Something has to be done with the CIA

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Dari
First the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Then poor intelligence on Iraq? WTF were these spies doing in the 1990s? If nothing is done, and fast, we could now be miscaculating something major that may take place anytime. I remember right after 9/11, everyone was discussing the various ways to streamline our overbloated, bureaucratic, and Bantustan-like intelligence community. One of these ideas was folding the CIA into another agency. Anyone know what happened after the fallout?

Uh, their hands were tied through the 1990s. Their hands werent untied until after 9/11. Hell we didnt have any CIA agent on the ground in Africa until mid 2002, and there were several terrorist attacks during the '90s. This lead to Clintons bombing of civilian structures including an important asprin factory in the Sudan. The CIA's hands being tied also lead to poor information during our time in Kosovo.

The world intelligence community ALL thought Iraq had WMDs, the question was were they destroying them like they were supposed to and if we should give them more time to comply with the UN. There was never a question among Russia, Germany, France, US, or Britain if Iraq had WMDs, they all agreed they had WMDs, they didnt agree if Iraq was complying with UN resolutions. Iraq didnt help its case either, thier 16,000 page dossier that they called evidence of their dismantling of their arms, was junk. It also didnt help that Iraq continue to purchase banned weapon systems.

 

[Witling]

TwitAmongUs, and that means Charrison. I don't deny any of the assertions you made (which, of course, have nothing to do with the question of us ignoring world opinion). I don't admit them either. But, I tell you truly, world opinion was against us making an attack on Iraq. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Insane3D]

Ahhh....the spin machine is in full effect...

Everyone else is to blame....

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whitling
TwitAmongUs, and that means Charrison. I don't deny any of the assertions you made (which, of course, have nothing to do with the question of us ignoring world opinion). I don't admit them either. But, I tell you truly, world opinion was against us making an attack on Iraq. Do you disagree with that?

World opinion may have been against, but then I guess you are ready for the UN to write our foreign policy for us.

 

[Witling]

"World opinion may have been against, but then I guess you are ready for the UN to write our foreign policy for us."

We could do worse. No, wait, we've been doing worse.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whitling
"World opinion may have been against, but then I guess you are ready for the UN to write our foreign policy for us."

We could do worse. No, wait, we've been doing worse.

Well why dont you write your elected reps at the UN and get them to change our policys...wait..we dont have any elected reps there.

 

[Witling]

I've got one rep there. Appointed by the national government. That's OK with me. I'm working on changing the policies, but I'm putting the effort into where it may have an influence (here's the part where you wave good bye to Bush).

 

[Dari]

George Tenet or bin Laden

One (or both) of these assholes have to lose their job by year's end. Seeing Tenet's (smiling) face on tv makes me so sick I feel like throwing up sometimes. Since this prick is the only remnant from the Clinton years, and since he is responsible for a large sector of the intelligence pie, he is, IMHO, more responsible for the 9/11 tragedy than any other government official. I was sure that he would've been fired after 9/11, but he managed to convince Bush to let him stay. Hopefully revelations from the 9/11 commission will force his resignation. At the very least, Bush owes this to the victims of September 11.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Dari
George Tenet or bin Laden

One (or both) of these assholes have to lose their job by year's end. Seeing Tenet's (smiling) face on tv makes me so sick I feel like throwing up sometimes. Since this prick is the only remnant from the Clinton years, and since he is responsible for a large sector of the intelligence pie, he is, IMHO, more responsible for the 9/11 tragedy than any other government official. I was sure that he would've been fired after 9/11, but he managed to convince Bush to let him stay. Hopefully revelations from the 9/11 commission will force his resignation. At the very least, Bush owes this to the victims of September 11.

Kudos! When you sell the spin, you jump in with both feet. The Outrage is almost convincing.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dari
George Tenet or bin Laden

One (or both) of these assholes have to lose their job by year's end. Seeing Tenet's (smiling) face on tv makes me so sick I feel like throwing up sometimes. Since this prick is the only remnant from the Clinton years, and since he is responsible for a large sector of the intelligence pie, he is, IMHO, more responsible for the 9/11 tragedy than any other government official. I was sure that he would've been fired after 9/11, but he managed to convince Bush to let him stay. Hopefully revelations from the 9/11 commission will force his resignation. At the very least, Bush owes this to the victims of September 11.

Kudos! When you sell the spin, you jump in with both feet. The Outrage is almost convincing.

