The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

The Jovial One · May 11, 2009

Truth Detector said:
The quotes contained solid belief that he actually had WMDs and would USE them; the epoch fail of your inability to comprehend simple English and hyperbolic efforts to defend the indefensible are noted.

You might also want to watch the video, hear and see these Democrats statements and keep an OPEN mind and be honest for once in your life.

Carry on! :rofl

Um... no. The quotes say we shouldn't let him GET those pesky WMDs.

Read your own quotes, Binky!

Truth Detector · May 11, 2009

The Jovial One said:
Um... no. The quotes say we shouldn't let him GET those pesky WMDs.

Read your own quotes, Binky!

Apparently in your hyper partisan denial, you also failed reading comprehension.

Carry on. :2wave:

Lerxst · May 11, 2009

Truth Detector said:
Yes, the BIG difference between Clinton’s Presidency of doing nothing and allowing Al Qaeda a safe haven to plan the 9-11 attacks while he was getting his dick sucked was the actions of 9-11 and the WAKE-UP call to America.

So where do we start? With your complete lack of knowledge about why very little action was taken under the Clinton watch? How about let's start there. First and foremost, ths National Security Advisor and the National Security Council principles under the Clinton administration pushed for small scale anti-terrorist operations and renditions on multiple occasions. Some of these requests were documented in two books by Richard Clarke, the former head of the Counter Terrorism Security Group. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was one of those requested by the NSA. The Pentagon resisted those missions by insisting on operational plans that would have involved large scale military force be used. We are talking the capture of single individuals, covert operations. The CIA and FBI said they had no such covert capability in the region. Security advisors to the administration suggested utilizing elements such as Navy Seals and Delta Force for the operations. When told to ask the Qatari government to pick him up, the administration protested that the odds of Mohammed being tipped off and fleeing were too great. The Pentagon balked and said that they did not want to risk the assets that way, they wanted to use more conventional units in much larger force. Their plans amounted to small scale invasions. The NSA complained that an operation of that size would tip the target off and send him running. Eventually we convinced the Qatari government to attempt a snatch, and guess what. He was tipped off and fled before the capture could occur. When Clinton personally asked Chairman of the JC Hugh Shelton for plans to use special forces to launch attacks against Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan he responded in the negative, citing that the risk was too great, the mission too difficult to ensure success. Don't sit here and tell me Clinton didn't do anything. Clinton tried but was rebuffed by the Pentagon. You know why you don't hear about this? Because had we went after Khalid Sheik Mohammed in Khartoum when Clinton asked the Pentagon to, had we struck at Al Qaeda camps when Clinton asked the Pentagon to...we might not have suffered the attacks on 9/11.

But why did the Pentagon refuse you might ask? I know I did when I first read it. And the answer is simple. The Pentagons plans were derived from a post-Vietnam military reorganization that was shaped by the Goldwater-Nichols Revolution and the Weinberger doctrine. Do you know what those are? I doubt it. Your not a very good student when it comes to actual military matters. Your right wing regurgitation fest leaves little room for actual facts. In the post-Vietnam era the military underwent a cultural shift out of the desire to protect itself from being used for operations it was neither trained for nor equipped to execute. Vietnam was a prime example of politicians being able to push our troops into wars we never intended them to fight without the need for large scale public support. The result was that we had a largely conventional military fighting an unconventional war, a counter insurgency...something it was not trained to do and something we had no solid strategy to combat. We were still operating along World War II operational models that promoted a very disjointed battlefield command command and constant inter service rivalries. The result was years of protracted give and take in the jungles and over 50,000 U.S. dead. It wasn't until Giap transitioned from a guerrilla war to a conventional war that we were able to beat them wholesale. But by that time it mattered very little. The public was through with the war and swept a new group of Congressional leaders into office on an anti-war message. We withdrew from Vietnam under the appearance that it had all been for nothing. That was the beginning of the military's relationship with the Democratic party. They came home to a resentful nation on the orders of a government dominated by democrats, and it seemed their sacrifices meant little. That is what happens to your military when you send it out unprepared, improperly equipped, and without your nations full support. That is what the officer corps resolved to prevent from happening again. They would push to incorporate more civilian oversight of the military and ensure that they would never again be used for large scale long term operations without the support of the Congress and the people.

In the aftermath of that war, and through the efforts of men like General David Jones, there began a major reorganization of the military command structure. The draft was done away with and the all volunteer force was established under the watch of General Creighton Abrams (the strategy was that an all volunteer force would be more effective man for man, but smaller...this would force our government to choose its battles wisely as the resources needed for large scale wars would be very limited). The resulting concept was called "Total Force." Abrams used the AVF to staff primary combat units and put the task of supporting the combat units on the Guard and Reserves (this meant that the pressure to engage in long term, large protracted wars would be doubly hard to sell since it meant calling up significant numbers of citizen soldiers to do so). Jones proposed restructuring the Joint Chiefs of Staff and an overhaul that would effectively end inter service rivalries in theater. This eventually led to the Goldwater-Nichols Act. A policy of joint operations was implemented and extreme weight was given to the JCS, who could now directly advise the President. If our civilian leaders were contemplating war, the JCS would be in a position to influence that decision one way or the other. In other words, the military now had a say on when they went and for what reasons. What came out of this was a very force heavy doctrine that ensured rapid victories and minimal casualties. We went in with overwhelming force when needed to combat an imminent threat and win quickly. We saw the development of the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force. The idea was to use force in defense of our interests and our allies, not to fight wars of choice, but wars of necessity. We did not make it a point to develop long term counter insurgency plans because our military never intended to be used for that.

Fast forward to Bill Clinton's years in office. The structure of the JCS prevented Clinton from "ordering" Delta or SEAL team operations, all he could do was request the Pentagon to develop a plan to achieve an end. The result he got back were force heavy, overt military operations that required major funding and resources positioning. There would be no element of surprise here. At that time those were not options the military or the President wanted to exercise. But you seem contented to hide in your world of partisan hackery and inject little gems like "he was too busy getting his dick sucked" instead of speaking with any actually command of the subject. There is the difference between you and I. I know what I am talking about, you just know you are talking and that's all you care about.

The point to all this I just typed? To show you that I don't need to cut and paste from the internet, as you so frequently do without quoting the source. I know much of this because I've studied it, intently, from many angles.

Lesson for the day? Read a book son.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Your-Government-Failed-You-Disasters/dp/0061474622"]Your Government Failed You.[/ame]
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Against-All-Enemies-Inside-Americas/dp/0743260244"]Against All Enemies.[/ame]
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-War-Terror-Counterinsurgency-Strategy/dp/0760328684"]Amazon.com: Fighting the War on Terror: A Counterinsurgency Strategy: James S. Corum, Sir Michael Howard: Books[/ame]
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0313310858"]Reorganizing the Joint Chiefs of Staff: The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986.[/ame]

Liberals like you however, only woke for a short month or so before letting your brains and reality atrophy once more.

Yes, there is a HUGE difference between Bush’s LEADERSHIP, and Clintons pathetic inability to act.

Blah, blah, blah...more bloviating from the resident hyper partisan spam machine. Instead of cackling, why don't you actually articulate your argument here? I see no substance...just you yammering as usual.

Nothing had changed in Iraq. If you had any clue about the REALITIES of what was occurring in Iraq, you would know that while Clinton was in charge, Saddam had kicked the inspectors out completely.

The inspectors were not let in until Bush backed up his threat by moving forces into the region. You history suffers from a typical Liberal inflection called LIRS (pronounced liars); Liberal Indistinguishable Reality Syndrome.

Read, become informed and stop parroting retarded Liberal talking points one can get by reading Moveon.org.

So what your saying is that from the Clinton administration of the 90's and the situation in 2003, prior to the invasion...things had changed. Cool, that's exactly what I was saying. The inspectors were back in and they were advising us not to invade. Gee, sounds like a change to me. Glad we could agree on this. :rofl

I would suggest that you don't let your hyper partisan gland flare ups dictate your posting. You get yourself all caught up in your mess making and look really silly.

Lerxst · May 11, 2009

Are we talking the UN Security Council Committees?

I don't know...are we? Why don't you post up what you think they said?

What did the Director of the CIA a Clinton appointee say?

Yes, what did he say? How about you actually cite what statements he made that back you up since you are offering them. But, slam dunk comes to mind. Of course, George Tenet was also aware that raw, unvetted intel was being used to accelerate the case for the war. This is the same man who pushed the aluminum tubes theory, even though there were analysts in his own organization as well as others who openly disputed the theory. Just because Tenet worked for Clinton doesn't mean he got it right. Stop letting your partisanship dictate your logic. CSG analystes were viewing intel coming from the CIA and warning those in charge of it's dubious nature. Tenet ran blocking back for the administration and failed to actually address the nature of the intel that was being used. Again...you need to read a book sometime.

What did the Prime Minister of Britain say?

