Antiwar Reporting Helps U.S. Enemies
- Thread starter jimpeel
- Start date
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
"And now it's time for OTC's favorite game show...
My Search Engine Is Better Than YOUR Search Engine!!"
It isn't whose is better; but whose can find authoritative government sites and whose can only seem to find everything else.
spike
New Member
I've known you spew the same crap as those sites for quite some time.
What lack are you referring to? Saying I read sites I don't isn't guts, it's lying.
Read the timeline Jim. It will put things into perspective for you.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79393
Speaking of eading you seemed to have missed this.
"President Bush and his vice president conceded yesterday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction"
Where you calling them liars?
spike
New Member
Rumsfeld: ‘I Have Never Painted A Rosy Picture’ About Iraq
Dec. 18, 2002: KING: What's the current situation in Afghanistan? RUMSFELD: It is encouraging. They have elected a government through the Loya Jirga process. The Taliban are gone. The al Qaeda are gone.
Feb. 7, 2003: “It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
Feb. 20 2003: “‘Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?’ Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS’ The News Hour. ‘There is no question but that they would be welcomed,’ Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces.”
Mar. 30, 2003: “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
QUESTION: You said you knew where they were.
RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and –
QUESTION: You said you knew where they were Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.
Dec. 18, 2002: KING: What's the current situation in Afghanistan? RUMSFELD: It is encouraging. They have elected a government through the Loya Jirga process. The Taliban are gone. The al Qaeda are gone.
Feb. 7, 2003: “It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
Feb. 20 2003: “‘Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?’ Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS’ The News Hour. ‘There is no question but that they would be welcomed,’ Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces.”
Mar. 30, 2003: “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
QUESTION: You said you knew where they were.
RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and –
QUESTION: You said you knew where they were Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
What should have been posted was "President Bush and his vice president conceded yesterday in the clearest terms yet that the British intel upon which they relied was incorrect and that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction"
You choose to ignore the fact that the British intell was incorrect, not ours. You see, your little buddies Torricelli, Clinton, Reno, and Gorelick made sure that the CIA would be hamstrung and unable to gather proper intel thus placing us in the unenviable position of having to depend on foreign intel.
But let me take you through the history of how that happened.
You seem to dwell on the subject of how Bush lied to get us into Iraq. Has it ever -- EVER -- occurred to you as to just why our intel was so bad?
It’s a long story so I’ll give you the Clif’s Notes version with citations. You can do the legwork yourself, although I know you won't.
The players on our story are:
Jennifer Harbury (Leftist Commie and attorney)
Efrain Bamaca Velasquez ("Evarardo" Mayan leader of the Guatemalan resistance forces, or U.R.N.G.)
Robert Toricelli (United States Representative at the time)
William Clinton (President of the United States)
Janet Reno (Attorney General of the United States)
Jamie Gorelick (Deputy Attorney General of the United States)
As it turns out, Jennifer Harbury married a Leftist named “Evarardo” who was the leader of the resistance in Guatemala. Evarardo was captured by the Guatemalan military and eventually executed after he was tortured brutally. The people who were doing the torture were CIA assets who were being paid by the CIA.
Harbury went on a hunger strike in front of the presidential palace in Guatemala and subsequently went on a hunger strike in front of the White House.
Harbury testified before the “Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight“ and described her ordeal in Guatemala. Robert Toricelli revealed a top secret classified memo to the press, something for which he should have been sent to prison.
Toricelli then authored, and Janet Reno approved, and William Clinton signed into law what has come to be known as the “Toricelli Principle”.
The Toricelli Principle disallows the U.S. government from hiring as assets anyone who has a criminal background taking fully into effect that only boy scouts and their cronies are of interest to the CIA. This was the first instance of the now famous “wall” -- not mentioning FISA because I don't want to muddy this discussion.
The hands of the CIA to gather intel were now severely tied.
Subsequent to this, Jamie Gorelick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Gorelick authored, the now infamous “wall” memo http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document_1995_gorelick_memo.pdf which tied the hands, feet, and mouths of the CIA and law enforcement and kicked them to the curb. It is the main reason that we have to glean our intel from foreign sources and the absolute reason that we could not search the computer of Zacharias Moussaui(sp?). The memo raised the wall originally erected by the "Toricelli Principle" to the point that the enemies of America were able to fly several aircraft full of screaming passengers into American landmarks.
There was much made of Gorelick's involvement in facilitating the 9-11 attacks by the issuance of her memo; but her obvious conflict of interest went unaddressed by the 9-11 commission even though it was rubbed in their faces by many witnesses and sources.
Now comes the part that will be hard to swallow. Bush acted on that foreign intel because we didn’t have any of our own to act upon because of that damned wall. Bush lied? No. He used bad intel because the likes of Harbury, Toricelli, Gorelick, Reno, and Clinton robbed this nation of its ability to gather good intel.
And that’s the way it is.
Continue to blame Bush and call him a liar but you now have the resources to find out the truth as to why our intel was so bad and the president unable to get to the truth.
