Look Like Bush might get his own version of Watergate

[Mister Bushice]

Meaning of course, an administration tainted by deceit and lies. ;)

WASHINGTON, (AFP) - US military intelligence warned the Bush administration as early as February 2002 that its key source on Al-Qaeda's relationship with
Iraq had provided "intentionally misleading" data, according to a declassified report.

Nevertheless, eight months later,
President George W. Bush went public with charges that the Iraqi government of
Saddam Hussein had trained members of
Osama bin Laden's terror network in manufacturing deadly poisons and gases.

These same accusations had found their way into then-secretary of state
Colin Powell's February 2003 speech before the UN Security Council, in which he outlined the US rationale for military action against Iraq.

"This newly declassified information provides additional, dramatic evidence that the administrations pre-war statements were deceptive," said Democrat Carl Levin, the ranking member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, who pushed for partial declassification of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document.

The report provides a critical analysis of information provided by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an Islamic radical and bin Laden associate, who served as senior military trainer at a key Al-Qaeda camp in
Afghanistan before it was destroyed by US forces in late 2001.

In captivity, al-Libi initially told his DIA debriefers that Al-Qaeda operatives had received training from Iraq in manufacturing poisons and deadly chemical agents.

But the DIA, according to its assessment, did not find the information credible.

US military intelligence officers concluded that al-Libi lacked "specific details on the Iraqis involved, the... materials associated with the assistance and the location where training occurred," the report said.

"It is possible," the document went on to say, "he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers."

The DIA suggested al-Libi, who had been under interrogation for several weeks, "may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest."

Just the same, president Bush insisted during an October 2002 trip to Cincinnati, Ohio, that his administration had learned that "Iraq has trained Al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

He repeated the same charge in February 2003.

The administration's drumbeat over alleged Iraq-Qaeda ties reached a crescendo that same month when Powell went before the
United Nations to accuse Iraq of hiding tons of chemical and biological weapons and nurturing nuclear ambitions.

His speech, according to congressional officials, even contained a direct reference to al-Libi's testimony, albeit not his name.

"I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al-Qaeda," insisted the secretary of state, who now says he regrets voicing many of the charges contained in that speech.

The unveiling of the documents came as Senate Democrats are stepping up pressure on their Republican colleagues, trying to force them to complete a second report on pre-war intelligence that would focus on whether members of the Bush administration had misused or intentionally misinterpreted intelligence findings.

The first report on the role of US intelligence agencies in the run-up to the war was released in June 2004.

Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat of the Senate intelligence committee, said the case of al-Libi illustrates the need to look into how pre-war intelligence was used.

"He's an entirely unreliable individual upon whom the White House was placing substantial intelligence trust," the senator said of al-Libi Sunday. "And that is a classic example of a lack of accountability to the American people."

Al-Libi formally recanted last year, according to congressional officials.

[Mikey]

Why do you hate America, you self-loathing liberal multiculturalist?

[Diogenes]

Tainted by 'deceit and lies' would be Bill Caligula.


Nixon was tainted by a Democrat Congress out to destroy him and a Republican party that found him highly expendable.

He was doomed when Agnew resigned, no way the Dems would have gone after him with Spiro as Veep.

[Mister Bushice]

Umm, I think the break in to demo headquarters that he authorized ON TAPE had quite a bit to do with it.

No, Nixon had the same illness Bush does, that ultimate power need, delusions of grandeur, the feeling that he's right and damn everyone else.

Agnew blamed nixon for causing his resignation based on tax evasion when he was a governor, not sure if that was true or not.

No way Nixon survives the Watergate Scandal. The cops caught the burglars red handed because of an alert security guard and the trail led right to Nixon.

[Diego in Seattle]

Tainted by 'deceit and lies' would be Bill Caligula.


Nixon was tainted by a Democrat Congress out to destroy him and a Republican party that found him highly expendable.

He was doomed when Agnew resigned, no way the Dems would have gone after him with Spiro as Veep.

You don't believe we actually landed on the moon as well, don't you?

[Mister Bushice]

How about adding to the thread in a positive way instead of taking useless shots at others?

Besides, everyone knows the moon landing was filmed in Arizona.

[Diogenes]

Umm, I think the break in to demo headquarters that he authorized ON TAPE had quite a bit to do with it.

Living in fantasyland?

No, Nixon had the same illness Bush does, that ultimate power need, delusions of grandeur, the feeling that he's right and damn everyone else.

That applies to BC, but to neither of the above.

Paranoia was Nixon's problem, that and the fact that there were people actually out to get him.

And that the guy behind the break-in was the one he trusted to look into it, namely Dean.

Agnew blamed nixon for causing his resignation based on tax evasion when he was a governor, not sure if that was true or not.

Haig's idea, actually.

And Ford was the Dems hand picked man, they threatened not to confirm Connelly (nixon's choice) which would have left that senile fucking Carl Albert as successor.

No way Nixon survives the Watergate Scandal. The cops caught the burglars red handed because of an alert security guard and the trail led right to Nixon.

No, it led to Liddy.

Who would have pointed to Dean, only he was the only one with the balls not to squeal.

[Tom In VA]

Meaning of course, an administration tainted by deceit and lies. ;)

Well that's right. Saddam's deceit and lies led to the U.S. invading his country.


As for the other stuff in your unlinked C&P.

Well, the intelligence game is not black and white. Whose intel do you trust ?

And when the same intelligence community that let Mohammed Atta fall through the cracks tells you something isn't "credible" ....

Well.

The fact is, our intelligence community has lost much it's credibility since the fall of the Soviet Union.

[Mister Bushice]

Umm, I think the break in to demo headquarters that he authorized ON TAPE had quite a bit to do with it.

Living in fantasyland?

Sorry, but if all you're going to do is make simplsitic comments instead of providing a rebuttal, I'm done.

No, Nixon had the same illness Bush does, that ultimate power need, delusions of grandeur, the feeling that he's right and damn everyone else.

That applies to BC, but to neither of the above.

Paranoia was Nixon's problem, that and the fact that there were people actually out to get him. And that the guy behind the break-in was the one he trusted to look into it, namely Dean.

BC?

True, Nixon was paranoid, but he also went to his grave proclaiming his innocence.

Agnew blamed nixon for causing his resignation based on tax evasion when he was a governor, not sure if that was true or not.

Haig's idea, actually.

Where did you get that info?
Even if it was Haigs Idea, Nixon made the decision, although the time frame makes sense what would have been his motivation?

And Ford was the Dems hand picked man, they threatened not to confirm Connelly (nixon's choice) which would have left that senile fucking Carl Albert as successor.

Ford was a republican homer. Connelly was a democrat. Since when do parties cross over like that?

No way Nixon survives the Watergate Scandal. The cops caught the burglars red handed because of an alert security guard and the trail led right to Nixon.

No, it led to Liddy.

Who would have pointed to Dean, only he was the only one with the balls not to squeal.

Balls not to squeal? What part of "illegal" did you miss?

Dean knew he was being set up, so he refused to buy into Nixons plan.

Besides you forget the complete trail. The plumbers were approved by Nixon through Haldeman and Erlichman, and ultimately Nixon was clearly involved in the Watergate cover-up and also the illegal campaign finances and intrusive government surveillance that were at the heart of the scandal through deans testimony and the tapes that killed him.

The buck stops there in the oval office no matter what. No president who agrees to activities in his administration can avoid blame.

[Mister Bushice]

Meaning of course, an administration tainted by deceit and lies. ;)

Well that's right. Saddam's deceit and lies led to the U.S. invading his country.


As for the other stuff in your unlinked C&P.

AFP. That's all there was, but facts are facts. It's from a declassified Government report.

Don't worry, I'm sure the dems will let you hear and see it loud and clear soon.

Well, the intelligence game is not black and white. Whose intel do you trust ?

Ain't a matter of me trusting, it's a matter of the Bush Admin ignoring conflicting info regarding the intel they used to go to war.

And when the same intelligence community that let Mohammed Atta fall through the cracks tells you something isn't "credible" ....

We're not talking about a miss on the intels part here, we're talking about a catch that was ignored by the BA.

[Tom In VA]

So ?

The point is, if an intelligence infrastructure, FAILED. Anything they say will be considered as less than credible.

Just because the DIA said this source's information wasn't credible ...

1. Doesn't make it a FACT that should be acted upon.
2. Doesn't mean Bush Lied.


Do you know how many different "intelligence" agencies exist ? And guess what each one competes with the other. This was the fundamental reason for the breakdown pre-9-11.

Nobody communicated with each other.

One guy says "No the guy that fed the DIA info, is a liar and he's wrong".

The other says "Well my source corroberates his story"

And so on and so forth. How you can take the leap that Bush, KNEW DIFFERENT AND BLATANTLY LIED, solely based upon the fact that the DIA said ....

"Wait a minute, all that stuff we said before, scratch that ..... "

Is indicative of the problem in this country. Find me, where SEVERAL intelligence agencies all say the same thing.

I'm sure it will come out in time for the 2006 elections. Of course it will be mundane, inter debate and discussion and the minutae of RAW intelligence data that changes daily and of course lay people such as ourselves will say .... "Bush lied" ... prompted of course by media deluge driving that opinion ....

But seriously, in a liars game ... 'intelligence', you base you decisions on as much concrete evidence as you can, corroboration of data, and really in good faith for the fucking security of our Nation.

you don't fucking lie.

Grow up.

[Mister Bushice]

couple a report that was ignored with the story that Bush planned to go after saddam BEFORE the reports came out, and what you have is a scandal that will haunt his administration.

True or false, you can't deny that this BA will be dogged by the allegations and their failure to take that info into account before they acted.

It's not the fault of the multiple intels, it's the fault of the end user who either ignored or overlooked the intel.

And I don't need to grow up, I am already there. Please don't turn into a "I have to throw a personal insult into my post" kind of guy. We have more than enough of them here and you're better than that.

[Diogenes]

Umm, I think the break in to demo headquarters that he authorized ON TAPE had quite a bit to do with it.

Living in fantasyland?

Sorry, but if all you're going to do is make simplsitic comments instead of providing a rebuttal, I'm done.

Okay, I would reply that your assertation that Nixon authorized any breakin, let alone 'ON TAPE', is idiotic.

Better?

No, Nixon had the same illness Bush does, that ultimate power need, delusions of grandeur, the feeling that he's right and damn everyone else.

That applies to BC, but to neither of the above.

Paranoia was Nixon's problem, that and the fact that there were people actually out to get him. And that the guy behind the break-in was the one he trusted to look into it, namely Dean.

BC?

William 'Just-a-playa' Caligula.

True, Nixon was paranoid, but he also went to his grave proclaiming his innocence.

So did Mitchell.

Because they were.

Agnew blamed nixon for causing his resignation based on tax evasion when he was a governor, not sure if that was true or not.

Haig's idea, actually.

Where did you get that info?
Even if it was Haigs Idea, Nixon made the decision, although the time frame makes sense what would have been his motivation?

History.

I don't have time too find links for every part of it you haven't read right now, sorry.

Yes, trusting Haig and Dean was Nixon's fault, the problem with paranoia is when you do trust someone you generaly pick the wrong people.

BTW, neither ford or Nixon were in favor of the pardon, Nixon wanted his day in court and Ford wanted to get elected in his own right.

More Haig there.

And Ford was the Dems hand picked man, they threatened not to confirm Connelly (nixon's choice) which would have left that senile fucking Carl Albert as successor.

Ford was a republican homer. Connelly was a democrat. Since when do parties cross over like that?

If by 'republican homer' you mean someone the Dems knew would roll over and play dead once they got rid of Nixon...

I would recall for you the story that James Cannon told, one of the judges for this. He has written a terrific biography of President Ford. He recalls how President Ford was selected for the vice presidency by Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon had just lost Spiro Agnew and he was looking for a new vice president. Everybody knew that Watergate was already breaking. Everybody knew that there was a good chance that whoever became vice president was going to become president and so it was a big deal who the new vice president was going to be.

Nixon wanted John Connelly. He called down the two people who were running Capitol Hill at the time, they were both Democrats -- Carl Alberts, speaker of the house, and Mike Mansfield, leader of the senate. He called them down to the White House and said, "Gentlemen, I'd like to talk to you about putting John Connelly in the White House." They said, "Nothing doing. We don't trust him. The Senate won't confirm him. We're not going there." And he said, "Well, who do you think I should put in there?" Carl Alberts said, "Jerry Ford." And the president said, "Why?" And he said, "Because we trust him. He's on the other side of the aisle but we can take his word to the bank. He's a man of honor." And Mike Mansfield chimed in the same way. Carl Alberts said later, "That's how Jerry Ford became vice president -- because the Democrats trusted him across the aisle." That's what kind of man he was, trusted on both sides of the aisle.


http://www.gvsu.edu/hauenstein/index.cf ... A0DFACF3DF

No way Nixon survives the Watergate Scandal. The cops caught the burglars red handed because of an alert security guard and the trail led right to Nixon.

No, it led to Liddy.

Who would have pointed to Dean, only he was the only one with the balls not to squeal.

Balls not to squeal? What part of "illegal" did you miss?

What part of being willing to spend as much time in prison as the rest combined do you not understand?

The point being that illegal or not, the fact the guy refused to say a word until the Statute of Limitations expired lends credibility to his words.

And according to him, Dean was behind it, not Mitchell.

Dean knew he was being set up, so he refused to buy into Nixons plan.

Dean was the one doing the setting up to cover his own ass.

[Diogenes]

couple a report that was ignored with the story that Bush planned to go after saddam BEFORE the reports came out, and what you have is a scandal that will haunt his administration.

True or false

That would be option two.

Unless you are taking can'tmoveon.org and Mikey "Hezbollah Rocks" Moore as reliable sources.

Again, where were you when President Caligula was givinhg missle technpology to the PRC in exchange for illegal campaign contributions?

[Mikey]

Nixon was NOT a crook and was framed by the Democrats.

It's all Clinton's fault, and whatever Bush has done Clinton was worse.

Don't you ever get tired of proving what an idiot you are?

[DrDetroit]

Bushice...do you expect us to believe that the US government was not developing war plans to remove Saddam even before Bush became President? Are you serious?

[DrDetroit]

Now you done it, Mvscal...you've made his head explode.

[Mister Bushice]

Ain't a matter of me trusting, it's a matter of the Bush Admin ignoring conflicting info regarding the intel they used to go to war.

Intelligence is always conflicting.

But the intelligent don't ignore the intel they don't want and use the intel they do want to accomplish their goals, the corrupt do that.

[DrDetroit]

But you don't know that, dolt. You don't know that it was "ignored." Besides, lets be reasonable here...short of not going to war, you would have characterized it as "ignoring" that intelligence. So lets not posture so much, eh?

I have no doubt that the intelligence community, as it usually does, compiled its intelligence data, analyzed it, and then drew conclusions (i.e., national intelligence estimate) and then presented it to the administration with the usual qualifications (we have conflicting data points A, B, M, R, and Y).

That's their job. The administration's job is then to determine policy. In doing that job the administration weighs the intelligence estimates and their qualifiers, probably discard data or discount data for some reason or another while paying more attention to other data. I don't see what is wrong with that...

There have been three investigations regarding the analysis and use of intelligence as it relates to Iraq and in each there was no determination that intelligence was, as alleged by Democrats, fabricated, manipulated, or exagerrated.

[Mister Bushice]

Okay, I would reply that your assertation that Nixon authorized any breakin, let alone 'ON TAPE', is idiotic.

Better?

He was recorded on tape discussing with Haldeman the progress of the FBI's investigation, especially the tracing of the source of money found on the burglars. They propose having the CIA ask the FBI to halt their investigation of the Watergate break-in by claiming that the break-in was a national security operation.

Close enough.

True, Nixon was paranoid, but he also went to his grave proclaiming his innocence.

So did Mitchell.

Because they were.

You're joking, right? Mitchell was the first United States Attorney General ever to be convicted of illegal activities and imprisoned. What part of innocent are you reading in that?

Agnew blamed nixon for causing his resignation based on tax evasion when he was a governor, not sure if that was true or not.

Haig's idea, actually.

Where did you get that info?
Even if it was Haigs Idea, Nixon made the decision, although the time frame makes sense what would have been his motivation?

History.

I don't have time too find links for every part of it you haven't read right now, sorry.]

So that's an uncorrorborated link then, just your opinion really because I see no proof of that.

And Ford was the Dems hand picked man, they threatened not to confirm Connelly (nixon's choice) which would have left that senile fucking Carl Albert as successor.

Ford was a republican homer. Connelly was a democrat. Since when do parties cross over like that?

If by 'republican homer' you mean someone the Dems knew would roll over and play dead once they got rid of Nixon...

I would recall for you the story that James Cannon told, one of the judges for this. He has written a terrific biography of President Ford. He recalls how President Ford was selected for the vice presidency by Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon had just lost Spiro Agnew and he was looking for a new vice president. Everybody knew that Watergate was already breaking. Everybody knew that there was a good chance that whoever became vice president was going to become president and so it was a big deal who the new vice president was going to be.

Nixon wanted John Connelly. He called down the two people who were running Capitol Hill at the time, they were both Democrats -- Carl Alberts, speaker of the house, and Mike Mansfield, leader of the senate. He called them down to the White House and said, "Gentlemen, I'd like to talk to you about putting John Connelly in the White House." They said, "Nothing doing. We don't trust him. The Senate won't confirm him. We're not going there." And he said, "Well, who do you think I should put in there?" Carl Alberts said, "Jerry Ford." And the president said, "Why?" And he said, "Because we trust him. He's on the other side of the aisle but we can take his word to the bank. He's a man of honor." And Mike Mansfield chimed in the same way. Carl Alberts said later, "That's how Jerry Ford became vice president -- because the Democrats trusted him across the aisle." That's what kind of man he was, trusted on both sides of the aisle.

And not a word of that indicates he would roll over for anyone, only that they trusted him. Doesn't mean he wasn't a homer, just that he was a man of his word.

No way Nixon survives the Watergate Scandal. The cops caught the burglars red handed because of an alert security guard and the trail led right to Nixon.

No, it led to Liddy.

Who would have pointed to Dean, only he was the only one with the balls not to squeal.

Balls not to squeal? What part of "illegal" did you miss?

What part of being willing to spend as much time in prison as the rest combined do you not understand?

The point being that illegal or not, the fact the guy refused to say a word until the Statute of Limitations expired lends credibility to his words.

And according to him, Dean was behind it, not Mitchell.

Dean knew he was being set up, so he refused to buy into Nixons plan.

Dean was the one doing the setting up to cover his own ass.

Because he was going to be made the fall guy for everyone, and he wouldn't play their game.

No way was nixon not involved or partially culpable no matter how you look at it. It was his Administration, and he knew what was going on.

[Diogenes]

Okay, I would reply that your assertation that Nixon authorized any breakin, let alone 'ON TAPE', is idiotic.

Better?

He was recorded on tape discussing with Haldeman the progress of the FBI's investigation, especially the tracing of the source of money found on the burglars. They propose having the CIA ask the FBI to halt their investigation of the Watergate break-in by claiming that the break-in was a national security operation.

Close enough.

So trying to coverup an embarrasment that the same tapes show that they believed to be non-political is the same as ordering a break-in?

True, Nixon was paranoid, but he also went to his grave proclaiming his innocence.

So did Mitchell.

Because they were.

You're joking, right? Mitchell was the first United States Attorney General ever to be convicted of illegal activities and imprisoned. What part of innocent are you reading in that?

What part of Dean being a lying sack of shit who was doing anything he could to cover up his role in the breakin do you not get?

Where did you get that info?
Even if it was Haigs Idea, Nixon made the decision, although the time frame makes sense what would have been his motivation?

History.

I don't have time too find links for every part of it you haven't read right now, sorry.

So that's an uncorrorborated link then, just your opinion really because I see no proof of that.

So read a book some time.

Ford was a republican homer. Connelly was a democrat. Since when do parties cross over like that?

If by 'republican homer' you mean someone the Dems knew would roll over and play dead once they got rid of Nixon...



I would recall for you the story that James Cannon told, one of the judges for this. He has written a terrific biography of President Ford. He recalls how President Ford was selected for the vice presidency by Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon had just lost Spiro Agnew and he was looking for a new vice president. Everybody knew that Watergate was already breaking. Everybody knew that there was a good chance that whoever became vice president was going to become president and so it was a big deal who the new vice president was going to be.

Nixon wanted John Connelly. He called down the two people who were running Capitol Hill at the time, they were both Democrats -- Carl Alberts, speaker of the house, and Mike Mansfield, leader of the senate. He called them down to the White House and said, "Gentlemen, I'd like to talk to you about putting John Connelly in the White House." They said, "Nothing doing. We don't trust him. The Senate won't confirm him. We're not going there." And he said, "Well, who do you think I should put in there?" Carl Alberts said, "Jerry Ford." And the president said, "Why?" And he said, "Because we trust him. He's on the other side of the aisle but we can take his word to the bank. He's a man of honor." And Mike Mansfield chimed in the same way. Carl Alberts said later, "That's how Jerry Ford became vice president -- because the Democrats trusted him across the aisle." That's what kind of man he was, trusted on both sides of the aisle.

And not a word of that indicates he would roll over for anyone, only that they trusted him. Doesn't mean he wasn't a homer, just that he was a man of his word.

It indicates exactly what I said, that Ford was their hand picked man, and that they refused to consider Connelly.
And of course they trusted Ford.

To sit up and fetch...

Dean knew he was being set up, so he refused to buy into Nixons plan.

Dean was the one doing the setting up to cover his own ass.

Because he was going to be made the fall guy for everyone, and he wouldn't play their game.

No way was nixon not involved or partially culpable no matter how you look at it. It was his Administration, and he knew what was going on.

If he knew what was going on, he wouldn't have put the guy who directed the break-in in charge of finding out who was behind the break-in.

[Diogenes]

Nixon knew that Democrats felt apprehensive about confirming someone who might be a strong contender for the presidency in 1976 and that they preferred "a caretaker Vice President who would simply fill out Agnew's unexpired term." Nixon wanted to appoint his Treasury Secretary, John Connally, but after meeting with the Democratic congressional leadership he concluded that Connally would have a difficult time being confirmed. At Camp David, Nixon prepared an announcement speech with four endings, one each for Nelson Rockefeller, Ronald Reagan, Connally, and Ford. Looking through the names that Republican party leaders had suggested, he found that Rockefeller and Reagan had tied, Connally was third, and Ford last. However, among members of Congress, including such Democrats as Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and House Speaker Carl Albert, Ford's name came in first and, as Nixon noted, "they were the ones who would have to approve the man I nominated." As Speaker Albert later asserted, "We gave Nixon no choice but Ford."

The Watergate scandal had so preoccupied and weakened Nixon that he could not win a fight over Connally. Choosing either Rockefeller or Reagan would likely split the Republican party. That left Ford. Nixon reasoned that, not only were Ford's views on foreign and domestic policy practically identical with his, but that the House leader would be the easiest to confirm. He had also received assurances that Ford "had no ambitions to hold office after January 1977," which would clear the path for Connally to seek the Republican presidential nomination. On the morning of October 12, 1973, Nixon called Ford to a private meeting. While he intended to nominate Ford for vice president, Nixon explained, he planned to campaign for Connally for president in 1976. Ford raised no objections to that arrangement, and that evening, Nixon announced the news publicly from the East Room.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/his ... d_Ford.htm

[Tom In VA]

couple a report that was ignored with the story that Bush planned to go after saddam BEFORE the reports came out, and what you have is a scandal that will haunt his administration.

True or false, you can't deny that this BA will be dogged by the allegations and their failure to take that info into account before they acted.

It's not the fault of the multiple intels, it's the fault of the end user who either ignored or overlooked the intel.

And I don't need to grow up, I am already there. Please don't turn into a "I have to throw a personal insult into my post" kind of guy. We have more than enough of them here and you're better than that.

Fair enough.

The "grow up" comment while directed towards you wasn't necessarily AT you. It's this Chicken Little atmosphere of political posturing that will look for any grain of sand that Bush was acting in anything BUT OUR NATION'S BEST INTEREST.

[Mister Bushice]

couple a report that was ignored with the story that Bush planned to go after saddam BEFORE the reports came out, and what you have is a scandal that will haunt his administration.

True or false, you can't deny that this BA will be dogged by the allegations and their failure to take that info into account before they acted.

It's not the fault of the multiple intels, it's the fault of the end user who either ignored or overlooked the intel.

And I don't need to grow up, I am already there. Please don't turn into a "I have to throw a personal insult into my post" kind of guy. We have more than enough of them here and you're better than that.

Fair enough.

The "grow up" comment while directed towards you wasn't necessarily AT you. It's this Chicken Little atmosphere of political posturing that will look for any grain of sand that Bush was acting in anything BUT OUR NATION'S BEST INTEREST.

I guess it's because I don't think he was, I think he was looking out for his own agenda.

If he had been looking out for our best interests, he might have made sure that ALL The intel was reviewed, cross checked, and that the first excuse for war wasn't the #1 go to option.

Plus, I don't think that our best interests coincide with his vision of them, frankly. I have never like his policies or his approach to dealing with controversial, confrontational issues.

Not that Kerry would have been better. I have no faith in any of our elected officials really. I just think the system is set up so that they don't really have to care, they just have to manage to get elected so they can push their own agendas and reward those who got them there.

Cynical? Hell yes I am.

[Tom In VA]

Another "grow up".

Our cushy life as Americans, and the cushy lives of all those in Western Civilization require OIL

AID to people who don't have such a cushy life because they live in famine ridden lands cannot get to them without .... OIL

Every leader of the free world and not so free world since the Edsall first rolled off the "line" knew and knows this, except maybe Carter

Clinton's tough guy stance in the Balkans and in the Middle East both ....

OIL

The only problem is that as much as Clinton tried, our enemy was not cowed, they attacked .... to an order of magnitude unseen up until 9-11.

Saddam was seeking nukes. Al Q is seeking nukes, and might already have some.

You and I enjoy the luxury of second guessing, especially after 9-11, we will never be held accountable, much less remembered

Perhaps Saddam never ever met with Osama, Zarqawi seems to have a home and have built up a rapport with Iraqis so he's questionable .... but Saddam did support Hezbollah suicide bombers. If you're comfortable believing his support stopped at sending money to suicide bombers' families so be it. You have that luxury.

But the fact remains there was intel that suggested otherwise, as well as intel that countered the other intel. Which do you believe ? I contend it is YOU that is picking the convenient intel to believe to support YOUR agenda. Because, you have that luxury and you will not be held accountable for your mistakes either way.

No. The lies that caused this war were predominantly the lies told by Saddam, Iraqi ex-patriots and Kurds who wanted our help, our European "allies" in France, Germany and Russia, and a few bad actors in the U.N.

I see our politicians and their lies. But I also see the lies of the rest of the global world that seeks their own best interests. While I distrust our politicians I trust them more for one reason.

They will be held accountable, they take an oath to OUR CONSTITUTION, and they have a vested interest in seeing this experiment known as the United States of America continue and prosper.

If they get paid for their efforts in securing resources we all, as Americans, enjoy and need .... so be it.

You collect a paycheck don't you ?

[Mister Bushice]

What's with the "Oil" reference?

Since the war "OIL" prices have skyrocketed.

Personally I think we as Americans are above that oil hostage thing.

We will just change our lifestyle to reduce our need, just like we did in the 70's.

Also I am NOT picking convenient intel. I am pointing out that Bush and COlin Powell went before the world to emphatically state that BASED ON INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION GATHERED, there was a justification for war.

Now we find out thru released government docs that they also had intel that said the same source that provided the intel was not credible?

So they chose to believe the source, despite the available intel to the contrary?

See where I'm heading here?

[Tom In VA]

What's with the "Oil" reference?

Since the war "OIL" prices have skyrocketed.

Personally I think we as Americans are above that oil hostage thing.

We will just change our lifestyle to reduce our need, just like we did in the 70's.

Also I am NOT picking convenient intel. I am pointing out that Bush and COlin Powell went before the world to emphatically state that BASED ON INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION GATHERED, there was a justification for war.

Now we find out thru released government docs that they also had intel that said the same source that provided the intel was not credible?

So they chose to believe the source, despite the available intel to the contrary?

See where I'm heading here?

Yes I do and it's the same place I'm heading. That would be, neither of us know shit from shinola when it comes to "intel" vs. "counter-intel" and the myriad of data that supports or doesn't support a specific piece of information.

You lose me when you summarily conclude Bush Lied. And you lose me because one minute piece of information indicating that there was ONE source that was credible, but was found to lack credibility, from an intelligence community already riddled with it's own credibility problems, does not mean Bush Lied.

The OIL comes into play when decisions are made for the best interests of our nation. But keep dancing, I'm enjoying the show.

[DrDetroit]

Bushice:

I am pointing out that Bush and COlin Powell went before the world to emphatically state that BASED ON INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION GATHERED, there was a justification for war.

Now we find out thru released government docs that they also had intel that said the same source that provided the intel was not credible?

Dumbass, intelligence is never perfect. What did you struggle with in my discussion of the analysis of intelligence data and weighing intelligence relative to other intelligence? So there should be no surprise that the administration had conflicting intelligence data....none at all.

The one piece missing from this what else the administration had to corroborate this source's information. Why is there no reporting on this? Why is there no reporting on the analytical discussion that surrounded the consideration of this piece of data and other pieces of data?

Answer -- You are not interested in that. The reporter was not interested in it. This is a gotcha piece, plain and simple.

See where I'm heading here?

Yeah, yet another rhetorical gotcha moment. BFD! Really, wtf do you think was stumbled upon here? That there was conflicting data? Fuckhead, that's the case all the time.

[DrDetroit]

Tom, your theory about this being all about oil still holds no water. And don't think that you're somehow above the fray here or taking a higher road by seemingly admitting that it is about oil. The reality to date should dispel that notion for you.

[DrDetroit]

RACK Mvscal's blast!!!


Bushice:

I have never like his policies or his approach to dealing with controversial, confrontational issues.

Didn't see this before. And Mvscal nailed it. You don't care what his approach is, simply because you know nothing about it. Secondly, your position on this is totally dependent upon a knee-jerk reaction based on whether you agree with the policy outcome.

If you disagree with the decision, you don't like his policy. That's it. It doesn't require any additional thought on your part...as you have demonstrated here quite clearly.

To you it's no more a matter of you agreeing with him. That's it.

This is why you would disagree with Bush who does not favor affirmative action despite the fact that his opposition leads to your preferred result, equal opportunity. You simply disagree with him because his preference doesn't agree with you.

[Mister Bushice]

You guys act as if I am the only person who feels this way about bush. Last I checked, a 37% approval rating would indicate otherwise.

It isn't a kneejerk reaction. Bush is the one who has been consistent and predictable: His way or the highway, bad decisions and never admitting mistakes or taking responsibility, arrogance, pushing his religious agenda as if Americans are in total agreement with him. Very predictable stuff.

He's not bright enough to be anything other than predictable.

You lose me when you summarily conclude Bush Lied. And you lose me because one minute piece of information indicating that there was ONE source that was credible, but was found to lack credibility, from an intelligence community already riddled with it's own credibility problems, does not mean Bush Lied.

Lied? Did I say that? If I said Lied, I meant Ignored. That's what happened.

Tom, the source they used as a reason to go to war was the one that was brought into question as not being credible by the FBI.

It wasn't one Minute piece of data, it was linked to the source. How is that not relevant? If I have a report based on the interview of an insider that says you have WMDs, and I have another report that say that very same insider was not credible and that perhaps was giving answers to questions he thought we wanted to hear, Don't you think the connection is important enough to perhaps investigate further rather than to ignore it and pursue war?

[DrDetroit]

Bushice:

You guys act as if I am the only person who feels this way about bush. Last I checked, a 37% approval rating would indicate otherwise.

No one was arguing either that you were the only person arguing this or that Bush's approval rating was not low. Who are you arguing with? Diverting, much?

It isn't a kneejerk reaction.

Sure it is and you're going to demonstrate that right now --

Bush is the one who has been consistent and predictable: His way or the highway, bad decisions and never admitting mistakes or taking responsibility, arrogance, pushing his religious agenda as if Americans are in total agreement with him. Very predictable stuff

There you go, it is about knee-jerk reactions. You don't agree with his decision, hence his decision must be bad. He won't apologize for something you think he should, so he's stubborn (it couldn't be that he feels that there is nothing to apologize for or that he would undermine his and this nation's credibility by wringing his hands and apologizing for everything you feel he should). He won't admit to mistakes...so what? You act as though this is fucking important.

And stop with this nonsense about puching a religious agenda. He is not. And, look, once again, simply because he is allegedly pushing a religious agenda, your reaction is instant displeasure with zero consideration.

Start a new thread and start it by posting all of the religious measures he is proposing...TIA!

He's not bright enough to be anything other than predictable.

Another knee-jerk reaction. If Bush was unpredictable you'd be calling him a renegade, out-of-control...errr...you already do. Dumbass.

Lied? Did I say that? If I said Lied, I meant Ignored. That's what happened.

What the fuck would you know about it?

Again, what are you struggling with, bushice? Just because he doesn't make the decision you think he should doesn't mean he ignored anything. As well, because he chose to rely on other intelligence or to discount certain intelligence is not the same as ignoring it. Quit fucking talking about it as though you know or understand how he considered the intelligence data given to him. You do not.

The only reason you choose to characterize it as though he is ignoring intelligence data is so you can get to calling him incompetent or ignorant. Just stop with that nonsense.

Tom, the source they used as a reason to go to war was the one that was brought into question as not being credible by the FBI.

Like Mvscal said, that was one piece among many, many others. WTF are you struggling with?

It wasn't one Minute piece of data, it was linked to the source. How is that not relevant?

Who said that the President considered it irrelevant?

Again, why are you having so much difficulty understand policy analysis? I can only imagine it is because your only aim is to simply trash the President. When you have multiple pieces of data in your analysis you must weight them according to relevance, importance/value, credibility, etc.

You're acting as though Bush simply ignored this one piece of data out-of-hand and didn't consider it at all...you simply do not know that.

If I have a report based on the interview of an insider that says you have WMDs, and I have another report that say that very same insider was not credible and that perhaps was giving answers to questions he thought we wanted to hear, Don't you think the connection is important enough to perhaps investigate further rather than to ignore it and pursue war?

If that was the only piece of evidence we were relying on, then yes.

But what you continue to ignore is the vast of amount of intelligence that said otherwise as well as the Iraqi's own admission to developing and possessing wmd's.

Seriously, Bushice...what is the problem here?

Do yuo seriously believe that this was the only piece of information that the decision to war rested on?

[Tom In VA]

Tom, your theory about this being all about oil still holds no water. And don't think that you're somehow above the fray here or taking a higher road by seemingly admitting that it is about oil. The reality to date should dispel that notion for you.

Access to natural resources, trade routes, etc.. .etc... have always been a motivating factor to war.

[Tom In VA]

You guys act as if I am the only person who feels this way about bush. Last I checked, a 37% approval rating would indicate otherwise.

What was the percentage of the American population that knew what Al Q was up to prior to 9-11 ?

[Mister Bushice]

Bushice:

You guys act as if I am the only person who feels this way about bush. Last I checked, a 37% approval rating would indicate otherwise.

No one was arguing either that you were the only person arguing this or that Bush's approval rating was not low. Who are you arguing with? Diverting, much?

It isn't a kneejerk reaction.

Sure it is and you're going to demonstrate that right now --

I didn't say you were arguing abotu it, I'm saying you're responses make it seem as if this is absolutely new information about Bush, and totally unbelievable.

Bush is the one who has been consistent and predictable: His way or the highway, bad decisions and never admitting mistakes or taking responsibility, arrogance, pushing his religious agenda as if Americans are in total agreement with him. Very predictable stuff

There you go, it is about knee-jerk reactions. You don't agree with his decision, hence his decision must be bad. He won't apologize for something you think he should, so he's stubborn (it couldn't be that he feels that there is nothing to apologize for or that he would undermine his and this nation's credibility by wringing his hands and apologizing for everything you feel he should). He won't admit to mistakes...so what? You act as though this is fucking important.

Like I said. This is not just about me and the way I feel. It is the way the majority of Americans feel about him.

And stop with this nonsense about puching a religious agenda. He is not. And, look, once again, simply because he is allegedly pushing a religious agenda, your reaction is instant displeasure with zero consideration.

Start a new thread and start it by posting all of the religious measures he is proposing...TIA!

No need for a new thread.

Lets see:

Proposed a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages based on his belief that it violates the bibles interpretation of Gods view of man and woman as the only combination acceptable.

Financing his faith based initiative with Taxpayer dollars and opening the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

His intent to seek a constitutional ban on abortions based on his personal religious beliefs.

Signed a bill keeping Terri Shiavo alive against the will of her husband.

Lied? Did I say that? If I said Lied, I meant Ignored. That's what happened.

What the fuck would you know about it?

The report was sent to the office, and yet the intel from it was ignored.

You're acting as though Bush simply ignored this one piece of data out-of-hand and didn't consider it at all...you simply do not know that.

There's a lot of evidecne to the contrary:

JANUARY, 2002 – TENET DOES NOT MENTION IRAQ IN NUCLEAR THREAT REPORT: "In CIA Director George Tenet's January 2002 review of global weapons-technology proliferation, he did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]

FEBRUARY 6, 2002 – CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NOT PROVIDED WMD TO TERRORISTS: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials." [Source: NY Times, 2/6/02]

APRIL 15, 2002 – WOLFOWITZ ANGERED AT CIA FOR NOT UNDERMINING U.N. REPORT: After receiving a CIA report that concluded that Hans Blix had conducted inspections of Iraq's declared nuclear power plants "fully within the parameters he could operate" when Blix was head of the international agency responsible for these inspections prior to the Gulf War, a report indicated that "Wolfowitz ‘hit the ceiling’ because the CIA failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program." [Source: W. Post, 4/15/02]

SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: "In the late summer of 2002, Sen. Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies--noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA's classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]

SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS: "An unclassified excerpt of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq's chemical warfare program in which it stated that there is ‘no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.’" The report also said, "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions." [Source: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 6/13/03; DIA report, 2002]

SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: "Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence." [Source: UPI, 9/20/02]

OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa." [Source: Washington Post, 7/23/03]

OCTOBER 2002 — STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES: The State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. "The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons." INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium. [Source, Declassified Iraq NIE released 7/2003]

OCTOBER 2002 – AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The government organization most knowledgeable about the United States' UAV program -- the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center -- had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons" – a WMD claim President Bush used in his October 7 speech on Iraqi WMD, just three days before the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force. [Source: Washington Post, 9/26/03]

2003: WH Pressures Intel Agencies to Conform; Ignores More Warnings

Instead of listening to the repeated warnings from the intelligence community, intelligence officials say the White House instead pressured them to conform their reports to fit a pre-determined policy. Meanwhile, more evidence from international institutions poured in that the White House’s claims were not well-grounded.

LATE 2002-EARLY 2003 – CHENEY PRESSURES CIA TO CHANGE INTELLIGENCE: "Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated trips to CIA headquarters in the run-up to the war for unusual, face-to-face sessions with intelligence analysts poring over Iraqi data. The pressure on the intelligence community to document the administration's claims that the Iraqi regime had ties to al-Qaida and was pursuing a nuclear weapons capacity was ‘unremitting,’ said former CIA counterterrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, echoing several other intelligence veterans interviewed." Additionally, CIA officials "charged that the hard-liners in the Defense Department and vice president's office had 'pressured' agency analysts to paint a dire picture of Saddam's capabilities and intentions." [Sources: Dallas Morning News, 7/28/03; Newsweek, 7/28/03]

JANUARY, 2003 – STATE DEPT. INTEL BUREAU REITERATE WARNING TO POWELL: "The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the State Department's in-house analysis unit, and nuclear experts at the Department of Energy are understood to have explicitly warned Secretary of State Colin Powell during the preparation of his speech that the evidence was questionable. The Bureau reiterated to Mr. Powell during the preparation of his February speech that its analysts were not persuaded that the aluminum tubes the Administration was citing could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium." [Source: Financial Times, 7/30/03]

FEBRUARY 14, 2003 – UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND: "In their third progress report since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November, inspectors told the council they had not found any weapons of mass destruction." Weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council they had been unable to find any WMD in Iraq and that more time was needed for inspections. [Source: CNN, 2/14/03]

FEBRUARY 15, 2003 – IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE: The head of the IAEA told the U.N. in February that "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." The IAEA examined "2,000 pages of documents seized Jan. 16 from an Iraqi scientist's home -- evidence, the Americans said, that the Iraqi regime was hiding government documents in private homes. The documents, including some marked classified, appear to be the scientist's personal files." However, "the documents, which contained information about the use of laser technology to enrich uranium, refer to activities and sites known to the IAEA and do not change the agency's conclusions about Iraq's laser enrichment program." [Source: Wash. Post, 2/15/03]

FEBURARY 24, 2003 – CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ‘NO DIRECT EVIDENCE’ OF WMD: "A CIA report on proliferation released this week says the intelligence community has no ‘direct evidence’ that Iraq has succeeded in reconstituting its biological, chemical, nuclear or long-range missile programs in the two years since U.N. weapons inspectors left and U.S. planes bombed Iraqi facilities. ‘We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs,’ said the agency in its semi-annual report on proliferation activities." [NBC News, 2/24/03]

MARCH 7, 2003 – IAEA REITERATES TO WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES: IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes or specialized ring magnets for centrifuge enrichment of uranium. For months, American officials had "cited Iraq's importation of these tubes as evidence that Mr. Hussein's scientists have been seeking to develop a nuclear capability." ElBaradei also noted said "the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that documents which formed the basis for the [President Bush’s assertion] of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic." When questioned about this on Meet the Press, Vice President Dick Cheney simply said "Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong." [Source: NY Times, 3/7/03: Meet the Press, 3/16/03]

MAY 30, 2003 – INTEL PROFESSIONALS ADMIT THEY WERE PRESSURED: "A growing number of U.S. national security professionals are accusing the Bush administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the $30 billion intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq . A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terrorist groups. This team, self-mockingly called the Cabal, 'cherry-picked the intelligence stream' in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a official at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The DIA was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he said. Greg Thielmann, an intelligence official in the State Department, said it appeared to him that intelligence had been shaped 'from the top down.'" [Reuters, 5/30/03 ]

JUNE 6, 2003 – INTELLIGENCE HISTORIAN SAYS INTEL WAS HYPED: "The CIA bowed to Bush administration pressure to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs ahead of the U.S.-led war in Iraq , a leading national security historian concluded in a detailed study of the spy agency's public pronouncements." [Reuters, 6/6/03]

SO how many agencies and reports DOES it take to convince them?

If I have a report based on the interview of an insider that says you have WMDs, and I have another report that say that very same insider was not credible and that perhaps was giving answers to questions he thought we wanted to hear, Don't you think the connection is important enough to perhaps investigate further rather than to ignore it and pursue war?

If that was the only piece of evidence we were relying on, then yes.

But what you continue to ignore is the vast of amount of intelligence that said otherwise as well as the Iraqi's own admission to developing and possessing wmd's.

Seriously, Bushice...what is the problem here?

Do yuo seriously believe that this was the only piece of information that the decision to war rested on?