Again, why don't you tell me what he said instead of making me guess at what you actually mean. Give some examples instead of hinting that you actually have something up your sleeve. He parroted bad intel, just like George W. did. What's your point? They both pushed an agenda, they both got it wrong. Read up on MI6 agent Michael Shipster and the intel he provided his boss, Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of British Intelligence. Why, when one of Britains top intel officers reports that high level informants in the Iraqi government are telling him there are no WMD's does this get brushed under the rug? I mean, the man was proven right, but he was ignored when it counted most.

What did UN resolutions say?

Who cares? U.N. resolutions don't prove that WMD's existed or that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the world or his regional neighbors. You gonna fall back on that resolution again? The "it was on paper so it's justified" defense?

What did the former Clinton Administration defense officials and Clinton say?

Irrelevant, they weren't leading the nation to war in 2003. Why do you keep bringing this up without actually making any relevant case from it?

The only way someone like you can make the hyperbolic lie filled emotional hysterics you claim is by wallowing in complete denial about the FACTS, the beliefs at the time and the emotions running through Governments post 9-11.

No, I can make my case based on facts. You've failed miserably to do the same. You type a lot, but fail to actually make a solid case. 300 lines of text do not a sound argument make.

But what takes an equal willingness to avoid the FACTS is this notion that the decision to go into Iraq was not a massive bi-partisan decision supported by 76% of the American people.

And that's your problem, you are the only one denying the reality of the situation. Both the Congress and the people of this nation were duped by a very well orchestrated and fast paced war campaign that was based on the manipulation of information. It was cherry picked and and used in such a way as to convince everyone we needed to go to war and we needed to go now.

Your armchair second guessing isn’t a statement of the facts, it is a desperate hyper partisan desperation wrapped in denial that your efforts, as well as others, are purely motivated by partisan political BS.

No, my criticism of the Bush administration and their actions is based entirely on years long examination of available information, all of which has been vindicated by the facts as they turned out. There is no denial here. You yap like a rabid Yorkie repeating that mantra, but you've proven nothing. There are a host of books that examine the lead up to the war in Iraq. The amount of evidence we do have clearly points to the fact that the Bush administration orchestrated this venture in a very deliberate fashion. They detail with great intricacy the manner in which it was foisted upon us.

Another intellectually lacking argument in light of the historical facts; what Clinton thought and did was entirely relevant because his INACTION led to the events of 9-11.

See above and heed my admonishment to actually read a real book.

What an amusing notion you have that lacks any factual relevance to suggest that anyone was leading the intelligence agencies around by the nose when BOTH Presidents made identical arguments. If you were not wallowing in denial, the main difference was the events called 9-11 and Bush ACTING instead of getting a blow job by an intern.

Because you say so right? You type several sentences to say "I'm right, you're wrong." That's all you did here. You never once actually debunked my argument. What even funnier is you chastising people over a lack of reading comprehension and then accusing me of claiming that Bush led the intelligence communities around by the nose. I clearly did not say that.

You couldn’t comprehend a relevant fact if it walked up and punched you in the nose.

Ah, the typical TD response. In other words, "I don't have any relevant facts to offer up, only my caustic opinion and a bunch of insulting text and assorted bloviating."

The notion that you could recognize what constitutes a fact based argument speaks of profound irony. You’re slapped with them every day, and when your asinine arguments are thrown back in your whiney Liberal face you run to the basement to whine about it to your buddies.

Oh wait, here you go again. Wait...where are the facts he always brags about? Oops...somebody forgot to bring them again. Imagine that! :rofl

Let’s make sure of one thing, you do LIVE here at DP, most of the NORMAL people do not and don’t require others approval of their whacked out notions about reality to make them feel credible.

Oh here we go, now we get down to the real meat and potatoes of the Truth Detector brand of debate. "You're a meany poo poo head, and even though I make an ass out of myself here religiously, I'll somehow try to bash you for posting here and arguing with me."

If you are talking about your posts, the above comment would be the first truthful thing you have posted on DP.

Someone farted.

Most your posts are OPINION laced with conspiratorial assertions that cannot be supported by credible facts and requires the willful suspension of disbelief. When confronted by your historical ignorance, you then attack the poster and run to the basement to whine like a baby.

Quite the opposite son. I have never, ever ran from a debate with anyone on this forum. In fact I have a history of confronting your nonsense. You see, you have been dissected here by many members of this forum for just this kind of behavior. You bloviate, you whine, you talk a big game and then NEVER deliver. I have no idea how many references you made to "relevant facts" that you are supposedly hitting me in the face with, but you've produced none.

ADK_Forever · May 11, 2009

Lerxst said:
Quite the opposite son. I have never, ever ran from a debate with anyone on this forum. In fact I have a history of confronting your nonsense. You see, you have been dissected here by many members of this forum for just this kind of behavior. You bloviate, you whine, you talk a big game and then NEVER deliver. I have no idea how many references you made to "relevant facts" that you are supposedly hitting me in the face with, but you've produced none.

Where's that fork? :bravo:

That was a good old fashioned :spank:

Lerxst · May 11, 2009

ADK_Forever said:
Where's that fork? :bravo:

That was a good old fashioned :spank:

Seriously, I'm not that good. He just makes it way too easy.

:mrgreen:

Truth Detector · May 12, 2009

I had to put my hip waders on for this pile of revisionist bile.

Tell me something, do you EVER address the topic of the thread or what is being discussed? None of this wordy blather even deals with my arguments about regarding your asinine assertions of Bush lying us into war. But then, the desperate desire to avoid your original asinine assertions and wallow in a circle of futility is hardly new for you is it? So aside from the fact that you REFUSE to address the FACTS I stated to dispute your asinine assertions about Bush lies, I will simplify your wordy blather here for you.

Lerxst said:
So where do we start? With your complete lack of knowledge about why very little action was taken under the Clinton watch? ……..Don't sit here and tell me Clinton didn't do anything. Clinton tried but was rebuffed by the Pentagon. You know why you don't hear about this? Because had we went after Khalid Sheik Mohammed in Khartoum when Clinton asked the Pentagon to, had we struck at Al Qaeda camps when Clinton asked the Pentagon to...we might not have suffered the attacks on 9/11.

None of the above addresses my response to your asinine statement that Bush lied us into war but rather wordy excuse making on the lack of leadership from the Clinton White House.

This pretty much summarizes your wordy attempts to obfuscate the facts:

Don't sit here and tell me Clinton didn't do anything. Clinton tried but was rebuffed by the Pentagon.

BS; One has to willingly suspend their disbelief to believe in the notion that the President can be rebuffed by the Pentagon. He is the freaking Commander and Chief. Rather than make your case, this statement alone makes mine that Clinton failed massively as a leader and instead ran the Whitehouse as a popular opinion poll while getting a blow job.

Once more the above wordy blather has NOTHING to do with your asinine assertion that Bush lied us into war. Bravo, another wordy pile of nonsense to avoid the original farcical assertions you made.

Lerxst said:
But why did the Pentagon refuse you might ask?

No one cares why you THINK the Pentagon can refuse their Commander and Chief; that is nonsensical BS that can only be believed by the uninformed and the gullible. It is idiotic to suggest that if the President commands the Pentagon to carry out his strategy, the Pentagon can say; “no, we’re not going to.”

Good lord, get a grip on reality dude.

Lerxst said:
Fast forward to Bill Clinton's years in office. The structure of the JCS prevented Clinton from "ordering" Delta or SEAL team operations, all he could do was request the Pentagon to develop a plan to achieve an end. The result he got back were force heavy, overt military operations that required major funding and resources positioning. There would be no element of surprise here. At that time those were not options the military or the President wanted to exercise. But you seem contented to hide in your world of partisan hackery and inject little gems like "he was too busy getting his dick sucked" instead of speaking with any actually command of the subject. There is the difference between you and I. I know what I am talking about, you just know you are talking and that's all you care about.

There is a VAST difference between you and I; I stay on topic and you wander into a wonderland of Clinton excuse making and historic diatribes that have NOTHING to do with your original asinine assertion that Bush lied us into war with Iraq. Your desperate diatribes don’t address any of the FACTS I shared illustrating just how asinine your assertions are and merely wander all over the political countryside looking for a purpose.

The FACT is that Clinton spent much of his time avoiding any REAL decision making and avoided any opportunities to eliminate Osama and conduct offensive efforts against Al Qaeda because he was MORE concerned about popular opinion polls than he was about actually LEADING and protecting American interests and lives.

Clinton ignored what was occurring in Afghanistan and ignored the Taliban’s take over of the Government of Afghanistan after the Soviets were ejected.

Clinton spent most of his time in office castrating the intelligence capabilities of this country and gutting the Military to achieve the cuts in Government he and Gore promised.

Here are a few good books on this topic:

The Clinton scandal America can't afford to ignore
New Autographed Edition!
Betrayal (autographed)
by Bill Gertz
Renowned Washington Times defense reporter Bill Gertz accessed classified government documents and confidential sources to expose a national security nightmare of frightening proportions. Bill Clinton's foreign policy has weakened our military and undermined our national defense

Blinded vigilance: How Deutch and Tenet helped weaken the CIA prior to 9/11
by J. Michael Waller
Insight magazine, October 15, 2001

Lerxst said:
The point to all this I just typed? To show you that I don't need to cut and paste from the internet, as you so frequently do without quoting the source. I know much of this because I've studied it, intently, from many angles.

There was no point to all your obfuscation other than to avoid addressing the comments I made to illustrate your asinine nonsense about Bush lying us into war.

When are you going to actually address my comments in rebuttal to your typically uninformed notions of history and the events leading up to Iraq?

Lerxst said:
Lesson for the day? Read a book son.

Here’s a far better list for reading than your worship of Richard Clarke; read some REAL book “son.”

Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror
by Richard Miniter

An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror (Hardcover)
by David Frum (Author), Richard Perle (Author) "WE TOO LIVE in trying times-and thus far our fellow Americans have passed every test..." (more)

Lerxst said:
Blah, blah, blah...more bloviating from the resident hyper partisan spam machine. Instead of cackling, why don't you actually articulate your argument here? I see no substance...just you yammering as usual.

More kindergarten blather; speaking of nonsensical yammering, when are you going to PROVE your asinine assertions about Bush lying us into the war in Iraq and address my comments?

The only thing more laughable about your essay above is the fact that it contains NOTHING that supports your asinine assertion that Bush lied us into war.

Lerxst said:
So what your saying is that from the Clinton administration of the 90's and the situation in 2003, prior to the invasion...things had changed. Cool, that's exactly what I was saying. The inspectors were back in and they were advising us not to invade. Gee, sounds like a change to me. Glad we could agree on this. :rofl

Apparently in your desperate attempt to AVOID my response to the asinine assertion that Bush lied us into war you didn’t read much of what I posted; if you had, you would have had a more coherent response to it and not wandered so far off topic you can’t remember what it is that is being debated.

What I am saying is that during Clinton’s failure to lead, Saddam continued defying the UN resolutions and there was no solid evidence that Saddam had indeed destroyed known WMDs and was not attempting to re-constitute his efforts to develop a nuclear weapon.

What I am saying is that Saddam kicked out the inspectors during Clinton’s failure to lead and did not allow them back in until Bush had assembled a HUGE military coalition force on his borders.

What I am saying, and you are refusing to hear, is that even after that, Saddam continued to defy the inspectors and the coalition regardless of the ramifications if he did not comply.

What I am saying is that unlike your asinine assertions that there was a RUSH to war and that Bush lied us into war, it was a long process of obfuscation, denials and deliberate attempts to obstruct UN efforts to ensure that Saddam complied with his agreements and the EVIDENCE the Bush Administration believed was IDENTICAL to the PREVIOUS administration and that Bush’s statements were IDENTICAL to the Democrats and the PREVIOUS administration.

Your desperate attempts to avoid those FACTS don’t make your wordy blather above a credible substitute for substance.

So with all that, when are you going to address the FACTS I posted that refute your original asinine assertion that Bush somehow lied us into war?

Lerxst said:
I would suggest that you don't let your hyper partisan gland flare ups dictate your posting. You get yourself all caught up in your mess making and look really silly.

I would suggest that you don’t let your Liberal denial dictate your attempts to avoid substantive debate and attempt to obfuscate your original asinine assertions which require the willful suspension of disbelief.

Your laughable attempts to avoid substance are only exceeded by the laughable notion that OTHERS are acting like partisans ASSuming yours are not; it more the POT calling the KETTLE black.

Truth Detector · May 12, 2009

Lerxst said:
Seriously, I'm not that good. He just makes it way too easy.

:mrgreen:

:rofl Being thanked by ADK is nothing to brag about. But the notion that you are good at anything other than uninformed bloviating would again; require the willful suspension of disbelief. :2wave:

Truth Detector · May 12, 2009

Quote:
Are we talking the UN Security Council Committees?

Lerxst said:
I don't know...are we? Why don't you post up what you think they said?

So you don’t remember what you said? Why am I not surprised?

Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
What did the Director of the CIA a Clinton appointee say?

Lerxst said:
Yes, what did he say? How about you actually cite what statements he made that back you up since you are offering them. But, slam dunk comes to mind. Of course, George Tenet was also aware that raw, unvetted intel was being used to accelerate the case for the war. This is the same man who pushed the aluminum tubes theory, even though there were analysts in his own organization as well as others who openly disputed the theory. Just because Tenet worked for Clinton doesn't mean he got it right. Stop letting your partisanship dictate your logic. CSG analystes were viewing intel coming from the CIA and warning those in charge of it's dubious nature. Tenet ran blocking back for the administration and failed to actually address the nature of the intel that was being used. Again...you need to read a book sometime.

So your bloviating aside, you’re agreeing that Tenet, the political appointee holdover from the Clinton Administration supported the statements made by Bush, the Clinton Administration, Colin Powell etc etc.

Thank you for confirming this.

Quote:
What did the Prime Minister of Britain say?

Lerxst said:
Again, why don't you tell me what he said instead of making me guess at what you actually mean. Give some examples instead of hinting that you actually have something up your sleeve. He parroted bad intel, just like George W. did. What's your point? They both pushed an agenda, they both got it wrong. Read up on MI6 agent Michael Shipster and the intel he provided his boss, Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of British Intelligence. Why, when one of Britains top intel officers reports that high level informants in the Iraqi government are telling him there are no WMD's does this get brushed under the rug? I mean, the man was proven right, but he was ignored when it counted most.

So you are confirming that the British thought the same thing Bush did, Tenet did, Powell did, the previous Democrat administration believed etc etc.

Thank you for confirming this.

Quote:
What did UN resolutions say?

Lerxst said:
Who cares? U.N. resolutions don't prove that WMD's existed or that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the world or his regional neighbors. You gonna fall back on that resolution again? The "it was on paper so it's justified" defense?

You should care; you are the one making the asinine assertions that Bush somehow lied us into a war of choice.

You think the Joint Resolution is irrelevant yet is the legal justification for going in? REALLY?

Quote:
What did the former Clinton Administration defense officials and Clinton say?

Lerxst said:
Irrelevant, they weren't leading the nation to war in 2003. Why do you keep bringing this up without actually making any relevant case from it?

The notion that when making asinine assertions about Bush, what the previous administration believed using the SAME intelligence requires willful denial don’t you think?

Because when you make asinine assertions about Bush for purely partisan political reasons, the FACT that the previous administration stated the exact same thing with the exact same intelligence suggests that either they were also all lying, or your asinine assertions are merely lies for purely partisan reasons; which is it for you?

Quote:
The only way someone like you can make the hyperbolic lie filled emotional hysterics you claim is by wallowing in complete denial about the FACTS, the beliefs at the time and the emotions running through Governments post 9-11.

Lerxst said:
No, I can make my case based on facts. You've failed miserably to do the same. You type a lot, but fail to actually make a solid case. 300 lines of text do not a sound argument make.

I haven’t seen any FACTS to support your asinine assertion that Bush “lied” us into a war of choice in Iraq. As a matter of fact, I see profound incongruence between your farcical rhetoric that Bush is an idiot, yet so damned smart he fooled all the Democrats and half the world into supporting the war in Iraq based on lies.

As is typical with uninformed Liberals who blather divisive offensive rhetoric to support their hyper partisan views, the inconsistencies of your own statements and the lies contained in your asinine assertions suggests someone who is very careless with the truth and inconsistent when it comes to their hyper partisan political views.

Quote:
But what takes an equal willingness to avoid the FACTS is this notion that the decision to go into Iraq was not a massive bi-partisan decision supported by 76% of the American people.

Lerxst said:
And that's your problem, you are the only one denying the reality of the situation. Both the Congress and the people of this nation were duped by a very well orchestrated and fast paced war campaign that was based on the manipulation of information. It was cherry picked and and used in such a way as to convince everyone we needed to go to war and we needed to go now.

Ah yes the old asinine assertion that the “dumbest” man in America “duped” the entire world and Congress. But in order to believe this asinine assertion, one must also believe that he also duped the Clinton Administration for saying and using the EXACT same evidence, the British and 34 other coalition partners and NOT just Democrats in Congress, many of whom parroted the same assertions Bush did.

What you seem to have a problem with is consistency, factual events and REALITY.

Quote:
Your armchair second guessing isn’t a statement of the facts, it is a desperate hyper partisan desperation wrapped in denial that your efforts, as well as others, are purely motivated by partisan political BS.

Lerxst said:
No, my criticism of the Bush administration and their actions is based entirely on years long examination of available information, all of which has been vindicated by the facts as they turned out. There is no denial here. You yap like a rabid Yorkie repeating that mantra, but you've proven nothing. There are a host of books that examine the lead up to the war in Iraq. The amount of evidence we do have clearly points to the fact that the Bush administration orchestrated this venture in a very deliberate fashion. They detail with great intricacy the manner in which it was foisted upon us.

No, your asinine assertions which you have yet to support with anything credible other than your typically uninformed blather suggest someone who has no grasp on the FACTS or REALITY.