Here are some other links.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/bio_gorelick.htm Gorelick official biography
http://www.wilmerhale.com/jamie_gorelick/ Gorelick biography
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110004956 ''Gorelick's Wall'', Opinion Journal (Wall Street Journal 4/15/04)
From the Opinion Journal editorial:
That investigator was absolutely correct. "... the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain 'problems."
He was talking about you, Spike. You and everyone like you.
Your side of the equation caused the wall to be erected and that wall your side built caused 9/11 to be possible.
Get used to it.
And don't go giving me a bunch of shit about FISA unless you want your hat handed to you with your head still in it.
spike
New Member
You're still avoiding the question. When Bush and Cheney admit that there were no WMDs are you calling them liars?
I made no statement about that at all. Could you stick to the actual conversation please?
If you look at the timeline you can clearly see that Bush and Condi continued to use the uranium claim to convince the public about the war long after they knew the claim was "highly dubious".
At this point I realize that you would like to go off on a tangent or change the subject.
Oh I will. It's pretty damn clear that Bush, Condi, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others repeatedly lied about all sorts of things.
Another change of subject and getting a little violent. Sorry Jim, I'm sure it's very frustrating to have to defend these guys.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
NO! NO! NO! NO! and NO!
You may very well consider what Bush said to be a lie. A lie is a statement made which the declarant knows to be false. There is NO evidence that suggest Bush knew that what he said was false. Conflicting reports is not evidence of a lie. If Bush had said Iraq did not have any WMDs would that have been a lie? At the time there was intelligence suggesting otherwise.
We have now found out from one of Saddam's closest advisors that he thought the U.S. would simply do what they had done under Clinton and lob a few missles his way. He never thought that Bush would actually invade or that his bragadoccio and lying about his having WMDs would bring that invasion.
I have placed the facts about the British intel before you several times and you have chosen to ignore it.
The president gave the speech wherein the "sixteen words" were used on January 28, 2003
Rumsfeld repeated that claim on January 29, 2003.
On March 7, 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei states that ""the reports of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic" and "unfounded." There was no "transaction". All that was said was "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Cheney states he thinks ElBaradei is wrong on March 16, 2003.
On June 8, 2003, on ABCNEWS' This Week, Rice says that at the time the State of the Union address was being prepared, "there were also other sources that said that … the Iraqis were seeking yellowcake, uranium oxide from Africa. And that was taken out of a British report. Clearly, that particular report, we learned subsequently, subsequently, was not credible."
So where is this timeline that we can "clearly see ... long after they knew ... Bush and Condi continued to use the uranium claim"?
Everything I have posted above is from YOUR timeline.
No, I am right on subject. You are simply scared to death at what I have posted which shows you are wrong about Bush lying to get us into Iraq.
Right now, there are 5 members and 250 guests viewing this website. Those 250 are the lurkers who are sitting back, not posting to the threads, who are watching you get your ass kicked. They are watching you twist in the wind while you try to wriggle your way out of irrefutable proof that you are wrong.
I figured you would stay away from that one because it would further prove that you are wrong; and that it was you and your ilk which made 9/11 possible. Smart move on your part. Getting your ass kicked (intellectually, lest I be accused of "violence") in public is never a comfortable thing.
spike
New Member
You have implied that Iraq did have WMDs, yet Bush and Cheney have admitted they didn't. Rumsfeld said he knew where they were and then tried to deny that he ever said that.
You mean like making statements that the CIA had already called "highly dubious" as if they were fact. Or when Rumsfeld said "I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were".
Except what the CIA had already been saying you mean.
No, you've made claims about their intel being wrong instead of ours. It's not pertinent. The fact is Bush used the intel far after he knew it was dubious.
If you really read it you would see the "highly dubious" remark in October 2002. Yet long afterwards it was portrayed as fact.
No making excuses for our lack of intelligence is a complete tangent.
No, this is actually very easy for me Jim. There are so many lies to work with that I could do this all day.
Really, I would imagine ignoring repeated questions and going off on tangents would indicate wiggling on your part. Keep your delusions if it makes you feel better though.
If your having so much trouble with this that you need to change the subject you can start another thread. The desperation will still be obvious though.
Cerise
Well-Known Member
If it's pretty damn clear that Bush, Condi, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others repeatedly lied about the reasons that have placed this country in Iraq why hasn't at least one of them come forward to tell the world about it? 
Is Booosh paying them vast sums of money to keep their yap shut?
Is Booosh holding their loved ones captive in some kind of floating prison barge with a knife to their throat and threatening to give the order to kill them if the truth about Iraq is revealed?
Does Booosh have photos of them in a compromising situation or some other kind of information that if released to the public will jeopardize their political and social reputation?
The libs have been dancing to the "Boosh lied" drumbeat for the past 5 years, but have never had the guts to venture beyond those words to offer, in their opinion, a logical reason as to why they feel he lied---and to provide examples as to how that reason has come to fruition.
Was the Iraq war based on revenge because Saddam had a plot to kill Dubya's daddy? If that was the case, why didn't Booosh simply dispatch a team of expert snipers to settle the score?
