Originally posted by: conjur
I'd like to read that, myself. But, I'm just not a big fan of people that praise the likes of Wolfowitz.Originally posted by: ElFenix
the USSR's own archives give credit to reagan. go read 'we now know' by john lewis gaddis.Originally posted by: BBond
There are theories relating to the break up of the USSR and end of the Cold War that don't give Reagan all the credit he and his propagandists stole.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: conjur
I'd like to read that, myself. But, I'm just not a big fan of people that praise the likes of Wolfowitz.Originally posted by: ElFenix
the USSR's own archives give credit to reagan. go read 'we now know' by john lewis gaddis.Originally posted by: BBond
There are theories relating to the break up of the USSR and end of the Cold War that don't give Reagan all the credit he and his propagandists stole.
way to shoot the messenger :roll:
The "lies" came from faulty intel and there has already been an investigation into that. Or have you forgotten that already? It was also determined there was no pressure from Bush and his cronies to influence that intelligence either. Did you forget that too?Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe Hillary is just Gannon in drag too? Maybe a cow DID jump over the moon and should have been awarded the X-Prize? Maybe all the Democrats are actually little green aliens (c'mon, take a close look at Kerry) who are attempting to take over US government so they can kill all the humans on earth and have it for themselves.Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Maybe GWB was doing Gannon? Maybe that is why he got all of those day passes? Maybe you should write you congressmen and demand that the US govt spend $40Million to investigate EVERYTHING that they possibly can about GWB and then put him under oath to refute it all and see if he comes out without even the slightest hint of a lie that can be then used to impeach him?
I suggest we spend 120 million to find out the answers to all those questions. Enquiring minds want to know.
You are diverting again. Whitewater did not start out as an investigation into Clinton and Monica. If Clinton deserved an investigation then so does Dub. There are many credible complaints against this administration. They include the lies that led to 1650 dead American soldiers. That is a little more important than a land deal or a BJ.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The "lies" came from faulty intel and there has already been an investigation into that. Or have you forgotten that already? It was also determined there was no pressure from Bush and his cronies to influence that intelligence either. Did you forget that too?Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe Hillary is just Gannon in drag too? Maybe a cow DID jump over the moon and should have been awarded the X-Prize? Maybe all the Democrats are actually little green aliens (c'mon, take a close look at Kerry) who are attempting to take over US government so they can kill all the humans on earth and have it for themselves.Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Maybe GWB was doing Gannon? Maybe that is why he got all of those day passes? Maybe you should write you congressmen and demand that the US govt spend $40Million to investigate EVERYTHING that they possibly can about GWB and then put him under oath to refute it all and see if he comes out without even the slightest hint of a lie that can be then used to impeach him?
I suggest we spend 120 million to find out the answers to all those questions. Enquiring minds want to know.
You are diverting again. Whitewater did not start out as an investigation into Clinton and Monica. If Clinton deserved an investigation then so does Dub. There are many credible complaints against this administration. They include the lies that led to 1650 dead American soldiers. That is a little more important than a land deal or a BJ.
Huh? What are you talking about? The SIC is a bipartisan committee.Originally posted by: conjur
No, there hasn't been an independent investigation into the intel. And, the investigation that has been done did not address the pressure applied by the WH on intelligence agencies.
Maybe for the same reasons the MSM dropped the reporting on the AIPAC scandal as a non-issue when they found it had roots in the Clinton admin?Why do you think little Dougie went running away when the AIPAC scandal started making the papers?
Sure. Of course Bush should have doubted the intelligence coming from what was supposed to be the premier intelligence organization in the world. Or maybe the problem was that we believed it for years while Clinton was in office so why question the very same findings now?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Then at the very least Bush is incompetent? The old "Nobody told me???" defense is getting old. There is such a thing as "preponderance of evidence" and IMO there is enough damning evidence to justify an independat investigation.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sure. Of course Bush should have doubted the intelligence coming from what was supposed to be the premier intelligence organization in the world. Or maybe the problem was that we believed it for years while Clinton was in office so why question the very same findings now?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Then at the very least Bush is incompetent? The old "Nobody told me???" defense is getting old. There is such a thing as "preponderance of evidence" and IMO there is enough damning evidence to justify an independat investigation.
In order to blame Bush for faulty intel the Democrats would have had to taken the blame because it was from their admin where that intel originated and which practically everyone bought lock, stock, and barrel; without question. And you have to ask why Bush isn't being taken to task over it?
Take some time to think it through.
