To Boldly Lie Where No Man Has Lied Before

[Roadrunner]

Giving them to terrorists is not Saddam using them to attack the USA, is it?

Bush was lying when he claimed that Saddam had the capability to use WMD's against the USA. They were useless as they were and at most they would cause very little damage in restricted areas.

That doesn't fit the definition of WMD's.

Bush was quoting what intelligence told him just like the Dems did then also.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Who Said What When CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.
Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003


But we will just forget that Dems also believed the intelligence reports also.
So did they lie too?

So now you are trying to defend Bush by blaming others.

Too bad that it was the Bush administration that was skewing the "intelligence" to support their illegal warmongering.

Oh, and those quotes from Dems, they were given the falsified intelligence by the Bush administration.

You got a link that supports that the administration was skewing the intelligence report?

Take your pick and there are plenty more where those came from;

How Fake Intelligence on Iraqi WMD Contributed to Triggering the Invasion The Insiduous Role of Israel Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Senate Report Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False

Bush and Iraq Follow the Yellow Cake Road - TIME

Lie by Lie A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq Mother Jones

The Italian Letter How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq Peter Eisner Knut Royce 9781594865732 Amazon.com Books

The blame game was on both sides. That is what politicians do.
It is also why the Dems decided not to go with the impeachment. Politics.
Despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's telling her caucus members "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," Dennis Kucinich D-Ohio introduced a formal resolution to the House of Representatives in an attempt to impeach President George W. Bush from the White House. House Democrats unanimously voted to send it to a committee; a maneuver that essentially killed Kucinich's efforts.
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I believe the Judge.
Bush Did Not Lie - Forbes

In its official report, the Silberman-Robb Commission evaluated only American intelligence on Iraq, not what the administration did with it. But Judge Silberman saw more than enough to draw his own conclusions. During a recent interview with me, he spoke freely about his views for the first time. “As a federal judge I am very careful to stay out of politics,” Silberman says. “But [now that several years have passed] I am inclined to think that … [for] historical purposes I can give an opinion.”

Did the Bush administration distort or misconstrue intelligence to show that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction? No. The intelligence agencies did that by themselves.

The intelligence agencies, Silberman says, “clearly indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They made that clear to both President Clinton and President Bush. They made that clear in the national intelligence estimate of 2002.” How did the intelligence agencies get such a basic, vital question so thoroughly wrong? “A lot of fundamental and almost amateurish mistakes.”

Consider, for instance, the intelligence that Saddam had resumed his program to produce biological weapons.

“That claim came to American intelligence from several different entry points,” Silberman says. “[But] it turned out that it all came from a single source, one person who had made the claim to German intelligence. Nobody in American intelligence realized that what looked like three or four bits of corroborating evidence was really all the same phony thing.”

The intelligence community, in other words, proved incapable of a task that takes place dozens of times a day in every newsroom in America: double sourcing.

Bush lied? Hardly. The intelligence agencies screwed up.

Silberman, however, refuses simply to shift blame for the war from the administration to the intelligence agencies. Instead he rejects the idea that the invasion of Iraq represented a war of choice in the first place.

“Even people at the highest level of the Iraqi regime believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,” Silberman explains. “Saddam was running a bluff. He was bluffing his own people, and he was bluffing Iran. It would have been impossible for any intelligence agency in the world … to have determined that Saddam had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction.”

Even if the intelligence agencies had performed flawlessly, they would therefore have found themselves advising the president of grave dangers. “A first-class [intelligence] opinion would have said, ‘We [the intelligence agencies] know Saddam once had weapons of mass destruction, we know that he proved capable of using them, and we have no evidence that he has destroyed them. Although we cannot prove that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction, we think it highly likely that he has.’”

If the intelligence agencies had submitted just such a report–an accurate, considered assessment–what would have happened?

“The country,” says Silberman, “would probably have gone to war anyway.”

“When Germany seized the Rhineland in 1936, France and Britain failed to respond. I’m sure leaders in France and Britain thought, ‘Well, if we went to war now, we would be waging a war of choice.’ But was it really a war of choice? Of course not. By 1939 there was no choice.

“When the Bush administration went into Iraq, the timing may have been a matter of choice,” Silberman says. “But historians will probably conclude that the war itself was inevitable.”

The Bush administration no doubt made its mistakes, and the intelligence agencies undeniably committed one bungle after another. But after years of attempting to blame each other for the conflict, Americans should recognize that the war in Iraq was never ours to choose. A barbarian forced it upon us.


In other words Al-Qaeda and all other terrorists had to be dealt with no matter what. We got their numbers low and they were weakened from the Iraq war.
If Obama had kept with the program of keeping their numbers low we would not be in this situation now.

How could they impeach Bush for a war Kerry, Hillary and scores of other dems voted for?

 

[peach174]

Bush was quoting what intelligence told him just like the Dems did then also.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Who Said What When CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.
Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003


But we will just forget that Dems also believed the intelligence reports also.
So did they lie too?

So now you are trying to defend Bush by blaming others.

Too bad that it was the Bush administration that was skewing the "intelligence" to support their illegal warmongering.

Oh, and those quotes from Dems, they were given the falsified intelligence by the Bush administration.

You got a link that supports that the administration was skewing the intelligence report?