Instead you wander off topic and blather this forum with your typical uninformed bile for your audience which contains some of the most rabid hyper partisans on the forum,

The REAL facts is that you make such uninformed asinine assertions for purely partisan purposes based on your misplaced hatred of a man for the false belief he perhaps stole the 2000 elections and for nothing more than you disagree with his politics.

Quote:
Another intellectually lacking argument in light of the historical facts; what Clinton thought and did was entirely relevant because his INACTION led to the events of 9-11.

Lerxst said:
See above and heed my admonishment to actually read a real book.

Your trite condescension aside, perhaps you should actually READ a book instead of parroting asinine assertions one can read on blog sites like moveon.org.

Quote:
What an amusing notion you have that lacks any factual relevance to suggest that anyone was leading the intelligence agencies around by the nose when BOTH Presidents made identical arguments. If you were not wallowing in denial, the main difference was the events called 9-11 and Bush ACTING instead of getting a blow job by an intern.

Lerxst said:
Because you say so right? You type several sentences to say "I'm right, you're wrong." That's all you did here. You never once actually debunked my argument. What even funnier is you chastising people over a lack of reading comprehension and then accusing me of claiming that Bush led the intelligence communities around by the nose. I clearly did not say that.

No, I type a lot of sentences and posted links to credible data that support my assertions; meanwhile you continue to blather in a total void of reality or the facts. Nothing you stated here comes close to supporting your asinine assertion that Bush lied us into war.

Rather, they support the reality of the ignorance you bring to the debate, a vacuum of facts and vast inconsistencies of your rude and offensive remarks suggesting that Bush is an idiot, yet he was so brilliant he fooled the whole freaking world.

I am sorry; did you say you were from planet denial? If I want to read uninformed lunatic ignorance, I can read postings on moveon.org.

Quote:
You couldn’t comprehend a relevant fact if it walked up and punched you in the nose.

Lerxst said:
Ah, the typical TD response. In other words, "I don't have any relevant facts to offer up, only my caustic opinion and a bunch of insulting text and assorted bloviating."

Awwww, you don’t like have the truth and facts shoved into your face when making asinine comments; I can say that I am hardly surprised by that.

Quote:
The notion that you could recognize what constitutes a fact based argument speaks of profound irony. You’re slapped with them every day, and when your asinine arguments are thrown back in your whiney Liberal face you run to the basement to whine about it to your buddies.

Lerxst said:
Oh wait, here you go again. Wait...where are the facts he always brags about? Oops...somebody forgot to bring them again. Imagine that!

No one forgot to bring the facts, they are back in my thread, you just choose to avoid them so that you can continue to wallow in your misplaced ignorance and avoid reality.

I am still waiting for the FACTS you claim that supports your asinine statement that Bush lied us into war. But alas, while making asinine comments, you rarely see the FACTS put in front of you illustrating how truly asinine that statement is.

.........Continued due to length......

Truth Detector · May 12, 2009

....continued......

Quote:
Let’s make sure of one thing, you do LIVE here at DP, most of the NORMAL people do not and don’t require others approval of their whacked out notions about reality to make them feel credible.

Lerxst said:
Oh here we go, now we get down to the real meat and potatoes of the Truth Detector brand of debate. "You're a meany poo poo head, and even though I make an ass out of myself here religiously, I'll somehow try to bash you for posting here and arguing with me."

Another whiney insulting response in a vacuum of your own hypocrisy I see. Here let me re-cap your nonsense:

With your complete lack of knowledge

I know what I am talking about, you just know you are talking and that's all you care about.

Lesson for the day? Read a book son.

Blah, blah, blah...more bloviating from the resident hyper partisan spam machine

Instead of cackling, why don't you…..

… don't let your hyper partisan gland flare ups

You yap like a rabid Yorkie repeating that mantra

Someone farted.

This one is just profound irony based on the unintelligent blather above:
300 lines of text do not a sound argument make

Lesson; pot attempting claim everyone else is black. Thanks for being the definition of hypocrisy and uninformed Liberal hyper partisanship.

Quote:
Most your posts are OPINION laced with conspiratorial assertions that cannot be supported by credible facts and requires the willful suspension of disbelief. When confronted by your historical ignorance, you then attack the poster and run to the basement to whine like a baby.

Lerxst said:
Quite the opposite son. I have never, ever ran from a debate with anyone on this forum. In fact I have a history of confronting your nonsense. You see, you have been dissected here by many members of this forum for just this kind of behavior. You bloviate, you whine, you talk a big game and then NEVER deliver. I have no idea how many references you made to "relevant facts" that you are supposedly hitting me in the face with, but you've produced none.

Based on your responses, it is comedic that you have such grand notions about your ability to have a coherent debate; but even more denial when confronted with your asinine assertions; you wander off topic on a historic treatise that begs for a purpose.

The notion that you could comprehend simple facts while wearing those hyper partisan blinders really requires willful suspension of disbelief.

I am still waiting for anything CREDIBLE to support your asinine assertion that Bush, whom you claim is an idiot on many occasions, FOOLED the Congress, the Senate, the military and the rest of the world into a war of choice.

The ONLY way anyone with a brain can support such an asinine assertion is by claiming that all the other people I have listed were also LYING to us about WMDs. But that denial aside, it also requires one to wallow in ignorance to the text of the Joint Resolution by making the asinine argument that the ONLY reason we went into Iraq was to find WMDs; yet of the approximately 1,850 words contained in the document, only a mere 200 address the word WMDs.

Yes Lerxst, your asinine assertions merely parrot the typical rabid hyper partisan blather one can find on any conspiracy site like moveon.org; BUT, the notion that your apparent partisan rhetoric is a substitute for the historic facts as somehow a credible rebuttal to me does require willful denial.

ADK_Forever · May 12, 2009

Truth Detector said:
Being thanked by ADK is nothing to brag about.

Of course it is. You keep studying and I'm confident before the year is out, I'll find something to thank you for.

Lerxst · May 12, 2009

Truth Detector said:
I had to put my hip waders on for this pile of revisionist bile.

Tell me something, do you EVER address the topic of the thread or what is being discussed?

Well, let's take a look at your attempted diversion here. If you will look at my post you will see that I QUOTED YOU and responded to YOU. Those are your comments old man. Not sure if it's the early signs of dementia or your just on the run here, but it's pretty silly of you to chastise me over not being on topic when I'm clearly responding to YOUR post.

None of this wordy blather even deals with my arguments about regarding your asinine assertions of Bush lying us into war. But then, the desperate desire to avoid your original asinine assertions and wallow in a circle of futility is hardly new for you is it? So aside from the fact that you REFUSE to address the FACTS I stated to dispute your asinine assertions about Bush lies, I will simplify your wordy blather here for you.

Are you clinically insane? My post directly addressed YOUR argument. I quoted YOUR exact words and countered every point you made. Seriously, there is something wrong with you.

None of the above addresses my response to your asinine statement that Bush lied us into war but rather wordy excuse making on the lack of leadership from the Clinton White House.

I quoted YOUR response there Truth Detector.

This pretty much summarizes your wordy attempts to obfuscate the facts:

Don't sit here and tell me Clinton didn't do anything. Clinton tried but was rebuffed by the Pentagon.

I know, I can actually make a point in less that 100 sentences when I choose to, unlike you.

BS; One has to willingly suspend their disbelief to believe in the notion that the President can be rebuffed by the Pentagon. He is the freaking Commander and Chief. Rather than make your case, this statement alone makes mine that Clinton failed massively as a leader and instead ran the Whitehouse as a popular opinion poll while getting a blow job.

That's exactly what happened and further shows you are absolutely clueless as to how the military operates under the post-Vietnam reorganization and Goldwater-Nichols Act. You are so ignorant that it is laughable. This clearly exposes the level of bull**** you are willing to spread. I provided source material to back up my case. I the how, the when, and the why. You just ran your suck and showed us how uniformed you really are about the modern political-military relationship.

Once more the above wordy blather has NOTHING to do with your asinine assertion that Bush lied us into war. Bravo, another wordy pile of nonsense to avoid the original farcical assertions you made.

No it addresses the asinine post YOU made.

No one cares why you THINK the Pentagon can refuse their Commander and Chief; that is nonsensical BS that can only be believed by the uninformed and the gullible. It is idiotic to suggest that if the President commands the Pentagon to carry out his strategy, the Pentagon can say; “no, we’re not going to.”

Good lord, get a grip on reality dude.

The Pentagon refused to execute the specific method the administration asked for, which was a small unit black op, not the goal of capturing the target. They refused Clintons "how to do it." They said they would do it, but they mandated the overwhelming use of force. The Pentagon drew up the plan to execute the strategy and that plan was well beyond what anyone wanted to contemplate. Read the whole post Sparky.

There is a VAST difference between you and I; I stay on topic and you wander into a wonderland of Clinton excuse making and historic diatribes that have NOTHING to do with your original asinine assertion that Bush lied us into war with Iraq. Your desperate diatribes don’t address any of the FACTS I shared illustrating just how asinine your assertions are and merely wander all over the political countryside looking for a purpose.

Correction TD, YOU were the one that brought Clinton into the discussion. If you will check, I quoted YOU and your EXACT WORDS.

The FACT is that Clinton spent much of his time avoiding any REAL decision making and avoided any opportunities to eliminate Osama and conduct offensive efforts against Al Qaeda because he was MORE concerned about popular opinion polls than he was about actually LEADING and protecting American interests and lives.

And I've clearly stated that Clinton didn't avoid decision making on this matter. Clinton tried to implement plans to address Al Qaeda. However his strategy was subject to the Pentagons planning for it's execution, and that is what stopped the activity in it's tracks. The difference here is that my assertion is backed by the source material I provided you with. Richard Clarke was at the epicenter of dealing with terrorism and the CSG's prime focus under Clinton was Al Qaeda. Clinton advocated small scale, surgical covert operations. The Pentagon said "no, we can't do that, it's too risky, we'll go after them but we do it based upon our strategy of overwhelming combined force." You are simply offering your opinion on what Clintons motivations were, you have nothing to base that on but speculation of others.

Clinton ignored what was occurring in Afghanistan and ignored the Taliban’s take over of the Government of Afghanistan after the Soviets were ejected.

You're lying. I proved, through the source material I provided and you can verify it, that Clinton specifically requested military operations against ground targets in Afghanistan and was rebuffed by both the Secretary of Defense and the Pentagon. They rejected the idea of covert ops because they believed they would be too risky and too difficult. The military would only subscribe to large scale, force heavy operations, and those are exactly the plans they returned to the administration for the operations. Everyone agreed there was no way that they would be able to get that kind of support in order to respond to the threat Al Qaeda posed at the time. To paraphrase one response to the request "it's going to take a lot more body bags to get that kind of support."

Clinton spent most of his time in office castrating the intelligence capabilities of this country and gutting the Military to achieve the cuts in Government he and Gore promised.

Clinton didn't "gut" the military. This is a common lie that ignorant partisan hacks with little military knowledge like to spread. Clinton downsized the military in response to post-Cold War geopolitical changes. At the same time he injected increased funding into it for modernization and training.

Here are a few good books on this topic:

The Clinton scandal America can't afford to ignore
New Autographed Edition!
Betrayal (autographed)
by Bill Gertz
Renowned Washington Times defense reporter Bill Gertz accessed classified government documents and confidential sources to expose a national security nightmare of frightening proportions. Bill Clinton's foreign policy has weakened our military and undermined our national defense

Blinded vigilance: How Deutch and Tenet helped weaken the CIA prior to 9/11
by J. Michael Waller
Insight magazine, October 15, 2001

I'll check those out and compare them to the dozens of other books available and see what shakes out.

There was no point to all your obfuscation other than to avoid addressing the comments I made to illustrate your asinine nonsense about Bush lying us into war.

When are you going to actually address my comments in rebuttal to your typically uninformed notions of history and the events leading up to Iraq?

Hey smart guy, I DID ADDRESS your comments as it's clear to everyone that I QUOTED YOUR EXACT WORDS. :rofl

Here’s a far better list for reading than your worship of Richard Clarke; read some REAL book “son.”

Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror
by Richard Miniter

An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror (Hardcover)
by David Frum (Author), Richard Perle (Author) "WE TOO LIVE in trying times-and thus far our fellow Americans have passed every test..." (more)

Can you debunk Richard Clarke's information? Where is your articulated counter to what I have said. Where have you shown Clarke to be a liar? I can also list a half dozen books that corroborate what Clarke said.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Going-War-Misinformation-Disinformation-Arrogance/dp/0312360355]Amazon.com: Going to War: How Misinformation, Disinformation, and Arrogance Led America into Iraq: Russ Hoyle: Books[/ame]
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Hubris-Inside-Story-Scandal-Selling/dp/0307346811]Amazon.com: Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War: Michael Isikoff, David Corn: Books[/ame]
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/One-Percent-Doctrine-Americas-Pursuit/dp/0743271092/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242152636&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11: Ron Suskind: Books[/ame]

In all of this you have failed to actually counter what I said with anything of substance. You said "the Pentagon can't refuse the President." That's it. And I knew you would say that which is why I prefaced my end point with a history lesson, which you ignored because unlike you, I took the time to substantiate my case.

More kindergarten blather; speaking of nonsensical yammering, when are you going to PROVE your asinine assertions about Bush lying us into the war in Iraq and address my comments?

The only thing more laughable about your essay above is the fact that it contains NOTHING that supports your asinine assertion that Bush lied us into war.

My post was in response to YOUR EXACT WORDS. Point by point.

Apparently in your desperate attempt to AVOID my response to the asinine assertion that Bush lied us into war you didn’t read much of what I posted; if you had, you would have had a more coherent response to it and not wandered so far off topic you can’t remember what it is that is being debated.

I avoided nothing and quoted your EXACT WORDS.

What I am saying is that during Clinton’s failure to lead, Saddam continued defying the UN resolutions and there was no solid evidence that Saddam had indeed destroyed known WMDs and was not attempting to re-constitute his efforts to develop a nuclear weapon.

What I am saying is that Saddam kicked out the inspectors during Clinton’s failure to lead and did not allow them back in until Bush had assembled a HUGE military coalition force on his borders.

What I am saying, and you are refusing to hear, is that even after that, Saddam continued to defy the inspectors and the coalition regardless of the ramifications if he did not comply.

What you said was nothing had changed, what I said was it had changed. You've not countered my statement, in fact you only substantiated it. It matters not who the President was or why it changed. What matters is that it changed prior to the invasion, that is what matters, and that was point. Thank you for substantiating it for me.

Lerxst · May 12, 2009

What I am saying is that unlike your asinine assertions that there was a RUSH to war and that Bush lied us into war, it was a long process of obfuscation, denials and deliberate attempts to obstruct UN efforts to ensure that Saddam complied with his agreements and the EVIDENCE the Bush Administration believed was IDENTICAL to the PREVIOUS administration and that Bush’s statements were IDENTICAL to the Democrats and the PREVIOUS administration.

There was an absolute rush to war. And yes, Bush did in fact lie us into war. The books I have cited giver examples of where the Bush administration manipulated the intel in order to present a case against Iraq that was no accurate. They did so in order to get a consensus for military action before the elections and before an organized, intelligent opposition to the war could be underway. Witness Rumsfelds assertion that the war could be won and troops home in a very short time. That was presented despite the fact that the both civilian and military advisers had told the administration that an invasion of Iraq would require a much larger number of troops than the White House was allowing for and that there would definite post-occupation issues that could last for years. There were two reports on this that were presented before the invasion. That was deliberate. I'll find them and revisit this. Telling the American people we had solid evidence and were convinced Saddam had WMD's was a lie. Our intel agencies never said that. They said that they had raw intel suggesting that, it was unvetted. The administration knew this. The aluminum tubes issue I pointed out. They had their own analysts challenging the theory they were for centrifuges. They ignored their own experts in favor of an individual who wasn't even qualified to make the statements he made with any authority. I can go on.

Your desperate attempts to avoid those FACTS don’t make your wordy blather above a credible substitute for substance.

What facts have I avoided? I'm waiting on you to produce some to avoid.

So with all that, when are you going to address the FACTS I posted that refute your original asinine assertion that Bush somehow lied us into war?

In progress. Pay attention.

I would suggest that you don’t let your Liberal denial dictate your attempts to avoid substantive debate and attempt to obfuscate your original asinine assertions which require the willful suspension of disbelief.

I'm in denial of nothing. And can you recycle your lame smack anymore?

Your laughable attempts to avoid substance are only exceeded by the laughable notion that OTHERS are acting like partisans ASSuming yours are not; it more the POT calling the KETTLE black.

Yeah, I've avoided substance. Right. Your performance here is just as I predicted it would be in another thread.

Truth Detector · May 12, 2009

ADK_Forever said:
Of course it is. You keep studying and I'm confident before the year is out, I'll find something to thank you for.

I am quite certain that HELL would have frozen over before that day arrives. :2wave:

ADK_Forever · May 12, 2009

Lerxst said:
Well, let's take a look at your attempted diversion here. If you will look at my post you will see that I QUOTED YOU and responded to YOU. Those are your comments old man. Not sure if it's the early signs of dementia or your just on the run here, but it's pretty silly of you to chastise me over not being on topic when I'm clearly responding to YOUR post.

Are you clinically insane? My post directly addressed YOUR argument. I quoted YOUR exact words and countered every point you made. Seriously, there is something wrong with you.

You have just entered The TD Zone. Nothing makes sense in here so, don't beat your head against a brick wall.

Lerxst · May 12, 2009

Truth Detector said:
....continued......

Quote:
Let’s make sure of one thing, you do LIVE here at DP, most of the NORMAL people do not and don’t require others approval of their whacked out notions about reality to make them feel credible.

Once again, rather than actually counter my argument you retreat to the "I'll insult him for being on this forum, even though I'm here too."

Another whiney insulting response in a vacuum of your own hypocrisy I see. Here let me re-cap your nonsense:

There is one difference here...my posts actually contain relevant information. Your posts are almost exclusively insults and hyper partisan rhetoric. You've become almost a legend of sorts around here because of your posting. Let's see, after you came after me for not being "on topic" let's look at your contributions. First volley ad hominem.

With your complete lack of knowledge

I know what I am talking about, you just know you are talking and that's all you care about.

Lesson for the day? Read a book son.

Blah, blah, blah...more bloviating from the resident hyper partisan spam machine

Instead of cackling, why don't you…..

… don't let your hyper partisan gland flare ups

You yap like a rabid Yorkie repeating that mantra

Someone farted.

This one is just profound irony based on the unintelligent blather above:
300 lines of text do not a sound argument make

Lesson; pot attempting claim everyone else is black. Thanks for being the definition of hypocrisy and uninformed Liberal hyper partisanship.

Quoting me is a start...but what did you quote? About 1/20th of the content of my posts. Your focus here once again is on me, not the subject we were discussing. Hmm....is this a pattern? Let's keep looking.

Most your posts are OPINION laced with conspiratorial assertions that cannot be supported by credible facts and requires the willful suspension of disbelief. When confronted by your historical ignorance, you then attack the poster and run to the basement to whine like a baby.[/I]

Whoops! He did it again! More lines of text, no reference to the actual topic of the debate. And a complete "head in the sand" strategy to boot! Rather than counter what I actually posted with an articulate argument you choose the path of least resistance and familiarity...whining, ad hominem, and more whining. You claim I'm ignorant of history but surprisingly absent is any cogent argument to back this up? I laid out a pretty decent argument that, if what you say is true, you should be able to deconstruct point by point. Why don't you do that TD? Wait...I know why you don't. :rofl

Based on your responses, it is comedic that you have such grand notions about your ability to have a coherent debate; but even more denial when confronted with your asinine assertions; you wander off topic on a historic treatise that begs for a purpose.

Same as a above. One would think given all your blustering in the other post you might actually want to discuss the topic of our debate. Not you though.

The notion that you could comprehend simple facts while wearing those hyper partisan blinders really requires willful suspension of disbelief.

Oh and here goes the recyling of the smack talk! Boom baby! Consistency...your strength here at DP. Still no reference to the topic of discussion.

I am still waiting for anything CREDIBLE to support your asinine assertion that Bush, whom you claim is an idiot on many occasions, FOOLED the Congress, the Senate, the military and the rest of the world into a war of choice.

Okay here we go, granted you never actually address the points I'm making with a counter. You put your fingers in your ears and try to type louder than me. You are falling back on a very age old tactic of pretending that anyone ever made the case that Bush acted alone in his selling of this war. I never said that. Bush was the figure head. There were many people involved in the planning of it. Among those Cheney, Rice, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and a host of others. The country and the Congress were force fed information cleared by the White House. This is documented in the books I have listed previously. Dates, locations, attendees...it's all in there. The methodology, the intel that was referenced, the press conferences. All of it. But in order for your case here to have any merit, you must reduce what has been presented to "oh in the other threads Bush is an idiot, but somehow he masterminded this whole thing." You are straw manning. It's very easy to spot when you do it too.

The ONLY way anyone with a brain can support such an asinine assertion is by claiming that all the other people I have listed were also LYING to us about WMDs.

Again, very poor logic. As I have pointed out to you before, this was a case of bad intelligence from the get go. Clinton obviously suffered from his decision to reduce our HUMINT capacity as the quality of the intel we were producing was degraded. This is no secret to anyone. It's one of the chief criticisms he faces. And during the 90's there was some credible evidence Saddam was still actively seeking a WMD program. But he didn't actually have them. That is one difference. Clinton didn't make a major decision to go to war based on that intel either. That is another difference. After 9/11 our intel communities were in overdrive and even then they knew the available intel was spotty and they had no way to confirm whether or not Saddam had any WMD's. In fact they had a lot of contradicting intel coming directly from their informants in Iraq. But that is not what Bush presented. No, Bush's campaign was the result of hard work by the Office of Special Plans. They used raw intelligence that had not been vetted or corroborated. They went so far as to form and engage their own intelligence gathering teams without conferring with the other intelligence organizations and that caused quite conflict. Further when Senate Select Intelligence Committee were actually presented with intel from the CIA and intel from OSP they were told, by the administration, to dismiss the information provided by the CIA and use the OSP analysis instead. This was the wellspring of intelligence the Bush administration used to sell the war. Do you know what the Department of Defense Inspector General had to say about the OSP? Have a look.

From Global Security.org, DOD Report #07-INTEL-04, Summary of the OSP investigation by the DOD Inspector Generals Office.

From the Executive Summary said:
Results. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq-al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers. While such actions were not illegal or unauthorized, the actions were, in our opinion, inappropriate given that the intelligence assessments were intelligence products and did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community. This condition occured because of an expanded role and mission of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from policy formulation to alternative intelligence analysis and dissemination. As a result, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy did not provide "the most accurate analysis of intelligence" 2 to senior decision-makers.

Management Comments. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Director, Defense Intelligence Agency provided comments on the draft report. The complete responses are included in the Management Comments section of the report. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy did not concur with the report stating that their actions were not intelligence activities and, even if they were, would be appropriate given that they were responding to direction from the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Further, he states that their assessment on a "cooperative" Iraq-al Qaida relationship was consistent with the Director of Central Intelligence's own statements to Congress in 2002. The Director, Defense Intelligence Agency comments were administrative in nature and were completely integrated into the final report.

Evaluation Response. The assessments produced evolved from policy to intelligence products, which were then disseminated. The Deputy Secretary of Defense direction made the action authorized; however, we believe the actions were inapprorpriate because a policy office was producing intelligence products and was not clearly conveying to senior decision-makers the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community. The statement of the Director of Central Intelligence included his assessment that "our understanding of the relatinoship between Iraq and al-Qaida is evolving and is based on sources varying reliability." Further, analysis of the statement does not support the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy position of a "mature symbiotic relations" in all areas. The circumstances prevalent in 2002 are no longer present today. We believe that the continuin collaboratino between the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence will significantly reduce the opportunity for the inappropriate conduct of intelligence activities ourside the intelligence channels. As a result, we are not making any recommendations.

Ouch. That had to sting. Here is the full report. Have a read, it's right there.

Continued...

ADK_Forever · May 12, 2009

Truth Detector said:
I am quite certain that HELL would have frozen over before that day arrives. :2wave:

Heyyy, you gots to have more confidence in yourself. Hang in there, study and keep trying. I betcha you can git er done.

Lerxst · May 12, 2009

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.

Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
-------------------------------------
The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime.

President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003.
-------------------------------------
For America, there will be no going back to the era before 11 September 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength.

They are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans.

We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.

President Bush in a televised address to defend his administration's policy on Iraq, September 2003.
------------------------------------
We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime, February 2003.
-----------------------------------
We don't know.

Vice-President Dick Cheney when pressed on whether there was a link between Iraq and 11 September during a TV interview, September 2003.
------------------------------------
We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

Mr Cheney in the same interview, commenting on the war against Iraq.
--------------------------------------
We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it.

Mr Cheney in the same interview, while recounting the controversial claim that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, met an Iraqi official in Prague before the attacks.
-------------------------------------
[Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003.

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.

But that denial aside, it also requires one to wallow in ignorance to the text of the Joint Resolution by making the asinine argument that the ONLY reason we went into Iraq was to find WMDs; yet of the approximately 1,850 words contained in the document, only a mere 200 address the word WMDs.

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.

Yes Lerxst, your asinine assertions merely parrot the typical rabid hyper partisan blather one can find on any conspiracy site like moveon.org; BUT, the notion that your apparent partisan rhetoric is a substitute for the historic facts as somehow a credible rebuttal to me does require willful denial.

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.

Lerxst · May 12, 2009

ADK_Forever said:
You have just entered The TD Zone. Nothing makes sense in here so, don't beat your head against a brick wall.

No kidding. I'm sitting here reading this **** he posted and thinking, he's actually lost his damn mind. :rofl

akyron · May 12, 2009

Yet another buildeburg whore come forward to distract you from what is currently happening. SOP.

President, Council on Foreign Relations

A CFR globalization nut to the core in service to the federal reserve.

Pimping his book too.

Truth Detector · May 12, 2009

Lerxst said:
Okay here we go, granted you never actually address the points I'm making with a counter.

That is because your points do not address your original asinine statements; that Bush lied to everyone or that the ONLY reason we went into Iraq was for Nukes.

How blatantly ignorant does one have to be to see the OVERWHELMING consensus Democrats, the previous administration and our allies had on the EXACT same set of FACTS.

Just because the intelligence was flawed doesn’t make Bush a liar. Just because you are stuck on the straw man issue of WMDs when the LEGAL document on going to war only mentions it in 200 words of a 1,857 word document.

How ignorant do you have to be to not comprehend the difference between EVERYONE having the same faulty intelligence on WMDs and the REAL reasons for going into Iraq?

Lerxst said:
You put your fingers in your ears and try to type louder than me.

