BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..

Subject: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 11:18 PM

Like who couldn't see this coming.

Yep, a 511 page Senate Report released today, obsolves Bush of any wrong doing in the crap that he peddled in selling his attack on Iraq. Like, no mention of the countless phone calls and trips over the to CIA by Dick Cheney. No mention that Tenet initially said that the CIA had told the White House not to play the nuclear card. No mention that Hanz Blix said he was making progress with the Iraqi's with the inspections, or Scott Ritter's statements prior of the invasion.

Nope, nothing but blame for the intellegence folks... Poor George was just a victim... sniff... of bad intellegence...

Yeah, right.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: GUEST,John O'Lennaine
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 12:55 AM

It seems to me that Bush's duplicity has been too widely publicised, even in the mainstream media, for this kind of whitewash to do him anything but harm.

I mean, bullshit can only be stacked so high, surely?

John

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 12:59 AM

I don't buy it. Bobert, I and a dozen other-people saw the holes in the Iraq data even through thirty layers of bureaucracy before it reached ordinary citizens -- we were capable of analyzing the information we were given and seeing that it didn't hold together. So how is it a man entrusted with managing the entire nation didn't have enough brains to see those holes? Is he just dumber than a rock? No, I don't think that is the explanation, even if true. I suggest it was directly advantageous to other purposes of his own to buy this misdirection.

This him-culpa crap is for the birds and typical of the spineless style of this furless, nut-case impostor. So don't provoke me or I might tell you how I really feel.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Bo Vandenberg
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 02:01 AM

I'd hate to be part of the CIA right now. Everyone, I mean Everyone in the CIA must be thinking they are the fall guy for a rotten President. If Bush got bad intelligence before.....

I think Americans should kick him out, if only to get a chance at poking through all his lies.

The CIA peopole who have been public about Bush's push for info to attack IRAQ.

The meeting to discuss Iraq before 9/11.

Where are the misleading reports that the President is said to have acted on?

How does the CIA\FBI defend its reputation from a President who has none of his own?

Sigurd.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 02:16 AM

Bush is an idiot who's in over his head. He has advisors who are supposed to sift the data then present it to him in small words. The people who do that are putting spin on the info to further their agendas. Hell, what's new? America "elected" a President who can't read a map or remember a foreign leader's name. He is a joke. The White House needs a real cleaning. It is filthy and it stinks of treason. We still have unanswered questions about the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. That in itself is bullshit. No plane crashed there. The present American government (the White House component of it) is dirtier than it has been at any time in American history. Do the world a favor and vote that piece of shit OUT, and maybe the dirt will cling to him as he leaves.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 03:38 AM

Here's a Slate clipping from 2002:

=======
How the hawks plan to find a Saddam/al-Qaida connection.
By Fred Kaplan
Slate, Posted Monday, October 28, 2002, at 2:42 PM PT
You've got to hand it to Donald Rumsfeld and his E-Ring crew at the Pentagon. They know all the stratagems of bureaucratic politics, and they play the game well. In their latest maneuver, reported on the front page of last Thursday's New York Times, the secretary of defense has formed his own "four- to five-man intelligence team" to sift through raw data coming out of Iraq in search of evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida terrorists.

Rumsfeld has publicly continued to push this link as a prime—or at least the most easily sellable—rationale for going to war with Iraq, even after the CIA and the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency have dismissed the connection as tenuous at best. But Rumsfeld contends that the spy bureaucracies may have missed something. As his top team member, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, put it to the Times, there is "a phenomenon in intelligence work that people who are pursuing a certain hypothesis will see certain facts that others won't, and not see other facts that others will." Since Wolfowitz is one of Washington's most forceful advocates of a second Gulf War, we can safely predict that he will find the facts he needs to make his case.

=======

Did this Senate Report look at Rumfeld's intelligence group as well as the CIA? If not, why not? If so, did it come in for any criticism?

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: kendall
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 04:32 AM

Bush has an intelligence problem alright.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: GUEST,A plea to Americans
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 04:54 AM

Please vote Bush out of office in November - Not that he was really voted in the last time of course. I've no idea if Kerry will be much better, but he can't be worse. No hanging chads please!!

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: SINSULL
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 10:38 AM

If, in fact, poor little bush was mislead by the CIA and we do not, in fact, belong in Iraq, why doesn't he apologize and get us the hell out? Anybody have the body count to date for all sides? This on top of a slap on the wrist to the pilot who "accidentally" killed off a group of Canadians after being told to hold his fire. No jail time for murder and a $5500 fine collected from his pay.

Someone please explain to me how millions of Americans still think he is a great president? What am I missing?

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 10:54 AM

Sins:

To be fair, his claim was that he had not been briefed about Canadian operations in the region, but had been briefed that Taliban operations were on going; and it was a night flight, as well. Unless you have some data I do not.

Nevertheless I certainly agree with you about the so-called president.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 01:55 PM

Well, gol danged. I just finished reading an article in the Washington Post that implies very stronly that because this is a report by the Senate and *not* the 9/11 Commisssion's *final* report that the Bush folks see no reason why they should give up 2/3's of the Big Three (mushroom clouds, WMD and Saddam/Al Quida/9-11 Connection). And since the Comission's *final* report will not come out until after the election we'll be Bush pounding the WMD themes while Cheney pounds the Saddam/Al Quida Connection theme...

("As Rationales for War Erode, Issue of Blame Looms Large", by Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus, Washington Post, July 10, '04, Page A-1)

Boy, if this isn't a sad commentary of the dumb downdedness of the folks that Bush expects to vote for him then what is?

Bush: "Don't worry, Dick. Just keep hammering on that Al Quida thing and I'll work 'um with the WMD stuff."

Cheney: "Ahhhh, did you read the f**king paper this morning? It says right there that this stuff we've been telling folks ain't f**kin' true!"

Bush: "Not to worry, Dick. These folks that vote fir us ain't as smart as animal crackers."

Cheney: "F**kin'-A, they ain't. Hehe... hehe..."

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: DougR
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 06:08 PM

Geeze! You learn something new every day here on the Mudcat. I had NO idea, Amos, that you and several dozen others had access to the sensitive data that would enable one to determine that the intelligence Bush was receiving was faulty! Wow! What is the level of your security clearance? (or perhaps that's a military secret.)

Bobert: you are going to have a blast with the next phase of the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings. That one will examine the White House's use of the Intelligence it received. Unfortunately (for your side) the results won't be known until AFTER the presidential election. Sigh.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 06:20 PM

Geeze! You learn something new every day here on the Mudcat. I had NO idea, Amos, that you and several dozen others had access to the sensitive data that would enable one to determine that the intelligence Bush was receiving was faulty!

DougR --

Your sarcasm is even less functional than your ability to understand English or remember events.