Was this war a U.S. grab for control of Iraqi oil? Not in the "securing the world's oil supplies for the sake of the global economy" manner, like Greenspan spoke of last year http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html
but for the purpose of "lining Booosh's pockets with cash" type of control?
Or is it that you libs just know he lied?
Is Booosh paying them vast sums of money to keep their yap shut?
Is Booosh holding their loved ones captive in some kind of floating prison barge with a knife to their throat and threatening to give the order to kill them if the truth about Iraq is revealed?
Does Booosh have photos of them in a compromising situation or some other kind of information that if released to the public will jeopardize their political and social reputation?
The libs have been dancing to the "Boosh lied" drumbeat for the past 5 years, but have never had the guts to venture beyond those words to offer, in their opinion, a logical reason as to why they feel he lied---and to provide examples as to how that reason has come to fruition.
Was the Iraq war based on revenge because Saddam had a plot to kill Dubya's daddy? If that was the case, why didn't Booosh simply dispatch a team of expert snipers to settle the score?
Was this war a U.S. grab for control of Iraqi oil? Not in the "securing the world's oil supplies for the sake of the global economy" manner, like Greenspan spoke of last year http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html
but for the purpose of "lining Booosh's pockets with cash" type of control?
Or is it that you libs just know he lied?
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
No implication. I thought it was quite clear when I posted HERE the article from June 29, 2006 which displayed the banner Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says .
Guess you missed that.
That works if your calendar month order is March, January, February, April.
Go back and read POST #20 and start with the quoted paragraph which begins "The investigation was centred on documents provided ..." and then look at the datestamp on that quote March 7, 2003, FIVE WEEKS AFTER the president's speech.
See above.
Only if March 2003 comes before January 2003.
IN CONTEXT:
AGAIN, go back to POST #20 and read the two quoted paragraphs from the Report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence which start with "499" and "500" and you will see that my source, which is not a news source but a Senate investigation, says you are wrong.
There was no "plan to send" anything to Iraq; and it states so quite clearly. Why you can't get that after having it thrust in your face numerous times shows your retiscence to admit you are wrong. The President stated in the State of the Union Address "there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa." was WELL FOUNDED.
No mention of anything having been "planned to send" to Iraq.
Changing the timeline to suit your agenda will not change the facts.
So we should ignore the fact that our intel was hamstrung by the "wall"; and we should also ignore the fact that we had to use foreign intel to supplement what we were not allowed by that law to gather?
And ignoring official government documents which prove indubitably that you are wrong is ... what? I call it denial. What do you call it?
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but you get it the first time while Spike can't get it after it is thrust in his face time after time.
2minkey
bootlicker
spike
New Member
No I didn't miss that. What I miss is your response to Bush and CHeney contradicting that by admitting there were no WMDs.
Read the timeline Jim. What you need is 2003 to follow 2002.
What you need is 2003 to follow 2002.
Where have I said there was a "plan to send" something? You get pretty strange with these tangents.
Right, so stop it.
I would imagine you'd want to change the subject at this point. Don't expect not to be called on it though.
Seems we've established pretty clearly that Bush, Cheney, Condi, and Rumsfeld lied about multiple things regarding Iraq.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Since they stated that they were wrong on the WMDs this story comes out in 2006 which contradicts their admission. Sorry if that rains on your parade.
It does, thank you.
Checking ......... Yep, still does.
YOU never said that.
That is from your vaunted timeline you keep telling me I need to read and the specific part you told me to reference.
AGAIN:
There was no "plan to send" anything to Iraq. Bush merely stated, and the Butler Report and the Report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has confirmed, "that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium ..."
So your reference to the October 2003 timeline is flawed as there was no effort to send anything anywhere.
The committee stated that at the time the President said those sixteen words in the Sate of the Union speech that those words were, in their words, "well founded".
The wall and the lack of intel created by that wall IS part of the subject. You state that Bush lied to get us into Iraq. The Butler Report and the Report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have shown that he did not lie. A large part of the discussion of the Butler Report and the Report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was about the lack of American intel at the time the State of the Union speech was given.
You don't want to go there because you know you can't debate against that. You will be shown to be wrong ... once again.
If the wall was of no consequence to this subject under discussion, why, then, did the Commission state the following?
So in the confusion of having to designate what is criminal and what is intelligence the FBI couldn't do simple things like searching Moussoui's computer.
spike
New Member
Your story is from June 2006. Yet in August of 2006 Bush again admitted there were no WMD.
Are you saying he lied again?
So you can see from the timeline that the administration continued to use claims that they knew were highly dubious. Tenet had said back in Sept 2002 "there was info that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium but there were doubts about its credibility."
It's a tangent.
Yes, and as we've seen his administration lied about many things.
It's tangent. I haven't even made a claim to be wrong about on that subject.
So before there can be a "once again" there has to be a first time.
Your tangent has nothing to do with Bush misleading the country. It's an attempt to change the subject.
spike
New Member