They were brought back in under Clinton's watch because after '98 they felt they were not getting any intel in what was happening in Iraq. And much later when the reports were finally deemed to be fabricated, HUMINT didn't pull the reports. They kept them circulating. That resulted in things like this:Originally posted by: conjur
How do you explain Chalabi and the INC and people like "Curveball"? Chalabi and the INC were kicked out by the CIA in 1996. They were brought back in by Feith. And, we now know that almost all of the "intelligence" came from one or two sources, one of which was "Curveball". To lay the blame on intel on members of the Clinton administration is total hogwash.
Statements about biological weapons also appeared in Administration statements about Iraq in the months preceding the war. Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003, relied on the same human sources relied upon in the NIE. 258 Secretary Powell was not informed that one of these sources-- the INC source --had been judged a fabricator almost a year earlier. And as will be discussed at length below, serious doubts about Curveball had also surfaced within CIA's Directorate of Operations at the time of the speech--but these doubts also were not communicated to Secretary Powell before his United Nations address.[q/]
It's all there in the Robb-Silberman report. You may want to read it...again, to get your facts straight.
::sigh::Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sure. Of course Bush should have doubted the intelligence coming from what was supposed to be the premier intelligence organization in the world. Or maybe the problem was that we believed it for years while Clinton was in office so why question the very same findings now?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Then at the very least Bush is incompetent? The old "Nobody told me???" defense is getting old. There is such a thing as "preponderance of evidence" and IMO there is enough damning evidence to justify an independat investigation.
In order to blame Bush for faulty intel the Democrats would have had to taken the blame because it was from their admin where that intel originated and which practically everyone bought lock, stock, and barrel; without question. And you have to ask why Bush isn't being taken to task over it?
Take some time to think it through.
Well, let's start an investigation anyway. Who knows what might turn up??
Seriously, even if the Dem's could muster support for an investigation, how in the hell would one investigate the CIA?? It would be like trying to investigate J. Edgar Hoover.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
::sigh::Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sure. Of course Bush should have doubted the intelligence coming from what was supposed to be the premier intelligence organization in the world. Or maybe the problem was that we believed it for years while Clinton was in office so why question the very same findings now?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Then at the very least Bush is incompetent? The old "Nobody told me???" defense is getting old. There is such a thing as "preponderance of evidence" and IMO there is enough damning evidence to justify an independat investigation.
In order to blame Bush for faulty intel the Democrats would have had to taken the blame because it was from their admin where that intel originated and which practically everyone bought lock, stock, and barrel; without question. And you have to ask why Bush isn't being taken to task over it?
Take some time to think it through.
Well, let's start an investigation anyway. Who knows what might turn up??
Seriously, even if the Dem's could muster support for an investigation, how in the hell would one investigate the CIA?? It would be like trying to investigate J. Edgar Hoover.
There was already an investigation by a bipartisan Senate Committee. The findings from that investigation are in the URL linked in my post above. It covers a wide range of topics including the CIA. You might want to check it out as it seems you don't even know it exists.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
::sigh::Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sure. Of course Bush should have doubted the intelligence coming from what was supposed to be the premier intelligence organization in the world. Or maybe the problem was that we believed it for years while Clinton was in office so why question the very same findings now?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Then at the very least Bush is incompetent? The old "Nobody told me???" defense is getting old. There is such a thing as "preponderance of evidence" and IMO there is enough damning evidence to justify an independat investigation.
In order to blame Bush for faulty intel the Democrats would have had to taken the blame because it was from their admin where that intel originated and which practically everyone bought lock, stock, and barrel; without question. And you have to ask why Bush isn't being taken to task over it?
Take some time to think it through.
Well, let's start an investigation anyway. Who knows what might turn up??
Seriously, even if the Dem's could muster support for an investigation, how in the hell would one investigate the CIA?? It would be like trying to investigate J. Edgar Hoover.
There was already an investigation by a bipartisan Senate Committee. The findings from that investigation are in the URL linked in my post above. It covers a wide range of topics including the CIA. You might want to check it out as it seems you don't even know it exists.
I've already heard all that crap, it's old news. It doesn't change the fact that, in my opinion and disregarding official reports to the contrary because I'm desperate to see Bush take a fall because I personally can't stand him and my partisan bias is on display like a peacock's tailfeathers, the Administration exagerated every scrap of intel that supported their case for the invasion of Iraq.
Whoa. Stop RIGHT HERE.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They were brought back in under Clinton's watch because after '98 they felt they were not getting any intel in what was happening in Iraq.Originally posted by: conjur
How do you explain Chalabi and the INC and people like "Curveball"? Chalabi and the INC were kicked out by the CIA in 1996. They were brought back in by Feith. And, we now know that almost all of the "intelligence" came from one or two sources, one of which was "Curveball". To lay the blame on intel on members of the Clinton administration is total hogwash.
If Special Plans was going to search for new intelligence on Iraq, the most obvious source was defectors with firsthand knowledge. The office inevitably turned to Ahmad Chalabi?s Iraqi National Congress. The I.N.C., an umbrella organization for diverse groups opposed to Saddam, is constantly seeking out Iraqi defectors. The Special Plans Office developed a close working relationship with the I.N.C., and this strengthened its position in disputes with the C.I.A. and gave the Pentagon?s pro-war leadership added leverage in its constant disputes with the State Department. Special Plans also became a conduit for intelligence reports from the I.N.C. to officials in the White House.
There was a close personal bond, too, between Chalabi and Wolfowitz and Perle, dating back many years. Their relationship deepened after the Bush Administration took office, and Chalabi?s ties extended to others in the Administration, including Rumsfeld; Douglas Feith, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy; and I. Lewis Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney?s chief of staff. For years, Chalabi has had the support of prominent members of the American Enterprise Institute and other conservatives. Chalabi had some Democratic supporters, too, including James Woolsey, the former head of the C.I.A.
There was another level to Chalabi?s relationship with the United States: in the mid-nineteen-nineties, the C.I.A. was secretly funnelling millions of dollars annually to the I.N.C. Those payments ended around 1996, a former C.I.A. Middle East station chief told me, essentially because the agency had doubts about Chalabi?s integrity.
Libby and Feith. Boom! PNAC.Chalabi also claims that the Silberman-Robb commission found that INC-related sources had a minimal impact on the Bush administration's pre-war assessments. This is true only with respect to the formal intelligence assessments the commission was charged with examining. His assertion sidesteps two equally critical issues:
-The commission did not examine the use of INC-supplied defectors? claims by the Bush administration, which also was receiving some materials directly from the INC's U.S.-funded Information Gathering Program -- unfiltered for accuracy by the Intelligence Community. In a June 26, 2002, letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee staff, the INC itself reported that it was providing information directly to a senior official in the office of the vice president and to another one in the office of the secretary of defense.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
::sigh::Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sure. Of course Bush should have doubted the intelligence coming from what was supposed to be the premier intelligence organization in the world. Or maybe the problem was that we believed it for years while Clinton was in office so why question the very same findings now?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Then at the very least Bush is incompetent? The old "Nobody told me???" defense is getting old. There is such a thing as "preponderance of evidence" and IMO there is enough damning evidence to justify an independat investigation.
In order to blame Bush for faulty intel the Democrats would have had to taken the blame because it was from their admin where that intel originated and which practically everyone bought lock, stock, and barrel; without question. And you have to ask why Bush isn't being taken to task over it?
Take some time to think it through.
Well, let's start an investigation anyway. Who knows what might turn up??
Seriously, even if the Dem's could muster support for an investigation, how in the hell would one investigate the CIA?? It would be like trying to investigate J. Edgar Hoover.
There was already an investigation by a bipartisan Senate Committee. The findings from that investigation are in the URL linked in my post above. It covers a wide range of topics including the CIA. You might want to check it out as it seems you don't even know it exists.
I've already heard all that crap, it's old news. It doesn't change the fact that, in my opinion and disregarding official reports to the contrary because I'm desperate to see Bush take a fall because I personally can't stand him and my partisan bias is on display like a peacock's tailfeathers, the Administration exagerated every scrap of intel that supported their case for the invasion of Iraq.
fixed
porn links in anandtech forums?Originally posted by: daclayman
Obstruction of justice? He lied to save his marriage or whatever reason. Some of should realign your gray matter:
hhhmmmm
GWB won't be held accountable because his party control's the Senate. /thread
I don't read Hersh for the same reason I don't listen to Limbaugh. They both begin with a paricular bias and then search out that which supports that bias. Sure, Limbaugh is more FOS, but being less FOS doesn't mean Hersh isn't FOS at all.Originally posted by: conjur
Whoa. Stop RIGHT HERE.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They were brought back in under Clinton's watch because after '98 they felt they were not getting any intel in what was happening in Iraq.Originally posted by: conjur
How do you explain Chalabi and the INC and people like "Curveball"? Chalabi and the INC were kicked out by the CIA in 1996. They were brought back in by Feith. And, we now know that almost all of the "intelligence" came from one or two sources, one of which was "Curveball". To lay the blame on intel on members of the Clinton administration is total hogwash.
The INC was brought back in under THIS president's watch, NOT Clinton. This is proof-positive you've not read one word of:
THE STOVEPIPE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq?s weapons.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Donald Rumsfeld has his own special sources. Are they reliable?
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_factIf Special Plans was going to search for new intelligence on Iraq, the most obvious source was defectors with firsthand knowledge. The office inevitably turned to Ahmad Chalabi?s Iraqi National Congress. The I.N.C., an umbrella organization for diverse groups opposed to Saddam, is constantly seeking out Iraqi defectors. The Special Plans Office developed a close working relationship with the I.N.C., and this strengthened its position in disputes with the C.I.A. and gave the Pentagon?s pro-war leadership added leverage in its constant disputes with the State Department. Special Plans also became a conduit for intelligence reports from the I.N.C. to officials in the White House.
There was a close personal bond, too, between Chalabi and Wolfowitz and Perle, dating back many years. Their relationship deepened after the Bush Administration took office, and Chalabi?s ties extended to others in the Administration, including Rumsfeld; Douglas Feith, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy; and I. Lewis Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney?s chief of staff. For years, Chalabi has had the support of prominent members of the American Enterprise Institute and other conservatives. Chalabi had some Democratic supporters, too, including James Woolsey, the former head of the C.I.A.
There was another level to Chalabi?s relationship with the United States: in the mid-nineteen-nineties, the C.I.A. was secretly funnelling millions of dollars annually to the I.N.C. Those payments ended around 1996, a former C.I.A. Middle East station chief told me, essentially because the agency had doubts about Chalabi?s integrity.
"Information Gathering Program?"And how about this:
http://cjr.org/issues/2005/3/letters.aspLibby and Feith. Boom! PNAC.Chalabi also claims that the Silberman-Robb commission found that INC-related sources had a minimal impact on the Bush administration's pre-war assessments. This is true only with respect to the formal intelligence assessments the commission was charged with examining. His assertion sidesteps two equally critical issues:
-The commission did not examine the use of INC-supplied defectors? claims by the Bush administration, which also was receiving some materials directly from the INC's U.S.-funded Information Gathering Program -- unfiltered for accuracy by the Intelligence Community. In a June 26, 2002, letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee staff, the INC itself reported that it was providing information directly to a senior official in the office of the vice president and to another one in the office of the secretary of defense.
Originally posted by: conjur
Putting Hersh in the same sentence as Limbaugh just shows how unwilling you are to read and listen to facts.
Michael Jackson has a bunch of awards too. Big deal. Hersh panders to the left and people like you, so of course you'd think he's some sort of god of righeousness.Originally posted by: Steeplerot
That is such BS Hersch has credibility in every aspect of journalism and over a dozen major journalism awards, including the Pulitzer Prize.
/waves at the black potCredible to everyone except partisan hacks and freeper whackos like you...
/waves at the black potWith no respect for anything that does not fit your agenda...
Neither appear as full of hate as folks like you.What the hell does limbaugh have? nothing but a impending jail sentence and a captive audience. oh yeah and the sores on his ass.
It's so lame when you people try to smear by assosiation,
This is another case of right wing misleading like the old michael moore is just as rabidly full of hate and spite as Ann coulter sh1t...
Done with your pitfull little rant? Feel better now? Good. Maybe you should loosen the laces on your thigh-highs and let some of that blood flow from your big head, son?MM: The war in Iraq was based on lies.
VS.
AC: The terrorists should take out the new york times office building so we can watch the liberals (in other words fellow americans she does not agree with) all DIE. hahahaha!
get a grip....there is a huge diffrence and your assosiations are as full as sh1t as the rest of the right wing media.
Yeah...a shill for the left. :roll:Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Like I already said, being less FOS than Limbaugh doesn't mean Hersh is not FOS. He's a shill for the left and has his agenda, just like Limbaugh does for the right. Just because he tells you what you want to hear it doesn't mean he's telling you the facts, or at least all the facts. Hersh's specialty is telling people only the facts he wants them to hear and ommitting the rest.Originally posted by: conjur
Putting Hersh in the same sentence as Limbaugh just shows how unwilling you are to read and listen to facts.