What irony coming from the person who can’t even distinguish the OBVIOUS from the SPECULATION and DENIAL.

Lerxst said:
You are falling back on a very age old tactic of pretending that anyone ever made the case that Bush acted alone in his selling of this war. I never said that. Bush was the figure head. There were many people involved in the planning of it. Among those Cheney, Rice, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and a host of others. The country and the Congress were force fed information cleared by the White House.

No, you are pretending that Bush LIED us into a war of CHOICE and the DISTORTED logic that it was all about WMds. Did you READ the Joint Resolution yet?

The notion that it was Bush’s selective “cherry” picking of intel is a farcical partisan political Liberal talking point lacking in any serious credible factual context.

Lerxst said:
This is documented in the books I have listed previously. Dates, locations, attendees...it's all in there. The methodology, the intel that was referenced, the press conferences. All of it. But in order for your case here to have any merit, you must reduce what has been presented to "oh in the other threads Bush is an idiot, but somehow he masterminded this whole thing." You are straw manning. It's very easy to spot when you do it too.

The books you list are speculative novels second guessing the decisions that were made and in Clark’s case, a major CYA effort to profit from his mistakes. DUH

I posted some books for you to read that have far more credibility and facts involved and do not rely on pure OPINION and SPECULATION.

The notion that these books somehow support your asinine assertions about why we went into Iraq and the asinine notion that Bush lied once again requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Once again you avoid the FACTS that the Clinton Administration, the British and Australian Intelligence agencies, Democrats sitting on the Intelligence committees ALL said the SAME thing.

Did you READ the joint Resolution? Because it is OBVIOUS you refuse to admit that out of a LEGAL document that contains 1,857 words, only 200 are devoted to the WMD issue, yet here you go again with another of your WMD straw man arguments desperately asserting that Bush had lied.

Do you even comprehend the irony of your asinine arguments? IF BUSH LIED, so did EVERYONE else.

Good lord, where did I put my crayons.

Lerxst said:
Again, very poor logic. As I have pointed out to you before, this was a case of bad intelligence from the get go. Clinton obviously suffered from his decision to reduce our HUMINT capacity as the quality of the intel we were producing was degraded. This is no secret to anyone. It's one of the chief criticisms he faces. And during the 90's there was some credible evidence Saddam was still actively seeking a WMD program. But he didn't actually have them. That is one difference. Clinton didn't make a major decision to go to war based on that intel either. That is another difference. After 9/11 our intel communities were in overdrive and even then they knew the available intel was spotty and they had no way to confirm whether or not Saddam had any WMD's. In fact they had a lot of contradicting intel coming directly from their informants in Iraq. But that is not what Bush presented. No, Bush's campaign was the result of hard work by the Office of Special Plans. They used raw intelligence that had not been vetted or corroborated. They went so far as to form and engage their own intelligence gathering teams without conferring with the other intelligence organizations and that caused quite conflict. Further when Senate Select Intelligence Committee were actually presented with intel from the CIA and intel from OSP they were told, by the administration, to dismiss the information provided by the CIA and use the OSP analysis instead. This was the wellspring of intelligence the Bush administration used to sell the war. Do you know what the Department of Defense Inspector General had to say about the OSP? Have a look.

There you go again desperately attempting to assert that Bush claimed something that no one else did.

Here are a series of statements, you tell me who made them:

"The intelligence we have, we believe is genuine. We stand by that intelligence”

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Your clown like desperation to support the asinine notion that Bush cherry picked can only be expressed in a vacuum of reality dude.

The only thing more laughable is your equally asinine assertion that; “at least Clinton didn’t act on it.”

How quickly we like to forget the events on 9-11 eh?

Lerxst said:
From Global Security.org, DOD Report #07-INTEL-04, Summary of the OSP investigation by the DOD Inspector Generals Office.

Ouch. That had to sting. Here is the full report. Have a read, it's right there.

You do realize that this is an analysis of whether there were any actual ties between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?

Of course, we should also pretend that Al Zawahiri was not the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq and living there when our troops deposed Saddam.

I am struggling for the relevance to your asinine assertions that Bush and company lied about WMds or how the reasons that we went into Iraq were solely to find WMDs.

The FACT is that in your desperate search for a purpose, you deliberately ignore the FACT that the ONLY way you can support your original asinine assertions is claim that EVERYONE from the British, Russian and Australian intelligence operations, Tony Blair, Clinton and all the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence committee were liars as well, and to ignore the REAL reasons for going into Iraq contained in the Joint Resolution and pretend that the ONLY reason was his WMD program.

So tell me something, why are you so dad to see Saddam deposed? Did you think he was a cool dude? You liked his hairdo? You felt that he had more to offer the Iraqi people than the coalition did? You felt that he was less of a threat to his neighbors than George Bush?

Help me out here, I am very curious what goes through the mind of a Liberal who desperately attempts to distort, lie and obfuscate the truth for purely partisan political purposes that do not serve the interests of the security of our citizens and nation.

Truth Detector · May 12, 2009

ADK_Forever said:
You have just entered The TD Zone. Nothing makes sense in here so, don't beat your head against a brick wall.

Watching you two thank each other is quite amusing; almost as amusing as lerxsts asinine assertions that we went into Iraq Solely due to WMDs and that Bush lied rather than dealing with the FACTS contained in the Joint Resolution, that Democrats made the same claims as did many of our allies.

Carry on; you two make a cute, but uninformed, couple. :2wave:

Lerxst · May 12, 2009

Truth Detector said:
That is because your points do not address your original asinine statements; that Bush lied to everyone or that the ONLY reason we went into Iraq was for Nukes.

Patently false. Bush did lie, and I never said the only reason we went into Iraq was for WMD's. I said it was central to selling the war. And the reason for that? Because he didn't have a case for war without it.

How blatantly ignorant does one have to be to see the OVERWHELMING consensus Democrats, the previous administration and our allies had on the EXACT same set of FACTS.

Well first and foremost, you've not provided any facts to speak of. You blather on about them, yet you do not post them. If you are going to make a case, actually make it. Substantiate it. Don't just sit here and drool on your keyboard. You keep bringing up the previous administration and I've already pointed out that is irrelevant. George Bush took this nation to war in 2003, Bill Clinton was the President until 2000. Now let's try to focus on the situation here. What is at question is Bush's invasion of Iraq. Not Clinton's position on the issue in the late 90's. Clinton didn't take us to war with Iraq over that intel in 2003, Bush did.

Further, as I have asserted, Congress was swayed by information the Bush administration presented. Information, which I have shown, was manipulated in order to get quick support for the war.

Just because the intelligence was flawed doesn’t make Bush a liar. Just because you are stuck on the straw man issue of WMDs when the LEGAL document on going to war only mentions it in 200 words of a 1,857 word document.

I've already addressed the Joint Resolution. You are straw manning again. And the issue is that the Bush administration knew full well the intel was flawed because they produced a good lot of it. See my comments on the OSP.

How ignorant do you have to be to not comprehend the difference between EVERYONE having the same faulty intelligence on WMDs and the REAL reasons for going into Iraq?

The U.K. had intelligence that said exactly the opposite and they ignored it because the Bush White House advised them too. I've already named the agent who reported to the director of British Intelligence that Iraq had no WMD's. He was ignored. I've given you the names of those involved and what was said. You are blatantly lying when you said EVERYONE had the same faulty intelligence. No they did not. They had good intelligence that countered the WMD and terrorism links. They ignored it. I've provided the relevant information and sources for this.

You have not debunked my argument. Why is that? Why are you still lying about my position on the Joint Resolution. I have challenged you to produce quotes of mine to back up the claims you made about me, and you've yet to do that either. Why is that?

What irony coming from the person who can’t even distinguish the OBVIOUS from the SPECULATION and DENIAL.

Please show me the "obvious." Back it up with citation. I'll not accept your bloviating and insults as the truth of the matter. Again you have rambled on and on about facts, yet produced none.

No, you are pretending that Bush LIED us into a war of CHOICE and the DISTORTED logic that it was all about WMds. Did you READ the Joint Resolution yet?

I see you continuing to lie about my position on the Joint Resolution. Why are you doing this? I never made that case. Please show the readers where I did this.

The U.N. Joint Resolution 1441 was drafted by the U.S. and the U.K. and then unanimously approved with the clear message from both author nations that no hidden triggers or automacity existed within it. Any violations by Iraq that would provoke a military response would be taken back before the council. However once it became clear that the U.S., U.K. and Spain were setting their own deadlines for compliance and that military action was a high probability several UNSC nations immediately announced their intentions to oppose any plan for invasion. It was at that point that the U.S. and it's partners completely abandoned any approval from the U.N. for military operations. This farce that you are lifting that the U.N. backed Bush's play for an invasion is over. The U.S. had no intention of honoring the U.N. position on Iraq. So you can stop right there in your use of the 1441 as a backstop for your argument.

The notion that it was Bush’s selective “cherry” picking of intel is a farcical partisan political Liberal talking point lacking in any serious credible factual context.

