- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 8,706
- Reaction score
- 1,400
- Location
- Ventura California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
In that report it clearly details how the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Doug Feith, and the OSP (which was actually created by Paul Wolfowitz at the direction of the Bush administration and who answered to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney) created and disseminated their own alternative intel reports, outside the scope of the actual intelligence community, and provided that to key decision makers. Those reports included the case of a mature link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Those reports were not supported by the intelligence community. That alleged relationship was a key selling point after 9/11. It was repeated and inferred over and over again. Here are some examples.
Darn, how do you counter that TD? That's not just conspiratorial bull****, that's what Bush, Cheney, and Rice are telling the public based on intel produced by the OSP. And I'll be darned if the Department of Defense didn't have something to say about that in the report. Now why would the Bush administration create an entirely new intelligence apparatus specifically to process raw intel for the invasion of Iraq? Why would they dismiss intel from CIA and DIA analysts in favor of their own alternative intel reports? Could it be that the CIA and DIA did not support the case made by the OSP? Clearly that has been identified as a problem.
More on this subject can be found in some of the books I've already presented in this thread.
Uh oh, more straw manning from Truth Detector! Now who didn't see this coming? I didn't say or even infer that the Joint Resolution was about WMD's or that Iraq was ONLY about WMD's. Did I? Can you show one post of mine where I said that? I only said that you were falling back on a line that you attempted to use before, that because the Joint Resolution authorized force that the invasion was justified. That's what I said. I never once stated that the war was ONLY about WMD's and that this was the crux of the Joint Resolution. You can search the entire forum and you will not find a single quote of mine that even remotely hints at this. You have managed to concoct a false position, claim I took it, and then attack me for it. I'll ask this again...what the hell is wrong with you? For all your whining about reading comprehension you certainly seem to have problem with it yourself. Once again we find you straw manning me in the absence of an actual argument.
And still yet we have you completely avoiding actually discussing the subject, and instead relying on insults and blabbering. I've provided a large amount of relevant information and sources. You've done **** to actually debate the topic.
You are living up to your reputation here Truth Detector.
I keep seeing your desperate assertions and attempts to avoid any FACTS that I have posted and your equally desperate assertions to suggest that hearsay and attempts to CYA in novels and books is more relevant than legal documentation and I can only ask you the same old question over and over again; did not the British, the Australians and the previous Clinton administration make the SAME claims that Bush did? It is a simple yes or no question; I posted the exact quotes for you.
Now, try to follow this, did you also READ the Joint Resolution to go to war in Iraq? A simple yes or no.
Now having read the document, do you also acknowledge that this is indeed the LEGAL justification to go into Iraq and was overwhelmingly passed in a bi-partisan fashion? yes or no; you have the link to the document?
If you said yes, how many words are there in the document?
How many words in the document have to do with WMDs?
How many words are contained in the document that attempt to assert that Al Qaeda was connected to Saddam?
These are not difficult questions; but to be honest with you, if you are not going to even give me the courtesy of an honest answer and constantly wander off target with your incessant false assertions about what constitutes a lie, then there is no reason for me to even attempt debating with you.
Now if you answer those questions HONESTLY and without your typical emotional filled hyper partisan bias, the ONLY way you can make the asinine claims that Bush lied is by making an equivalent asinine assertion that ALL the administrations and Democrats who made the identical claims are also lying to us.
If the document that was the LEGAL justification for going into Iraq contains only 200 words from a total of 1,857 words on WMDs, then WMDs cannot have been the singular reason for going into Iraq.
Now if all the FACTS cannot sway you, and the simple fact that Saddam did indeed pose a threat to the world and his neighbors sitting on one of the largest OIL reserves on earth, then no amount of credible intelligent debate will change the obvious denial you tend to wallow in.
So do me the courtesy of answering my questions and acknowledging the LINKS I provided and quotes made by Liberal Democrats; or run along with your rants about "perceived" cherry picking intelligence and CYA novels intended for gullible consumption.
The notion that the Agency Director was deliberately feeding everyone BS or that Colin Powell, one of those insiders, was deliberately lying to the UN for purposes even you cannot begin to elucidate requires the willful suspension of disbelief.
BUT, I will also leave you with this thought; what do you think Bush hoped to gain by purposely misleading the American people and supposedly "lying" about WMDs knowing of course that once we were there the truth would be discovered? I mean, if you are going to foist a lie on the American people, at least falsify and bury some WMDs out in the desert to promote the lie right?
Oh wait, you still promote the equally asinine idea that Bush is such a HUGE moron, that he was only ingenious enough to fool EVERYONE into a War of choice and was hardly smart enough to fabricate evidence to support the lie.
You see how asinine that line of thinking is when you actually THINK it out?