Originally posted by: bluestrobe
1. Clinton wasn't impeached, he finished his term.
True.
2. Iraq financed Hezbollah; ties have been found over there but "mysteriously" haven't been found on most media outlets.
Hunh? Show us some proof on that. It was Ira
n that was funding Hezbollah and was linked to the Khobar Towers attack.
9/11 Panel Links Al Qaeda, Iran
Bin Laden May Have Part in Khobar Towers, Report Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6581-2004Jun25.html
3. Major media outlets are bias and people use them for secure and sure news. Get a clue.
Again, true. What is seen on TV only remotely resembles the full truth.
4. Most who post here probably haven't been to Iraq or even talked to a ground level soldier who saw why we are over there.
Probably so but plenty of us have, at least spoken to someone who served in Iraq.
5. Iraq had training camps for "improvised" combatants. The US and other countries don't train people on how to hole up in an aircraft to fight off rescuers or how to gain information by causing pain. I talked to a squad that saw this camp which was about 20 miles north of Baghdad. People who were enrolled here were civilians and even from other countries. This type of camp would support GWB in his goal so that?s why none of the major news outlets mention it.
Please don't tell me you're dredging up that ol' Salman Pak thing again. Are you? :roll:
6. Anyone here talk to an Iraqi? Probably not. Against what most major news circles say, Iraqis like us over there and to mention to them we are leaving soon they show great fear. You can't gather much true information sitting in your computer chair or around the water cooler at work.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA! Most Iraqis want us the fvck out. Over two years of occupation and they are beyond sick and tired of us over there.
7. GWB didn't know about the false intelligence. This false intelligence stemmed from the Clinton era and those who say "that was old intel". Most intel is based on past factors and sometimes intel can't be gathered in months or even years when the previous administration cut intelligence down to less than a dozen people for Iraq.
:roll: How woefully misinformed you are.
As I posted to TLC *in this very thread*
Whoa. Stop RIGHT HERE.
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_fact
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.
The new Pentagon papers - By Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/
And how about this:
http://cjr.org/issues/2005/3/letters.asp
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.
Libby and Feith. Boom! PNAC.
8. GWB was voted in, so was the senate. If you don't like it, Canada and Mexico have plenty of room.
There's much debate about that. Choicepoint? Diebold? ES&S? Ken Blackwell? Ringing any bells?
I rather like it here in the U.S. I'll work on getting the fvcking criminals out of our government.
edit: don't ask for links or sources. I've already wasted enough time trying to turn the tide of the brainwashing haters have done.
IOW, you're full of sh*t.