It absolutely was and I've already given you ample source material to back up my case.

The books you list are speculative novels second guessing the decisions that were made and in Clark’s case, a major CYA effort to profit from his mistakes. DUH

You're full of ****. They are not "speculative novels." Clarke was there in the middle of it as it unfolded. He listed witnesses and identified specific instances of the manipulation of the information. The other books are thorough documentations that also list key individuals, detailed interviews, and full examination of the facts. The information is corroborated. Prove otherwise.

I posted some books for you to read that have far more credibility and facts involved and do not rely on pure OPINION and SPECULATION.

Again, you are full of ****. It's only your opinion that they are more credible. It's obvious you've not read the books I suggested. Care for a time trial test to see if you've read them? I have them right on the bookshelf by my desk. You up for the challenge there hoss?

The notion that these books somehow support your asinine assertions about why we went into Iraq and the asinine notion that Bush lied once again requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Are you some kind of robot? How many times will you recycle that line without actually making a valid point? When do you ever plan on actually debating me here? These books absolutely support my case and you can't prove otherwise or you already would have. If these books are what you say they are then articulate your specific criticism of them.

Lerxst · May 13, 2009

Once again you avoid the FACTS that the Clinton Administration, the British and Australian Intelligence agencies, Democrats sitting on the Intelligence committees ALL said the SAME thing.

Prove it. I am calling you a liar. Prove it.

Did you READ the joint Resolution? Because it is OBVIOUS you refuse to admit that out of a LEGAL document that contains 1,857 words, only 200 are devoted to the WMD issue, yet here you go again with another of your WMD straw man arguments desperately asserting that Bush had lied.

Here you are once again lying about my position on the Joint Resolution.

I'm going to challenge you again to substantiate your argument against me on this matter. Thus far you have proven to be an intellectual coward and blatant liar.

Do you even comprehend the irony of your asinine arguments? IF BUSH LIED, so did EVERYONE else.

No, that is not true and I've told you why this very stupid line of attack won't work.

Good lord, where did I put my crayons.

I can give you a suggestion as to where to look.

There you go again desperately attempting to assert that Bush claimed something that no one else did.

The Bush administration pushed that intel to others who repeated it. This has already been established. Unlike you I have posted my sources and given an articulate argument that substantiates my conclusions. You've yet to actually debunk a single point I've made. You've bleated like feral sheep but not produced a single cogent counter point.

Here are a series of statements, you tell me who made them:

"The intelligence we have, we believe is genuine. We stand by that intelligence”

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

No, you identify them and then provide their relevance to the invasion of 2003. Then I will examine them and make a counter argument.

Your clown like desperation to support the asinine notion that Bush cherry picked can only be expressed in a vacuum of reality dude.

The only thing more laughable is your equally asinine assertion that; “at least Clinton didn’t act on it.”

More of your intellectually deficient and hollow bleating.

How quickly we like to forget the events on 9-11 eh?

Well, I've been waiting on this. Why don't you go ahead and tell me how 9-11 plays into this. Now that you've injected it into the discussion, let's have a go at it.

You do realize that this is an analysis of whether there were any actual ties between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?

No Einstein, it is not. It's an inspector generals report on the actions of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. How the **** can you call that an "analysis of whether there were any actual ties between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda." It's an investigation into the intelligence collecting activities of the Office of Special Plans and the manner in which they provided their reports to high level decision makers. The analysis part had been undertaken by the CIA and the DIA, what was at stake here was the fact that the OSP took this intel and created an alternative analysis that was not supported by the intelligence community and the presented that as the source material used by the Bush administration for marketing the invasion. Are you on drugs or what?

DOD Report No. 07-INTEL-04. Read the title Corky. Then the contents.

Of course, we should also pretend that Al Zawahiri was not the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq and living there when our troops deposed Saddam.

So make your case here. Are you saying that there was an Al Qaeda cell in Iraq before the invasion of after it?

I am struggling for the relevance to your asinine assertions that Bush and company lied about WMds or how the reasons that we went into Iraq were solely to find WMDs.

Well that's probalby because I never made such an assertion.

The FACT is that in your desperate search for a purpose, you deliberately ignore the FACT that the ONLY way you can support your original asinine assertions is claim that EVERYONE from the British, Russian and Australian intelligence operations, Tony Blair, Clinton and all the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence committee were liars as well, and to ignore the REAL reasons for going into Iraq contained in the Joint Resolution and pretend that the ONLY reason was his WMD program.

Already addressed. I think you have hit a new all time high for recycling retarded bull**** in a single post.

So tell me something, why are you so dad to see Saddam deposed? Did you think he was a cool dude? You liked his hairdo? You felt that he had more to offer the Iraqi people than the coalition did? You felt that he was less of a threat to his neighbors than George Bush?

Tell me something, why are you such a dishonest person? I never once endorsed Saddam Hussein. I never once said he was a good guy. But that alone doesn't justify what we did in Iraq. Saddam was not a threat to his neighbors in 2003. I'll cite one of your own references, Scott Ritter to back me up on this, since you like him so much...

There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)

We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. (page 32)

If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple. (page 37)

[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance. (page 46)[8]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/War-Iraq-What-Team-Doesnt/dp/1893956385]Amazon.com: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know: William Rivers Pitt, Scott Ritter: Books[/ame]

OH SNAP!!!!!

Or, I really love this one. REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ. Here are some great excerpts from that report detailing their assessment of Iraq's conventional military and whether or not it was a regional threat in 2003.

(U) This period included seven selected assessments that focused on the condition of Iraqi conventional military forces and Saddam Hussein's possible calculus for launching a conventional attack against U.S. forces or his neighbors in the region. Additionally, this period includes an assessment of neighboring nations' perceptions of and relations with Iraq. Analysts concluded that Saddam Hussein's conventional forces were in poor condition and continued to degrade under the effects of economic sanctions. They believed that Saddam would not choose to risk a confrontation in the region because of the presence of U.S. forces. Analysts also pointed out their lack of certainty about Saddam's intentions to use force, citing poor HUMINT reporting.
---------------------------
(U) Reading Saddam's intentions is difficult. He can be impulsive and deceptive; critical factors important in shaping his behavior are largely hidden from us . . . . But there are two fundamental guideposts that drive our calculus of his actions. First, we judge that Saddam would be careful not to place his regime's survival at risk. Second, he probably believes that a re-invasion of Kuwait would provoke a Coalition response that could threaten to destroy his regime.

(U) Iraq's military capabilities have deteriorated significantly as a result of UN sanctions and damage inflicted by Coalition and US military operations. Its military forces are even less well prepared for major combat operations than we judged in the National Intelligence Estimate . . . of July 1994 and in an Update Memorandum published in January 1995 . . . . They remain more capable than those of regional Arab states, but could not gain a decisive military advantage over Iran's forces . . . . Iraq's military capabilities will continue a slow and steady decline as long as both economic sanctions and the arms embargo are maintained. Smuggling and other efforts to circumvent the embargo will be inadequate to halt the trend . . . . Saddam probably realizes that a reinvasion of Kuwait is now more likely to provoke a Coalition military response that could destroy his regime.

Wow, that really sounds like an endorsement that Iraq was a regional threat in 2003. Hey it's a big report...maybe you can go through it and show me one instance in which they determine Iraq is an actual imminent threat to the U.S. or it's neighbors.

Help me out here, I am very curious what goes through the mind of a Liberal who desperately attempts to distort, lie and obfuscate the truth for purely partisan political purposes that do not serve the interests of the security of our citizens and nation.

Tell me, what goes through the mind of a (I don't know what you are, you aren't normal that's all I can say for sure) who desperately attempts to distort, lie, obfuscate the truth for purely partisan political interests that do not serve the interests of the security of our citizens and nation?

You are complete coward. Nowhere in this entire debate have you substantiated a single lie you've told against me or successfully countered any argument I have made. You have consistently ignored my articulated position and substituted it with dishonest straw manning and insults. I wouldn't even care about the insults if you would actually make a ****ing valid point at least once. You could call me any name you want and I would ask the mods to give you a pass if you would actually spell out your case with some kind of sound logic and substantiation.

But that's just too much to ask from you I suppose.

Lerxst · May 13, 2009

akyron said:
Yet another buildeburg whore come forward to distract you from what is currently happening. SOP.

President, Council on Foreign Relations

A CFR globalization nut to the core in service to the federal reserve.

Pimping his book too.

Why is he a "whore?"

The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

The Jovial One

Member

Truth Detector

Lerxst

U mad bro?

Lerxst

U mad bro?

ADK_Forever

Lerxst

U mad bro?

Truth Detector

Truth Detector

Truth Detector

Truth Detector

ADK_Forever

Lerxst

U mad bro?

Lerxst

U mad bro?

Truth Detector

ADK_Forever

Lerxst

U mad bro?

ADK_Forever

Lerxst

U mad bro?

Lerxst

U mad bro?

akyron

Truth Detector

Truth Detector

Lerxst

U mad bro?

Lerxst

U mad bro?

Lerxst

U mad bro?