storm1977 0 #1 July 14, 2004 OK... question I have heard going around and yet haven't heard an answer. The Senate voted to go into IRAQ. They did this based on Intel from the CIA and FBI. THis same Intel they based their decision on is said to be bad. So, who over sees the Intel and the CIA??? The Senate Intelligence Committee is a group formed for the sole purpose of Checking and balancing what is to be discerned from the information out of the FBI and CIA. Then why are these same people criticizing the president over WMD for the past year. Now these same people put out a report which says the President didn't know anymore than them. How is it that you can go after the president when it was your group that didn't do its job in the first place? (nonpartisian question) ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #2 July 14, 2004 >How is it that you can go after the president when it was your group > that didn't do its job in the first place? Because many people believe that the president, as commander in chief of the armed forces _and_ the one authorized to sign agreements and treaties with other countries, should be smart enough to make good decisions and judgement calls even when faced with potentially misleading and conflicting information. With great power comes great responsibility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #3 July 14, 2004 Right, but again he only had the info the SIC had. Those people too signed off on war. THe president can't just go attacking countries. THe senate voted on that. Now, isn't it pretty hypocritical of the members of the SIC to say anything???? In actuallity they Fucked up. It is there fault that they didn't do a better job overseeing the CIA info. Why isn't anyone criticizing them? Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #4 July 14, 2004 Chris, You're a smart guy. It's the "left" that will not criticize them and will put the blame at the feet of GWB. If a Democrat was president and made the same decision, the blame would go to the SIC. My question is, if everyone had bad intel (including Kerry and Edwards) then why is there so much finger pointing? True, GWB made his case based on the existence of WMD's (which I am still not convinced that they don't exist). Why is it no one will acknowledge that a brutal regime that murdered, tortured, raped and robbed its own people is gone? In my eyes, Hussein and his thugs were WMD's. Why is the left not demanding the UN do something about the brutal ethnic cleansing in the Sudan? Why is the left not investigating the UN in regard to the "oil for food" scandal? Something really smells here and I am surprised half the country is not noticing it. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #5 July 14, 2004 Well first of all more than Half the country is NOT noticing. There are several people reporting lots of WMD showed up in Syria. It is a fact that WMD from Iraq showed in Holland.... So, where did it come from. THere are WMD in Iraq, but the argument is that the programs to create more were noth there like the Intel said they would be. OK fair enough i will give them that. But why don't people in the SIC get fired when shit like this happens???? If this happened at my Job I would be fucked!!!! The Oil-for-food program...... THe truth needs to come out. Sorry, but we NEED to embarrass those involved. Contries known to be involved heavily France Germany Russia See the patern here????? Opposed to going into Iraq France Germany Russia Know to have sold aircraft parts to Iraq illegally France. hmmm .... Why won't the media move on any of this??? Even Fox has been quiet. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #6 July 14, 2004 WMD link - false Al Quaeda link - tenuous at best "We liberated the people of Iraq" - cool, BUT We could have done much more good with the money and American lives lost by investing the time and effort into fighting AIDS in sub Saharan Africa. 20 million are expected to die there from AIDS. US AIDS contribution: $15Billion Cost of Iraq war: $300Billion, 800+ American lives, 10,000+ Iraqi civilian lives.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #7 July 15, 2004 QuoteWe could have done much more good with the money and American lives lost by investing the time and effort into fighting AIDS in sub Saharan Africa. 20 million are expected to die there from AIDS. Do you mean to say that all the red ribbons the celebrities are wearing is not working? Shocking! _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #8 July 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteWe could have done much more good with the money and American lives lost by investing the time and effort into fighting AIDS in sub Saharan Africa. 20 million are expected to die there from AIDS. Do you mean to say that all the red ribbons the celebrities are wearing is not working? Shocking! What celebrities do with their money is not our business. What the government does with OUR money is our business.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #9 July 15, 2004 QuoteWhat celebrities do with their money is not our business. What the government does with OUR money is our business. But what about outspoken limousine riding socialist persons like Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand who live like kings and queens, yet tell us small folk what to do with our lives and money? Is that OUR business, or not? Got any thoughts on that? Does the concept of the word hypocrite enter your thoughts at all? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #10 July 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhat celebrities do with their money is not our business. What the government does with OUR money is our business. But what about outspoken limousine riding socialist persons like Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand who live like kings and queens, yet tell us small folk what to do with our lives and money? Is that OUR business, or not? Got any thoughts on that? Does the concept of the word hypocrite enter your thoughts at all? Neither Michael Moore nor Barbra Streisand has ever told me what to do with my life or my money. Your question is moot.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 July 15, 2004 Quote But what about outspoken limousine riding socialist persons like Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand who live like kings and queens, yet tell us small folk what to do with our lives and money? Is that OUR business, or not? Got any thoughts on that? Does the concept of the word hypocrite enter your thoughts at all? That's hysterical. In particular Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand are rich specifically because other people have found a certain value in what they do. They didn't bilk investors or employees out of millions of dollars like Ken Lay at Enron. If you want to look at the true evil in this country I suggest looking in company board rooms.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #12 July 15, 2004 QuoteOK... question I have heard going around and yet haven't heard an answer. The Senate voted to go into IRAQ. They did this based on Intel from the CIA and FBI. THis same Intel they based their decision on is said to be bad. So, who over sees the Intel and the CIA??? The Senate Intelligence Committee is a group formed for the sole purpose of Checking and balancing what is to be discerned from the information out of the FBI and CIA. Then why are these same people criticizing the president over WMD for the past year. Now these same people put out a report which says the President didn't know anymore than them. How is it that you can go after the president when it was your group that didn't do its job in the first place? (nonpartisian question) The DCI does not report to the SIC, he reports to POTUS. So as The Buck moves its way up the chain of command, it stops in the Oval Office, not in the Senate. If Bush did not like the way CIA was run, he could have asked for DCI's resignation the day he was installed as President. The report states there was no overt pressure to come up with bogus intel. What the report conspicuously fails to mention is the climate in this administration that if you're not with us you're agin us, and a low tolerance for dissenting opinion. This climate cannot but lead to the effects we now learn about, where any intel contary to accepted wisdom was ignored. "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" - Paul Simon.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sabr190 0 #13 July 15, 2004 "that if you're not with us you're agin us, and a low tolerance for dissenting opinion." I'm pretty sure this is called "politics", the guy with the most clout wins......... "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, or the one" - rehmwa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #14 July 16, 2004 Quote"that if you're not with us you're agin us, and a low tolerance for dissenting opinion." I'm pretty sure this is called "politics", the guy with the most clout wins......... When I was a kid there was this concept called "the loyal opposition". Now it seems that anyone disagreeing with POTUS is branded a traitor.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #15 July 16, 2004 Quote WMD link - false Al Quaeda link - tenuous at best "We liberated the people of Iraq" - cool, BUT We could have done much more good with the money and American lives lost by investing the time and effort into fighting AIDS in sub Saharan Africa. 20 million are expected to die there from AIDS. US AIDS contribution: $15Billion Cost of Iraq war: $300Billion, 800+ American lives, 10,000+ Iraqi civilian lives. The US sent more money for aids that the rest of the world countries combined. The WMD fact in not wrong and the link is getting stronger every day. Not to mention that the SIC found that there is a solid link to Iraq buying that Uranium yellow cake. The man Bush sent LIED to the papers and admitted it to the SIC. .....and it is in the report. Open your eyes"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #16 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteOK... question I have heard going around and yet haven't heard an answer. The Senate voted to go into IRAQ. They did this based on Intel from the CIA and FBI. THis same Intel they based their decision on is said to be bad. So, who over sees the Intel and the CIA??? The Senate Intelligence Committee is a group formed for the sole purpose of Checking and balancing what is to be discerned from the information out of the FBI and CIA. Then why are these same people criticizing the president over WMD for the past year. Now these same people put out a report which says the President didn't know anymore than them. How is it that you can go after the president when it was your group that didn't do its job in the first place? (nonpartisian question) The DCI does not report to the SIC, he reports to POTUS. So as The Buck moves its way up the chain of command, it stops in the Oval Office, not in the Senate. If Bush did not like the way CIA was run, he could have asked for DCI's resignation the day he was installed as President. The report states there was no overt pressure to come up with bogus intel. What the report conspicuously fails to mention is the climate in this administration that if you're not with us you're agin us, and a low tolerance for dissenting opinion. This climate cannot but lead to the effects we now learn about, where any intel contary to accepted wisdom was ignored. "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" - Paul Simon. You say the climate was with us or against us as if there was no dissenting at all. Cheney himself told the Pres NOT to go to the UN. Powel told Bush he didn't care he was going to the UN anyway, and so it was. I find what you say very difficult to believe. We are talking about a large group of people all looking at the same information and all coming up with the same answers. Infact several other Countries agreed the data were right. Now, Bush decided to do something about it. Many countries didn't want to act... Fine, but they did not dispute the Intel which said Iraq has and had WMD and were actively researching Nuclear capabilities. Even Mr. Blix agreed with that. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #17 July 16, 2004 QuoteYou say the climate was with us or against us as if there was no dissenting at all. Bush has said exactly that many times. QuoteI find what you say very difficult to believe. We are talking about a large group of people all looking at the same information and all coming up with the same answers. Except for everyone who disagreed and is no longer a part of the administration. Paul O'Neill....fired for disagreeing with Bush. Quote“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.” As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.” And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later. He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml Then there's Richard Clarke. Quote"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml Along with many others who have resigned. Richard Falkenrath for one. George Tenet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #18 July 16, 2004 HAHAHA Richard Clark.. Yeah..there's a realiable source. George Tenant !!! He was the Fucking problem. IMO he should have gone long ago. Let's not forget the Toricelli Principal(sp?) Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #19 July 16, 2004 QuoteHAHAHA Richard Clark.. Yeah..there's a realiable source. Care to ellaborate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #20 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteOK... question I have heard going around and yet haven't heard an answer. The Senate voted to go into IRAQ. They did this based on Intel from the CIA and FBI. THis same Intel they based their decision on is said to be bad. So, who over sees the Intel and the CIA??? The Senate Intelligence Committee is a group formed for the sole purpose of Checking and balancing what is to be discerned from the information out of the FBI and CIA. Then why are these same people criticizing the president over WMD for the past year. Now these same people put out a report which says the President didn't know anymore than them. How is it that you can go after the president when it was your group that didn't do its job in the first place? (nonpartisian question) The DCI does not report to the SIC, he reports to POTUS. So as The Buck moves its way up the chain of command, it stops in the Oval Office, not in the Senate. If Bush did not like the way CIA was run, he could have asked for DCI's resignation the day he was installed as President. The report states there was no overt pressure to come up with bogus intel. What the report conspicuously fails to mention is the climate in this administration that if you're not with us you're agin us, and a low tolerance for dissenting opinion. This climate cannot but lead to the effects we now learn about, where any intel contary to accepted wisdom was ignored. "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" - Paul Simon. You say the climate was with us or against us as if there was no dissenting at all. Cheney himself told the Pres NOT to go to the UN. Powel told Bush he didn't care he was going to the UN anyway, and so it was. I find what you say very difficult to believe. We are talking about a large group of people all looking at the same information and all coming up with the same answers. Infact several other Countries agreed the data were right. Now, Bush decided to do something about it. Many countries didn't want to act... Fine, but they did not dispute the Intel which said Iraq has and had WMD and were actively researching Nuclear capabilities. Even Mr. Blix agreed with that. Chris Please cite a reference, since the report by the IAEA said there was no evidence of a nuclear program.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