Time after time in the ramp-up to the invasion of Iraq the argument was raised that the "go to war now!" rationale was based on false or omitted or distorted information. It had to be. In the real world, a place where perhaps your kind do not visit often, data hangs together in a way that is called making sense. When data does not make sense, the trick is to find out what has been left out, falsified, twisted, mis-evaluated, or whatever.

It takes a little experience and a good nose for bullshit to do this, granted, but the stink from Bush's barn is pretty fell and not hard to notice.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 06:43 PM

Doug, don't you find it just a little bit more than concidental that, not only was this part of the report released four months before the election, but that the part that could reflect badly on W has been delayed until after the election?

Diane Feinstein and Ron Wyden, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that wrote the report, held a press conference yesterday in which they barely refrained from making direct references to the droppings of certain domesticated barnyard animals. They wanted the whole report released at once and they believe there's still time to release the rest of it before November. But, as Wyden said, there's a math problem. The republicans have the nunmbers.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 07:15 PM

Doug understands the math. He's just so partisan that if Junior told him to jump off a cliff he'd do without a second thought. I find it interesting that he mentions that the final report won't be until after the election since in that comment there is at least an implication that he know his guy is a crook, but couldn't care less as long as his guy gets another 4 years.

Did I miss anything, Dougie?

Now come on over here and get a hug, Big Guy...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 08:29 PM

So when people said they didn't believe what Bush and Blair and co were telling us about all these things, we were told to belt up and accept that they knew much more about it because they had all this secret information. And now, when it turns out that the secret information wasn't information, but speculation and fantasy, we are told that they aren't to blame, because how could they be expected to be able to tell the difference?

It seems pretty evident that the people in charge of the "intelligence agencies" were in the business of supplying the "information" they knew was required of them, to provide a cover for their owners in government. (Just read this story from today's Observer - "Spy chiefs 'withdrew' Saddam arms claim", which includes an account of how the relevant British intelligence agency was put under pressure in this way.

"The crucial revelation concerns MI6's climbdown over the intelligence produced days after an anguished appeal from Downing Street for more convincing evidence for the dossier. Subsequently, John Scarlett - chair of the joint intelligence committee, which supervised the compiling of the dossier - hardened up the draft dossier's suggestion that Iraq 'probably' had more recently produced stocks of banned weapons to the assertion that it 'has' continued to produce them. That allowed Blair to make the dramatic claim in his foreword to the dossier that evidence received only 'in recent months' showed how serious the threat was. "

Would you buy a used war from these guys?

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 08:53 PM

Well, if you recall, McG, Bush spoke those "16 words" based on bogus British intellegence.

Why?

Because the CIA was telling him that Iraq hadn't tried to resurrect a nuclear program.

Heck, looking back, had some entry level secretary working for the government of Bangladesh said Saddam had nukes Bush would have used that in his State of the Union Address...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 12:16 AM

Yes, I was surprised at DougR too. By saying that it was unfortunate for our side that the report on the administration's use of intelligence will not be released until AFTER the election, he essentially admits that he believes that report will be damaging to Bush's chances. In other words, he too believes that Bush bungled things up, but supports him anyway. Interesting, ehh?

Or did you mean something else, Doug?

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 12:21 AM

I seem to recall it was explicitly announced in the news before we moved our forces in to Iraq at all that the CIA asserted there were no WMD in Iraq. Am I mistaken or did that happen?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 04:41 AM

Ah---now I get it----Doug is an Android!

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 12:11 PM

DougR sees it as point-scoring territory that a report he expects to expose his beloved president as a moron will not be published until after the moron has stood for re-election.

I don't want to criticise DougR too much for that view, because on the whole I'm glad he is here, to give some flavour of how the "pro-Bush" lobby think. But two questions arise. 1) Are Doug's arguments up there with the best that can be marshalled for the "pro-Bush" camp? And 2) Do millions more think as Doug does?

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: DougR
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 03:09 PM

I don't know, Peter, but I certainly hope so!

Amos, methinks your memory is playing tricks on you. I think the Senate Intelligence Committee would agree. The leadership of the whole free world (and I include France in that group) THOUGHT there were WMD in Iraq.

As to the results of the second half of the hearings not being released until after the election, even Sen. Jay Rockefellow admitted on Meet the Press this morning that it was far more important that the report be accurate is more important than the results being released before the election. There simply is not enough time to adequately cover the subject prior to the election.

I don't blame the Democrats for crying foul though. After all, everybody enjoys a little fishing expedition from time to time I guess. Never know what's going to show up on the hook, right?

The Democrats still have some leverage, though, even though the report will not have been done. Their whining, wringing of hands, and subtle references that the White House will be caught with their hands in the cookie jar are probably enough to convince some folks that it all boils down to a giant right-wing conspiracy. Not Mudcatters of course, because we Mudcatters are known for our even-handedness and fair judgements when it comes to things political. :>)

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 03:29 PM

A foul's a foul. If the delaying of that report is to the advantage of the incumbent, which it clearly is because it delays public presentation of a scandal, then there is grounds for suspicion, especially given that the Bush group has a long-standing reputation for double-dealing dishonesty and self-serving spin on everything.

DougR, you are sadly backing the wrong horse. Why do you trust a liar? A repeated liar? What do you get out of it?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 03:36 PM

Try
Defending pre-war intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, CIA director George Tenet says his analysts "never said there was an imminent threat." Tenet says intelligence analysts came to different conclusions on the state of Iraq's weapons programs -- and made those differences clear to the Bush administration.>this testimony by Tenet. He made it clear that no-one asserted imminent threat in the CIA's briefings.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: GUEST,Not surprised
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 04:47 PM

We here in Kansas could have saved the government a ton of money and time by writing the report the day after the committee was formed. Sen. Roberts is almost as much a Bush lover as DougR. And he has spent so many years lying to please Republican leaders that he wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the face.

We've put up with him here - we knew what the SOB would do.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 04:48 PM

"There simply is not enough time to adequately cover the subject prior to the election.

I just don't believe that to be the case, more especially as regards the salient issue, which is, how far was the White House in control of the decision to distort the evidence in a way that supported policies that had already been decided on.

The argument that "the leadership of the free world" may have been taken in by the fictions about WMDS is rather weakened when we take into account the inevitable impact of the fact that the USA, with it's enormous resources, was so evidently determined that Saddam had this capacity. "These guys are so certain, it must be true."   

And in the UK it appears pretty clear that the intelligence community was divided between operatives who were sceptical about the whole thing, and an executive that was committed to backing up the policy of the government - which was based on the position that it was imperative for the UK to stay on side with the USA. (For various reasons, probably including a hope that this might mean some kind of restraining influence on a very dangerous regime in Washington.)

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 06:17 PM

Damn, I should have tested that HTML before posting, sorry.

THe link was from February 2004.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 06:19 PM

No problem. The quote makes it clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 06:53 PM

In an earlier post, DougR suggested the completed report would be critical of Bush. It isn't absolutely clear from that whether Doug is acknowledging Bush to be a crook, but on who won't be esposed as such until it's too late, or is simply rubbishing those who are authoring the report. Maybe he could clear that up.

I'm willing to wait for the report before making up my mind about Bush, particularly since Kerry doesn't sound a lot better than Bush anyway. But what seems clear already is that US and UK intelligence (regardless of how and by whom it was interpreted) was hopelessly inadequate as the basis for a war. The lesson must be that even in this hi-tech age, there is no such thing as perfect intelligence, and therefore intelligence alone should never again be the basis for going to war.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 07:40 PM

I think it is grossly evasive to defer the second half of the report until later than November. I'd love to know the truth about how that decision was made!

Q

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 08:17 PM

Sorry , that wasn't Q, it was me -- first Vowel!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 10:49 PM

The final report will be nuthin' new, Amos... It will *not* condemn Bush. It will point to intellegence failures. If it were going to condemn Bush there's a lot of other folks who would have been called to testify. Richard Clark was the token hostile witness to a preceedign that had allready made up its mind and just wanted the correct cronies to parrot the lines.

Tenet and the CIA are gonna take the blame. Sho nuff...

Historians will have to sort out Bush's failures because the more he fails and screws up in the present the more praise his crew heaps on him. Next thing ya' know they are gonna rename the Earth after him...

(Yo, Bobert! They can't rename the Earth after him...)

Okay, he's still about half a dozen major screw ups away from renaming the Earth after him...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 11:13 PM

There's a hypothesis floating about, Bobert, that the reason Tent and several other higher-up CIAs resigned is so that they would be free to testify aegainst the government in placem which they would be constrained from doing while employed by it; because the CIA has gotten mightily browned off by BushCo's loose and free modus operandi.

Just a rumor, mind you...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 09:05 AM

Tenet will get a nice new pair of concrete flippers for the pool before these crooks will allow him anywhere near a microphone and under oath again...

Too late, Amos. He's allready done is performance and it was nuthin' more than a bloke taking a dive in a prize fight. Pure and simple...

The fix is in...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 01:53 PM

Let me see if I got this right.   A bi partisan committee on 9/11 which includes democratic flame throwers such a Richard Ben Venista reaches a unanamous conclusion that:
1.   BUSH DIDN'T LIE
2.   BUSH DIDN'T LIE
3.   BUSH DIDN'T LIE
4.   Discredits Richard Clark
5.   Validates the Niger yellow cake connection and discredits Wilson
    and his wife
6.   Blames CIA "lack of" intelligence- than you Toricelli & Clinton

And most mudcatters think this is bad for Bush.   For three years all you mudcatter have been telling us how stupid Bush is.   Now you are saying that no one could have been stupid enough to believe the CIA. Well no one except Kerry, Clinton, Allbright, Liebeman, Gore, and yes- the great Jay Rocefeller.   The only person on the commission that disagrees and contradicsts his own findings.   (would make a great Jacky Mason routine- "they have Wmd's but they don't have Wmd's- not those kind of Wmd's but these kinds of wmd's

Clinton said the exact same things about Iraq that Bush did.   The only difference is that Bush acted upon them- unless you want to count bombing an asperin factory.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 02:40 PM

I'm as little thrown off by your numbered list, Larry K. What points do 1, 2, 3...etc., refer to?

As to Bush lying, he is rarely known to do anything else. He has all the moral fiber of a road-flattenend skunk.

He didn't have the integrity to explain why he thought there were WMDs if he really believed it. He continues to assert his false assumptions long after they have been disproven. He repeatedly asserts the opposite of the actual effects he is creating (e.g., logging permissions, or the medicare bill).

Never mind, I feel like I am hollerin' at a stump.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 05:46 PM

I'm with you, Amos. I believe that Larry K done found the stash box that his wife hid from him... I don't have a clue where he came up with 1,2 oe 3...

And as fir the 9/11 Comission. It is a complete joke! It decided the outcome and has, with the lone exception of 2 hours of testimony byn Richard Clark, been involved in one big old fashioned circle jerk with each other with the world looking in as if they were doing something important...

Which of course, with the exception giving a few jollies to the partisans, they aren't. Like I said, what a complete joke. But they have figgured out that very few people could care less and will believe what they are told to believe, irrregardless of truth...

How quickly Americans forgot that George Tenet's orignial memories were that the CIA warned the White House not to play the nuclear card in the State of the Union Address... What happened to that part of the story. Oh, it has been revised. Normal. Reality no matter matters...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: DougR
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 06:06 PM

Rant on Amos! Probably good for your blood pressure.

I did not say that the second part of the Intelligence Committee's report would FIND Bush guilty of anything. What I meant, if it was not clear, is that the report being delayed just provides fodder to the Bush bashers who will continue to bray that Bush lied and single-handedly made the decision to invade Iraq. Congressional approval doesn't count I guess.

And Bobert, I think you have your hearing confused. Richard Clarke MAY have testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee (I would think that he probably did) but if so, I have read no reports as to what he testified. Clarke made his mark (so to speak)testifying before the 9/11 Committee.

And Amos: In Bob Woodward's book, titled, "Plan of Attack," which all liberals seem to love, he describes a meeting held on December 21 at the White House attended by the current acting director of the CIA, John McLaughlin, George Tenet, then CIA Director, President Bush, Cheany, Rice and Andy Card. The purpose for the meeting was for the CIA to present it's case for their being WMD in Iraq to the President. Quoting from page 249 -"When McLaughlin completed his report there was a look on the president's face of, What's this? And then a brief moment of silence. "Nice try, Bush said. "I don't think this is quite-it's not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from."
Card was also underwhelmed. Bush turned to Tenent. "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we've got?"

From the end of one of the couches in the Oval Office, Tenet rose up, threw his arms in the air. "It's a slam dunk case!" the DCI said.

Bush pressed. "George, how confident are you?"

Tenet, a basketball fan who attended as many home games of his alma mater Georgetown as possible, leaned forward and threw up his arms again. "Don't worry, it's a slam dunk!"

The President, the UN Secretary, Tony Blair, former President Clinton, even the leaders of Germany and France thought they were there.

Senator Jay Rockefellow Vice-Chair of the committee has been spending seemingly countless hours touring the Cable news shows stating that if the Senate knew then what it knows now, there never would have been a majority vote to approve invading Iraq. Ted Koppel, of "Nightline" took up the challenge and polled the Senate. Only two or three Senators would have changed his/her vote had they known then what they know now. Among those who would not have changed their votes were Hillery Clinton and Joseph Lieberman.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 06:14 PM

Aw sweet Jesus, DougR. Don't assault my sanity, wouldja? Telegrams from Wonderland I do not need. The Senate is corrupt, Tent was corrupt, the CIA is nuts and the White House is the leader of the whole giggle-ward. The lot of them should be rolled up in straitjackets and sent to redo grade-school Lessons in the Virtues.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 06:25 PM

Amos,

I think, IMO, that your last post ( 13 Jul 04 - 06:14 ) qualifies as tribal-think... You have stated ( I presume, in your opinion, as I see no proof) that the Senate is corrupt- So you will vote for who for president? Known corrupt individuals like Kerry and Edwards? Your rant seems to qualify as "reciting the mantras of the tribe"




"Tribal-think works that way. It is not the instance of the knwoedgeable indivgidual reaching a considered conclusion, but of the tribal recruit reciting the mantras fo the tribe. Thought of the group is the "right"thought, anything else is an aberration. Given this premise, evidence is not required."

