What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Did you Support War in Iraq??

Did you support the War in Iraq?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 30.9%
  • No

    Votes: 47 69.1%

  • Total voters
    68

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,797
Reaction score
18,144
Points
2,220
Hey, I have an idea.

Why don’t you answer this question ?
What if policy makers are hell bent on starting a war and become involved in the intelligence gathering operation to make intelligence gathering fit the agenda? Is that the gatherers fault or is it corruption by the policy makers?


I've lost count on how many times I have answered this, and you have cut it, so that you can ask the question again.

BUt here you go again. It is the responsibility of the professional intelligence officers to give their honest professional judgements and advice, even if it is NOT what their bosses want to hear.





You obviously just want to use the war to smear your political enemies. That is all this is to you. Your pretense of caring about anyone or anything else is just bullshit.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,144
Reaction score
1,944
Points
245
You asked me who I considered responsible for reporting accurate intelligence.

See what you do to avoid answering a valid question regarding the creation of Intel on WMD in Iraq by the Bush Adminstration outside of the professional agencies created to do it.

Had I wanted to know who you consider responsible for reporting accurate intelligence I would have asked “who do you consider responsible for reporting accurate intelligence?

However the fact is I asked this:

What if policy makers are hell bent on starting a war and become involved in the intelligence gathering operation to make intelligence gathering fit the agenda? Is that the gatherers fault or is it corruption by the policy makers?

Your uncut non-answer:

BUt here you go again. It is the responsibility of the professional intelligence officers to give their honest professional judgements and advice, even if it is NOT what their bosses want to hear.​
 
Last edited:

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,797
Reaction score
18,144
Points
2,220
You asked me who I considered responsible for reporting accurate intelligence.

See what you do to avoid answering a valid question regarding the creation of Intel on WMD in Iraq by the Bush Adminstration outside of the professional agencies created to do it.

Had I wanted to know who you consider responsible for reporting accurate intelligence I would have asked “who do you consider responsible for reporting accurate intelligence?

However the fact is I asked this:

What if policy makers are hell bent on starting a war and become involved in the intelligence gathering operation to make intelligence gathering fit the agenda? Is that the gatherers fault or is it corruption by the policy makers?


Twenty years after the fact, I can't be bothered with your conspiracy theories on how exactly the ball was dropped.

You remind me of my buddy and his talk about Big Foot. I'm sure you could draw lots of lines between lots of dots and craft a great story out of it.


YOu do not have the credibility to make me care enough to pay attention to your... pet peeves.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,144
Reaction score
1,944
Points
245
. It is the responsibility of the professional intelligence officers to give their honest professional judgements and advice, even if it is NOT what their bosses want to hear

what if policy makers inserted themselves into the intelligence gathering process to produce their own intelligence to guarantee they hear what they want to hear? Is that ok with you.

According to former Bush officials, all defence and intelligence sources, senior administration figures created a shadow agency of Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defence Intelligence Agency.​
The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney.​

The ideologically driven network functioned like a shadow government, much of it off the official payroll and beyond congressional oversight. But it proved powerful enough to prevail in a struggle with the State Department and the CIA by establishing a justification for war.​
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,797
Reaction score
18,144
Points
2,220
. It is the responsibility of the professional intelligence officers to give their honest professional judgements and advice, even if it is NOT what their bosses want to hear

what if policy makers inserted themselves into the intelligence gathering process to produce their own intelligence to guarantee they hear what they want to hear? Is that ok with you.
According to former Bush officials, all defence and intelligence sources, senior administration figures created a shadow agency of Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defence Intelligence Agency.​
The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney.​
The ideologically driven network functioned like a shadow government, much of it off the official payroll and beyond congressional oversight. But it proved powerful enough to prevail in a struggle with the State Department and the CIA by establishing a justification for war.​


Yeah, I already addressed that. Did you cut my response, or is this from before? I can't tell, because you confuse the discussion with your games.

Hey, maybe I should cut the shit out of your posts and start playing games with what you said in my response?


If we are not doing anything else here, I will start doing that too. I will pm you, if I need advice on how to be dishonest or pretend to miss an obvious point.


Wish me luck.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,144
Reaction score
1,944
Points
245
Twenty years after the fact, I can't be bothered with your conspiracy theories on how exactly the ball was dropped.
Are you saying the OSP did not exist? Is that the answer to the question? Is the report that I am referring to part of a conspiracy theory?


Special investigation: The spies who pushed for war on Iraq
The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,797
Reaction score
18,144
Points
2,220
Yeah, I already addressed that.
You are a liar.


Twenty years after the fact, I can't be bothered with your conspiracy theories on how exactly the ball was dropped.

You remind me of my buddy and his talk about Big Foot. I'm sure you could draw lots of lines between lots of dots and craft a great story out of it.


YOu do not have the credibility to make me care enough to pay attention to your... pet peeves.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,797
Reaction score
18,144
Points
2,220
Twenty years after the fact, I can't be bothered with your conspiracy theories on how exactly the ball was dropped.
Are you saying the OSP did not exist? Is that the answer to the question? Is the report that I am referring to part of a conspiracy theory?


Special investigation: The spies who pushed for war on Iraq
The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney.


i'm sayhing that a standard part of any good conspiracy theory is to focus on out of context details, given the viewer the choice of accepting their conspiracy theory or launching their own personal investigation of long ago and far away events.


You might have a factoid that is relevant and means something. Or you might not. There might be completely reasonable explanations for what to you looks like something sooo terrible. Or you might be lying.


I'm not prepared to spend the time investigating it.


THe place I am at, we had this debate back before the war. You people had your chance to make you case. You failed.


Rehashing it now, is a game for history or conspiracy buffs.


Of course what you are really about, is just using it to smear your enemies.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,144
Reaction score
1,944
Points
245
i'm sayhing that a standard part of any good conspiracy theory is to focus on out of context details,
What out of context details? I am asking you if you believe the report and that they SP did exist. It’s existence was real or not real. Which do you believe?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,144
Reaction score
1,944
Points
245
I think that the primary lessons to be learned for Iraq, are A. don't be too certain about intelligence reports,
What if the problem regarding Iraq
was not created by the intelligence community but rather by the policy makers infiltrating and or creating their own intelligence office to produce intelligence that suits an agenda for War.

Is there a lesson to be learned starting with acknowledging that it happened?

Or should we just blame the established intelligence community for leading the policymakers into making an honest mistake?
 

Batcat

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
961
Reaction score
1,063
Points
888
I was for the war in Iraq as long as weapons of mass destruction were found.

They never were.

Either our wonderful intelligence agencies had their heads up their ass or Bush the Younger wanted to outdo his dad by invading Iraq and eliminating Saddam Hussein. Of course the military industrial complex made a fortune nation building in Iraq and you can bet the corruption involved in that effort was staggering.
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
41,854
Reaction score
15,064
Points
2,260
Location
Boston, MA
A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%. They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.

I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq. I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.

Even a few years ago these people wouldn't admit that the war was a huge failure.

Now these pathetic liars try to act like they were against the war all along, that is how pathetic Trumpers are. These people don't even know what they support or oppose, they wait for Foxnews to tell them what to think, and then just go with it...

You realize that about 40% of the Democrats in the House and the majority of Democratic Senators voted to authorize the Iraq War as well, right?

Don't get me wrong. I don't like neocons either, but it's not like the Republicans did this on their own.

Cheney cooked the intelligence. I just couldn't believe the profound ignorance on both sides of the aisle.
Well, that should tell us how much we should trust the intelligence agencies in general. They're political entities, not fact-finding agencies. It's the way that the IRS, ATF, and DOJ have become as well.

ALL the intelligence went thru Cheney and he had failed at getting sanctions lifted on Libya, Iraq and the Stans.
I'm just saying that, with what Cheney was able to do, there's no reason to assume that other presidents/VPs haven't done similar things. They probably have just been more subtle about it.

Cheney was hired by Haliburton to use his Washington contacts to lift sanctions. He failed.
You are an Islamist. You are biased
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,144
Reaction score
1,944
Points
245
You people had your chance to make you case. You failed.
I want to be clear that I understand you correctly.

Are you saying those 6 out of 10 Americans opposed to the war being launched on March 17, 2003 ranging from Barack Obama and Senator Joe Biden and down to a little oh me are “failures” of some sort because “us people” could not convince President George W Bush to allow the inspection process to continue in order to produce the best solid evidence of WMD existence or non-existence in Iraq and in accordance with 1441 and and as preferred by just about the entire world population including the Pope in Rome.

We failed? The $5 trillion cost to America alone and half a million dead that Bush paid to find out the evidence he had on March 17 2003 to launch his preemptive war was not true is on us because we could not stop Bush from doing what he did, when he did, and how badly he did it?

Its that what you are saying?
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,797
Reaction score
18,144
Points
2,220
i'm sayhing that a standard part of any good conspiracy theory is to focus on out of context details,
What out of context details? I am asking you if you believe the report and that they SP did exist. It’s existence was real or not real. Which do you believe?

Don't care. It was twenty years ago. We had a national debate, your side had plenty of time to make it's case and you failed to do so.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,144
Reaction score
1,944
Points
245
Let’s stick with the facts. Nothing more. Thus was a fact. It really Happened.

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA​

By | Fox News
Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.

This is your response: (click on it to see
You are pretending to not understand that people, especially politicians, will SAY one thing, and then DO another.

May I interpret this to mean that you were telling me that Saddam Hussein was telling the President of the United States that CIA agents could come into Iraq to help verify with United Nations inspectors that Iraq no longer was in possession of WMD, however you have special verifiable knowledge that Saddam Hussain did not really mean that?

So sticking with facts on all matters within this discussion, you will verify for me the fact that Saddam Hussein had absolutely no intention to allow CIA agents into Iraq in order to confirm or deny the presence of WMD?

I will wait for your verification before proceeding with further points to be made.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,797
Reaction score
18,144
Points
2,220
I think that the primary lessons to be learned for Iraq, are A. don't be too certain about intelligence reports,
What if the problem regarding Iraq
was not created by the intelligence community but rather by the policy makers infiltrating and or creating their own intelligence office to produce intelligence that suits an agenda for War.

Is there a lesson to be learned starting with acknowledging that it happened?

Or should we just blame the established intelligence community for leading the policymakers into making an honest mistake?


A bigger lesson would be, to learn the difference between guesswork and established fact and to think of the distinction when making policy.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,797
Reaction score
18,144
Points
2,220
You people had your chance to make you case. You failed.
I want to be clear that I understand you correctly.

Are you saying those 6 out of 10 Americans opposed to the war being launched on March 17, 2003 ranging from Barack Obama and Senator Joe Biden and down to a little oh me are “failures” of some sort because “us people” could not convince President George W Bush to allow the inspection process to continue in order to produce the best solid evidence of WMD existence or non-existence in Iraq and in accordance with 1441 and and as preferred by just about the entire world population including the Pope in Rome.

We failed? The $5 trillion cost to America alone and half a million dead that Bush paid to find out the evidence he had on March 17 2003 to launch his preemptive war was not true is on us because we could not stop Bush from doing what he did, when he did, and how badly he did it?

Its that what you are saying?


This nation has many structures in place to balance power. Polls are not one of them.


Further more, your whining about the cost of the war is irrelevant to any discussion about the national debate leading up to the war.

You brought it up, in an attempt at the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Emotion, because you have no logical supporting argument.


What you expected to happen here, is a bunch of like minded libs, to have a circle jerk saying vague, negative shit about people on the other side and then taking turns telling each other how smart and pretty you each are.


Unfortunately for that plan, I came along and insisted on actually addressing the negative shit you say.


Sorry to rain on your circle jerk.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,144
Reaction score
1,944
Points
245
A bigger lesson would be, to learn the difference between guesswork and established fact and to think of the distinction when making policy.
Simple enough but what if policymakers corrupt the system? How do you prevent that? When repression of established fact is the goal not the rule.

We learn nothing if the war promoting policymakers are not condemned if and when it’s confirmed that they did indeed corrupt the intelligence gathering process specifically to start a war.

What I’m doing here he’s trying to squash the tendency Buy those who supported the war to write the invasion of Iraq off as an honest mistake made by the intelligence community with regard to Iraq’s possession of WMD.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,144
Reaction score
1,944
Points
245
Further more, your whining about the cost of the war is irrelevant to any discussion about the national debate leading up to the war.
What rulebook are you pulling that from, goofball? Jesus H Christ!
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$270.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top