BENGHAZI: OBAMA PROMISED ALL THOSE INVOVLED IN THE ATTACK WOULD BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE .....HAHAHAHA !

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld lied about the WMD. Powell is so ashamed about being duped by the traitors he won't even come out in public. Essentially very little evidence was ever given to support theory Iraq had WMD; however , we know now that many people in government disputed this theory and the traitors withheld the opposing views. I'm disgusted we haven't turned the 3 traitors over to a war crimes court!

Also, Iraq was not the first Middle Eastern country to violate UN sanctions. In 1979 the UN condemned the West Bank settlements calling Israel to vacate the settlements. Should the US have used military force to decapitate the Israeli government as "w" did for violating UN sanctions? For those of you that think not, please justify W's invasion.

Notice, if you have half a mind, that "wrong" is not synonymous with "false" or "lying"! And the military definition of WMD in 2003 included "high explosives", and, as far as the FBI is concerned, still does as is evidenced in the recent Boston Bomber incident. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Wrong and false are pretty much the same thing.

George Bush
"The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq," Bush said. "A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein."


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...#ixzz2aos4aEIs Originally Posted by lostincypress

Do you see how Bush tries to shift the blame for no WMD's on the intelligence community. Kinda like shifting the blame to a movie about Islam.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld lied about the WMD. Powell is so ashamed about being duped by the traitors he won't even come out in public. Essentially very little evidence was ever given to support theory Iraq had WMD; however , we know now that many people in government disputed this theory and the traitors withheld the opposing views. I'm disgusted we haven't turned the 3 traitors over to a war crimes court! Originally Posted by txrancher1

You have your head stuck deep in cow paddies, txrancher. Despite your ignorant claim, Saddam Hussein's generals and soldiers believed Saddam had WMD. The governments of every country in that region of the world believed Saddam had WMD. Not a single U.N. inspector went on record and stated emphatically that s/he was 100% absolutely positive Saddam didn't have WMD.

Furthermore, the WMD Commission and the Butler report both indicate that the intelligence community was correct in suggesting that Saddam was probably seeking to re-arm his military forces with WMD. That conclusion is, in part, based on these known facts: 1) Saddam had had WMD in the past. 2) Saddam had strong incentives to reconstitute his arsenal. 3) He had the money to refinance such a reconstitution. 4) He had trained, competent technicians who could reconstitute his stockpile of WMDs. 5) He had the necessary materiel on hand to proceed with such a reconstitution. 6) He repeatedly stalled and deceived the inspectors leading intelligence specialists to surmise he was re-arming with WMD.

The Commission also learned that, on the eve of war, the Intelligence Community failed to convey important information to policymakers. After the October 2002 NIE was published, but before Secretary of State Powell made his address about Iraq’s WMD programs to the United Nations, serious doubts became known within the Intelligence Community about Curveball, the aforementioned human intelligence source whose reporting was so critical to the Intelligence Community’s pre-war biological warfare assessments. These doubts never found their way to Secretary Powell, who was at that time attempting to strip questionable information from his speech. These are errors—serious errors. But these errors stem from poor tradecraft and poor management. The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.

Your ignorant POV is not sustainable when stacked up against the facts, txrancher.

SOURCE:http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/wmd_chapter1.pdf

Also, Iraq was not the first Middle Eastern country to violate UN sanctions. In 1979 the UN condemned the West Bank settlements calling Israel to vacate the settlements. Should the US have used military force to decapitate the Israeli government as "w" did for violating UN sanctions? For those of you that think not, please justify W's invasion. Originally Posted by txrancher1

Response @:

http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1053537831&postcount=38

. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.

=38 Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And no political pressure produced this conclusion!

Just like no political pressure was put on Tea Party groups seeking....

Wrong and false are pretty much the same thing.

Do you see how Bush tries to shift the blame for no WMD's on the intelligence community. Kinda like shifting the blame to a movie about Islam. Originally Posted by WTF

"False" and "wrong" are not synonymous when, by implication, you are suggesting "false" means "lies" and "deceit".

The intelligence community did fail in Iraq, just as it did at Pearl Harbor. Intelligence is never 100% accurate, but it's preposterous to suggest that what happened in Benghazi was an intelligence failure. In Benghazi actionable intelligence was there -- embassy personnel and facilities had been repeatedly attacked in the preceding months, but Odumbo and Hildabeast refused to take responsible, preparatory actions. The result: four men needlessly died for their ineptitude. Afterwards, they lied their asses off to protect and prolong their political careers.

And no political pressure produced this conclusion!

Just like no political pressure was put on Tea Party groups seeking.... Originally Posted by WTF

Why Intelligence Fails: Lessons from the Iranian Revolution and the Iraq War by Robert Jervis.

"False" and "wrong" are not synonymous when, by implication, you are suggesting "false" means "lies" and "deceit".

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Linking Saddam to 9/11 was deceit.

Believing that Iraq was a security risk to this country was just plan ignorant.




http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.


Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Linking Saddam to 9/11 was deceit.

Believing that Iraq was a security risk to this country was just plan ignorant.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.


Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago. Originally Posted by WTF

Your POV here, based on the evidence available, is probably correct. Nevertheless, Hussein is known to have supported international terrorism in the past, e.g., Abu Nidal and Carlos the Jackal; hence, Bush's accusations weren't necessarily far fetched.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB254/

"There were several avenues by which the Bush administration made its preferences clear. Vice President Richard Cheney questioned his CIA briefers aggressively, pressing them to the wall when he saw intelligence from other agencies that portrayed a more somber picture than that in CIA’s reporting. He sent briefers back for more information, including in instances when they checked with headquarters and returned with the same word. Cheney was especially acerbic on CIA’s rejection of claims that one of the 9/11 terrorists had met with Iraqi intelligence officers in Prague. On a number of occasions, Cheney sent his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, to CIA headquarters to follow up on his concerns. Mr. Cheney went there himself, not just once but on almost a dozen occasions. The practice encouraged the CIA to censor itself, driven, as Pillar put it, by “the desire to avoid the unpleasantness of putting unwelcome assessments on the desks of policymakers.” (Note 6)
A second avenue to influence U.S. intelligence lay through Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon. There, William Luti’s Near East and South Asia unit of the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (OUSDP) was in close touch with the Vice President’s office. Papers circulated back and forth, and both offices utilized claims from Iraqi exiles—claims that Saddam trained terrorists or possessed various WMDs—to press the intelligence agencies for similar information. Under Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the undersecretary for policy, Douglas Feith, the Pentagon formed a special group to review reports on Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda. This unit, the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) has been represented by Feith as merely charged with assembling a briefing on terrorism, but its real function was to bring additional pressure to bear on the CIA.
Not all the manipulation was visible. Behind the scenes at the State Department, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, also closely allied with the Office of the Vice President, pressured both the State Department and the CIA to fire individuals who refused to clear text in his speeches leveling the most extreme charges against other countries. Although Bolton’s actions did not concern Iraq directly, they came to a high point during the summer of 2002—the exact moment when Iraq intelligence issues were on the front burner—and they aimed at offices which played a central role in producing Iraq intelligence. These included the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at State plus the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the Weapons Intelligence, Proliferation and Arms Control (WINPAC) center at CIA. Analysts working on Iraq intelligence could not be blamed for concluding that their own careers might be in jeopardy if they supplied answers other than what the Bush administration wanted to hear."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB254/

"There were several avenues by which the Bush administration made its preferences clear. Vice President Richard Cheney questioned his CIA briefers aggressively, pressing them to the wall when he saw intelligence from other agencies that portrayed a more somber picture than that in CIA’s reporting. He sent briefers back for more information, including in instances when they checked with headquarters and returned with the same word. Cheney was especially acerbic on CIA’s rejection of claims that one of the 9/11 terrorists had met with Iraqi intelligence officers in Prague. On a number of occasions, Cheney sent his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, to CIA headquarters to follow up on his concerns. Mr. Cheney went there himself, not just once but on almost a dozen occasions. The practice encouraged the CIA to censor itself, driven, as Pillar put it, by “the desire to avoid the unpleasantness of putting unwelcome assessments on the desks of policymakers.” (Note 6)
A second avenue to influence U.S. intelligence lay through Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon. There, William Luti’s Near East and South Asia unit of the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (OUSDP) was in close touch with the Vice President’s office. Papers circulated back and forth, and both offices utilized claims from Iraqi exiles—claims that Saddam trained terrorists or possessed various WMDs—to press the intelligence agencies for similar information. Under Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the undersecretary for policy, Douglas Feith, the Pentagon formed a special group to review reports on Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda. This unit, the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) has been represented by Feith as merely charged with assembling a briefing on terrorism, but its real function was to bring additional pressure to bear on the CIA.
Not all the manipulation was visible. Behind the scenes at the State Department, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, also closely allied with the Office of the Vice President, pressured both the State Department and the CIA to fire individuals who refused to clear text in his speeches leveling the most extreme charges against other countries. Although Bolton’s actions did not concern Iraq directly, they came to a high point during the summer of 2002—the exact moment when Iraq intelligence issues were on the front burner—and they aimed at offices which played a central role in producing Iraq intelligence. These included the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at State plus the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the Weapons Intelligence, Proliferation and Arms Control (WINPAC) center at CIA. Analysts working on Iraq intelligence could not be blamed for concluding that their own careers might be in jeopardy if they supplied answers other than what the Bush administration wanted to hear." Originally Posted by lostincypress

"The cases of WMD and Iraq's links to al-Qa’ida illustrate two different responses to policy pressure. In the case of al-Qa’ida, the constant stream of questions aimed at finding links between Saddam and the terrorist network caused analysts to take what they termed a “purposely aggressive approach” in conducting exhaustive and repetitive searches for such links. Despite the pressure, however, the Intelligence Community remained firm in its assessment that no operational or collaborative relationship existed. In the case of Iraq's possession of WMD, on the other hand, analytic judgments and policy views were in accord, so that the impact of pressure, if any, was more nuanced and may have been considered reinforcing. Although it is possible that in the absence of strong policy interest, analysts would have been more inclined to examine their underlying assumptions, it is unlikely that such examination would have changed judgments that were longstanding and firmly held."

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-f...sis_Iraq_5.htm

Cheney didn't lie about anything ... Bush signed an executive order that kept him from being questioned just to hide the truth ...

Bush explained the reason for the war in one statement. This is the man who tried to kill my daddy.

Without the false WMD threat Congress would not have gone along with Bush. Originally Posted by WTF

You're about as good at speculating what Congress would have done, as you are how juries are going to vote.

For those of you that are unaware (the common public including most media wouldn't know either) I can assure you that the people in Benghazi weren't merely state department officials. Based on my previous life, I am confident they were all CIA employees and for public reasons were listed as quasi state employees. State does not send employees to do the job they were doing in a country like Libya as simple State officials. I know for a fact most of these type of people in those positions are CIA. It is a dangerous job (covert spying) and they are aware of the dangers . You Obama haters are attempting to put the blame on the administration for their deaths. Sorry, but somebody has to do the dangerous jobs. It's like sending our military into combat situations and getting killed and then play the "blame game" when somebody gets killed. Get a life! I'm sure they were doing covert ops at the time of their deaths. You can't do those sorts of things by sending an army to protect them. It's spying. They knew the risk.

For those of you that are unaware (the common public including most media wouldn't know either) I can assure you that the people in Benghazi weren't merely state department officials. Based on my previous life, I am confident they were all CIA employees and for public reasons were listed as quasi state employees. State does not send employees to do the job they were doing in a country like Libya as simple State officials. I know for a fact most of these type of people in those positions are CIA. It is a dangerous job (covert spying) and they are aware of the dangers . You Obama haters are attempting to put the blame on the administration for their deaths. Sorry, but somebody has to do the dangerous jobs. It's like sending our military into combat situations and getting killed and then play the "blame game" when somebody gets killed. Get a life! I'm sure they were doing covert ops at the time of their deaths. You can't do those sorts of things by sending an army to protect them. It's spying. They knew the risk. Originally Posted by txrancher1

It was nothing but Odumbo's inept attempt to appease Islamic militants with an "artificially low" defense posture and Hildabeast's craven lust for political aggrandizement that put Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi -- without necessary and adequate safeguards -- on the anniversary of 9/11.