F U

 

[AnImuS]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dari
George Tenet or bin Laden

One (or both) of these assholes have to lose their job by year's end. Seeing Tenet's (smiling) face on tv makes me so sick I feel like throwing up sometimes. Since this prick is the only remnant from the Clinton years, and since he is responsible for a large sector of the intelligence pie, he is, IMHO, more responsible for the 9/11 tragedy than any other government official. I was sure that he would've been fired after 9/11, but he managed to convince Bush to let him stay. Hopefully revelations from the 9/11 commission will force his resignation. At the very least, Bush owes this to the victims of September 11.

Kudos! When you sell the spin, you jump in with both feet. The Outrage is almost convincing.

F U

thats just great :beer:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dari
George Tenet or bin Laden

One (or both) of these assholes have to lose their job by year's end. Seeing Tenet's (smiling) face on tv makes me so sick I feel like throwing up sometimes. Since this prick is the only remnant from the Clinton years, and since he is responsible for a large sector of the intelligence pie, he is, IMHO, more responsible for the 9/11 tragedy than any other government official. I was sure that he would've been fired after 9/11, but he managed to convince Bush to let him stay. Hopefully revelations from the 9/11 commission will force his resignation. At the very least, Bush owes this to the victims of September 11.

Kudos! When you sell the spin, you jump in with both feet. The Outrage is almost convincing.

F U

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
They can solve the problem nicely if they just keep Cheney and Rumsfeld away from Langley.

Yes, because the Clinton Administration's consistent citation of intelligence data to support the Iraq = WMD conclusion was...ehhh...the fault of Cheney and Rumsfeld?

 

[freegeeks]

...and this discussion doesn't change the fact that Iraq has no WMD and that the UN inspections were very effective (even Kay admitted that yesterday during the commission hearing).
Cheney and other neocons long made up their mind before 9/11 that they wanted to go after Iraq (there are documents about that)

bottom line - the US invaded another sovereign country for other reasons then WMD.

9/11 and WMD were just the buzzwords to convince the American public and the world opinion that Dubya's holy war was a just cause

after all, fear is the biggest motivator for mindless sheep. Convince the flock that there is the possibility of a mushroom cloud and they turn of their brain.

If you believe that this conflict is about WMD, 9/11 or the fact that Saddam was the devil himself is just prove that you are part of the flock.

The US is flexing its muscles to have influence in the strategically most important region in the word. What we are seeing is the neocon agenda in its full glory.

I already said the same thing last year and I say the same thing today, it's all about geopolitics.

 

[tcsenter]

...and this discussion doesn't change the fact that Iraq has no WMD and that the UN inspections were very effective (even Kay admitted that yesterday during the commission hearing). Cheney and other neocons long made up their mind before 9/11 that they wanted to go after Iraq (there are documents about that)

lol! Let's see:

Clinton cites Iraq WMD threat throughout his tenure until the day he left office.

Clinton Administration lobbies for and, with the help of Democratic allies in Congress (e.g. John Kerry), passes the Iraq Liberation Act making regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States, militarily if required; citing, in part, Hussein's continued effort to develop WMD and the extreme likelihood Iraq still possesses unknown quantities of WMD.

Several Western countries with capable intelligence assets from the mid-90s right up to the invasion are, without exception, of the belief WMD still remain in Iraq and the Hussein regime never has (and never will) relinquished its attempt to rebuild the WMD programs that were severely disrupted by UN inspectors following the first Gulf War.

There was no palpable dissent within the international community on these fundamental questions. The debate was entirely over how much Iraq still possessed and how fast it was rebuilding its WMD programs, not on the fundamental questions. As Kay makes perfectly clear, this was the consensus even among UN weapons inspectors right up to the invasion.

Kay admitted the weapons inspections were effective only in light of information made possible by the invasion. It was impossible to determine until now how effective UN inspections were because the Hussein regime continued to be fundamentally deceptive, restrict or stall access, covertly monitor their activities to predict where inspectors would go next, and generally behave as though it had something to hide right up to the invasion.

But, feel free to ignore all that when concluding the Bush Administration lied about WMD. Oh, I see you already have. Nevermind.

