Report Says Pentagon Manipulated Intel

[bamacre]

Meh, the findings don't mean squat unless the guilty ones are held responsible. And that isn't going to happen.

 

[Lemon law]

What this shows is just a tip of a giant iceberg. After six years of no congressional oversight, the investigations are just starting. The fact that one month in, it now looks like no criminal charges will result, does not mean squat. It takes at least six months to get really started in the investigations area. After six months or so, then it may be time to take a better look at what criminal charges can be supported.

Stupidity is not a crime, but all kinds of things like bribery and conspiracy do fall under the criminal umbrella.

Meanwhile----the elections of 11/06 will mean that many people will dangle---slowly slowly in the wind.

 

[Red Dawn]

Bushes legacy is that heleaves office the World will be a much more dangerous place than it was when he entered office, mostly due to his and his Administrations incompetence and deciet. His Foriegn Policy has been a catastrophic failure.

 

[Arglebargle]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ericlp
That may be true... But it is the FIRST time where 3 Trillion was WASTED... and 3000+ Americans died. What other point do you have?

Uh, I don't believe we're anywhere near 3 trillion yet.

While that's true, there is going to be a big bill come due to replace all the worn out equipment that is getting ground to dust with constant deployment. That's getting put off now as well. Certainly its going to run more than the "$50 billion, Tops!" Rumsfield BS.

 

[tomywishbone]

"Bushes legacy is that he leaves office the World will be a much more dangerous place than it was when he entered office, mostly due to his and his Administrations incompetence and deciet. His Foriegn Policy has been a catastrophic failure."


Legacy? 😀 How many zeros in the word legacy? bush, cheney, rummy, rice, etc, know you can't buy a yacht with legacy. They don't give a fcuk about legacy... it's all about money, billions & billions of dollars. Legacy?:laugh:

The mass-murders are laughing at all of us.

 

[dahunan]

Past Comments About How Much Iraq Would Cost

Earlier this year, experts said the war and aftermath in Iraq would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, a fact the White House refused to acknowledge as valid, even going so far as to fire Lawrence Lindsey for his realistic projections. In September, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz even told the Senate ?no one said we would know anything other than this would be very bloody, it could be very long and by implication, it could be very expensive." Here?s a record of what the administration, in fact, said:



Budget Director Mitch Daniels



Ø On September 15th 2002, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay estimated the high limit on the cost to be 1-2% of GNP, or about $100-$200 billion. Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget subsequently discounted this estimate as ?very, very high? and stated that the costs would be between $50-$60 billion [Source: WSJ, ?Bush Economic Aide Says Cost Of Iraq War May Top $100 Billion,? Davis 09/16/02; NYT, ?Estimated Cost of Iraq War Reduced, Bumiller, 12/31/02; Reuters News, ?Daniels sees U.S. Iraq war cost below $200 billion,? 09/18/02]



Ø ?When a reporter asked Daniels yesterday whether the administration was preparing to ask other countries to help defray possible Iraq war costs, as the United States did for the 1991 war, the budget director said he knew of no such plans. Other countries are having economic downturns of their own, he said.? [Source: Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, ?Byrd attacks cost of possible Iraq War, McFeatters, 9/25/02]



Ø ?There?s just no reason that this can?t be an affordable endeavor.? [Source: Reuters, ?U.S. Officials Play Down Iraq Reconstruction Needs,? Entous, 4/11/03]



Ø ?The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.? [Source: Washington Post, 4/21/03]



Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld



Ø ?Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.? [Source: Media Stakeout, 1/19/03]



Ø ?I don?t know that there is much reconstruction to do.? [Source: Reuters, ?U.S. Officials Play Down Iraq Reconstruction Needs,? Entous, 4/11/03]



Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz



Ø ?I think it's necessary to preserve some ambiguity of exactly where the numbers are.? [Source: House Budget Committee, 2/27/03]



Top Economist Adviser Glen Hubbard



Ø ?Costs of any such intervention would be very small.? [Source: CNBC, 10/4/02]



Budget Director Josh Bolten



Ø ?We don't anticipate requesting anything additional for the balance of this year.? [Source: Congressional Testimony , 7/29/03]

more here
http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm

 

[dahunan]

AND WOLFOWITZ .. :laugh: IS PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD BANK .. let him steal money from every citizen on earth now.. not just Americans

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Bush didn't lie in a legal sense. He just presented data that accommodates his view. He's not a criminal, just an a$$hole.

If people weren't pro-democrat or pro-republican and just pro-common sense there would not have been a war. I voted for Bush and was for the war. Now that I'm a bit older I now realize that I voted for Bush and was for the war because I hated the anti-bush groups and the 'no blood for oil" crowd because I saw them as a bunch of emotionally charged little girls. People didn't like bush before he even opened his mouth because he was a republican and the same was true for Kerry. I guess when you have a culture war both sides loose.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Bush didn't lie in a legal sense. He just presented data that accommodates his view. He's not a criminal, just an a$$hole.

