Originally posted by caltour:
How do you know the CIA originally presented this intel to Bush as hard fact?

Well, lots of reading on the topic helps forumlate this view, but if you are looking for "hard fact", I have to laugh since the one single article you are basing your ENTIRE thesis off of is little more than perceptive conjecture...

BTW, why isn't every other news agency and their mother covering this??? Are the Black Helicopters and G-Men keeping the "free" press from exposing this piece???

Originally posted by caltour:
Isn't it more plausible (in light of extremely cautious habits of the intelligence community, and the warmongering habits of the Bushmen), that the yellowcake story was originally reported by the CIA as potentially important, but largely unconfirmed, and it was later transformed by the Bushmen into "hard fact" to support their war aims? (All you need is a loyal team player like Tenant to make that happen.) Maybe the CIA never meant that info to be taken as anything more than carefully limited speculation.

Then why did we have Tenet and others in the CIA claiming WMD in Iraq a "slam dunk"?

Originally posted by caltour:
And please stop trying to draw a false distinction between Bush and the Bushmen. Powell, Tenet, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, they are all on the same team. Bush has to answer for everything they do (when they are on duty), because he's the boss.

True, he's the captian of the ship and it's his name that gets lauded or smeared in the annuals of history, but it's back to grade school for you if you can't follow or don't even care to uncover the differences of opinion that made up Bush's cabinet, as it delinates who pushed for what and WHY they did.

I've always looked for education on the topic to become more informed of why things happened the way they did (both good and bad); you seem only interested in looking at the bad side of things in order to prop up a pre-disposed political opinion...

Originally posted by caltour:
No, but he is responsible for properly interpreting the info he's given, and recognizing when the evidence is too thin to support the conclusions.

Once AGAIN, the evidence we had AT THE TIME, in conjunction with Hussein blatantly ignoring UN mandates and the overwhelming security concerns that the US had after 9/11 led to the conclusions that tossed us and many other countries into invading Iraq. If Hussein lived up to UN 1441 and a slew of other mandates that were thrown at him over a decade, then we would have had ABSOLUTELY no grounds whatsoever in going after him. What is not crystal clear about this concept? You can bark all you want about what you've managed to find under a microscope on this one point, but it doesn't change the litmus-test of the ENTIRE saga:

Hussein NEVER gave a full and meaningful disclosure or full access of his WMD programs to the US or the UN or anyone else concerned. He kept enough doubt on the table long enough to where most any claim he put forth was immediately suspect.

Originally posted by caltour:
In the run-up to the Iraq war, the British were working VERY closely with U.S. decisionmakers. By all accounts, they worked hand in hand. And the Brits now say the Bushmen were inventing and spinning the "facts and intel" to support the decision to go to war. It's an outrage, it's an abuse of power, and it's illegal. It's an impeachable offense.

If one single dossier that pushes a perception that fits your ideology is what you consider evidence, I suggest you NOT quit your day-job for a spot in a law firm...

Originally posted by caltour:
Challenge accepted. I don't even have to work very hard: just read the BBC article I linked, if you want to see a few examples of Bushmen trying to convince us of a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Here are two examples just from that article:

"As recently as last Sunday, Vice-President Dick Cheney, refused to rule out a link between Iraq and 11 September, saying "we don't know".

"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

If you claim that someone saying "we don't know" as evidence, your an unforgiveable fool. Period.

The other quote you can try to hang your hat on.

Originally posted by caltour:
You know as well as I do that Bush's cronies (especially Cheney) spoke like that for months in the pre-war period. They usually said it in a way that could be re-interpreted (or denied or spun) later on, when the truth became known. But DON'T deny they were trying to convince us of the connection. They succeeded in doing so, at least with 70% of the population.

The connection was assumed AND proven for most of the US population LONG before Bush, Jr. got into office. Hussein was associated with terrorists and terrorism in public forums during Clinton's time, though he was being demonized for his games with the UN and his violations of the "no-fly" zones over anything else...

...but of course, you'll claim I'm taking things "off-topic" if I point to Abu Nidal, Hamas, Syrian and Egyptian terrorists being offered refuge, shelter and even support from the '80s and onward.

The Al-Qaeda connection? I've railed against that piece. The 9/11 connection? BS. I NEVER saw where this administration claimed that Al-Qaeda was the SOLE terrorist organization on the planet. Period. It's the one that has had the most MEDIA attention and what's frightening is that most Americans lump all terrorist organizations into the same basket because of their methods, desipte their political ideologies and aims usually differ to an amazing degree.

