on the moon. And there are people who will doggedly insist that even though almost everything Bush said about Iraq was wrong, he didn't lie. (At least not technically "lie", if you define "lie" just so and cross your fingers.)

And frankly, cad is technically right. It is possible that Bush-lite is such an incompetent buffoon that he unquestioningly believes everything Rove and Cheney and Rumsfeld whisper in his ear. It's possible they kept him locked away and only let him hear their personally crafted and filtered intel so Bush wouldn't realize what a load of crap it was. It's possible Bush is simply a mindless marionette who sways and dances as his minions pull his strings.

Of course, like any ridiculous story, there's just enough truth in it that a few irrational souls will desparately cling to it like a barnacle to a barge. While the more rational masses accept the obvious and move on, there are some who are doomed to be left behind by their own closed minds. After all, we don't know with absolute, 100.000000% certainty that man did walk on the moon. Maybe it was an elaborate hoax. Where is the proof?

Proof. We will never meet the Bush-lite apologists' standard of proof. Even if the whole administration confesses, the apologists will rationalize that they were pressured, or they did it out of some noble mission to save the country from further distress. They invested in believing in Bush; they are incapable of even considering they might have made a mistake. They will dodge and distort and distract and do whatever else they have to do to protect their convictions.

Proof? They can't handle the proof.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY