-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Another Iraq War Poll
- Thread starter pbrauer
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2011
- Messages
- 6,426
- Reaction score
- 2,219
- Location
- Mecca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Just use Google dude. It's not top secret information that we were at war with Iraq in 2001.
It's just information that ignorant people are... well... ignorant of, until they find out for themselves.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2011
- Messages
- 6,426
- Reaction score
- 2,219
- Location
- Mecca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Operation Southern Watch
COALITION FORCES STRIKE IRAQI COMMAND & CONTROL SYSTEM Nov 27, 2001 -- In response to hostile Iraqi threats against Coalition aircraft monitoring the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike a command and control system in southern Iraq at approximately 3:15 a.m. EST.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE COMMAND AND CONTROL SITE October 13, 2001 -- In response to hostile Iraqi threats against Coalition pilots and aircrews conducting routine monitoring of the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike a command and control system in southern Iraq at approximately 8: 30 a.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE IRAQI AAA SITES October 3, 2001 -- In response to hostile Iraqi threats against Coalition pilots and aircrews conducting routine monitoring of the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike two anti-aircraft artillery sites in southern Iraq at approximately 7 a.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE IRAQI AAA SITES October 2, 2001 -- In response to hostile Iraqi threats against Coalition pilots and aircrews conducting routine monitoring of the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike an Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery site in southern Iraq at approximately 8 a.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE COMMAND AND CONTROL SITES September 27, 2001 -- In response to hostile Iraqi threats against Coalition pilots and aircrews conducting routine monitoring the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike anti-aircraft artillery and command and control vehicles and equipment in open fields in southern Iraq at 6:00 a.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE COMMAND AND CONTROL SITES September 21, 2001 -- In response to hostile Iraqi threats against Coalition pilots and aircrews conducting routine monitoring the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike command and control vehicles and equipment in open fields in southern Iraq between 5:30 and 6:00 a.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY SITES September 20, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi hostile threats against Coalition aircraft conducting routine monitoring of the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike anti-aircraft artillery sites in southern Iraq at approximately 7:30 a.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY SITES September 18, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi hostile threats against Coalition aircraft conducting routine monitoring of the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike an antiaircraft artillery site in southern Iraq approximately 9:30 a.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY SITES September 9, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi hostile threats against Coalition aircraft monitoring the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike surface-to-air missile sites in southern Iraq between approximately 2 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE AAA & SAM SITES September 4, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi hostile threats against Coalition aircraft monitoring the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missile sites in southern Iraq at approximately 9 a.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE MILITARY RADAR August 30, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi hostile threats against Coalition aircraft monitoring the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike a military radar in southern Iraq at approximately 1:30 p.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE COMMAND AND CONTROL SITES August 28, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi hostile threats against Coalition aircraft monitoring the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike Command and Control sites in southern Iraq at approximately 2 p.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE RADAR SYSTEM August 25, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi hostile threats against Coalition aircraft monitoring the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike a mobile early warning radar system in southern Iraq at approximately 4:30 a.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE RADAR SYSTEM 14 August 2002 -- In response to recent Iraqi hostile threats against Coalition aircraft monitoring the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike a surface-to-air missile site in southern Iraq at approximately 8:15 a.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE IRAQI MILITARY SITES August 10, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against Coalition aircraft monitoring the No-Fly Zones in Iraq, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today in a routine strike against military communication, radar and missile sites in southern Iraq at approximately 5:30 a.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE AAA SITE July 17, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against Coalition aircraft monitoring the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike an anti-aircraft artillery site in southern Iraq at approximately 2:45 a.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE AAA SITE July 7, 2001 -- In response to Iraqi hostile acts against Coalition aircraft monitoring the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike an anti-aircraft artillery site in southern Iraq at approximately 3:15 a.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE AAA SITE June 26, 2001 -- In response to Iraqi hostile acts against Coalition aircraft monitoring the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike an anti-aircraft artillery site in southern Iraq at approximately 3:00 p.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE AAA SITE June 25, 2001 -- In response to Iraqi hostile acts against Coalition aircraft monitoring the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike an anti-aircraft artillery site in southern Iraq at approximately 3:15 p.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE RADAR SITE 14 June, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against Coalition aircraft monitoring the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike a radar site in southern Iraq at approximately 3:00 a.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE RADAR SITE June 6, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against Coalition aircraft monitoring the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike a radar site in southern Iraq at approximately 3:00 a.m. EDT.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE AAA SITE June 5, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against Coalition aircraft monitoring the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike an anti-aircraft artillery site in southern Iraq at approximately 3:30 a.m. EDT.
COALITION AIRCRAFT STRIKE SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SITE May 18, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi hostile threats against Coalition aircraft monitoring the Southern No-Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike a surface to air missile site in southern Iraq at approximately 3:45 a.m. EST.
COALITION AIRCRAFT STRIKE RADAR SYSTEM April 20, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the Southern No Fly Zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike a mobile early warning radar in southern Iraq yesterday.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE AAA SITES April 12, 2001 -- In response to anti-aircraft artillery fire yesterday against coalition aircraft in Iraq's southern no-fly zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH coalition aircraft today used precision-guided weapons to strike an anti-aircraft artillery site in southern Iraq at approximately 10:45 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
COALITION AIRCRAFT RESPOND TO IRAQI AAA FIRE March 30, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi AAA fire directed against coalition forces, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike an anti-aircraft artillery site in Southern Iraq at approximately 2:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.
Coalition Aircraft Respond To Iraqi Provocations February 16, 2001 -- In response to recent surface-to-air missile (SAM) and anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) fire against coalition forces that enforce United Nations Security Council Resolutions, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH aircraft struck Iraqi integrated air defense system sites at approximately 1215 Eastern Standard Time. United States and Britain planes on 16 February targeted six Iraqi command centers, including radar and communications centers, in order to prevent Iraq from being able to fire upon and bring down allied planes in future raids. US officials explained the necessity of this massive raid by pointing out that Iraqi air defenses had fired some 13 missiles at allied pilots in the first six weeks of this year, compared to one missile per month prior to that time. During this raid, the allies hit about 40 percent of the targets they sought to destroy or damage. The low hit rate has caused many defense analysts to call the strikes only a qualified success. The U.S.-British air strikes on Iraqi radar sites triggered a flood of editorials in overseas papers. West European papers for the most part avoided overt criticism of the air strikes, but were nevertheless highly skeptical of the efficacy of a "hardline" U.S. policy toward Iraq. Some Russian dailies echoed Kremlin criticism of the U.S.-British enforcement action, and China's official media, matching Arab invective, lashed out at the U.S.' "brutal attacks."
COALITION FORCES STRIKE SAM SITE February 13, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi violations of United Nations Security Council Resolutions, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons today to strike a surface-to-air missile site in southern Iraq at approximately 1:15 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE SAM SITE February 11, 2001 -- In response to anti-aircraft artillery fire today against coalition aircraft in Iraq's southern no-fly zone, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH aircraft struck anti-aircraft artillery sites in southern Iraq at approximately 8:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time
COALITION FORCES STRIKE SAM SITE January 28, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi violations of United Nations Security Council Resolutions, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike surface-to-air missile systems today in southern Iraq at approximately 11:45 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.
COALITION FORCES STRIKE RADAR SYSTEM AND AAA SITE January 20, 2001 -- In response to Iraqi violations of anti-aircraft artillery and surface to air missile fire today, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike radar systems and anti-aircraft artillery sites today in southern Iraq at approximately 8:15 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.
COALITION AIRCRAFT STRIKE AAA SITES January 15, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery fire, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike anti-aircraft artillery sites today in southern Iraq at approximately 6:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.
COALITION AIRCRAFT STRIKE AAA SITES January 1, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi violations of United Nations Security Council Resolutions and international demarches, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike a radar system today in southern Iraq at approximately 5:15 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.
COALITION AIRCRAFT STRIKE AAA SITES January 1, 2001 -- In response to recent Iraqi violations of United Nations Security Council Resolutions and international demarches, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike a radar system today in southern Iraq at approximately 12:15 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Did I ever say it was a lie? No. In fact, I quoted the definition of "propaganda" just so you would understand that a lie is not necessary for something to be propaganda. Partial truth (or even whole truths) released at just the right time also qualify very well as propaganda.
Years ago, the anti-war protesters for Vietnam used casualties and maiming's of soldiers as propaganda to further their cause. Were solders not killed and maimed? Of course they were! Were videos of legless solders in wheel chairs faked? Of course not. So, was it propaganda? It sure as hell was! They used the fate of those soldiers to further their cause.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Can you prove that the information was released for the purpose of more war? It seems to me that the information was released because the information was relevant to decisions being made. Just because you don't like the conclusions reached via information does not mean that information is propaganda.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Do you think the Vietnam protesters were using the solders as propaganda or just showing information relevant to the decisions being made?
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I think they were showing the information that caused them to come to their position on the war, much the same as Bush was doing. People explaining their position is not propaganda. It's not propaganda unless it's fake or a shill. As long as the person or persons are using real information that actually influenced their position, it's not propaganda.
You can only consider Bush's release of information about AlQ in post-invasion Iraq a shill if you presume conspiracy motives and thus claim it was of no actual relevance. The premise of your calling it propaganda is conspiracy theory. Just as the only way I could claim that the protestors were engaged in propaganda is to claim that they didn't really care about the soldiers and thus there were secret reasons for presenting the information.
If we take each at their word, that the information influenced their position, it's not propaganda.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Then you have a very different understanding of propaganda than either I or Merriam-Webster.
I believes that resolves our difference of opinion.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I believe you have a misunderstanding of propaganda and have improperly read the definition to mean "any information presented in the support of a cause". What you fail to grasp is that said information must be presented solely for the purpose of supporting a cause and not be an actual reason the person has come to their position.
While your misunderstanding goes to motive, it's not directly to do with your beliefs about the motives of Bush.
Your conspiracy theory regarding Bush's motives could be used to claim the information was presented as a shill and thus qualifies as propaganda. This is probably where you got the idea (which you fumbled into an improper definition). You need to understand why it qualifies as propaganda under the conspiracy assumption and only under such.
Let's review the definition and highlight where you lost your way:
You see, it's not ~"information presented that influenced ones position on a cause". It's ~"information presented for the purpose of a specific cause".
The only way Bush's information about AlQ in post-invasion Iraq was "for the purpose" of war is to presume that it is not an actual reason for his position but merely presented as a shill.
The difference between "in the purpose of" and "for the purpose of" is subtle but, I believe, within your grasp.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So you're saying the presenter can't believe in what he's saying in order for it to be propaganda? That doesn't compute. You're trying to say it may not be an overt lie but has to be at least a covert lie. Nothing in the definition implies any kind of deception, overt or covert.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Please see the extensive editing above in the purpose of explaining this to you. Note: not "for the purpose of", it's actually relevant.
False. Presenting information "for the purpose of a cause" would be to claim that he presented the information for the purpose of war. That's not true. He presented the information because it was relevant in coming to his position on the war, and not because he wanted more war.
To call it propaganda, you must presume the purpose of the information was to wage or escalate war. That was not, in fact, the purpose of the information. The purpose was, in fact, to explain his position and provide relevant information to the public.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Sorry, it's late. That should read "any information presented that supports a cause". Meaning that just because information supports a cause does not mean it was presented for the purpose of supporting that cause.
Once again:
If the information is presented for the purpose of war, it's propaganda.
If the information is presented for the purpose of information, and it supports war, it's not.
Thus, it can only be propaganda if we presume that Bush presented it for the purpose of war.
Now, if you believe that Bush had predetermined to wage or escalate war, and simply used that information for the purpose of such, then you can rightfully call it propaganda according to your perspective.
If I believe that the information was presented because it was important, and it just happened to support the war, then I can rightfully declare it is not propaganda according to my perspective.
The same is true for the example of protestors.
It comes down to WHY he (or they) presented the information (motive).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Then one could always claim it was "just the facts" so we may as well admit there is no such thing as propaganda unless it's later proved to be a lie (overt or covert) that the presenter actually knew to be a lie at the time. So, in effect, you believe propaganda can only exist in hindsight. I'll be sure to remember that about you - and you be sure to remember, too.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Incorrect. The truth is propaganda if it presented as a shill and is not a legitimate factor in ones position.
Incorrect. Propaganda exists whenever someone uses information for the purpose of a predetermined cause. Like bad science, starting with the conclusion and then finding evidence - that's what one is accusing Bush of when they refer to said information as propaganda.
For the love of god, tell me you understand. I've worked way too hard for this to elude you. I'll give you credit, I was not considering this angle when we began (I was presuming you were claiming lies) and you helped me to see it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Someone presenting the facts as they know them, feeling them to be the truth which are later proved to be inaccurate is not "lying"... they are simply "mistaken".
You are, under the strict definition, propagandizing by expressing your side against someone/something else...but when used it generally has a the parasitic aspersion of not being entirely truthful attached as well. That connotation does not seem the case with Bush and Iraq... from all I can tell from this distance, GWB genuinely believed in the myriad factors cited to justify the use of military force against Iraq in the Iraq War Resolution voted on and approved by Congress. i would hope and expect that Congress also found the reasons compelling enough to incur a war.
Propaganda can occur at any point...and can be entirely accurate or not so.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
True, but we were discussing post-invasion information and whether that was for the purpose of (continued/escalated) war or merely information that lead to support of the (already existing) war.
Someone can, as you pointed out (and as I had considered doing so) present falsities and it is not propaganda.
Propaganda is really a matter of motive.
Someone can believe that Bush had a conclusion and then used the info for the purpose of his conclusion, and fairly (in their perspective) call it propaganda.
Someone can believe that Bush did not have a predetermined conclusion and the info lead to support of the war, and fairly (in their perspective) call it legit information dissemination.
So, why is propaganda mostly associated with falsities? Because (except as noted above), falsities generally indicate that the conclusion was reached before evidence was sought. Thus, basically, propaganda is improper (backwards) science.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 34,478
- Reaction score
- 17,282
- Location
- Southwestern U.S.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Based on what we know now, I'd say probably not... But if we hadn't done so, we probably would have had to do so eventually anyway.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Which means the one presenting it does not really believe what he's saying.
I disagree with that definition because it still implies some kind of deception, which I don't believe is required. Simply the way facts are presented can be propaganda, like the pictures of the war-torn vets. Sure it was true but when you overlay it with emotional appeal it looses it's purity of fact and becomes propaganda. Bush was no different than any other politician. They all do it, every single one. They push the most appealing (or displeasing, as the case may be) side to emphasize their position. That goes beyond just presenting the facts, like scientists do in their reports and publications. It's not technically skewing the data but it's certainly not well-accepted in science like it is in politics.
Since you've brought up science I'll give you a recent (tonight) example I ran across in the AGW debate. (I'm agnostic in that, BTW.) Someone linked to a site that is anti-AGW. In that link they reported about a NASA data release about a solar storm (CME). The linked article read: "As PSI's own space scientists have confirmed, as solar energy penetrates deeper into our atmosphere, even more of its energy will end up being sent straight back out to space, thus preventing it heating up the surface of our earth. The NASA Langley Research Center report agrees with PSI by admitting:".
This supposed "admission" (in 2012) was virtually the same data co-published by the scientist in 2002, tens years earlier and before PSI was even formed. (The newer data does strengthen that report.) To me "admitting" to something kind of implies it was being hidden, suppressed, or was otherwise shameful in some way and that wasn't the situation at all. That's what I call propaganda.
I can see what you're saying I just disagree.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The problem with this is that it's almost impossible to show it as propaganda except in hindsight. It goes to intent, as you've said, and no one can really know that. To me, declassifying and releasing that information at that time is what makes the case. This was an on-going discussion so releasing that information then, when he had that information long before, is damning evidence.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Actually, you don't, you're just not fully grasping our agreement. If you really saw it, you'd agree - because you do. There's nothing I've presented that contradicts your definition or presentation. You just don't understand the meta behind it.
It's only propaganda if the person's intent is to deceive or sway opinion as opposed to disseminating information.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The intel was gathered in '05 and released in '07.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
And some parts it just happened to be de-classified and released a week before Congress's final decision on the subject? Sounds more like someone did some data mining than it being just dissemination of information.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Why make the intel known before the public really needed to know (decision time)? Our intel agencies only sat on it for like a year; they probably wanted to keep it secret longer but it was decision time.