 

[robh23]

Originally posted by: Dari
First the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Then poor intelligence on Iraq? WTF were these spies doing in the 1990s? If nothing is done, and fast, we could now be miscaculating something major that may take place anytime. I remember right after 9/11, everyone was discussing the various ways to streamline our overbloated, bureaucratic, and Bantustan-like intelligence community. One of these ideas was folding the CIA into another agency. Anyone know what happened after the fallout?

i know. they were taken over by bureacrats because the top level - clinton - didnt see a new enemy - ayssmetric war - and they were therefore sleepwalking in a strategy malaise thinking the russians were still the enemy (the pentagon is much better run in terms of identifying who the enemy is going to be, imho). these management people were bureaucrats not field officers so the field officers got fired, because they objected to sigint, instead of humanint, and sigint was focussed on. this menat obscure and hard to penetrate organisations grew and when they became an efective threat (dahran, african embassies) clinton knew they were too big to deal with unconventionally, but didnt feel able to fight the whole war on terror, so he just dropped a few bombs on some sheds in afghanistan and an american residents factory in sudan... great stuff.

 

[robh23]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush praised Tenet for a great job.

i can just see it: 'tenet you were cr@p, but i only just noticed, so enjoy your retirement'

 

[Red Dawn]

Since it was Bush who sold the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq on the basis that Iraq had large stockpiles of WMDs, the fault lies totally with him.

I noticed the Administration Spin Machine has been working nfull tilt since Kay's announcement that Iraq obviously did not have the WMDs that Bush said they did. I hope this is one of the main issues in the election and Bush has to explain it over and over again to the American Public. He owes us an apology!

 

[robh23]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Since it was Bush who sold the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq on the basis that Iraq had large stockpiles of WMDs, the fault lies totally with him.

I noticed the Administration Spin Machine has been working nfull tilt since Kay's announcement that Iraq obviously did not have the WMDs that Bush said they did. I hope this is one of the main issues in the election and Bush has to explain it over and over again to the American Public. He owes us an apology!

not really saddam harnboured al qaida, and abu nidal. he was linked to the 9/11 attackers, he tried to kill members of bushes family for the gulf war, he didnt comply with inspections, he still had the people who could restart the programme, his own information was apparrently jazzed up by his scientists so they could have a better lifestyle, and its this information we relied on, and concluded with i that he had a stockpile that he obviously could use immediately and which he could have used in the future and we might not have had the will to fight him pre-emtively then, finally he wasnt cooperative with the last inspections.

so dummy thats the case from a purely american perspective. there is also a few other aspects that you may condescend to consider. that he mass murered his own people, after being helped to power by the usa, he supported instability and unrest int he region, which basically prevented the us/ un from persuing a democratic reform agenda, his behaviour made an israel/ pal settlement difficult/ impossible, that the sanctions only made him stronger and his people suffer more and needed to be removed.

so the nexus was that to beat alqaida saddam had to go so; us could stop sponsoring regimes and push for democracy, could pull out of saudi, could get a settlement from israel and the arabs. these things are in process now.

the war was justified on a threat to 'us' perspective. bush neededt o 'manufacture consent' you cant get that from a disinterested and short sighted public by saying something 'could happen' in the future or 'saddam is bad for the arabs' etc, you do it by saying 'the monster is beating on the door, people we better do something fast or else!!!' thats why imminent threat and wmd were the red herrings and tag lines of the whole thing, there are other reasons why these were more conventient that the other reasons but dont trouble your mind over them.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
They can solve the problem nicely if they just keep Cheney and Rumsfeld away from Langley.

Yes, because the Clinton Administration's consistent citation of intelligence data to support the Iraq = WMD conclusion was...ehhh...the fault of Cheney and Rumsfeld?

Dear Doofus,

Clinton is old news. Clinton is not president. Clinton did not doctor intelligence. Clinton did not invade Iraq. Dubya is president. Dubya's keepers did doctor intelligence. Dubya did invade Iraq. Please pull your head out of Dubya's ass.

Love,
People who can read

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: robh23

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Since it was Bush who sold the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq on the basis that Iraq had large stockpiles of WMDs, the fault lies totally with him.