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 06:25 PM

I said thre 9/11 Comission, Doug. Sorry about the thread drift. Hard to keep up with which Lieing Commissiion or Committee is busy concocting the next *most believeable lie*...

Now, let me ask you, Dougie. If you knew the truth about the mushroom cloud (which wasn't a threat) that we were warned about, the link to Al Quida (9/11) by Saddam (which didn't exist)we were warned about and these very scarey WMD (which don't appear to exist either) that we were arned about... would you still have been in favor if attacking Iraq?

Check only one:

Yes____

No_____

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 06:50 PM

Yeah, BB, you're right. I am beginning to sympathize with all the lame-brained cross-eyed asleep-at-the-lifetime idiots who like Bush's leadership all right. Or who think Wolfowitz is a wise counselor or that Cheny understands human compassion. And that whole post is my opinion. I am tired and sick of this sort of murderous complaisancy.

It is my opinion that our nation is being governed by idiots. For example, I heard one of these idiots standing up and saying how hard it was to support a Constitutional amendment mandating heterosexual marriage, he really hated to dfo it, but it had to be done because otherwise, the institution of marriage would be doomed and the American way of life threatened with extinction.

You offer a repressed and excluded minority -- people of differing sexual practices to yours -- the right to be included and it puts your way of life at risk? what kind of jungle-think is this? Of all the short-sighted, cross-eyed lamebrained reactionary crap I have ever heard, this handwringing and breastbeating in defense of the oppression of a minority is about the stupidest yet. One example of many.

It is further my opinion that you take delight in twisting things.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 08:02 PM

I don't mess with T-Lite much anymore, Amos, for some of the observations you have made that very much correspond with ones I have stated on other threads but...

...idoits? I'm not sure we're using the correct term here. Short-sighted? Well, yeah. Facist? Sho nuff are in lots of ways. Lacking compassion? Yup. Hypocritical? Check. Dangerous? Check. Greedy? Check. Dishonest? No brainer there. Racist? Well, inspite of their porch Negoes, yup. Corrupt? Mean? Killers? Thieves? Check, check, check and check....

I think we need to dig real deep and get beyond idiot. Idiot gives them an out. They don't deserve an out.

They talk of "personal responsibility" but run like "pigs from a gun" when its their turn to accept their share...

So throw in coward...

But idiot just doesn't do this bucnh credit. They've worked too hard to be dismissed as idiots.

Yer a smart guy, Amos, and surely know lots more words than they teach us in the mountains of Wes Ginny so I'm gonna hold you "personally responsible" fir coming up with a more appropriate label...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: DougR
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 08:06 PM

In answer to your question, Bobert, oh yes.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 08:56 PM

Good answer, Doug...

Ya' see, Bush seems to be runnin' short, ahhhh, on troops and, well, I was hopin' you'd feel that way...

Ahhhh, report to yer local recuitin' office Monday at 600 hours and no, you can't bring no Teddy Bears...

Sorry pal...

Jus' following orders...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 09:01 PM

Impeach Bush, the LSOS!!! IMPEACH BUSH!!! He is the Abombinational Snowjobman!!! I'm just another angry American expressing his First Ammendment Right to free speech as long as I can in this anti-American witch hunt climate..."I ain't no born-again, I [am a] born-again's son!"

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 02:46 PM

Amos-   The point in listing "Bush didn't lie" as number 1 & 2 & 3 was to get your (and others) attention.   For the past year all we have heard is that Bush lied, or that Bush lied and people died"   Many democrats kept pointing to the 9/11 commission telling us to just wait to that report comes out.   This will prove that Bush was a liar and a theif, and a murderer.    Many on this forum were rooting on Ben Vinista when he grilled Condi Rice.

Now the committee has filed an interim report with unanamous consent.   The report states ABSOLUTELY CLEARLY that Bush didn't lie, that Richard Clark was in error, that Thomas Wilson was self serving and also in error.   Rather than accept these findings or rethink your position, the first thing you do is discredit the commission and say they are all corrupt.   That fact that liberal attack dogs like Benvinista and Genette (forgot her name) agreed that Bush didn't lie speaks volume.   And you say that talking to me is like talking to a stump- pretty funny.   In the words of George Teenet you have just been "slam dunked" and your still claiming victory.

Bearded Bruce- brilliant point.   If the whole senate is corupt than why are they voting for two senators for president.   How dare you bring logic into the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 05:49 PM

I don't think any progressive would say that the whole Senate is corrupt. That sounds more like what we keep hearing from the neo-cons. Over gebneralizations.

Same for the charge that progressives have been saying "Wait until the 9/11 Comission's report". A PR slogan generated by the neo-cons of what they would like their voting base to be parroting.

Just like Bush "hating". More neocone PR generalizations.

Most of the folks here who represent the progressive movement have been all to willing to call the lies when they are told. We don't need a final report. It don't take a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows. The lies have been well enough covered by the press if one is willing to read beyond page 1, which progressives have learned to do.

Speaking of noecon PR crap: the "liberal press". What a joke. The lies go on Page 1, the retractions buried on page A23. What givesx there?

So, while I respect a good discussion of issues, the parroting of neocon, bumper sticker knee-jerk slogans just makes those of you willing to parrot them look just like that: parrots..l.

At least Teribus has dsomething to sayt that doesn't copme off a bumper sticker. The rest of you neocon parrots, I'm not too sure about...

Just an observation...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 06:20 PM

Larry:

Thanks for the calm and apparently rational post.

However, Mister Bush is responsible for many lies, both literal and by intent.

When he said that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction, it was a falser statement. I don't care whose information he was using.

When he said "The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." he was falsifying the situation.

When he said ""[Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda.", he lied.

When he asserted that Iraq was acquiring uranium from Nigeria he lied.

When he told the people of Iraq "If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you." he falsified the situation, not predicting how many false targets would be destroyed, how many innocenty civilians would be killed, how many bystanders would end up tortured.

When he pretended he had decided on war with Iraq in March, 2002, he was lying. He had made the decision to overthrow that government well before September 11.

When he stated ""The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."" he falsified the situation.

Let us not exclude the lies told by his intimate Administrationites, either, with whom he is reciprocally culpable:

"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."
—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14, 2003

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
—Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16

"President Bush proclaimed that a report by leading economists concluded that the economy would grow by 3.3 percent in 2003 if his tax cut proposals were adopted. No such report exists." Gordan Livingston, 06.03.03

From October 02:

President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."

Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon." And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy "for a long period of time."

All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago. --10.22.02, Washington Post


See also this list of prevarications.

When he claimed Hussein kicked the inspectors out of Iraq, he was lying.

When he said it was his conviction that "Every single child in America must be educated, I mean every child. ... There's nothing more prejudiced than not educating a child." - he was lying, if I understand what he said, based on the actual dollars he acquired (not the ones he promised) for the education issues.

Another: "Our goal is a system in which all Americans have got a good insurance policy, in which all Americans can choose their own doctor, in which seniors and low-income citizens receive the help they need. ... Our Medicare system is a binding commitment of a caring society. We must renew that commitment by providing the seniors of today and tomorrow with preventive care and the new medicines that are transforming health care in our country." -- George W. Bush, Medicare address, March 4, 2003

The man simply has no shame. His program does none of this. What it does, simply, is to make dramatic cuts in the benefits for both the poor and the elderly.

Another: "Clear Skies legislation, when passed by Congress, will significantly reduce smog and mercury emissions, as well as stop acid rain. It will put more money directly into programs to reduce pollution, so as to meet firm national air-quality goals. ..." -- George W. Bush, Earth Day speech, April 22, 2002
Actually, the Clear Skies law doesn't do any of this. The act, in fact, delays required emission cuts by as much as 10 years, usurps the states' power to address interstate pollution problems and allows outdated industrial facilities to skirt costly pollution-control upgrades. The Environmental Protection Agency ensured that few people would notice this last regulation by announcing the change on the Friday before Thanksgiving and publishing it in the Federal Register on New Year's Eve. Still, nine northeastern states immediately filed suit against the administration; their case is pending

And a few more from Bush himself and those who he has coerced into acting as parrots:


Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
- Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002


Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
- George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002


No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002


The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.
- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002


If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002


We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003


What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people.
- White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003


Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent…. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
- George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003


We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
- Colin Powell, remarks to UN Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003


We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
- George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 8, 2003


If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since [UN Resolution] 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us.
- Colin Powell, interview with Radio France International, Feb. 28, 2003


So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad?….I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
- Colin Powell, remarks to UN Security Council, March 7, 2003


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
- George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003


The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
- George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003


Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly…..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003


There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And….as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
- Gen. Tommy Franks, press conference, March 22, 2003


I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
- Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman, The Washington Post, March 23, 2003


One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
- Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clark, press briefing, March 22, 2003


We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003


Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find - and there will be plenty.
- Robert Kagan, The Washington Post, April 9, 2003


But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003


We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
- George W. Bush, NBC interview, April 24, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need….so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
- Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing, April 25, 2003

Afew nuggests of actual event:

We urge you to... enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power.
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others, Jan. 26, 1998


The U.S. should assert its military dominance over the world to shape "the international security order in line with American principles and interests," push for "regime change" in Iraq and China, among other countries, and "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars….While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
- "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century,"
The Project for the New American Century [members include Cheney and Rumsfeld], Sept. 2000


Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at the same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden]….Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.
- Donald Rumsfeld notes, Philadelphia Daily News, Sept. 11, 2001


For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction [as justification for invading Iraq] because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
- Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003


From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. Going after Saddam was topic "A" ten days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
- former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, CBS' 60 Minutes, Jan. 11, 2004

Don't tell me this weasel is an honest man.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 06:31 PM

From Amos:
To be fair, his claim was that he had not been briefed about Canadian operations in the region, but had been briefed that Taliban operations were on going; and it was a night flight, as well. Unless you have some data I do not.

His claim is true HOWEVER he was told to HOLD HIS FIRE until confirmation came that his target was in fact hostile. He ignored the order. Boredom? Arrogance? Stupidity?

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 06:38 PM

Could have been battle jitters, too, Mary. No telling from here.

Let me just add to my long post above that if he says Iraq is now safe, to consider this story from today's Baghdad:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A suicide attacker detonated a car bomb Wednesday outside the fortified enclave housing the headquarters of Iraq's interim government, killing at least 10 people, and gunmen in northern Iraq assassinated a provincial governor.

The bombing - which also wounded 40 people - was the worst attack in the capital since the United States transferred power to the Iraqis on June 28.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 07:51 PM

Part of the problem in our country is the unpatriotic, unAmerican, blinkered people who feel that the future of this country and the foreseeable future of this world boils down to "our side/your side, nyah, nyah, nyah". Remove your mask, DR, and let yourself see.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 09:46 PM

Ebbie: uh, see what Ebbie?

Amos: obviously you are less interested in facts than tootin' your own point of view. Never let facts get in the way right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 09:59 PM

Which facts are you thinking of, Doug? If you'll be specific I'll try to answer to your complaint. Otherwise you are just being slanderous. Are you asserting the quotes above were not said by those named?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 15 Jul 04 - 11:42 AM

Amos:

Thanks for your long and detailed list of quotes.   I really prefer to discuss things in a rational manor and avoid the rediculous insults that flame throwers on both sides tend to use.

Lets look at your list of "lies" one by one.

1. Lied about Sadaam concealing lethal weapons- We found hidden labs, detailed plans to build WMD's, saran gas, ricilin, long range warheads.   Chief weapons inspector David Kay said that Iraq was attempting to make these and sell these to other terrorist groups and concluded that Iraq was "more dangerous" than previously thought.

2. Lied about Sadaam harboring terrorist-   The #3 man in Al queda had his legs amputated in Sadaams private hospital and was given safe haven in Iraq.    We also captured the Acquilles Laurel (pardon spelling) terrorist in Iraq.

3. Lied about Uranium-   Senate report, 9/11 commission, and British intelligence all disagree with you.   All three conclude that Wilson was incorrect and reports were accurate.   

4. Lied about Killing innocent civilians-   Sorry- facts don't agree with you on this one when compared against every other war in history.   Every country used to carpet bomb in wars killing far more civilians than in Iraq.   The Iraq war had the fewest number of innocents killed and the fewest number of Americans killed as compared to Civil/WW/Korea/Viet Nam/ and I'll even throw in Spanish American war.

5. Lied that world is safer when Sadaam is disarmed-   I guess I don't understand your point.    Would the world be safer with Sadaam still in place and having WMD's.   The removal of Sadaam (like the removal of Ossama) is one step in the process.   It doesn't make us safe by itself but it is in the right direction

6. Lied about Sadaam kicking inspectors out of Iraq-   Are you contenting that they voluntarily left by themselves for no reason?   Is there any doubt that Sadaam was in non compliance with UN resolutions.

Much of the rest of what you quoted is political jargon- leave no child behind is no different that a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage.   In Manhattan you can't afford to keep 2 cars in any garage.

I dislike it when people rationalize that every politician lies so they are all the same. (my wife's view)   I think there is a big difference between Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.   Both are very smart men.   Carter was honest but inept.   Clinton was dishonest but shrewd at domestic policy.   Carter had the best interest of the country in mind.   Clinton had the best interest of Clinton in mind. Clinton said the same things about Iraq that Bush said.    Clinton also bombed Milosevic from 10,000 feet.   No Americans were killed, but far more innocent civilians were killed.   No UN resolution on that one as well.    Was that moral to remove Milosevic?   You could make a good case on both sides of that one.

Wouldn't it be nice if Kerry said he was a liberal and here are my liberal positions, and Bush ssid I am a conservative and here are my conservative positions, and let the country decide.   Instead they both pretend they are moderates in the middle and "lie" about their real positions.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Jul 04 - 02:42 AM

Larry K said

Now the committee has filed an interim report with unanamous consent.   The report states ABSOLUTELY CLEARLY that Bush didn't lie, that Richard Clark was in error, that Thomas Wilson was self serving and also in error.

Actually, I've just read the conclusions of the report. They do not state, ABSOLUTELY CLEARLY or otherwise, that Bush did not lie. They do not conclude that "Thomas Wilson" (whose name is in fact Joseph) was self-serving OR in error. I didn't look through it for mention of Clarke.

What they said about Joseph Wilson in the conclusions was that his report did not change any analyst's assessment. Those who had been wrong, and believed that Hussein and Niger had some kind of deal going, took Wilson's report to support their position, while those who had been right, believing that there was no such deal, took Wilson's report to support THEIR position. This says more about the analysts than about Wilson's report.

What was confusing was that, on the one occasion that an Iraqi delegation visited Niger, the Iraqis suggested in vague terms some possible trade. The Niger minister was worried that the Iraq delegation might have been talking about Uranium, so he quickly changed the subject (as Iraq was under sanctions and it would be illegal to sell them Uranium). The Niger minister admits that the Iraqis never actually mentioned Uranium. While Wilson took this to mean that Iraq did NOT openly attempt to buy Uranium, some at the CIA thought it could be construed to show that they DID attempt to buy Uranium.

Well, sure...if you REALLY wanted to believe that for some reason. And make no mistake, the conclusions DO say that the claim for an Iraqi attempt to buy Uranium WAS overstated, just as Wilson said it was. On the other hand, they do not rule out the possibility.

In any case, of course, Iraq never got any Uranium.

One thing that should be pointed out. The Washington Post made a big error in its reporting about Wilson and the Senate Intelligence report: they wrote that Wilson had told the CIA that Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from Niger in 1998. In fact, it was Iran that Wilson said had tried to make the purchase, as the Senate report states. The Post ran a correction.

Most of the right wing websites out there running "Wilson is a liar" stories are using this WP mistake as a major piece of evidence: "Even Wilson said Iraq tried to buy Uranium, and now he says they didn't!"

Once again, this is just false.

There is no mention anywhere in the conclusions of whether the committee believes that George Bush ever lied. I will confess that I read quickly, however.   

Tomorrow, when I have a faster internet connection to work with, I'll see if I can find out what they say about Clarke.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jul 04 - 06:21 AM

Amos:
"You offer a repressed and excluded minority -- people of differing sexual practices to yours -- the right to be included and it puts your way of life at risk? what kind of jungle-think is this? Of all the short-sighted, cross-eyed lamebrained reactionary crap I have ever heard, this handwringing and breastbeating in defense of the oppression of a minority is about the stupidest yet. One example of many. "

Please see my post- I stated I thought the constitutional amendment was a BAD idea. Why do you try to inply that I support something that I have stated I do not?

I have never said that the Bush administration was correct in all of it's actions. I have stated that in some cases, I see enough evidence that a reasonable person would conclude that the actions they have taken were justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Jul 04 - 12:44 PM

Okay, now I've read the whole report concerning Joseph Wilson. It does not say that he was self-serving, or lied, or was in error. It DOES suggest that he shot his mouth off about things he should not have known about. In other words, the committee wanted to know how he knew that the names and dates on the purported sales documents were false when he had not seen the documents. The report does not deny that the names and dates were wrong, it just says the committee asked him how he knew. He then backpedaled, saying he may have "misspoken." However, if you read further, you find that indeed there were "obvious problems" with the documents, and that both the CIA and DIA failed to look at them closely enough to recognize this at first. So how DID Wilson know? The report never finds out.

What this means is that at the time of his brief "15 minutes of fame," Wilson was quite right: it was known by then that the documents were forgeries. He may have been mistaken or even lying about WHEN he found that out, but the report doen not openly allege this.

There is no question from the report that the CIA and DIA both screwed up in not recognizing the obviously forged documents sooner. This is essentially what Wilson alleged, so he was almost entirely right. What he may have been wrong about comes down to "even at the time of my trip I knew this was bullshit." In fact he might not have known it was bullshit until later, but still the CIA should have known it was bullshit before it got in the State of the Union. (see conclusion 19)

It is also quite possible that even at the time of his trip to Niger he DID know. This would mean that one of his contacts had told him, that his contact should not have told him, and that he didn't want his contact to get in trouble. (Quite possibly, the contact was his wife).

It's impossible to tell anything about the evidence the British had because the entire section on the British white paper is blacked out of the public version of the report.   

One thing to keep in mind about this report: it is based on interviews with a bunch of guys who are trying to save their asses. There are definitely times when their conclusions are suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 04 - 01:01 PM

Bruce:

That wasn't part of the post directed to you, but rather part of the example, citing a foolish Republican senator wringing his hands about the gruesome after-effects of people marrying for love if their equipmment hasn't been inspected properly. I'm aware of your position on the amendment folly and appreciate it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Jul 04 - 01:44 PM

Wilson has written a detailed response to the senate document, in which he says that there was no reason for them to wonder how he knew about the forged documents. Citing all the relevant public comments he made on the issue, he points out that he never even mentioned this until it was public knowledge and never claimed to have seen the documents himself. His statement in the interview that he may have misspoken was made because he did not have the documents in front of him to know for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Jul 04 - 02:35 PM

By the way, Larry K's statement is not entirely true. He says "Now the committee has filed an interim report with unanamous consent.   The report states ABSOLUTELY CLEARLY that Bush didn't lie, that Richard Clark was in error, that Thomas Wilson was self serving and also in error." But the only parts that even be construed to allege Wilson was in error or that Bush did not lie are the "additional comments," which are NOT unanimous but signed by individual committee members. The ones that suggest wrongdoing by Wilson and exoneration of the President are signed only by the most partisan Republicans, Hatch, Bond and Roberts.

Predictably, the comments signed by Democrats on the committee say the following:

"The central issue of how intelligence on Iraq was used or misused by administration officials in public statements and reports was relegated to the second phase of the committee's investigation...the Committee's phase one report fails to fully explain the environment of intense pressure in which Intelligence Community officials were asked to render judgements on matters relating to Iraq when policy officials had already forcefully stated their own conclusions in public."

