Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When she was Senator Clinton, she, Biden and a few others (?Kerry) voted yes in the War Resolution in Congress to invade Iraq under Bush.
So, back to Hillary. Here we to the left are supposed to support her. I am not a happy camper. But I don't know who else will be nominated other than her and so I MUST support her, most reluctantly. I certainly would never support a Republican. [MOD CUT/off topic]
Hilary Clinton does what is good for Hilary. She will always will play both end to the middle.
Its amazing to read post like yours blaming Bush/Cheney when the country was on board with Desert Storm and the final removal of Saddam. Even the Clinton Adminstration said there was WMD on the ground.
Satellite showed convoys heading to Syria with the cargos of Chemical Weapons.
Everyone accepted the Intelligence reports from George Tenet and MI6 confirmed something and presented to Congress.
Hilary Clinton does what is good for Hilary. She will always will play both end to the middle.
Its amazing to read post like yours blaming Bush/Cheney when the country was on board with Desert Storm and the final removal of Saddam. Even the Clinton Adminstration said there was WMD on the ground.
Satellite showed convoys heading to Syria with the cargos of Chemical Weapons.
Everyone accepted the Intelligence reports from George Tenet and MI6 confirmed something and presented to Congress.
I never did. I saw Iraq becoming another Viet Nam right from the start.
But I agree; back in 2002, the country really wanted another war. And everyone thought the second Iraqui war would go like the first one did.
It did, too. It only lasted a few weeks longer than the first. It was our occupation that did all the damage to us and to them, while Saddam chuckled in his grave.
Hilary Clinton does what is good for Hilary. She will always will play both end to the middle.
Its amazing to read post like yours blaming Bush/Cheney when the country was on board with Desert Storm and the final removal of Saddam. Even the Clinton Adminstration said there was WMD on the ground.
Satellite showed convoys heading to Syria with the cargos of Chemical Weapons.
Everyone accepted the Intelligence reports from George Tenet and MI6 confirmed something and presented to Congress.
Everyone was on board because they were being perpetually misled.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6039
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
No, I have never said that Bush was lied to by the intelligence community, nor does the article I posted say that. Again, the definition of "lie" from dictionary.com
Give me just one example from the piece by Stephen Carter where someone made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive. It's not in there.
If one is convinced of something, and passes that information along, even if wrong, that is not a lie. Wow, you guys never will let go of the 'Bush lied, thousands died" meme, will you.
What I quoted is from your link. in the bottom right hand corner of your link, it says "click here for full article". In the full article it has the entire quote which I copy and pasted and in that quote it says that the intelligence community fabricated evidence because they did not believe their case was strong enough.
Again, that is the full body of your link
Now, for you to continue to attack me in the way you are doing one of 2 things must have happened.
1. You didnt realize there was a second half to your article, and simply thought i made up that quote.
or
2. You are projecting, and very loudly i might add, because i didnt pass on false information, i quoted your link. It says the intelligence community lied to Bush.
3. Your original link goes to "Real Clear World" and then to BloombergView.com.
the 2 articles are worded differently taking exerts from different areas. I understand you dont like being wrong, but changing articles doesnt change what was actually said.
What I quoted is from your link. in the bottom right hand corner of your link, it says "click here for full article". In the full article it has the entire quote which I copy and pasted and in that quote it says that the intelligence community fabricated evidence because they did not believe their case was strong enough.
Again, that is the full body of your link
Now, for you to continue to attack me in the way you are doing one of 2 things must have happened.
1. You didnt realize there was a second half to your article, and simply thought i made up that quote.
or
2. You are projecting, and very loudly i might add, because i didnt pass on false information, i quoted your link. It says the intelligence community lied to Bush.
3. Your original link goes to "Real Clear World" and then to BloombergView.com.
the 2 articles are worded differently taking exerts from different areas. I understand you dont like being wrong, but changing articles doesnt change what was actually said.
You are very, very confused. The RCP link ('read full article') just takes you to the Bloomberg site. The Kansas Star, or whatever it was, just reprinted the article..the SAME article. Here's the quote where Carter talks about the case not being strong enough. There's NOTHING in there about the intelligence community fabricating evidence. Nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by S. Carter
“Everyone, including the spies, was convinced by the intelligence that said Saddam had the weapons,” he writes. Yet “they were not sure it looked strong enough to win the argument.”
By everyone, Corera means everyone. As he reminds us, even Hans Blix, the chief United Nations arms inspector before the war, believed that Saddam Hussein had hidden weapons of mass destruction
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6039
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
You are very, very confused. The RCP link ('read full article') just takes you to the Bloomberg site. The Kansas Star, or whatever it was, just reprinted the article..the SAME article. Here's the quote where Carter talks about the case not being strong enough. There's NOTHING in there about the intelligence community fabricating evidence. Nothing.
Dude, 2 pages back, i highlighted and placed in bold the parts where the writer said the intelligence community felt their information was not strong enough.
Are you saying I made that up, because you have continued to requote crap that has nothing to do with the part of the article i quoted.
Quote:
After the war, it turned out that British and U.S. spies had believed their own intelligence shaky, but thought the other’s conclusions were sufficient to bolster their analysis.
........
According to traditionalists, the errors were “the logical endpoint of the desire of modernisers within the service to make it useful, relevant and close to policy.”
....................
In the case of Iraq, one issue is that there was, in effect, a deadline: It was increasingly clear that Bush and Blair meant to go to war by early 2003. Thus the intelligence agencies were faced with the need to find a way to document what they believed to be true but couldn’t quite prove. As Corera points out, the enemy of good intelligence work is often time. It can take months or years to determine whether a bit of information is even true -- longer still to figure out what it means. The faster the spies have to work, the greater the likelihood of error.
I have come the the conclusion that you only read the parts of this article that you wanted to read, you blocked everything else out.
The author is saying that the U.S. and British intelligence communities has deadlines set forth by their governments, and instead of putting facts behind their beliefs, they just made the logical conclusion factory.
"Saddam owns a factory, and since we dont know what it s for, then it must before bombs"
Thats what they did, if you dont want to call it a lie, then fine, but it is one of the worst guesses you will ever see.
In the full article it has the entire quote which I copy and pasted and in that quote it says that the intelligence community fabricated evidence because they did not believe their case was strong enough.
Where is that quote where he says that the intel community fabricated evidence? That is the bottom line here. No need for this wild goose chase. Just post that quote, and we're done, with you as the winner and still champion.
The one thing I have noticed about Hillary Clinton, is that her principals will change with the changing winds of public opinion. She is a true politician in a not so attractive sense of the word.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6039
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Where is that quote where he says that the intel community fabricated evidence? That is the bottom line here. No need for this wild goose chase. Just post that quote, and we're done, with you as the winner and still champion.
I just gave you the quote. He says instead of backing up their claims, they simply reported the "logical endpoints".
And in doing so, that is a lie.
in plan english, the intelligence community was asked if Saddam has bombs
and they replied
" well, he has factories, he has a few of the materials to make bombs, so logically, yes, he has bombs"
Thats what " logical endpoint" means.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
