Fair Game

The "truth" is, your analysis and opinion are based on "hindsight" and not on the operational intel that was available to decision makers in 2001-03. As such, your 20/20 hindsight and opinion have been and will remain unmitigated bullshit! 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. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You do not know what you are talking about on this topic.

There is a huge difference between "intelligence professionals" and some appointees in the intel agencies who believe it is their job to create assessments that their political bosses want to hear.

To anyone who is a career intel guy the assessments passed up the chain read like an amature's interpretation of what he WANTED to believe. Intel analysts have a certain predisposition to caveat everything that isn't a smoking gun. Both sides admit there was no Iraq smoking gun. The reports read like someone who decided the source (a questionable one at that) who said what they wanted to believe must be speaking the truth. It is the kind of mistake a brand new analysts would make, but career folks would not.

This was a case of amatures overruling the professionals and pushing up reports to tell the seniors what they thought would get them a gold start.

It is a problem when we put unqualified appointees new the top of Departments.

evidence presented ... take IB for instance.

no seriously, YOU take IB .. Originally Posted by CJ7

CBJ7, you obviously cannot muster the moral courage to handle the "truth" and conceded that your analysis and opinion are based on "hindsight" and not on the operational intel that was available to decision makers in 2001-03. Likewise, you'll never admit your 20/20 hindsight and opinion have been and will remain unmitigated bullshit and you'll continue to foster and perpetuate lies as usual! Plus, you'll continue to ignorantly ignore the WMD Commission and the Butler reports indicating that the intelligence community was correct in suggesting that Saddam was probably seeking to re-arm his military forces with WMD. As usual, CBJ7, when the true facts are against you, you stick your head in the sand like and ostrich and deny the facts existence.

It is 2012 and we have had more casualties in Afghanistan than when Bush was in office. We are leaving and the country will collapse into chaos once again. This decision was made by the Obama adminstration. You can complain, bitch, and moan all you want but that is the fact. Your president is killing American soldiers for political gain. Do I really have to remind you about the outing of SEAL Team Six? No one had to know who pulled the trigger on OBL but the White House needed a victory dance. Then they were ambushed and their helicopter shot down. They were targeted because of the adolescent in the Oval Office. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

See, he didn't even miss a beat.

So a US mission, a mission the Taliban didn't know anything about until it occurred, was the site of an ambush. Because the Taliban knew Team 6 was the fire support team and knew where they would land. So they put one guy there with an RPG instead of several people scattered around with captured/purchased Stingers. Choppers have to slow way down prior to landing and need time after take off to back up to speed. This happened at 1 in the morning, everybody on the chopper would have had low light goggles on. Everyone would have been scanning the ground for gomers. The guy with the RPG got lucky.

Why do you add bullshit? You were correct about the casualty numbers. Collapse into chaos? Maybe, but the American people want our troops brought home. The Afghan army is supposed to keep order.

The rest is laughable. They would have tried the exact thing no matter who was in the helicopter.

And even though it happened a year ago, you are still trying to politicize it.

Your desperation has an odor to it.

You do not know what you are talking about on this topic. Originally Posted by Old-T

No. It is you who is ignorant of reality. 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—which begged the question—“What is he hiding?" Furthermore, 7) there was operational intel indicating that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD program (it was a "career analyst" who insisted the aluminum tubes were for reconstituting Saddam's nuclear weapons program). Cumulatively, all of these indicators suggested Saddam was reconstituting his WMD program, and that conclusion is underscored by the findings of the WMD Commission and the Butler report.

You do not know what you are talking about on this topic.

There is a huge difference between "intelligence professionals" and some appointees in the intel agencies who believe it is their job to create assessments that their political bosses want to hear.

To anyone who is a career intel guy the assessments passed up the chain read like an amature's interpretation of what he WANTED to believe. Intel analysts have a certain predisposition to caveat everything that isn't a smoking gun. Both sides admit there was no Iraq smoking gun. The reports read like someone who decided the source (a questionable one at that) who said what they wanted to believe must be speaking the truth. It is the kind of mistake a brand new analysts would make, but career folks would not.

This was a case of amatures overruling the professionals and pushing up reports to tell the seniors what they thought would get them a gold start.

It is a problem when we put unqualified appointees new the top of Departments. Originally Posted by Old-T

The Democrats reviewed the same intelligence that Bush and Cheney reviewed, and signed off on the Iraq invasion. The Democrats are despicable in their willingness to pretend that Bush lied about WMD's to justify the war; he did no such thing. Joe Wilson failed in his attempt to discover dishonesty in Bush's statement regarding Iraq's attempt to purchase yellowcake. Bush based his statement on British intelligence, that is still supported by Great Britain.

Bush acted reasonably, based on the best intelligence available. He can't be faulted for making a decision based on imperfect information.

The Democrats reviewed the same intelligence that Bush and Cheney reviewed, and signed off on the Iraq invasion. The Democrats are despicable in their willingness to pretend that Bush lied about WMD's to justify the war; he did no such thing. Joe Wilson failed in his attempt to discover dishonesty in Bush's statement regarding Iraq's attempt to purchase yellowcake. Bush based his statement on British intelligence, that is still supported by Great Britain.

Bush acted reasonably, based on the best intelligence available. He can't be faulted for making a decision based on imperfect information. Originally Posted by joe bloe

bullshit .. the dems didnt have privy to the convo between Tenet and Bush/Cheney ... if they did we woudnt be here today talking about this.

Bush knew Saddam had WMDs ... his daddy still had the receipt

curveball lied his ass off in 1999

the Germans didnt believe that shit and told the US they didnt

Tenet told Bush the intel wasnt trustworthy

Bush didnt bother to vette said intel and told the world he knew Saddam had wmd's

we invaded Iraq regardless

bullshit .. the dems didnt have privy to the convo between Tenet and Bush/Cheney ... if they did we woudnt be here today talking about this.

Bush knew Saddam had WMDs ... his daddy still had the receipt Originally Posted by CJ7

I'm pretty sure we're never going to agree on this. I believe Bush is an honorable man that acted in good faith. I'm sure the left wing wackjobs will never admit to that, no matter how much evidence is provided.

I'm pretty sure we're never going to agree on this. I believe Bush is an honorable man that acted in good faith. I'm sure the left wing wackjobs will never admit to that, no matter how much evidence is provided. Originally Posted by joe bloe

left right or center the evidence is clear, and proves Bush punked the people, good faith be damned ... only some whackjob doesnt get that

left right or center the evidence is clear, and proves Bush punked the people, good faith be damned ... only some whackjob doesnt get that Originally Posted by CJ7

Have a nice day.

left right or center the evidence is clear, and proves Bush punked the people, good faith be damned ... only some whackjob doesnt get that Originally Posted by CJ7

And your lie is based on your immature opinion, CBJ7.

Have a nice day. Originally Posted by joe bloe

U2

I'm pretty sure we're never going to agree on this. I believe Bush is an honorable man that acted in good faith. I'm sure the left wing wackjobs will never admit to that, no matter how much evidence is provided. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Never really cared for him,before he was elected,however My opinion is he was easily persuaded ....,

bullshit .. the dems didnt have privy to the convo between Tenet and Bush/Cheney ... if they did we woudnt be here today talking about this.

Bush knew Saddam had WMDs ... his daddy still had the receipt

curveball lied his ass off in 1999

the Germans didnt believe that shit and told the US they didnt

Tenet told Bush the intel wasnt trustworthy

Bush didnt bother to vette said intel and told the world he knew Saddam had wmd's

we invaded Iraq regardless Originally Posted by CJ7

Not counting your first bullet, you are completely correct. Your fist point is wrong.

Bush is an honorable man that acted in good faith. I'm sure the left wing wackjobs will never admit to that, no matter how much evidence is provided. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Actually, from what I saw you are right. Bush probably is an honorable man. In that regard his daddy taught him well. But as president he was in way over his head, and his core of trusted advisors included too many scumbags--first among them Rove and Cheney. Rice is a well meaning lady, but does not live in the real world--she to provided a lot of bad advice based upon academic theory, not reality. I do not believe she was evil, I do believe she was wrong on many key pieces of advice.

left right or center the evidence is clear, and proves Bush punked the people, good faith be damned ... only some whackjob doesnt get that Originally Posted by CJ7

Only indirectly, by not stopping Rove and his political assasinations and dirty tricks.

I truly believe Bush 2 was probably a good govenor (not being a Texan I don't have a lot of 1st hand info there), but he was so far over his head as president and we as a country paid dearly for it.

No. It is you who is ignorant of reality. 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—which begged the question—“What is he hiding?" Furthermore, 7) there was operational intel indicating that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD program (it was a "career analyst" who insisted the aluminum tubes were for reconstituting Saddam's nuclear weapons program). Cumulatively, all of these indicators suggested Saddam was reconstituting his WMD program, and that conclusion is underscored by the findings of the WMD Commission and the Butler report.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Democrats reviewed the same intelligence that Bush and Cheney reviewed, and signed off on the Iraq invasion. The Democrats are despicable in their willingness to pretend that Bush lied about WMD's to justify the war; he did no such thing. Joe Wilson failed in his attempt to discover dishonesty in Bush's statement regarding Iraq's attempt to purchase yellowcake. Bush based his statement on British intelligence, that is still supported by Great Britain.

Bush acted reasonably, based on the best intelligence available. He can't be faulted for making a decision based on imperfect information. Originally Posted by joe bloe

I apologize--I keep forgetting that is it useless to debate with people whose source of "facts" are news reports, political commentary, and sanitized "official" reports.

I hate to inform you, but there are many, many petty despots who "are seeking WMD". That is very different from having them. You make this an issue about whether Bush was an honorable man; see my other post on that point. The point here is he was duped not by the Wilsons of the world, but by the inner sactum he picked to advise him. He most certainly CAN and SHOULD be critisized for putting evil men like Rove in positions of power, and for blindly following bad advice. He was duped, but he set up the rules so he could be duped.

the biggest issue I have with Bush is exactly what you want to absolve him of: with sketchy intel of very (VERY) questionable origin, and with a lot of intel claiming the opposite, HE SHOULD NOT HAVE INVADED IRAQ! If Sadam was "trying to rebuild his WMD arsenal" then there was time to do what every rookie intel professional knows to do: get more information from credible sources. He didn't THAT is Bush's failure.

IB, Joe B, you may know your right wing mantras but you clearly have no clue about this topic. Spouting off selected excerpts from other people's sanitized reports does NOT mean you know jack about the topic. I often disagree with CJ, but on this topic he's about 85% spot on.