In other words, they haven't even ASKED whether Bush lied yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 04 - 04:35 PM

And the plan is to postpone the answer to that question until after the election? My, that's certainly understandable.

Bush himserlf has made the point that not everyone is capable of facing up to evil and recognizing it for what it is. And he knows where of he speaks. That inability isd what got him into office and has so far avoided him being impeached, although he should be. Nobody likes top face up to the notion that rather than being an astute and far-seeing protector of freedom, the Resident might just be aN EGOTISTIC NUT-CASE. Consider, for example, his conviction that the formative power of the entire Universe is somehow deeply interested in his individual case. And whispers instructions to him. This is hardly the perspective required by a rational human. He falsifies reality all over the place. He's actually a sicko.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: GUEST,BOAB
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 02:12 AM

"Bush and Blair didn't lie". ---So we all must accept that the whole fiasco was the result of incredible stupidity?

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Hrothgar
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 04:38 AM

Should Bush, Blair etc be attacked because they have established a climate where their public servants tell them what they want to hear, and not necessarily what the facts are?

This might not be a major fault in the USA, where the spoils system was so long entrenched, but in countries like Britain and Australia, where there has been a tradition of independent public servants providing advice to politicians without fear or favour, it is a worrying trend.

Here in Australia, John Howard has made an art form of getting wrong information or incomplete information that suits his book, and then blaming his advisers when the information turns out to be wrong or incomplete. What he does not announce publicly is that he has established a climate where public servants are afraid to give him correct information that he does not like, because he is a vindictive little turd who will avenge himself on them. On the other hand, the ones who distort or conceal information are rewarded.

This is the worst form of corruption of the principles of an independent public service.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 11:48 AM

Bush did lie, altering facts and distorting importances to suit his own preconceived bias.

He has no excuse for failing to see through poor information received. "It's a slam-dunk" doesn't cut it.

He is a ruthless opportunist who will twist any fact to achieve his owen ends.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: freda underhill
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 02:30 AM

Published on Friday, January 5, 2007 by TomPaine.com
Can We Let Intelligence Officials Lie With Impunity?
by Ray McGovern and W. Patrick Lang

Lies have consequences. All those who helped President George W. Bush launch a war of aggression—termed by Nuremberg "the supreme international crime"—have blood on their hands and must be held accountable. This includes corrupt intelligence officials. Otherwise, look for them to perform the same service in facilitating war on Iran. "They should have been shot," said former State Department intelligence director, Carl Ford, referring to ex-CIA director George Tenet and his deputy John McLaughlin, for their "fundamentally dishonest" cooking of intelligence to please the White House. Ford was alluding to "intelligence" on the menacing but non-existent mobile biological weapons laboratories in Iraq.

Ford was angry that Tenet and McLaughlin persisted in portraying the labs as real several months after they had been duly warned that they existed only in the imagination of intelligence analysts who, in their own eagerness to please, had glommed onto second-hand tales told by a con-man appropriately dubbed "Curveball." In fact, Tenet and McLaughlin had been warned about Curveball long before they let then-Secretary of State Colin Powell shame himself, and the rest of us, by peddling Curveball's wares at the U.N. Security Council on February 5, 2003.

After the war began, those same analysts, still "leaning forward," misrepresented a tractor-trailer found in Iraq outfitted with industrial equipment as one of the mobile bio-labs. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Kay, then working for NBC News, obliged by pointing out the equipment "where the biological process took place... Literally, there is nothing else for which it could be used."

George Tenet knows a good man when he sees him. A few weeks later he hired Kay to lead the Pentagon-created Iraq Survey Group in the famous search to find other (equally non-existent, it turned out) "weapons of mass destruction." (Eventually Kay, a scientist given to empirical evidence more than faith-based intelligence, became the skunk at the picnic when, in January 2004, he insisted on telling senators the truth: "We were almost all wrong—and I certainly include myself here." But that came later.)

On May 28, 2003, CIA's intrepid analysts cooked up a fraudulent six-page report claiming that the trailer discovered earlier in May was proof they had been right about Iraq's "bio-weapons labs." They then performed what could be called a "night-time requisition," getting the only Defense Intelligence Agency analyst sympathetic to their position to provide DIA "coordination," (which was subsequently withdrawn by DIA). On May 29, President George W. Bush, visiting Poland, proudly announced on Polish TV, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

When the State Department's Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts realized that this was not some kind of Polish joke, they "went ballistic," according to Ford, who immediately warned Colin Powell that there was a problem. Tenet must have learned of this quickly, for he called Ford on the carpet, literally, the following day. No shrinking violet, Ford held his ground. He told Tenet and McLaughlin, "That report is one of the worst intelligence assessments I've ever read."

This vignette—and several like it—are found in Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, who say Ford is still angry over the fraudulent paper. Ford told the authors:

It was clear that they [Tenet and McLaughlin] had been personally involved in the preparation of the report... It wasn't just that it was wrong. They lied.

..Into the valley of death rode the 3,000. "U.S. Toll in Iraq Reaches 3,000" screamed The Washington Post 's lead story on New Year's Day, which included the Pentagon's count of more than 22,000 troops injured. As is known, the Pentagon does not count dead Iraqis, but reputable estimates put that number at about 650,000. As we pass this sad milestone, it behooves us to pause and consider the enormity of what has been allowed to happen—and how to prevent it from happening again. The House and Senate Intelligence committees in the new Congress need to reinstitute genuine oversight, including a close look at why so many intelligence officers cooperated in the dishonesty leading to war. We owe that to the 25,000, not to mention the 650,000.

..more here Can We Let Intelligence Officials Lie With Impunity?

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 03:32 AM

Why did the CIA have reason to lie?

Why did Bush swallow it hook, line and sinker?

If he had so much support for the invasion, why did he have to "go it alone"?

What right does one country have to invade another, destroy its infrastructure, kill its civilians, occupy it indefinitely, capture its leader so that he could be hung and foment civil war?

Sadly, there are plenty of U.S. citizens that want to be 'winners' at all costs. Doug R and Larry K are typical examples of the kind of people who vote for Bush. Doesn't say much for America does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: freda underhill
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 04:00 AM

dianavan, here's another article Top Mideast Analyst Accuses Bush of Politicising Iraq Intel from the Inter Press Service News Agency. It makes serious allegations that Dubya went to war without requesting - and evidently without being influenced by - any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq. excerpts..

WASHINGTON, Feb 10 (IPS) - The U.S. intelligence community's top Middle East analyst from 2000 to 2005 has accused the George W. Bush administration of distorting and politicising intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. In an article published Friday in "Foreign Affairs" magazine, analyst Paul Pillar, who resigned from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) last year, also charges that the Bush administration ignored much of the analysis that had been prepared by the intelligence community, including its predictions of the chaos and conflict that followed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

He argues that the administration not only ignored the traditional model for separating the functions of policymakers -- who are to make decisions based on facts and analyses developed by independent intelligence specialists -- from those of the intelligence analysts themselves, but "turned the entire model upside down." Indeed, says Pillar, as the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, the first request he received from the administration for such an assessment was not until a year after the March 2003 invasion.