I noticed the Administration Spin Machine has been working nfull tilt since Kay's announcement that Iraq obviously did not have the WMDs that Bush said they did. I hope this is one of the main issues in the election and Bush has to explain it over and over again to the American Public. He owes us an apology!

not really saddam harnboured al qaida, and abu nidal. he was linked to the 9/11 attackers, he tried to kill members of bushes family for the gulf war, he didnt comply with inspections, he still had the people who could restart the programme, his own information was apparrently jazzed up by his scientists so they could have a better lifestyle, and its this information we relied on, he could have used them in the future and we might not have had the will to fight him pre-emtively them, finally he wasnt cooperative with the last inspections.

so dummy thats the case from a purely american perspective. there is also a few other aspects that you may condescend to consider. that he mass murered his own people, after being helped to power by the usa, he supported instability and unrest int he region, which basically prevented the us/ un from persuing a democratic reform agenda, his behaviour made an israel/ pal settlement difficult/ impossible, that the sanctions only made him stronger and his people suffer more and needed to be removed.

so the nexus was that to beat alqaida saddam had to go so; us could stop sponsoring regimes and push for democracy, could pull out of saudi, could get a settlement from israel and the arabs. these things are in process now.

the war was justified on a threat to 'us' perspective. bush neededto 'manufacture consent' you can get that from a disinterested and short sighted public by saying something could happen in the future or saddam is bad for the arabs etc, you do it by saying 'the monster is beating on the door people we better do something fast or else!!!'thats why imminent threat and wmd were the red herrings and ag lines of the whole thing, there are othr reasons why these were more conventient that the other reasons but dont trouble your mind over them.

One question for you, why didn't Bush sell the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq on those arguments you presented instead of the fictitious Stockpiles of WMDs?

BTW, there is no proof that Hussiem harbored members of Al Qaeda. The only terrorist group in Iraq that had ties to Al Qaeda was located in Kurd Controlled Northern Iraq and there is no verifiable links between them and the Iraqi Baath Government.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Dari
George Tenet or bin Laden

One (or both) of these assholes have to lose their job by year's end. Seeing Tenet's (smiling) face on tv makes me so sick I feel like throwing up sometimes. Since this prick is the only remnant from the Clinton years, and since he is responsible for a large sector of the intelligence pie, he is, IMHO, more responsible for the 9/11 tragedy than any other government official. I was sure that he would've been fired after 9/11, but he managed to convince Bush to let him stay. Hopefully revelations from the 9/11 commission will force his resignation. At the very least, Bush owes this to the victims of September 11.

I think Dubya is afraid of Tenet. Tenet has the goods on Bush. So do others in the CIA. If Dubya fires Tenet, they go public.

 

[robh23]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: robh23

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Since it was Bush who sold the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq on the basis that Iraq had large stockpiles of WMDs, the fault lies totally with him.

I noticed the Administration Spin Machine has been working nfull tilt since Kay's announcement that Iraq obviously did not have the WMDs that Bush said they did. I hope this is one of the main issues in the election and Bush has to explain it over and over again to the American Public. He owes us an apology!

not really saddam harnboured al qaida, and abu nidal. he was linked to the 9/11 attackers, he tried to kill members of bushes family for the gulf war, he didnt comply with inspections, he still had the people who could restart the programme, his own information was apparrently jazzed up by his scientists so they could have a better lifestyle, and its this information we relied on, he could have used them in the future and we might not have had the will to fight him pre-emtively them, finally he wasnt cooperative with the last inspections.

so dummy thats the case from a purely american perspective. there is also a few other aspects that you may condescend to consider. that he mass murered his own people, after being helped to power by the usa, he supported instability and unrest int he region, which basically prevented the us/ un from persuing a democratic reform agenda, his behaviour made an israel/ pal settlement difficult/ impossible, that the sanctions only made him stronger and his people suffer more and needed to be removed.

so the nexus was that to beat alqaida saddam had to go so; us could stop sponsoring regimes and push for democracy, could pull out of saudi, could get a settlement from israel and the arabs. these things are in process now.

the war was justified on a threat to 'us' perspective. bush neededto 'manufacture consent' you can get that from a disinterested and short sighted public by saying something could happen in the future or saddam is bad for the arabs etc, you do it by saying 'the monster is beating on the door people we better do something fast or else!!!'thats why imminent threat and wmd were the red herrings and ag lines of the whole thing, there are othr reasons why these were more conventient that the other reasons but dont trouble your mind over them.

One question for you, why didn't Bush sell the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq on those arguments you presented instead of the fictitious Stockpiles of WMDs?