Take your pick and there are plenty more where those came from;

How Fake Intelligence on Iraqi WMD Contributed to Triggering the Invasion The Insiduous Role of Israel Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Senate Report Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False

Bush and Iraq Follow the Yellow Cake Road - TIME

Lie by Lie A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq Mother Jones

The Italian Letter How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq Peter Eisner Knut Royce 9781594865732 Amazon.com Books

The blame game was on both sides. That is what politicians do.
It is also why the Dems decided not to go with the impeachment. Politics.
Despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's telling her caucus members "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," Dennis Kucinich D-Ohio introduced a formal resolution to the House of Representatives in an attempt to impeach President George W. Bush from the White House. House Democrats unanimously voted to send it to a committee; a maneuver that essentially killed Kucinich's efforts.
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I believe the Judge.
Bush Did Not Lie - Forbes

In its official report, the Silberman-Robb Commission evaluated only American intelligence on Iraq, not what the administration did with it. But Judge Silberman saw more than enough to draw his own conclusions. During a recent interview with me, he spoke freely about his views for the first time. “As a federal judge I am very careful to stay out of politics,” Silberman says. “But [now that several years have passed] I am inclined to think that … [for] historical purposes I can give an opinion.”

Did the Bush administration distort or misconstrue intelligence to show that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction? No. The intelligence agencies did that by themselves.

The intelligence agencies, Silberman says, “clearly indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They made that clear to both President Clinton and President Bush. They made that clear in the national intelligence estimate of 2002.” How did the intelligence agencies get such a basic, vital question so thoroughly wrong? “A lot of fundamental and almost amateurish mistakes.”

Consider, for instance, the intelligence that Saddam had resumed his program to produce biological weapons.

“That claim came to American intelligence from several different entry points,” Silberman says. “[But] it turned out that it all came from a single source, one person who had made the claim to German intelligence. Nobody in American intelligence realized that what looked like three or four bits of corroborating evidence was really all the same phony thing.”

The intelligence community, in other words, proved incapable of a task that takes place dozens of times a day in every newsroom in America: double sourcing.

Bush lied? Hardly. The intelligence agencies screwed up.

Silberman, however, refuses simply to shift blame for the war from the administration to the intelligence agencies. Instead he rejects the idea that the invasion of Iraq represented a war of choice in the first place.

“Even people at the highest level of the Iraqi regime believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,” Silberman explains. “Saddam was running a bluff. He was bluffing his own people, and he was bluffing Iran. It would have been impossible for any intelligence agency in the world … to have determined that Saddam had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction.”

Even if the intelligence agencies had performed flawlessly, they would therefore have found themselves advising the president of grave dangers. “A first-class [intelligence] opinion would have said, ‘We [the intelligence agencies] know Saddam once had weapons of mass destruction, we know that he proved capable of using them, and we have no evidence that he has destroyed them. Although we cannot prove that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction, we think it highly likely that he has.’”

If the intelligence agencies had submitted just such a report–an accurate, considered assessment–what would have happened?

“The country,” says Silberman, “would probably have gone to war anyway.”

“When Germany seized the Rhineland in 1936, France and Britain failed to respond. I’m sure leaders in France and Britain thought, ‘Well, if we went to war now, we would be waging a war of choice.’ But was it really a war of choice? Of course not. By 1939 there was no choice.

“When the Bush administration went into Iraq, the timing may have been a matter of choice,” Silberman says. “But historians will probably conclude that the war itself was inevitable.”

The Bush administration no doubt made its mistakes, and the intelligence agencies undeniably committed one bungle after another. But after years of attempting to blame each other for the conflict, Americans should recognize that the war in Iraq was never ours to choose. A barbarian forced it upon us.


In other words Al-Qaeda and all other terrorists had to be dealt with no matter what. We got their numbers low and they were weakened from the Iraq war.
If Obama had kept with the program of keeping their numbers low we would not be in this situation now.

Forbes opinion is biased.

The facts prove otherwise.

That was a court Judge's opinion.
I know that sooner or later we would all have to go to war over these terrorists groups and so does everybody else.
Even Europe and the middle eastern countries who wanted to do nothing now realizes that they have to be dealt with.
They are not going to go away.

 

[Roadrunner]

So now you are trying to defend Bush by blaming others.

Too bad that it was the Bush administration that was skewing the "intelligence" to support their illegal warmongering.

Oh, and those quotes from Dems, they were given the falsified intelligence by the Bush administration.

You got a link that supports that the administration was skewing the intelligence report?

Take your pick and there are plenty more where those came from;

How Fake Intelligence on Iraqi WMD Contributed to Triggering the Invasion The Insiduous Role of Israel Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Senate Report Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False

Bush and Iraq Follow the Yellow Cake Road - TIME

Lie by Lie A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq Mother Jones

The Italian Letter How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq Peter Eisner Knut Royce 9781594865732 Amazon.com Books

The blame game was on both sides. That is what politicians do.
It is also why the Dems decided not to go with the impeachment. Politics.
Despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's telling her caucus members "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," Dennis Kucinich D-Ohio introduced a formal resolution to the House of Representatives in an attempt to impeach President George W. Bush from the White House. House Democrats unanimously voted to send it to a committee; a maneuver that essentially killed Kucinich's efforts.
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I believe the Judge.
Bush Did Not Lie - Forbes

In its official report, the Silberman-Robb Commission evaluated only American intelligence on Iraq, not what the administration did with it. But Judge Silberman saw more than enough to draw his own conclusions. During a recent interview with me, he spoke freely about his views for the first time. “As a federal judge I am very careful to stay out of politics,” Silberman says. “But [now that several years have passed] I am inclined to think that … [for] historical purposes I can give an opinion.”

Did the Bush administration distort or misconstrue intelligence to show that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction? No. The intelligence agencies did that by themselves.

The intelligence agencies, Silberman says, “clearly indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They made that clear to both President Clinton and President Bush. They made that clear in the national intelligence estimate of 2002.” How did the intelligence agencies get such a basic, vital question so thoroughly wrong? “A lot of fundamental and almost amateurish mistakes.”

Consider, for instance, the intelligence that Saddam had resumed his program to produce biological weapons.