Originally posted by caltour:
I wouldn't trust Hilary any farther than I could throw her. She is an opportunist and schemer, just like Bush. Same with Slick Willie, Algore, and John Edwards too. None of them really stood up against the war when it would have made a difference. All turds.

The reason they DIDN'T stand up against the war is because the had pretty much the same measure of intel that the Bush administration had at the time, which pointed towards some measure of action, the degree of which IS debateable.

I hope you aren't debating that NOTHING should have been done about Iraq...


Originally posted by caltour:
What's this? JaTo admitting that Bush lied by omission? Fine, Iâ??ll take that.

Don't take my comments out of line in order to prop up a meandering argument on your part. Address the ENTIRE discourse, please.

Originally posted by caltour:
Did they? Remember the statement in the British memo: "the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy." That summarizes the British intel community's analysis about the Bushmen's true intentions and motivations.

NO. That summarizes one person's PERCEPTION of things. Due to the constant "hide and seek" game that the Iraqi government INSISTED on playing with the UN, invasion seemed the ONLY likely solution (something that the British document readily admits, I might add). Given this, the Bush administration concentrated on garnering support for a PROBABLE invasion instead of wasting time.

The UN spent most of their time prolonging the issue and compounding the problem with toothless decrees and mandates to the point that the US in the post 9/11 world was pretty much stuck with going into Iraq to find out firsthand their WMD capabilities. Through their decade-long bungling with weapons inspections, totally ineffective mandates and bribery/graft programs, the UN at final count managed to ultimately be correct in their estimation on Iraq.

The US and it's allies managed to ultimately be wrong in their estimation on Iraq, given reams of evidence, intel, documents, past history with Hussein, etc., etc.

In short, the UN had shoddy math but managed to get "lucky" and bet on the right answer. The US and it's allies had all the steps and postulates for the right answer, but ultimately screwed it up.

The irony is thick enough to be cut.

Originally posted by caltour:
Some of our "coalition" allies may have agreed with the Bushmen in advance that they would all pretend Iraq was a massive, imminent threat, in order to appease the world's only superpower, and to get a big fat slice of the war pie. That doesn't mean that their own intel actually supported that conclusion. One thing is certain: we will never know the whole truth about other countries' intel re: Iraq.

I'm sure pieces of it will come out over time. BTW, how are those lower gas prices that most liberals claimed would follow the invasion of Iraq?

I wonder how many F-16s Mongolia received out of this "war pie" you are referring to?

Originally posted by caltour:
Who says he did? Have either of us ever seen the classified intel reports from other countries? Nothing to argue about until we do.

You certainly seem to be advancing that Bush and his staff has their hands on every ream of intel that has been advanced about Iraq that doesn't prop up your position...


Originally posted by caltour:
There you go again. "Blame the CIA, don't blame Bush." Absolute nonsense.

I prefer to shoot the origination point of the message, not the "messenger", though I know precisely why you prefer to do the opposite.

Originally posted by caltour:
First of all, yours is a "straw man" argument, i.e. an argument that does not address the issue at hand, but is just set up so that it can be quickly knocked down. In other words, a distraction.

NO ONE IS ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER THE CIA DID A GOOD JOB. WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER BUSH MISLED US.

I know it's going to fall on deaf ears for the umpteenth time, but given the intel at hand at the time and the fact that the CIA was vouching for it, Bush didn't mislead the US. Period.

Notice that NOBODY takes objection to the inital UN tallies on Hussein's WMD capabilities and that they still stand today? The only caveat weapon inspectors have put forth is that given the projected and known missing material, it has either been destroyed and wasn't accounted for or it simply "vanished".

Originally posted by caltour:
As a leader, Bush is responsible for applying good judgement to the facts at hand.

Which pushed for intervention given our security concerns.

Originally posted by caltour:
He should never just adopt the conclusions of his handlers and minions. And you should not try to excuse his disastrous decisions by arguing that the CIA gave him bad intel.

Which is it? I thought you were arguing that Bush was pushing a forgone conclusion despite volumes of evidence that Hussein had no WMD, not that he was listening to intel that was considered "quality" but turned out to be bad.

Originally posted by caltour:
He was responsible for looking at the evidence and weighing it for sufficiency. (BTW, I think he did weigh the evidence, saw that it was ridiculously thin, and said "what the hell, boys, we're goin' in anyway!).

Given what intel they had in hand, it was weighed and judged appropriate by the House, Senate, the American public and quite a few foreign powers...