If people weren't pro-democrat or pro-republican and just pro-common sense there would not have been a war. I voted for Bush and was for the war. Now that I'm a bit older I now realize that I voted for Bush and was for the war because I hated the anti-bush groups and the 'no blood for oil" crowd because I saw them as a bunch of emotionally charged little girls. People didn't like bush before he even opened his mouth because he was a republican and the same was true for Kerry. I guess when you have a culture war both sides loose.

I did not vote for GWB because I did not like him. I did not vote for GWB because I thought his domestic and foreign policies were BS and that was before he invaded Iraq.

I thought that the idea that everyone who disagreed with Bush were Bush haters had been proven to be a best propaganda.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Bush didn't lie in a legal sense. He just presented data that accommodates his view. He's not a criminal, just an a$$hole.

If people weren't pro-democrat or pro-republican and just pro-common sense there would not have been a war. I voted for Bush and was for the war. Now that I'm a bit older I now realize that I voted for Bush and was for the war because I hated the anti-bush groups and the 'no blood for oil" crowd because I saw them as a bunch of emotionally charged little girls. People didn't like bush before he even opened his mouth because he was a republican and the same was true for Kerry. I guess when you have a culture war both sides loose.

No, an emotionally-charged little girl would allow her vote to be influenced by her hate and her war-mongering, homicidal little hissy fits.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Bush didn't lie in a legal sense. He just presented data that accommodates his view. He's not a criminal, just an a$$hole.

If people weren't pro-democrat or pro-republican and just pro-common sense there would not have been a war. I voted for Bush and was for the war. Now that I'm a bit older I now realize that I voted for Bush and was for the war because I hated the anti-bush groups and the 'no blood for oil" crowd because I saw them as a bunch of emotionally charged little girls. People didn't like bush before he even opened his mouth because he was a republican and the same was true for Kerry. I guess when you have a culture war both sides loose.

I did not vote for GWB because I did not like him. I did not vote for GWB because I thought his domestic and foreign policies were BS and that was before he invaded Iraq.

I thought that the idea that everyone who disagreed with Bush were Bush haters had been proven to be a best propaganda.

No, it wasn't propaganda. To some people Bush is the anti-christ. We had protests here in New York with people carrying signs that read "no blood for oil." When a news crew went around asking questions no one could explain what the sign meant or how bush would acquire Iraqi oil. It wasn't about rational thinking it was about those stereotypes of big business republicans screwing the poor little guy, etc. When Clinton bombed Iraq because of its WMD's no one had a problem with that. Now Bush wanted to go after Iraq for the same reasons and all of the sudden its all some kind of oil conspiracy. Its just a culture war. An anti-left or anti-right sentiment exists among a good portion of the population. they are in a sense conservative-haters or liberal-haters.

Michael Blomberg would have never ended up being the mayor of New York if it wasn't for Gulliani's support. Why? Because he has the title of being a Republican. Even though he was a democrat all his life and is just as liberal as any democrat (he is anti-gun, pro-choice pro- gay rights...etc, he even marched in a gay rights parade) his title cost him a lot of votes. Even now some of my friends still see Blomberg as a money hungry, big business republican. The truth is he became a Republican just to get on the ticket and actually works as the Mayor for free. Blomberg chose not to accept a salary and on to of that rides the subway. I know he only does this for symbolic purposes but he is still giving up certain luxuries in doing so. But in the end of it all he still a rich republican who doesn't care about the little guy, probably pollutes the environment, has unclean money, must be corrupt, eats babies, and the carbon dioxide he exhales contributes to global warming.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Bush didn't lie in a legal sense. He just presented data that accommodates his view. He's not a criminal, just an a$$hole.

If people weren't pro-democrat or pro-republican and just pro-common sense there would not have been a war. I voted for Bush and was for the war. Now that I'm a bit older I now realize that I voted for Bush and was for the war because I hated the anti-bush groups and the 'no blood for oil" crowd because I saw them as a bunch of emotionally charged little girls. People didn't like bush before he even opened his mouth because he was a republican and the same was true for Kerry. I guess when you have a culture war both sides loose.

No, an emotionally-charged little girl would allow her vote to be influenced by her hate and her war-mongering, homicidal little hissy fits.

I guess you could look at it that way. You ever seen Team America? I seen the left the way it is portrayed there (I had this view before i seen the movie which is why it was extra funny) with all these stupid actors saying "cooperations..global warming...corperatiions.....MATT DIEMON" lol. Basically the left appeared to me like a bunch of little b1tches and so I had pro-right views. I eventually grew out of this but alot of people three times my age haven't and never will. The bottom line is that our society is very polarized on the political spectrum.