The intelligence community never backed up the al Qaeda-Hussein connection, according to Pillar. "The enormous attention devoted to this subject did not reflect any judgment by intelligence officials that there was or was likely to be anything like the 'alliance' the administration said existed," he writes.

"Feeding the administration's voracious appetite for material on the Saddam-al Qaeda link consumed an enormous amount of time and attention at multiple levels, from rank-and-file counterterrorism analysts to the most senior intelligence officials. It is fair to ask how much other counterterrorism work was left undone as a result," he notes.

..Powell's chief of staff at the time, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, has also publicly charged that Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Feith's superior, formed a "cabal" that deliberately circumvented or manipulated the normal policy-making process, including the intelligence community, in order to take the country to war.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:44 PM

freda - That last statement says it all.

How do we convince the American people that the Senate Report is a whitewash?

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 02:06 PM

6A THE WICHITA EAGLE
SATURDAY, JANUARY 6, 2007

DETAILS OF PROBE INTO PREWAR INTEL STILL TO COME
Eagle news services

Did Sen. Pat Roberts ever present Phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war?

According to a story on Dec. 1, 2006, by Man Stearns of the Eagle Washington bureau, "The committee has released two of its five so-called 'Phase II' investigations that delve more deeply into issues regarding pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Still to come is the most potentially explosive: comparing the pre-war statements of government officials with the intelligence available at the time."
In a news release from the Senate Intelligence Committee on Jan. 4,2007, the incoming Democratic chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, noted that, "We begin this year with a full plate. We have unfinished business that requires immediate attention, specifically. . . the remaining sections of the committee's review of prewar intelligence on Iraq."

[endquote]

Should anyone still be interested, the first release can be found at Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, July 7, 2004 (521-page pdf). 23.4 MB

WARNING: I'm on dialup so it was a 3 hour + download.

A shorter html Conclusions: Senate Intel Committee (about 28 pages) from MSNBC is still available, and from what I could see gives most of what's useful in the report.

I'll note in passing that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has "redesigned" their website to suit the incoming committee, and most of the accessory documents cited in discussions from a year ago are no longer at the previous links, and cannot be found now, so far as I can tell, by searching the site.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 03:10 PM

One can knaw on the details forever, but the short version is, there WAS bad & careless intelligence, and Bush was eager to embrace even bad intelligence that supported his desire to 'finish' the Iraq problem and make a name for himself......he has sorta succeeded in a bassakward sort of way.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 04:14 PM

The Iraq 'problem' is hardly finished; unless you consider the death of Saddam as the end goal.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 04:29 PM

of course it isn't finished! It's Bush's fantasy, not mine. It will never be finished using his methods!

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: John O'L
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 04:34 PM

Bush wanted to invade Iraq. He demanded an excuse and they constructed excuses. It's as simple as that.

As it says in the article by McGovern and Lang , "...it behooves us to pause and consider the enormity of what has been allowed to happen — and how to prevent it from happening again."

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 06:30 PM

Regardless of the blinkered perspective of right wing extremists, the rest of the world is able to view Bush with objectivity. From the Calcutta Times, India:

"He was the first president who actually believed and was fully committed to the right-wing extremism of the Republican Party. These included freedom of oil exploration in environmentally fragile areas, preventing action that the rest of the world was agreed upon to mitigate climate change, securing oil supplies for an import-dependent US by gaining control over oil-rich countries in the Arab world, implementing tax reductions without reducing government expenditures and abandoning the process of international consultations on matters of world importance. He ignored the United Nations. His policies did not have general national or international support. He was determined to avenge the humiliation of the US by the new Iran, cutting its close ties with the US. He wanted to kill Saddam Hussein, to avenge an attempted assassination of his father by Hussein."

So, if the death of Saddam was the end game, Bush has been successful.

He was not misled. He believed what he wanted to believe. His decisions were not based on an objective analysis of the situation.

One thing for sure, a man that gullible should not be the president of a country with a vast array of nuclear weaponry. He should be held accountable. Ignorance is no excuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 06:37 PM

Here, here, dianavan. Bush, Cheney, Tenet, Wolfowitz, and Rice should all be held accountable for doing the corporations' dirtywork.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 08:02 PM

The Calcutta Times of India article posted by Dianavan:

"He was the first president who actually believed and was fully committed to the right-wing extremism of the Republican Party."

Opinion

"These included freedom of oil exploration in environmentally fragile areas, preventing action that the rest of the world was agreed upon to mitigate climate change,"

Excuse me!! "preventing action that the rest of the world was agreed upon to mitigate climate change," This coming from India??? who along with the USA and China are the world's major poluters, the Calcutta Times of India fails to mention that their Government also did not sign up for the totally ineffectual Kyoto Agreement. Rather like the pot calling the kettle black.

"...securing oil supplies for an import-dependent US by gaining control over oil-rich countries in the Arab world,"

Now I have asked before for ANYONE to show anybody on this forum exactly how the import-dependent US has gained control over ANY oil rich country in the Arab world - so far NOBODY has - the US gets very little of it's considerable oil imports each month from the middle east - Fact, a bit inconvenient I know but true none-the -less, accept it and live with it, but please don't keep trotting it out - that dog just doesn't hunt.

"...implementing tax reductions without reducing government expenditures"

Puts more money into the US economy, which oddly enough ain't doing so bad.

"..and abandoning the process of international consultations on matters of world importance."

Ask the people of Rwanda and Darfur exactly how effective the process of international consultations are on matters relating to their survival, never mind world importance, which at the moment seems to revolve around China securing the oil it needs - apparently China is allowed to do this without the slightest mention, but the US is not.

"He ignored the United Nations."

See above re actual effectiveness of the UN, GWB was right so to do. The United Nations is a corrupt broken reed that needs fixing and needs fixing badly.

"His policies did not have general national or international support."

He won two elections, the second of which was based entirely upon his policies with respect to the safety and security of the United States of America, the Calcutta Times of India seems to have forgotten that. The MNF that went into Iraq was formed of a coalition of a larger number of countries than participated in Desert Storm, another thing that the Calcutta Times of India seems to have forgotten, or omitted to mention - do they have any obligation to present fact in their reporting? -seems not.


"He was determined to avenge the humiliation of the US by the new Iran, cutting its close ties with the US."

This does not make sense at all, does it to anybody else?

"He wanted to kill Saddam Hussein, to avenge an attempted assassination of his father by Hussein."

Regime change in Iraq became official US foreign policy under the Clinton Administration in 1998 - that is a matter of record. It had abosultely nothing whatsoever to do with GWB. The calcutta Times of India's contention is complete and utter twaddle.

Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
From: freda underhill
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 08:09 PM

it's Groundhog Day..