Originally posted by caltour:
Just look at the shabby case his team made for war. It was, as the British memo said, a terribly weak case, much of it absolutely false. It was never strong enough to justify the war, even if you took it at face value. Which no sensible person would do, given the spotty nature of the evidence and the CIA's own admission that they had no real good intel from inside Iraq.

Certain areas that the MEDIA fixates upon certainly do show signs of stress, as they weren't fully flushed out or chased down. Of course, they don't pound upon the reams of evidence contrary that constituted the bulk of the reasoning behind going into Iraq in the first place.

Originally posted by caltour:
It was embarassing for the Bushmen to claim that WMDs existed when our own intel community admitted they really didn't know if they existed or not (Tenant, the Shill-for-hire, was nevertheless willing to blurt out that "slam dunk" nonsense).

Very few doubts were voiced until we were months into the search after the invasion. Again, the entire episode points to pointed failures in our intel gathering and analysis capabilities. Tenet didn't have a political agenda to advance; he had a security agenda to consider and put forth or do you care to ignore he was brought into the DCI position under a Democratic administration and kept on during the Republican one that you seem fit?

Originally posted by caltour:
All of which should have been balanced against the one thing we knew for sure: it was altogether possible that Saddam had already decommissioned/sold/disposed of the WMDs. That was always a sensible option for a country that was inevitably facing UN inspections. It turned out to be what (most likely) happened.

Possible didn't "pass muster", especially in light of playing "hide and seek" with him and the UN for over a decade AND once again, given the intel we had in hand.


Originally posted by caltour:
Yes, it turned out to be way wrong. Why? Because it was "compelling" but not sufficient . By our legal standards, almost all of that evidence would have been laughed out of court. We just didn't have a case.

By the time we had "sufficient" evidence to satisfy Hussein's indirect supporters back here stateside, the thinking was that he could have sold off his wares to those with the will and means to actively use them against European and US targets...

If you're armchair quarterbacking it and using hindsight as a compass, then yes, we ultimately invaded due to faulty intel. Of course, we could have only proved this by invading in the first place. Welcome to conundrum central.


Originally posted by caltour:
Wait a goddamned minute! I pointed out CRUCIAL new evidence: the Brits thought Bush was falsifiying facts and intel to get the public to support his war. And how do you respond? Do you address the issue and acknowledge that our closest ally thought Bush was deceiving us? No. You go on about "fact-checking at the CIA"? Congratulations; you have taken â??dodging the issueâ? to new lows.

This "evidence" that serves as your life vest in this argument doesn't remove a DECADE of deceit and f**king around that Hussein did with the UN Weapons Inspection groups, nor does it change the fact that the UN came up with "inconclusive" reports EVERY SINGLE TIME they went in. To tie it all together, the case for invasion was made when Hussein kept refusing to submit to international will and ultimately, US security concerns that finally superceeded a decades worth of patience.

This "fact fixing" that you keep trying to hang an argument on (of which there are a decades worth) was little more than the Bush administration trying to build a case and shine evidence in a light that would get the UN behind them, as IT was the main audience that was pushing against invasion, despite decree after decree. Why do you think we spent more time trying to convince the UN Security Council than we did anyone else? France, Germany and Russia would have been happy to keep the "status quo" up as it was in their financial interests to do so as well as their political interests (two of those parties were jockeying for support in the EU and this was a major rift that challenged their legitimacy). I don't like the entire "song and dance" that was given to the UN, either as invasion stood on it's own merits without having to "dress it up", except with certain security concil members that were apparently being bribed by Iraq to secure a "no" vote.

I certainly don't see you too concerned about foreign powers being able to buy votes on the UN Security Council...

Finally, I think that the Bush administration felt that given the intel we had, we would have been proven right in the end on the WMD piece, so they weren't overly rabid about corroborating what the CIA was feeding them.

Again, if this is SUCH a rampant concern, then why don't I see it plastered up all over every news rag, website and blog that I visit? I do hit around a dozen different sites a day, with only 4 of those being US-based ones...


Originally posted by caltour:
OK, so what amount and magnitude of manipulation are you acknowledging here? And how much is too much?

Now, finally, we are getting to the heart of the matter.

The insistence of Al-Qaeda and Hussein being cohorts, for one. This is the biggest piece, though by no means the only one. I don't like it and I think it was rather reckless.

All of the other WMD claims (aluminum tubes, etc.) I'm neutral on, since Hussein had slews of dual-use equipment that both the CIA and the UN Weapons Inspection groups voiced concern and worry over.

JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe