CIA Faulted for giving GWB bad intel

[crwtom 0]

lying - maybe not

superficial and not on top of his game - anytime

if you're happy with a slam dunk gesture without cross-examination and
don't get puzzled and inquisitive that every other intelligence agency in the
world appears to come up with different threat assessment for a decision
of this magnitude you're either a pretty sloppy mind or simply cherry picking.
Definitely not an indication of sound leadership.

Incidentally, if Tenet managed to survive for this long and Rumsfeld escaped
Abu Ghraib without much of a scratch, what makes people think Bush will
replace Cheney as Veep in the last minute?

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[Ron 10]

Quote

Didn't suggest that at all! You keep a very careful eye on him and make sure that, if he tries to destroy you, he will fail miserably.

We did watch him for 10 years.

Quote

Take a look at what Bush is currently doing with Kim Jong Il, a man who has stated on several occasions that he will destroy the US (and whose country fought against us in the Korean War.) Is he dropping bombs, killing civilians, launching ICBM's against a nuclear power that has threatened to destroy us?

Nope, he's offering a trade package - aid (in the form of food and fuel oil) if they discontinue their nuclear program. That's a good move, I think. We get what we want, he gets what he wants, and no one dies from a US bombing campaign.

Are we "appeasing a terrorist?" "being conciliatory towards a madman?" Perhaps. But you can always bomb later; peace is a much better option of first resort.

Lil' Kim did not support terroists. SH did with his giving of money to the families of Suicide bombers.

NK is so broke they can't do much at all. NK is quite contained.

Iraq was not. SH supported terroists, and he had money.

While I can see you trying to draw the comparison....They are not the same situation.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,114]

>We did watch him for 10 years.

Agreed. And he did not try to destroy us. Didn't launch so much as a cruise missile towards the US (although he did attack our ally before that.) Had he done so, the war would have happened a lot sooner, and I would have supported it.

>Lil' Kim did not support terroists. SH did with his giving of money to the
>families of Suicide bombers.

We gave him WMD's! It's absolutely amazing how people can complain about Saddam giving terrorists money, given that we gave him WMD's to kill Iranians for us, and given that we gave the Mujahideen hundreds of times more money and weapons that he did. Sort of like Canada complaining that Americans drink too much beer.

>NK is so broke they can't do much at all. NK is quite contained.

Uh, Ron? They have NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Real ones, not pretend ones like Saddam had. They are threatening to test them. They have missiles to carry them. Think a nuke in Anchorage wouldn't do much at all?

Besides, which do you think is more dangerous? A prosperous country with nuclear deterrent, or a dictator of a dirt-poor country with nothing to lose and six missiles to fire at will?

>Iraq was not. SH supported terroists, and he had money.

PRK has been shipping missile parts to Iran, Iraq and Syria. I know suicide bombers concern you, but don't missiles that can reach our troops and ships concern you more?

>While I can see you trying to draw the comparison....They are not the
>same situation.

Agreed there. North Korea is a much more serious situation, because they _can_ hurt us. Per intelligence sources they have IRBM's, working nukes, and are close to an ICBM. Now, given that all that intelligence is a little suspect lately - they are still a much graver concern than a guy who sent money to dead suicide bomber's families.

[Trent 0]

Damn, got in so late here that you'll probably never see my response... anyway...

Quote

Now what if there is another giant organization who's specific job it is to find thieves, and they are telling you there is no evidence that he is a thief. That they have been specifically looking at the guy and investigating him for years. What if many of your peers are telling you this guy is not a thief.

What if you only believed what you wanted to hear. what if you only gave credibility to the "facts" that fit your story.

... Or how about this: That giant other organization that can't seem to find anything wrong with the guy you think is a theif, is being swayed by people you know are in business with the theif. What do you do then?

Oh, hello again!

[TheAnvil 0]

Quote

>Lil' Kim did not support terroists. SH did with his giving of money to the
>families of Suicide bombers.

We gave him WMD's! It's absolutely amazing how people can complain about Saddam giving terrorists money, given that we gave him WMD's to kill Iranians for us,

These are two unrelated events. Two completely different foreign policy issues. 444 days - remember? I do.

Quote

and given that we gave the Mujahideen hundreds of times more money and weapons that he did.

That little thing called the Cold War. That line would work on the uneducated who remember little of that time period - another fine example of the left thriving on the ignorance of the public. On me - no way. You know better Bill.

Quote

Uh, Ron? They have NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Real ones, not pretend ones like Saddam had. Ones they've tested. They have missiles to carry them. Think a nuke in Anchorage wouldn't do much at all?

Comparing the NK situation to that of Iraq is like comparing apple fritters to my testicles. Though I'm not flexible enough to lick my balls, I'm sure they wouldn't taste like apple fritters in any manner.

NK is a totally different sitation/scenario than Iraq in so many respects it isn't even possible to compare them in a one or two page brief - much less here.

Quote

Besides, which do you think is more dangerous? A prosperous country with nuclear deterrent, or a dictator of a dirt-poor country with nothing to lose and six missiles to fire at will?

Horrid. Horrid. Horrid bit attempt at logic.

Quote

PRK has been shipping missile parts to Iran, Iraq and Syria. I know suicide bombers concern you, but don't missiles that can reach our troops and ships concern you more?

Ahhhh..that is a cause for concern. Good Bill. Thought you'd drank too much - without inviting the rest of us.

Quote

Agreed there. North Korea is a much more serious situation, because they _can_ hurt us. Per intelligence sources they have IRBM's, working nukes, and are close to an ICBM. Now, given that all that intelligence is a little suspect lately - they are still a much graver concern than a guy who sent money to dead suicide bomber's families.

Horrid comparison. True enough about their missile tech though.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Trent 0]

Quote

Comparing the NK situation to that of Iraq is like comparing apple fritters to my testicles. Though I'm not flexible enough to lick my balls, I'm sure they wouldn't taste like apple fritters in any manner.

I just thought that was worth repeating. I too doubt my testicles taste like apple fritters.

Funniest thing I've heard in a while. Thanks!

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,114]

>These are two unrelated events.

Saddam giving people money to fanatic islamic terrorists has nothing to do with us giving money and weapons to fanatic islamic terrorists? OK.

>That little thing called the Cold War.

Exactly. We had a good reason to arm fanatic religious terrorists. Saddam did the same thing we did; we just didn't think he had a good reason (his hatred of Israel.)

>That line would work on the uneducated who remember little of that time period . . .

Actually it does. Most people don't know we armed the Mujahideen period. So I guess they are at risk for learning that when I talk to them. If ignorance is bliss, I guess I'm guilty of making those people a little less blissful.

>Comparing the NK situation to that of Iraq is like comparing apple fritters
> to my testicles. Though I'm not flexible enough to lick my balls, I'm sure
>they wouldn't taste like apple fritters in any manner.

Ah, but if the apple fritters are in your hands, no one will accuse you of having apples in your cheeks! At least you don't have flies in your eyes.

>Horrid. Horrid. Horrid bit attempt at logic.

It may scare you, but I think it is worth thinking about - because dictators of dirt poor countries (especially crazy ones) go from an amusing nuisance to a very serious threat when they get nuclear weapons and missiles.

[Zennie 0]

The reason I've branded the GWD Administration liars is because they have been playing "musical justifications" for the war since day 1.

OK, so taking thta report at face value, at least on the WMD front they weren't liars... they were just incredibly inept in such paltry matters as foreign intelligence.

For some reason that isn't making me feel a whole lot better.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

And once again the Bush administration is saved from blame by finding someone else who screwed up worse than they did! "Hey, so we were wrong, but the CIA was REALLY wrong.

I suppose you're right. However, you should be aware that the Senate Intelligence Committe is split almost 50/50, Republican and Democrat. It's not as though it was a collection of Bush's best friends that wrote the report.

From a CNN article

Quote

Some GOP lawmakers on the panel successfully blocked Democratic efforts to finish the second part of the report -- how the Bush administration used the information from the intelligence community -- until after the November elections.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kiltboy 0]

I thought the State of the Union Address stated that the British had intelligence on Iraq attempting to get uranium from Niger.
Prior to that statement I believe the CIA had investigated the British claim and found no evidence to support the British claim.
I also thought that the documents had been shown to be forged.

Why then would a President state what was factually correct (i.e. the British claim to have intelligence showing that Iraq is trying to get uranium)
when his own intelligence agency had investigated the claims and found nothing and the other documents were forged? Maybe not lying but possibly used to provoke an emotional response of fear/anger when there was cause to doubt those claims. Provoking fear and anger to generate support for a war?

Just a thought.
David

[TheAnvil 0]

How did you know I was scratching my balls? Dear God. If my balls do taste like apple fritters, why hasn't some chick told me before now? Dammit. Nobody tells me anything.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,114]

> How did you know I was scratching my balls?

Cause you have those apple cheeks and all. It was the logical conclusion.