No, but given the overwhelming evidence that they simply ignored multiple reports indicating there was no justification for war in the form of WMDs, that relied upon sources were reported as not reliable and The BA pressured agencies to paint a false picture, I'd say that the problem is not with my interpretation, but yours.

[Mister Bushice]

You guys act as if I am the only person who feels this way about bush. Last I checked, a 37% approval rating would indicate otherwise.

What was the percentage of the American population that knew what Al Q was up to prior to 9-11 ?

We're talking about overall performance rating based on what he is doing now as president. What does Pre 9-11 have to do with it?

[Tom In VA]

You guys act as if I am the only person who feels this way about bush. Last I checked, a 37% approval rating would indicate otherwise.

What was the percentage of the American population that knew what Al Q was up to prior to 9-11 ?

We're talking about overall performance rating based on what he is doing now as president. What does Pre 9-11 have to do with it?

Opinions are like assholes, 37% of the assholes think Bush is doing a bad job, 67% percent of the assholes think Bush doing an okay job.

What percentage of the American Assholes have ALL the intel, to make an accurate assessment ... as opposed to a kneejerk opinion ?

This is one American Asshole who does not. Further, this is one asshole who will not join the 37% based solely on a carefully planned election strategy by the DNC.

Meanwhile, while all us assholes are busy doing what assholes do ... farting out our opinions .... Americans are busy killing and dying for one another, their service, and their countrymens' ability to fart freely.

i.e. They wouldn't be there if it wasn't considered to be in the best interest of this country. If time and history prove that this decision was not good for America and that the intel contradicting the other intel was more accurate, so be it. But you really have to work a bit harder to convince me a president of the U.S. would get kids killed for something other than national interests.

Looks like the stategy is working, the dems are winning, they'll take back some house seats next year and maybe the presidency in 2008, then guess what ?

Yep you guessed it, just like in the last Dem presidency, some other lunatic in the middle east will have nukes and the intel will go unquestioned, air strikes will ensue, and talk of regime change will go on.

Then when a Republican actually does it in 2012, the bitching and moaning will start again.

Sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.

[BSmack]

Opinions are like assholes, 37% of the assholes think Bush is doing a bad job, 67% percent of the assholes think Bush doing an okay job.

What percentage of the American Assholes have ALL the intel, to make an accurate assessment ... as opposed to a kneejerk opinion ?

That would be me. From now on if you could just clear your posts through me that would be great.

Oh, and I'm going to need you to come in on Saturday. Those TPS reports are just piling up.

[DrDetroit]

Bushice:

I didn't say you were arguing abotu it, I'm saying you're responses make it seem as if this is absolutely new information about Bush, and totally unbelievable.

Bushice, where did I suggest anything like that?

Come on...don't pull this crap, you know what our argument is, so don't bastardize it.

Like I said. This is not just about me and the way I feel. It is the way the majority of Americans feel about him.

Do not presume that the 60+% that disapprove of the job that he's doing agree with you that he supposedly "ignored" intelligence that he didn't agree with or that he won't apologize for what you think he should, etc.

Proposed a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages based on his belief that it violates the bibles interpretation of Gods view of man and woman as the only combination acceptable.

Financing his faith based initiative with Taxpayer dollars and opening the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

His intent to seek a constitutional ban on abortions based on his personal religious beliefs.

1) The Clinton administration also utilized faith-based programs, it just didn't open an office dedicated to that. Was that also a reflection of Clinton slamming religion down our throats?

As well, FEMA has long had relationships with religious groups to use their facilities and for those groups to provide disaster relief services. Is that, too, a reflection of slamming religion down our throats?

Of course not on both.

2) using religious faith to inform your understanding of public policy is not a crime nor is it akin to pushing a religious agenda on America.

And on the abortion angle, yes, Bush certainly agrees that abortion is morally wrong, but notice that while Governor he did not attempt to significantly regulate abortions. He recognizes that Roe is wrong not because of a religious conviction, but because Roe is the centerpiece of legislating from the bench and that if it was overturned it would dump the decisionmaking to the state level.

3) These three things, taken together, hardly constitute an agenda of turning this country into a theocracy.

Signed a bill keeping Terri Shiavo alive against the will of her husband.

This wasn't a religious issue, dumbass...no matter if you try to mischaracterize it as such.

The report was sent to the office, and yet the intel from it was ignored.

How the fuck would you know it was ignored?

Come on, Bushice, knock off this bullshit. You do not know what happened to it.

You're simply concluding that because the pres went to war he had to ignore this data. That's the knee-jerk reaction. A more sober consideration would indicate that when considered along with all the other intelligence (you know, from 13 American intellignece agencies, the UN, not to mention Britain, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, Israel, and Jordan) that this one piece, whicle discounting the credibility of a single source, didn't undermine the rest of the intelligence on the matter.

It's funny how you determine that if a policy you agree with is not followed, it must mean that the decisionmaker just ignored the information you think should turned the decision....that's knee-jerk reax.

SO how many agencies and reports DOES it take to convince them?

The entire US intelligence community signed of on the Special national Intelligence Estimate re: Iraq's wmd programs.

Why do you people continue to ignore this???

No, but given the overwhelming evidence that they simply ignored multiple reports indicating there was no justification for war in the form of WMDs, that relied upon sources were reported as not reliable and The BA pressured agencies to paint a false picture, I'd say that the problem is not with my interpretation, but yours.

Um, what do you not get about all thirteen intelligence agencies approving the SNIE? Do you ever wonder why Tenet told Bush the wmd intelligence was a "slam dunk?"

Do you ever wonder why Bush's conclusions re: this intelligence squared with the Clinton administration?

Because every US intelligence agency agreed that Iraq possessed and was developing wmd's.

As for pressuring these agencies...why are you lying? Do you not remember the conclusion of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee that concluded that the administration did not pressure analysts?

Now that's called ignoring the evidence. You know it's out there, but you decide to repeat the same lie despite the evidence to the contrary.

[Tom In VA]

Opinions are like assholes, 37% of the assholes think Bush is doing a bad job, 67% percent of the assholes think Bush doing an okay job.

What percentage of the American Assholes have ALL the intel, to make an accurate assessment ... as opposed to a kneejerk opinion ?

That would be me. From now on if you could just clear your posts through me that would be great.

Oh, and I'm going to need you to come in on Saturday. Those TPS reports are just piling up.

What about the cover sheet ?

RACK