My opinion of Bush misleading is reinforced again

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
I know we are now engaged in talks. Answer this, if Bush didn't ignore the threat back in 2002, why can NK nuke LA?

Can they?

And if so, when did they acquire that ability? Was it last year, or was it before the current President even took office?

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Are you saying we should have made a preemptive attack on NK already?

Yes! Even though I dislike preemption, it should have been used against NK, we knew for sure what they wanted to do.

Proof?

Not yet fact, but based on many facts I have pulled together.
1) In Tenet's speech saying they were totally wrong about Iraq, he then said they knew Libya had WMD and that they were going to surrender those WMD
2)O'Neil, Clarke and Woodward have all come out independently saying that the Bush administration was wanting to go to war no matter what, making Tenet look at the gathered intelligence the way the admin wanted.
3) People interviewing the iraqi defectors from the CIA have said they thought the defectors were untrustworthy regarding WMD and that they were only looking out for their interests.
4)Many of the photos provided from the CIA that Powell used during his presentation to the UN had vehicles and buildings with "duel-use" capability, but the admin didn't tell the UN that the "decontamination vehicle" could really be a firetruck.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

See, you guys can't even remember when NK first kicked out the nuclear inspectors because of the war in Iraq.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
See, you guys can't even remember when NK first kicked out the nuclear inspectors because of the war in Iraq.

So you're saying the moment they kicked out UN inspectors was the moment they acquired the capability to hit Los Angeles with nuclear weapons, yes?

What makes you believe that?

 

[jimnyc]

In Tenet's speech saying they were totally wrong about Iraq

Can you show me where he said they were 'totally' wrong about Iraq?

O'Neil, Clarke and Woodward have all come out independently saying that the Bush administration was wanting to go to war no matter what, making Tenet look at the gathered intelligence the way the admin wanted.

Independently releasing books is more like it. Where are ANY of the 19,000 documents that O'neill claims to have to backup his claims?

And provide PROOF that all 3 stated that they made Tenet look at intel the way the Bush administration wanted. This has already been ripped to shreds by many, including Tenet himself, So I'll be impressed if you can find proof other than from someone looking to make money off thos ridiculous words.

People interviewing the iraqi defectors from the CIA have said they thought the defectors were untrustworthy regarding WMD and that they were only looking out for their interests.

So those writing books and have a monetary interest are credible but those with first hand accounts are dismissed? There are millions throughout the US that think O'neill, Clarke & Woodward are only looking out for their interests.

Many of the photos provided from the CIA that Powell used during his presentation to the UN had vehicles and buildings with "duel-use" capability, but the admin didn't tell the UN that the "decontamination vehicle" could really be a firetruck.

Doesn't matter, it was Iraq's responsibility to provide data of what the inspectors wanted, and they didn't. We would have known which of the dual uses these satellite photos were if they had cooperated. I find it funny that you harp on what the admin might not have mentioned but don't mention a damn word about what Iraq failed to mention for over 12 years. Your arguments are lame and weak.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

What the hell does it matter when NK first kicked out the inspectors? any why in the hell do you think they kicked them out because of the war in Iraq?

Please read what I wrote, I NEVER said that NK kicked out the inspectors, I said that we, the U.S., ignored the fact that they kicked out the inspectors b/c the country was so focused on Iraq.

So you're saying the moment they kicked out UN inspectors was the moment they acquired the capability to hit Los Angeles with nuclear weapons, yes?

The moment they kicked out the inspectors is the moment I think they began to put nukes together.

Now, I see your logic in that they could have done it before, but I think they just laid out the groundwork, getting ready to kick out the inspectors so that they could use the nuclear material.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

And provide PROOF that all 3 stated that they made Tenet look at intel the way the Bush administration wanted. This has already been ripped to shreds by many, including Tenet himself, So I'll be impressed if you can find proof other than from someone looking to make money off thos ridiculous words.

You have your opinion and I have mine. If you want to say their after money, then fine, there's nothing I can say.

Can you show me where he said they were 'totally' wrong about Iraq?

I should have said "almost completely" to allow for the little that the CIA was right on.

Independently releasing books is more like it. Where are ANY of the 19,000 documents that O'neill claims to have to backup his claims?

I use all three, not just O'Neil. On his own I didn't find him convincing, but when you add him to the other to it makes a legitimate argument. I know of 400 documents that the Treasury department said were classified and O'Neil should have had.

So those writing books and have a monetary interest are credible but those with first hand accounts are dismissed?

The people interviewing the defectors were from the CIA, I saw them on 60 minutes, and they were anonymous, so I doubt they made much money, if any. The defectors were untrustworthy and the interviewers expected such.

 

[jimnyc]

You have your opinion and I have mine. If you want to say their after money, then fine, there's nothing I can say.

It wasn't an opinion, you stated it as fact. You claimed all 3 made those statements, I just wanted to read all 3 sources for myself.

I should have said "almost completely" to allow for the little that the CIA was right on.

Ok then, show me where he said they were "almost completely" wrong about Iraq.

I use all three, not just O'Neil. On his own I didn't find him convincing, but when you add him to the other to it makes a legitimate argument. I know of 400 documents that the Treasury department said were classified and O'Neil should have had.

Quantity does not equate to legitimacy. Facts that can be backed up and proven would be considered legitimate. I've yet to see that from any of the above named 'authors'.

The people interviewing the defectors were from the CIA, I saw them on 60 minutes, and they were anonymous, so I doubt they made much money, if any. The defectors were untrustworthy and the interviewers expected such.

I'm confident they have interviewed hundreds of anonymous sources, if not thousands. I doubt they were all lying. What did they gain? The ability to go in hiding for their safety?

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Ok then, show me where he said they were "almost completely" wrong about Iraq.

This is the only point that I think has a chance of going forward. Here are Tenet's points about the missles they thought they had:
" So what did our estimates say? Let's start with missile and other delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction.

Our community said with high confidence that Saddam was continuing and expanding his missile programs, contrary to U.N. resolutions. He had missiles and other systems with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions and he was seeking missiles with even longer ranges.

What do we know today? Since the war we have found an aggressive Iraqi missile program concealed from the international community."

Tenet concludes by saying they were generally on target(Washington speak for being wrong)

Here is Tenet on those unmanned aircraft:"My provisional bottom line today: We detected the development of prohibited and undeclared unmanned aerial vehicles. But the jury is still out on whether Iraq intended to use its newer, smaller unmanned aerial vehicle to deliver biological weapons."
So they were right they could be used duelly, but they weren't coming to the U.S. anytime soon.

The bottom line on nuclear weapons:"My provisional bottom line today: Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon, he still wanted one, and Iraq intended to reconstitute a nuclear program at some point. "
I blame the Bush admin and the CIA greatly for allowing the uranium line back into the state of the union.

I don't think I even need to explain the chemical and biological intelligence, we all know how that turned out.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Here's another argument for the bigger argument of the Bush admin misleading the country to war:

Those 16 words, "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa", were in the state of the union address. Condi said they all conviently forgot that Tenet told them to take it out from a previous speech. Do you really think the Bush admin(Bush, Cheney, Condi, Powell and Rumsfeld) along with Tenet and the people who work on Bush's speeches(like Gerson and Frum) all forgot something so vital to this country's security as knowing whether or not Iraq tried to buy uranium?

 

[jimnyc]

Curiously, you "quoted" the words "almost completely" wrong, yet I don't see anything remotely like that anywhere.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

I quoted those words as my own, I was paraphrasing for Tenet. I guess I should have explained it.

But please answer my question.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
I quoted those words as my own, I was paraphrasing for Tenet. I guess I should have explained it.

But please answer my question.

Paraphrasing? LOL He didn't say anything at all that remotely supports your comments. There was a lot of bogus intel, that doesn't mean it was all wrong nor does it mean it was almost all wrong.

I have no idea who is in charge of writing the speeches, nor specifically who was responsible for that particular speech, so how can I comment on it? For all we know it was a valid error. If it was purposely left in there then whoever demanded it stay was looking to mislead. Do you have proof that they purposely left it there? Can you tell me specifically who is responsible? We'll go from there.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Paraphrasing? LOL

It was crude paraphrasing, but I stand by that it was paraphrasing.

I have no idea who is in charge of writing the speeches, nor specifically who was responsible for that particular speech, so how can I comment on it? For all we know it was a valid error. If it was purposely left in there then whoever demanded it stay was looking to mislead. Do you have proof that they purposely left it there? Can you tell me specifically who is responsible? We'll go from there.

Looks like we're going somewhere, I'll answer your questons to the best of my ability, but then I have some questions for you.

Here's a list of the people responsible in one way or another: Speechwriters-Matthew Scully, Mike Gerson, and John McConnell
President George Bush, Vicepresident Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and his no. 2 man Paul Wolfowitz, Secretary of State Colin Powell and his no. 2 man Armitage, NSA Condoleeza Rice, CIA director George Tenet along with his no. 2 man McLaughlin.

I have no proof they purposely left it in there, but from commen sense I know they did. Think about it, this is the President's State of the Union Address, the most important speech a president makes. He has primetime, the largest audience he will ever get is watching. The State of the Union address is meant to outline his foreign and domestic policies for the year, basically the one opportunity he gets to make his case to the American public during the year. Every last sentence is scrutinized to make sure it is needed, afterall, this is his biggest chance to reach the American people and one can't waste any amount of time.
So now thats set up, do you think its possible the speechwriters( Matthew Scully, Mike Gerson, and John McConnell) mistakenly left that sentence in? Especially when they factcheck the speeches, then there's Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Condoleeza, Armitage, Wolfowitz, Tenet and McLaughlin who all read the speech and I would hope also factchecked it. So do You still think its possible they could forget something that big?!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

But PT what about the islamofascist threat to the world? If you succeed in getting the only world leader willing to fight it unelected, then what will happen? DO you think of these things? Are you just gonna hold hands and sing songs while they stab in your stupid hippy back?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
stupid hippy

Stupid Hippy????

 

[jimnyc]

But you haven't proven that Tenet told them to omit that information. What I'm looking for is clear facts that they were told to omit the info. Who told them that. Who received this info. As far as I know right now, the proper info about the uranium wasn't disclosed until after the fact. I don't want to assume this one said that or that one said this. I've said time and time again I like to deal with facts. I have another honest question, did the white house ever respond to the accusation that they left this information in there after specifically being told to remove it?

Regardless, the point of all of this is that you believe Bush mislead the nation into going to war. This piece of information, whether true or not, wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference. Personally, I was hoping they would use force to remove Saddam for at least 5 years prior.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

In the fall of 2002, as Congress debated waging war in Iraq (news - web sites), copies of a 92-page assessment of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction sat in two vaults on Capitol Hill, each protected by armed security guards and available to any member who showed up in person, without staff.

But only a few ever did. No more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page National Intelligence Estimate executive summary, according to several congressional aides responsible for safeguarding the classified material.

I guess they should have gone down there to check it out then. How is that Bush's fault? What about all the things they have said since 1998? Were they lying then too?

 

[deaddude]

Things is kind of amibiguous
as is the "they" what are you refering to with "things" and who are you refering to with "they." Specifics please.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by deaddude
Things is kind of amibiguous
as is the "they" what are you refering to with "things" and who are you refering to with "they." Specifics please.

Read the very first post in this thread by PJ. Confidential documents were locked up, but accessible if they (senators) actually took the time to go there and read them. They chose not to. That can hardly be blamed on Bush.