BTW, there is no proof that Hussiem harbored members of Al Qaeda. The only terrorist group in Iraq that had ties to Al Qaeda was located in Kurd Controlled Northern Iraq and there is no verifiable links between them and the Iraqi Baath Government.

so you are buck and family from downtown arcansas or new york or london and bush says it would be really nice to the iraqi people for us to spend half a trillion getting rid of saddam and loseing just a few thousand young men doing it.

he would get trashed in the election, no one gives a sh!t about anyone else. also the argument is too fanciful for most people to believe, its way easier to just scare poeple with a justifiable threat.

the alqaida group operated in a war situation with the kurds, they kurds and ussf attacked them, they entered iraq via baghdad. i remember saddam on 9/13/01 on tv celebrating the american losses, then retracting the statements a few days later.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
They can solve the problem nicely if they just keep Cheney and Rumsfeld away from Langley.

Yes, because the Clinton Administration's consistent citation of intelligence data to support the Iraq = WMD conclusion was...ehhh...the fault of Cheney and Rumsfeld?

Dear Doofus,

Clinton is old news. Clinton is not president. Clinton did not doctor intelligence. Clinton did not invade Iraq. Dubya is president. Dubya's keepers did doctor intelligence. Dubya did invade Iraq. Please pull your head out of Dubya's ass.

Love,
People who can read

Dear fvcktard
Please explain how it is that Clinton and his keepers arrived at the same conclusions as this administration wrt to Iraq. Were Willy's keepers doctoring intelligence too? Is it your contention that every time there is a new President, we should do a data dump and start from scratch or should we take what we have learned in the past and mold it into a comprehensive body of knowledge. Please bring you stand-by brain cell on line before attempting to answer. Oh and BTW please your head out of you own ass, I hear your bf is kinda horny.

Love,
People aren't driven by hatred, can read without moving their lips and actually understand what they are reading.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: robh23

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: robh23

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Since it was Bush who sold the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq on the basis that Iraq had large stockpiles of WMDs, the fault lies totally with him.

I noticed the Administration Spin Machine has been working nfull tilt since Kay's announcement that Iraq obviously did not have the WMDs that Bush said they did. I hope this is one of the main issues in the election and Bush has to explain it over and over again to the American Public. He owes us an apology!

not really saddam harnboured al qaida, and abu nidal. he was linked to the 9/11 attackers, he tried to kill members of bushes family for the gulf war, he didnt comply with inspections, he still had the people who could restart the programme, his own information was apparrently jazzed up by his scientists so they could have a better lifestyle, and its this information we relied on, he could have used them in the future and we might not have had the will to fight him pre-emtively them, finally he wasnt cooperative with the last inspections.

so dummy thats the case from a purely american perspective. there is also a few other aspects that you may condescend to consider. that he mass murered his own people, after being helped to power by the usa, he supported instability and unrest int he region, which basically prevented the us/ un from persuing a democratic reform agenda, his behaviour made an israel/ pal settlement difficult/ impossible, that the sanctions only made him stronger and his people suffer more and needed to be removed.

so the nexus was that to beat alqaida saddam had to go so; us could stop sponsoring regimes and push for democracy, could pull out of saudi, could get a settlement from israel and the arabs. these things are in process now.

the war was justified on a threat to 'us' perspective. bush neededto 'manufacture consent' you can get that from a disinterested and short sighted public by saying something could happen in the future or saddam is bad for the arabs etc, you do it by saying 'the monster is beating on the door people we better do something fast or else!!!'thats why imminent threat and wmd were the red herrings and ag lines of the whole thing, there are othr reasons why these were more conventient that the other reasons but dont trouble your mind over them.

One question for you, why didn't Bush sell the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq on those arguments you presented instead of the fictitious Stockpiles of WMDs?

BTW, there is no proof that Hussiem harbored members of Al Qaeda. The only terrorist group in Iraq that had ties to Al Qaeda was located in Kurd Controlled Northern Iraq and there is no verifiable links between them and the Iraqi Baath Government.

so you are buck and family from downtown arcansas or new york or london and bush says it would be really nice to the iraqi people for us to spend half a trillion getting rid of saddam and loseing just a few thousand young men doing it.

he would get trashed in the election, no one gives a sh!t about anyone else. also the argument is too fanciful for most people to believe, its way easier to just scare poeple with a justifiable threat.

Actually if Bush had actually been able to sell his excellent adventure in Iraq on those arguments his Administration would have to be doing the major spin and pass the buck game they are doing now.

the alqaida group operated in a war situation with the kurds, they kurds and ussf attacked them, they entered iraq via baghdad. i remember saddam on 9/13/01 on tv celebrating the american losses, then retracting the statements a few days later.

Entered Iraq via Baghdad???