“That claim came to American intelligence from several different entry points,” Silberman says. “[But] it turned out that it all came from a single source, one person who had made the claim to German intelligence. Nobody in American intelligence realized that what looked like three or four bits of corroborating evidence was really all the same phony thing.”

The intelligence community, in other words, proved incapable of a task that takes place dozens of times a day in every newsroom in America: double sourcing.

Bush lied? Hardly. The intelligence agencies screwed up.

Silberman, however, refuses simply to shift blame for the war from the administration to the intelligence agencies. Instead he rejects the idea that the invasion of Iraq represented a war of choice in the first place.

“Even people at the highest level of the Iraqi regime believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,” Silberman explains. “Saddam was running a bluff. He was bluffing his own people, and he was bluffing Iran. It would have been impossible for any intelligence agency in the world … to have determined that Saddam had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction.”

Even if the intelligence agencies had performed flawlessly, they would therefore have found themselves advising the president of grave dangers. “A first-class [intelligence] opinion would have said, ‘We [the intelligence agencies] know Saddam once had weapons of mass destruction, we know that he proved capable of using them, and we have no evidence that he has destroyed them. Although we cannot prove that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction, we think it highly likely that he has.’”

If the intelligence agencies had submitted just such a report–an accurate, considered assessment–what would have happened?

“The country,” says Silberman, “would probably have gone to war anyway.”

“When Germany seized the Rhineland in 1936, France and Britain failed to respond. I’m sure leaders in France and Britain thought, ‘Well, if we went to war now, we would be waging a war of choice.’ But was it really a war of choice? Of course not. By 1939 there was no choice.

“When the Bush administration went into Iraq, the timing may have been a matter of choice,” Silberman says. “But historians will probably conclude that the war itself was inevitable.”

The Bush administration no doubt made its mistakes, and the intelligence agencies undeniably committed one bungle after another. But after years of attempting to blame each other for the conflict, Americans should recognize that the war in Iraq was never ours to choose. A barbarian forced it upon us.


In other words Al-Qaeda and all other terrorists had to be dealt with no matter what. We got their numbers low and they were weakened from the Iraq war.
If Obama had kept with the program of keeping their numbers low we would not be in this situation now.

Forbes opinion is biased.

The facts prove otherwise.

That was a court Judge's opinion.
I know that sooner or later we would all have to go to war over these terrorists groups and so does everybody else.
Even Europe and the middle eastern countries who wanted to do nothing now realizes that they have to be dealt with.
They are not going to go away.

FINALLY there is hope, as fellow Muslims have had enough.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why did you leave out Bush jr's lies to the American people about WMD?

They were found.
Defense.gov News Article Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria Official Says
US did find Iraq WMD New York Post

From your own link;

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.​

Any harbour in a storm, right, you lyin' duped mofo!

Ironic!

 

[Derideo_Te]

So now you are trying to defend Bush by blaming others.

Too bad that it was the Bush administration that was skewing the "intelligence" to support their illegal warmongering.

Oh, and those quotes from Dems, they were given the falsified intelligence by the Bush administration.

You got a link that supports that the administration was skewing the intelligence report?

Take your pick and there are plenty more where those came from;

How Fake Intelligence on Iraqi WMD Contributed to Triggering the Invasion The Insiduous Role of Israel Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Senate Report Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False

Bush and Iraq Follow the Yellow Cake Road - TIME

Lie by Lie A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq Mother Jones

The Italian Letter How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq Peter Eisner Knut Royce 9781594865732 Amazon.com Books

The blame game was on both sides. That is what politicians do.
It is also why the Dems decided not to go with the impeachment. Politics.
Despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's telling her caucus members "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," Dennis Kucinich D-Ohio introduced a formal resolution to the House of Representatives in an attempt to impeach President George W. Bush from the White House. House Democrats unanimously voted to send it to a committee; a maneuver that essentially killed Kucinich's efforts.
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I believe the Judge.
Bush Did Not Lie - Forbes

In its official report, the Silberman-Robb Commission evaluated only American intelligence on Iraq, not what the administration did with it. But Judge Silberman saw more than enough to draw his own conclusions. During a recent interview with me, he spoke freely about his views for the first time. “As a federal judge I am very careful to stay out of politics,” Silberman says. “But [now that several years have passed] I am inclined to think that … [for] historical purposes I can give an opinion.”

Did the Bush administration distort or misconstrue intelligence to show that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction? No. The intelligence agencies did that by themselves.

The intelligence agencies, Silberman says, “clearly indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They made that clear to both President Clinton and President Bush. They made that clear in the national intelligence estimate of 2002.” How did the intelligence agencies get such a basic, vital question so thoroughly wrong? “A lot of fundamental and almost amateurish mistakes.”

Consider, for instance, the intelligence that Saddam had resumed his program to produce biological weapons.

“That claim came to American intelligence from several different entry points,” Silberman says. “[But] it turned out that it all came from a single source, one person who had made the claim to German intelligence. Nobody in American intelligence realized that what looked like three or four bits of corroborating evidence was really all the same phony thing.”

The intelligence community, in other words, proved incapable of a task that takes place dozens of times a day in every newsroom in America: double sourcing.

Bush lied? Hardly. The intelligence agencies screwed up.

Silberman, however, refuses simply to shift blame for the war from the administration to the intelligence agencies. Instead he rejects the idea that the invasion of Iraq represented a war of choice in the first place.

“Even people at the highest level of the Iraqi regime believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,” Silberman explains. “Saddam was running a bluff. He was bluffing his own people, and he was bluffing Iran. It would have been impossible for any intelligence agency in the world … to have determined that Saddam had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction.”

Even if the intelligence agencies had performed flawlessly, they would therefore have found themselves advising the president of grave dangers. “A first-class [intelligence] opinion would have said, ‘We [the intelligence agencies] know Saddam once had weapons of mass destruction, we know that he proved capable of using them, and we have no evidence that he has destroyed them. Although we cannot prove that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction, we think it highly likely that he has.’”

If the intelligence agencies had submitted just such a report–an accurate, considered assessment–what would have happened?

“The country,” says Silberman, “would probably have gone to war anyway.”

“When Germany seized the Rhineland in 1936, France and Britain failed to respond. I’m sure leaders in France and Britain thought, ‘Well, if we went to war now, we would be waging a war of choice.’ But was it really a war of choice? Of course not. By 1939 there was no choice.

“When the Bush administration went into Iraq, the timing may have been a matter of choice,” Silberman says. “But historians will probably conclude that the war itself was inevitable.”

The Bush administration no doubt made its mistakes, and the intelligence agencies undeniably committed one bungle after another. But after years of attempting to blame each other for the conflict, Americans should recognize that the war in Iraq was never ours to choose. A barbarian forced it upon us.


In other words Al-Qaeda and all other terrorists had to be dealt with no matter what. We got their numbers low and they were weakened from the Iraq war.
If Obama had kept with the program of keeping their numbers low we would not be in this situation now.

Forbes opinion is biased.

The facts prove otherwise.

That was a court Judge's opinion.
I know that sooner or later we would all have to go to war over these terrorists groups and so does everybody else.
Even Europe and the middle eastern countries who wanted to do nothing now realizes that they have to be dealt with.
They are not going to go away.

You have every right to your opinion.

There was no intelligence to support the illegal invasion of Iraq.

The Bush administration lied this nation into a war that has cost taxpayers trillions (and the tab keeps on increasing) and the lives and limbs of some of our finest.

Saddam was not a threat to anyone but the Iraqi people themselves. That illegal invasion is why we currently have to deal with ISIS.

The phony "war on terror" was BS propaganda and it has harmed this nation for generations to come IMO.

 

[edthecynic]

You got a link that supports that the administration was skewing the intelligence report?

Bush's own CIA and State Dept told him there were no WMDs before 9/11.

"We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs"
-George Tenet, 2/07/2001

"We believe the sanctions have been effective, and Saddam Hussein's regime has no weapons of mass destruction."
-Condoleeza Rice, February 16th, 2001

"Containment has been achieved, and we now believe Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction or the capability of producing them."
- Colin Powell, February 23rd, 2001

 

[Flanders]

Turning any thread into Bush’s ‘lies’ about Saddam’s WMD is standard practice for Democrats; so let’s go a little deeper.

Democrats made a lot of noise over these 16 words in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address:

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”​

The Democrat party is the party of liars; so it has always been important for them to prove that Republicans are also liars:

Nevertheless, Democrats and their media took off like skyrockets aimed at President Eisenhower’s justification. Liberals screamed that presidents should never lie. Indeed, Democrats would have impeached Ike had he lied to the American people.

Indeed, making President Eisenhower out to be a liar was a strategy designed to cover Alger Hiss’ treason who told the one lie that Democrats can never erase.

Since Democrat traitors could not erase the truth about Hiss from their interpretation of history they hit upon the idea of protecting one of their liars. The only way it works is to portray loyal Americans as liars. Democrats lying about everything is so interwoven in America’s political fabric the number of lies Taqiyya the Liar tells proves it. The lies he tells about illegal immigrants, the ACA, and so on are trivial compared to the lies he tells to defend the United Nations.

Parenthetically, Alger Hiss was the one Democrat whose image was on par with presidents. As the decades passed, pooh-poohing Hiss’ part in setting the Democrat party’s political agenda remains a major objective for Democrats; nevertheless, his significance is as important today as it was back when he got caught:

October 24 is United Nations Day, or as Barbara Marx Hubbard calls it, “Global Oneness Day.” It has also been labeled “Alger Hiss Day,” in recognition of the Soviet spy and State Department official who played a major role in founding the world body. Don’t expect the major media to remind us of that fact.

One of the best sources of information on the role of Alger Hiss in the U.N. is the important new book, Alger Hiss: Why He Chose Treason, by Christina Shelton.

The Shelton book notes, “Following Yalta, preparation for the establishment of the United Nations was Hiss’s primary mission.” Hiss was appointed acting secretary-general of the U.N. founding conference and was involved in staffing the U.N. by selecting people for employment in the world body. “About fifty showed up as permanent employees and a couple of hundred in part-time assignments,” Shelton says of Hiss’s efforts.

“Alger Hiss Day” a Reminder of U.N.’s Anti-Americanism
Cliff Kincaid — October 24, 2012

Alger Hiss Day a Reminder of U.N. s Anti-Americanism​

NOTE: The media whitewash over the U-2 Spy Plane turned Nikita Khrushchev into a hero at the same time it trivialized Alger Hiss —— including the decades long attack on Senator Joseph McCarthy (1908 - 1957) even though he was proved right on the money. To this day, most younger Americans know nothing about Alger Hiss, but they swear that Senator McCarthy was a villain.

Basically, Bush the Younger along with every conservative Republican must be shown as liars which has been taking place since Alger Hiss. In Democrat-speak every conservative word spoken in error, every mistake, every example of poor judgement, is ammunition for protecting the United Nations because Hiss was the first Secretary-General of the United Nations. Bottom line: Media liberals would praise Benedict Arnold if he could be tied to the United Nations.

Finally, all of the lies surrounding ‘yellow cake’ was media justification proving that Saddam had no WMD; ergo, Bush deliberately lied. The fact is that Bush took the war to Muslim territory, while Taqiyya lies about everything.

 

[peach174]

You got a link that supports that the administration was skewing the intelligence report?

Take your pick and there are plenty more where those came from;

How Fake Intelligence on Iraqi WMD Contributed to Triggering the Invasion The Insiduous Role of Israel Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Senate Report Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False

Bush and Iraq Follow the Yellow Cake Road - TIME

Lie by Lie A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq Mother Jones

The Italian Letter How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq Peter Eisner Knut Royce 9781594865732 Amazon.com Books

The blame game was on both sides. That is what politicians do.
It is also why the Dems decided not to go with the impeachment. Politics.
Despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's telling her caucus members "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," Dennis Kucinich D-Ohio introduced a formal resolution to the House of Representatives in an attempt to impeach President George W. Bush from the White House. House Democrats unanimously voted to send it to a committee; a maneuver that essentially killed Kucinich's efforts.
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I believe the Judge.
Bush Did Not Lie - Forbes

In its official report, the Silberman-Robb Commission evaluated only American intelligence on Iraq, not what the administration did with it. But Judge Silberman saw more than enough to draw his own conclusions. During a recent interview with me, he spoke freely about his views for the first time. “As a federal judge I am very careful to stay out of politics,” Silberman says. “But [now that several years have passed] I am inclined to think that … [for] historical purposes I can give an opinion.”

Did the Bush administration distort or misconstrue intelligence to show that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction? No. The intelligence agencies did that by themselves.

The intelligence agencies, Silberman says, “clearly indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They made that clear to both President Clinton and President Bush. They made that clear in the national intelligence estimate of 2002.” How did the intelligence agencies get such a basic, vital question so thoroughly wrong? “A lot of fundamental and almost amateurish mistakes.”

Consider, for instance, the intelligence that Saddam had resumed his program to produce biological weapons.

“That claim came to American intelligence from several different entry points,” Silberman says. “[But] it turned out that it all came from a single source, one person who had made the claim to German intelligence. Nobody in American intelligence realized that what looked like three or four bits of corroborating evidence was really all the same phony thing.”

The intelligence community, in other words, proved incapable of a task that takes place dozens of times a day in every newsroom in America: double sourcing.

Bush lied? Hardly. The intelligence agencies screwed up.

Silberman, however, refuses simply to shift blame for the war from the administration to the intelligence agencies. Instead he rejects the idea that the invasion of Iraq represented a war of choice in the first place.

“Even people at the highest level of the Iraqi regime believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,” Silberman explains. “Saddam was running a bluff. He was bluffing his own people, and he was bluffing Iran. It would have been impossible for any intelligence agency in the world … to have determined that Saddam had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction.”

Even if the intelligence agencies had performed flawlessly, they would therefore have found themselves advising the president of grave dangers. “A first-class [intelligence] opinion would have said, ‘We [the intelligence agencies] know Saddam once had weapons of mass destruction, we know that he proved capable of using them, and we have no evidence that he has destroyed them. Although we cannot prove that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction, we think it highly likely that he has.’”

If the intelligence agencies had submitted just such a report–an accurate, considered assessment–what would have happened?

“The country,” says Silberman, “would probably have gone to war anyway.”

“When Germany seized the Rhineland in 1936, France and Britain failed to respond. I’m sure leaders in France and Britain thought, ‘Well, if we went to war now, we would be waging a war of choice.’ But was it really a war of choice? Of course not. By 1939 there was no choice.

“When the Bush administration went into Iraq, the timing may have been a matter of choice,” Silberman says. “But historians will probably conclude that the war itself was inevitable.”

The Bush administration no doubt made its mistakes, and the intelligence agencies undeniably committed one bungle after another. But after years of attempting to blame each other for the conflict, Americans should recognize that the war in Iraq was never ours to choose. A barbarian forced it upon us.


In other words Al-Qaeda and all other terrorists had to be dealt with no matter what. We got their numbers low and they were weakened from the Iraq war.
If Obama had kept with the program of keeping their numbers low we would not be in this situation now.

Forbes opinion is biased.

The facts prove otherwise.

That was a court Judge's opinion.
I know that sooner or later we would all have to go to war over these terrorists groups and so does everybody else.
Even Europe and the middle eastern countries who wanted to do nothing now realizes that they have to be dealt with.
They are not going to go away.

You have every right to your opinion.

There was no intelligence to support the illegal invasion of Iraq.

The Bush administration lied this nation into a war that has cost taxpayers trillions (and the tab keeps on increasing) and the lives and limbs of some of our finest.

Saddam was not a threat to anyone but the Iraqi people themselves. That illegal invasion is why we currently have to deal with ISIS.

The phony "war on terror" was BS propaganda and it has harmed this nation for generations to come IMO.

Phony war on terror?
Was the twin towers faked?
Was the Boston Bomber's faked?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Take your pick and there are plenty more where those came from;

How Fake Intelligence on Iraqi WMD Contributed to Triggering the Invasion The Insiduous Role of Israel Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Senate Report Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False

Bush and Iraq Follow the Yellow Cake Road - TIME

Lie by Lie A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq Mother Jones

The Italian Letter How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq Peter Eisner Knut Royce 9781594865732 Amazon.com Books

The blame game was on both sides. That is what politicians do.
It is also why the Dems decided not to go with the impeachment. Politics.
Despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's telling her caucus members "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," Dennis Kucinich D-Ohio introduced a formal resolution to the House of Representatives in an attempt to impeach President George W. Bush from the White House. House Democrats unanimously voted to send it to a committee; a maneuver that essentially killed Kucinich's efforts.
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I believe the Judge.
Bush Did Not Lie - Forbes

In its official report, the Silberman-Robb Commission evaluated only American intelligence on Iraq, not what the administration did with it. But Judge Silberman saw more than enough to draw his own conclusions. During a recent interview with me, he spoke freely about his views for the first time. “As a federal judge I am very careful to stay out of politics,” Silberman says. “But [now that several years have passed] I am inclined to think that … [for] historical purposes I can give an opinion.”

Did the Bush administration distort or misconstrue intelligence to show that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction? No. The intelligence agencies did that by themselves.

The intelligence agencies, Silberman says, “clearly indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They made that clear to both President Clinton and President Bush. They made that clear in the national intelligence estimate of 2002.” How did the intelligence agencies get such a basic, vital question so thoroughly wrong? “A lot of fundamental and almost amateurish mistakes.”

Consider, for instance, the intelligence that Saddam had resumed his program to produce biological weapons.

“That claim came to American intelligence from several different entry points,” Silberman says. “[But] it turned out that it all came from a single source, one person who had made the claim to German intelligence. Nobody in American intelligence realized that what looked like three or four bits of corroborating evidence was really all the same phony thing.”

The intelligence community, in other words, proved incapable of a task that takes place dozens of times a day in every newsroom in America: double sourcing.

Bush lied? Hardly. The intelligence agencies screwed up.

Silberman, however, refuses simply to shift blame for the war from the administration to the intelligence agencies. Instead he rejects the idea that the invasion of Iraq represented a war of choice in the first place.

“Even people at the highest level of the Iraqi regime believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,” Silberman explains. “Saddam was running a bluff. He was bluffing his own people, and he was bluffing Iran. It would have been impossible for any intelligence agency in the world … to have determined that Saddam had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction.”

Even if the intelligence agencies had performed flawlessly, they would therefore have found themselves advising the president of grave dangers. “A first-class [intelligence] opinion would have said, ‘We [the intelligence agencies] know Saddam once had weapons of mass destruction, we know that he proved capable of using them, and we have no evidence that he has destroyed them. Although we cannot prove that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction, we think it highly likely that he has.’”

If the intelligence agencies had submitted just such a report–an accurate, considered assessment–what would have happened?

“The country,” says Silberman, “would probably have gone to war anyway.”

“When Germany seized the Rhineland in 1936, France and Britain failed to respond. I’m sure leaders in France and Britain thought, ‘Well, if we went to war now, we would be waging a war of choice.’ But was it really a war of choice? Of course not. By 1939 there was no choice.

“When the Bush administration went into Iraq, the timing may have been a matter of choice,” Silberman says. “But historians will probably conclude that the war itself was inevitable.”

The Bush administration no doubt made its mistakes, and the intelligence agencies undeniably committed one bungle after another. But after years of attempting to blame each other for the conflict, Americans should recognize that the war in Iraq was never ours to choose. A barbarian forced it upon us.


In other words Al-Qaeda and all other terrorists had to be dealt with no matter what. We got their numbers low and they were weakened from the Iraq war.
If Obama had kept with the program of keeping their numbers low we would not be in this situation now.

Forbes opinion is biased.

The facts prove otherwise.

That was a court Judge's opinion.
I know that sooner or later we would all have to go to war over these terrorists groups and so does everybody else.
Even Europe and the middle eastern countries who wanted to do nothing now realizes that they have to be dealt with.
They are not going to go away.

You have every right to your opinion.

There was no intelligence to support the illegal invasion of Iraq.

The Bush administration lied this nation into a war that has cost taxpayers trillions (and the tab keeps on increasing) and the lives and limbs of some of our finest.

Saddam was not a threat to anyone but the Iraqi people themselves. That illegal invasion is why we currently have to deal with ISIS.

The phony "war on terror" was BS propaganda and it has harmed this nation for generations to come IMO.

Phony war on terror?
Was the twin towers faked?
Was the Boston Bomber's faked?

Please explain how you wage war on a noun.

You wage wars against nations.

Terrorism is a criminal act. In the case of 9/11 it was a criminal act of international terrorism and the Boston Bombing was an act of domestic terrorism no different to what Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma City.

Terrorists are criminals. It was one of the dumbest mistakes ever made to promote them to the status of "enemy combatants".

You cannot eradicate terrorism by waging war because that it is exactly what they want you to do. Sun Tzu would have been appalled by the way Bush jr waged his illegal war in Iraq. It played directly into the hands of Al Queda and made it much stronger as a result.

Right now drones and intelligence are the smart way to deal with them overseas. Here in the USA the FBI is dealing with them.

 

[Vigilante]

Why did you leave out Bush jr's lies to the American people about WMD?

Perhaps dumbass, because, even the N.Y. Times states they were there!....But don't let the TRUTH get in the way of a lefty, subversive, scumbags rant!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

 

[Mad Scientist]

Awesome thread and awesome thread title!

 

[Flanders]

Please explain how you wage war on a noun.

You wage wars against nations.

Terrorism is a criminal act. In the case of 9/11 it was a criminal act of international terrorism and the Boston Bombing was an act of domestic terrorism no different to what Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma City.

Terrorists are criminals. It was one of the dumbest mistakes ever made to promote them to the status of "enemy combatants".

To Derideo_Te: By your logic Communists in Korea and Vietnam were also criminals. That always leads to asking people like John Kerry, Joe Biden, the Clintons, and so many others:

Do you oppose the Korean War in hindsight?

If they answer “Yes” they admit that fighting Communism is what they oppose.

If they answer “No.” ask them why not? since both wars were fought for the same reason.

I will not burden you with that exercise; however, the recent unpleasantness with Muslims does trigger my curiosity. Perhaps you can answer this one.

Would Islam’s soldiers still be criminals should Congress declare war?

Awesome thread and awesome thread title!

To Mad Scientist: Like Kasper Gutman said to Sam Spade: “You’re a man of nice judgement.”

 

[Derideo_Te]

Please explain how you wage war on a noun.

You wage wars against nations.

Terrorism is a criminal act. In the case of 9/11 it was a criminal act of international terrorism and the Boston Bombing was an act of domestic terrorism no different to what Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma City.

Terrorists are criminals. It was one of the dumbest mistakes ever made to promote them to the status of "enemy combatants".

To Derideo_Te: By your logic Communists in Korea and Vietnam were also criminals. That always leads to asking people like John Kerry, Joe Biden, the Clintons, and so many others:

Do you oppose the Korean War in hindsight?

If they answer “Yes” they admit that fighting Communism is what they oppose.

If they answer “No.” ask them why not? since both wars were fought for the same reason.

I will not burden you with that exercise; however, the recent unpleasantness with Muslims does trigger my curiosity. Perhaps you can answer this one.

Would Islam’s soldiers still be criminals should Congress declare war?

Awesome thread and awesome thread title!

To Mad Scientist: Like Kasper Gutman said to Sam Spade: “You’re a man of nice judgement.”

The communists engaged in conventional warfare.

Your "logic" failed.

Next.

 

[Flanders]

The communists engaged in conventional warfare.

To Derideo_Te: What does your clever little sidestep have to do with Islam’s unconventional war? A declaration of war changes nothing.

Would Islam’s soldiers still be criminals should Congress declare war?

 

[peach174]

The blame game was on both sides. That is what politicians do.
It is also why the Dems decided not to go with the impeachment. Politics.
Despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's telling her caucus members "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," Dennis Kucinich D-Ohio introduced a formal resolution to the House of Representatives in an attempt to impeach President George W. Bush from the White House. House Democrats unanimously voted to send it to a committee; a maneuver that essentially killed Kucinich's efforts.
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I believe the Judge.
Bush Did Not Lie - Forbes

In its official report, the Silberman-Robb Commission evaluated only American intelligence on Iraq, not what the administration did with it. But Judge Silberman saw more than enough to draw his own conclusions. During a recent interview with me, he spoke freely about his views for the first time. “As a federal judge I am very careful to stay out of politics,” Silberman says. “But [now that several years have passed] I am inclined to think that … [for] historical purposes I can give an opinion.”

Did the Bush administration distort or misconstrue intelligence to show that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction? No. The intelligence agencies did that by themselves.

The intelligence agencies, Silberman says, “clearly indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They made that clear to both President Clinton and President Bush. They made that clear in the national intelligence estimate of 2002.” How did the intelligence agencies get such a basic, vital question so thoroughly wrong? “A lot of fundamental and almost amateurish mistakes.”

Consider, for instance, the intelligence that Saddam had resumed his program to produce biological weapons.

“That claim came to American intelligence from several different entry points,” Silberman says. “[But] it turned out that it all came from a single source, one person who had made the claim to German intelligence. Nobody in American intelligence realized that what looked like three or four bits of corroborating evidence was really all the same phony thing.”

The intelligence community, in other words, proved incapable of a task that takes place dozens of times a day in every newsroom in America: double sourcing.

Bush lied? Hardly. The intelligence agencies screwed up.

Silberman, however, refuses simply to shift blame for the war from the administration to the intelligence agencies. Instead he rejects the idea that the invasion of Iraq represented a war of choice in the first place.

“Even people at the highest level of the Iraqi regime believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,” Silberman explains. “Saddam was running a bluff. He was bluffing his own people, and he was bluffing Iran. It would have been impossible for any intelligence agency in the world … to have determined that Saddam had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction.”

Even if the intelligence agencies had performed flawlessly, they would therefore have found themselves advising the president of grave dangers. “A first-class [intelligence] opinion would have said, ‘We [the intelligence agencies] know Saddam once had weapons of mass destruction, we know that he proved capable of using them, and we have no evidence that he has destroyed them. Although we cannot prove that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction, we think it highly likely that he has.’”

If the intelligence agencies had submitted just such a report–an accurate, considered assessment–what would have happened?

“The country,” says Silberman, “would probably have gone to war anyway.”

“When Germany seized the Rhineland in 1936, France and Britain failed to respond. I’m sure leaders in France and Britain thought, ‘Well, if we went to war now, we would be waging a war of choice.’ But was it really a war of choice? Of course not. By 1939 there was no choice.

“When the Bush administration went into Iraq, the timing may have been a matter of choice,” Silberman says. “But historians will probably conclude that the war itself was inevitable.”

The Bush administration no doubt made its mistakes, and the intelligence agencies undeniably committed one bungle after another. But after years of attempting to blame each other for the conflict, Americans should recognize that the war in Iraq was never ours to choose. A barbarian forced it upon us.


In other words Al-Qaeda and all other terrorists had to be dealt with no matter what. We got their numbers low and they were weakened from the Iraq war.
If Obama had kept with the program of keeping their numbers low we would not be in this situation now.

Forbes opinion is biased.

The facts prove otherwise.

That was a court Judge's opinion.
I know that sooner or later we would all have to go to war over these terrorists groups and so does everybody else.
Even Europe and the middle eastern countries who wanted to do nothing now realizes that they have to be dealt with.
They are not going to go away.

You have every right to your opinion.

There was no intelligence to support the illegal invasion of Iraq.

The Bush administration lied this nation into a war that has cost taxpayers trillions (and the tab keeps on increasing) and the lives and limbs of some of our finest.

Saddam was not a threat to anyone but the Iraqi people themselves. That illegal invasion is why we currently have to deal with ISIS.

The phony "war on terror" was BS propaganda and it has harmed this nation for generations to come IMO.

Phony war on terror?
Was the twin towers faked?
Was the Boston Bomber's faked?

Please explain how you wage war on a noun.

You wage wars against nations.

Terrorism is a criminal act. In the case of 9/11 it was a criminal act of international terrorism and the Boston Bombing was an act of domestic terrorism no different to what Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma City.

Terrorists are criminals. It was one of the dumbest mistakes ever made to promote them to the status of "enemy combatants".

You cannot eradicate terrorism by waging war because that it is exactly what they want you to do. Sun Tzu would have been appalled by the way Bush jr waged his illegal war in Iraq. It played directly into the hands of Al Queda and made it much stronger as a result.

Right now drones and intelligence are the smart way to deal with them overseas. Here in the USA the FBI is dealing with them.

Drones & intelligence worked so well in Yemen huh?

 

[peach174]

The blame game was on both sides. That is what politicians do.
It is also why the Dems decided not to go with the impeachment. Politics.
Despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's telling her caucus members "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," Dennis Kucinich D-Ohio introduced a formal resolution to the House of Representatives in an attempt to impeach President George W. Bush from the White House. House Democrats unanimously voted to send it to a committee; a maneuver that essentially killed Kucinich's efforts.
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I believe the Judge.
Bush Did Not Lie - Forbes

In its official report, the Silberman-Robb Commission evaluated only American intelligence on Iraq, not what the administration did with it. But Judge Silberman saw more than enough to draw his own conclusions. During a recent interview with me, he spoke freely about his views for the first time. “As a federal judge I am very careful to stay out of politics,” Silberman says. “But [now that several years have passed] I am inclined to think that … [for] historical purposes I can give an opinion.”

Did the Bush administration distort or misconstrue intelligence to show that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction? No. The intelligence agencies did that by themselves.

The intelligence agencies, Silberman says, “clearly indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They made that clear to both President Clinton and President Bush. They made that clear in the national intelligence estimate of 2002.” How did the intelligence agencies get such a basic, vital question so thoroughly wrong? “A lot of fundamental and almost amateurish mistakes.”

Consider, for instance, the intelligence that Saddam had resumed his program to produce biological weapons.

“That claim came to American intelligence from several different entry points,” Silberman says. “[But] it turned out that it all came from a single source, one person who had made the claim to German intelligence. Nobody in American intelligence realized that what looked like three or four bits of corroborating evidence was really all the same phony thing.”

The intelligence community, in other words, proved incapable of a task that takes place dozens of times a day in every newsroom in America: double sourcing.

Bush lied? Hardly. The intelligence agencies screwed up.

Silberman, however, refuses simply to shift blame for the war from the administration to the intelligence agencies. Instead he rejects the idea that the invasion of Iraq represented a war of choice in the first place.

“Even people at the highest level of the Iraqi regime believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,” Silberman explains. “Saddam was running a bluff. He was bluffing his own people, and he was bluffing Iran. It would have been impossible for any intelligence agency in the world … to have determined that Saddam had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction.”

Even if the intelligence agencies had performed flawlessly, they would therefore have found themselves advising the president of grave dangers. “A first-class [intelligence] opinion would have said, ‘We [the intelligence agencies] know Saddam once had weapons of mass destruction, we know that he proved capable of using them, and we have no evidence that he has destroyed them. Although we cannot prove that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction, we think it highly likely that he has.’”

If the intelligence agencies had submitted just such a report–an accurate, considered assessment–what would have happened?

“The country,” says Silberman, “would probably have gone to war anyway.”

“When Germany seized the Rhineland in 1936, France and Britain failed to respond. I’m sure leaders in France and Britain thought, ‘Well, if we went to war now, we would be waging a war of choice.’ But was it really a war of choice? Of course not. By 1939 there was no choice.

“When the Bush administration went into Iraq, the timing may have been a matter of choice,” Silberman says. “But historians will probably conclude that the war itself was inevitable.”

The Bush administration no doubt made its mistakes, and the intelligence agencies undeniably committed one bungle after another. But after years of attempting to blame each other for the conflict, Americans should recognize that the war in Iraq was never ours to choose. A barbarian forced it upon us.


In other words Al-Qaeda and all other terrorists had to be dealt with no matter what. We got their numbers low and they were weakened from the Iraq war.
If Obama had kept with the program of keeping their numbers low we would not be in this situation now.

Forbes opinion is biased.

The facts prove otherwise.

That was a court Judge's opinion.
I know that sooner or later we would all have to go to war over these terrorists groups and so does everybody else.
Even Europe and the middle eastern countries who wanted to do nothing now realizes that they have to be dealt with.
They are not going to go away.

You have every right to your opinion.

There was no intelligence to support the illegal invasion of Iraq.

The Bush administration lied this nation into a war that has cost taxpayers trillions (and the tab keeps on increasing) and the lives and limbs of some of our finest.

Saddam was not a threat to anyone but the Iraqi people themselves. That illegal invasion is why we currently have to deal with ISIS.

The phony "war on terror" was BS propaganda and it has harmed this nation for generations to come IMO.

Phony war on terror?
Was the twin towers faked?
Was the Boston Bomber's faked?

Please explain how you wage war on a noun.

You wage wars against nations.

Terrorism is a criminal act. In the case of 9/11 it was a criminal act of international terrorism and the Boston Bombing was an act of domestic terrorism no different to what Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma City.

Terrorists are criminals. It was one of the dumbest mistakes ever made to promote them to the status of "enemy combatants".

You cannot eradicate terrorism by waging war because that it is exactly what they want you to do. Sun Tzu would have been appalled by the way Bush jr waged his illegal war in Iraq. It played directly into the hands of Al Queda and made it much stronger as a result.

Right now drones and intelligence are the smart way to deal with them overseas. Here in the USA the FBI is dealing with them.

Conventional warfare is against Nations who have their Military units.
Un-Conventional warfare is against groups of Terrorists, Guerrillas, Subversives, Insurgents and Assassins.

Timothy McVeigh was never with any group.
The Boston Bombers were a part of the Muslim Terrorists.