LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Who Is Lying About Iraq?

Purple Haze said:
I'm too cynical, Bush's stupidity has gotten him off too many times before.

Enough pockets have been filled, he doesn't have to sell it anymore...
Click to expand...

I think we're going to see a lot more over the coming months. Liars have a way of exposing themselves. With Republicans turning on him now, he'll have to explain himself more and more. It'll keep getting harder to keep up the lies if that's what they are.
 
Pookie said:
I'm gonna continue to give him the benefit of the doubt and just call him a fool for believing such sloppy intelligence. I'll give him style points for wrapping it up into a really nice package for the Congress though. It's a shame that so many waited to open it and take a close look at their present, and now want to return it for a refund.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article in the New Yorker about the changes in the process for vetting information that Bush and co. changed?
 
zipman said:
Did you read the article in the New Yorker about the changes in the process for vetting information that Bush and co. changed?
Click to expand...

No. Got a link? I'll have to read it later on though.
 
Here is an excerpt from the article:

How did the American intelligence community get it so wrong?

Part of the answer lies in decisions made early in the Bush Administration, before the events of September 11, 2001. In interviews with present and former intelligence officials, I was told that some senior Administration people, soon after coming to power, had bypassed the government’s customary procedures for vetting intelligence.

A retired C.I.A. officer described for me some of the questions that would normally arise in vetting: “Does dramatic information turned up by an overseas spy square with his access, or does it exceed his plausible reach? How does the agent behave? Is he on time for meetings?” The vetting process is especially important when one is dealing with foreign-agent reports—sensitive intelligence that can trigger profound policy decisions. In theory, no request for action should be taken directly to higher authorities—a process known as “stovepiping”—without the information on which it is based having been subjected to rigorous scrutiny.

The point is not that the President and his senior aides were consciously lying. What was taking place was much more systematic—and potentially just as troublesome. Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, whose book “The Threatening Storm” generally supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, told me that what the Bush people did was “dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership. Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from them.

“They always had information to back up their public claims, but it was often very bad information,” Pollack continued. “They were forcing the intelligence community to defend its good information and good analysis so aggressively that the intelligence analysts didn’t have the time or the energy to go after the bad information.”

The Administration eventually got its way, a former C.I.A. official said. “The analysts at the C.I.A. were beaten down defending their assessments. And they blame George Tenet”—the C.I.A. director—“for not protecting them. I’ve never seen a government like this.”
Click to expand...
 
The last bit spoke of "stovepiping" information. This part discusses war planning:

There was also a change in procedure at the Pentagon under Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under-Secretary for Policy. In the early summer of 2001, a career official assigned to a Pentagon planning office undertook a routine evaluation of the assumption, adopted by Wolfowitz and Feith, that the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi, could play a major role in a coup d’état to oust Saddam Hussein. They also assumed that Chalabi, after the coup, would be welcomed by Iraqis as a hero.

An official familiar with the evaluation described how it subjected that scenario to the principle of what planners call “branches and sequels”—that is, “plan for what you expect not to happen.” The official said, “It was a ‘what could go wrong’ study. What if it turns out that Ahmad Chalabi is not so popular? What’s Plan B if you discover that Chalabi and his boys don’t have it in them to accomplish the overthrow?”

The people in the policy offices didn’t seem to care. When the official asked about the analysis, he was told by a colleague that the new Pentagon leadership wanted to focus not on what could go wrong but on what would go right. He was told that the study’s exploration of options amounted to planning for failure. “Their methodology was analogous to tossing a coin five times and assuming that it would always come up heads,” the official told me. “You need to think about what would happen if it comes up tails.”

Getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime had been a priority for Wolfowitz and others in and around the Administration since the end of the first Gulf War. For years, Iraq hawks had seen a coup led by Chalabi as the best means of achieving that goal. After September 11th, however, and the military’s quick victory in Afghanistan, the notion of a coup gave way to the idea of an American invasion.
 
zipman said:
The last bit spoke of "stovepiping" information. This part discusses war planning:

There was also a change in procedure at the Pentagon under Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under-Secretary for Policy. In the early summer of 2001, a career official assigned to a Pentagon planning office undertook a routine evaluation of the assumption, adopted by Wolfowitz and Feith, that the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi, could play a major role in a coup d’état to oust Saddam Hussein. They also assumed that Chalabi, after the coup, would be welcomed by Iraqis as a hero.

An official familiar with the evaluation described how it subjected that scenario to the principle of what planners call “branches and sequels”—that is, “plan for what you expect not to happen.” The official said, “It was a ‘what could go wrong’ study. What if it turns out that Ahmad Chalabi is not so popular? What’s Plan B if you discover that Chalabi and his boys don’t have it in them to accomplish the overthrow?”

The people in the policy offices didn’t seem to care. When the official asked about the analysis, he was told by a colleague that the new Pentagon leadership wanted to focus not on what could go wrong but on what would go right. He was told that the study’s exploration of options amounted to planning for failure. “Their methodology was analogous to tossing a coin five times and assuming that it would always come up heads,” the official told me. “You need to think about what would happen if it comes up tails.”

Getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime had been a priority for Wolfowitz and others in and around the Administration since the end of the first Gulf War. For years, Iraq hawks had seen a coup led by Chalabi as the best means of achieving that goal. After September 11th, however, and the military’s quick victory in Afghanistan, the notion of a coup gave way to the idea of an American invasion.
Click to expand...

Good stuff Zip, thanks :) I'll read it later, r/l is about to break in as a pub crawl . . . :D
 
Pookie said:
I'm gonna continue to give him the benefit of the doubt and just call him a fool for believing such sloppy intelligence. I'll give him style points for wrapping it up into a really nice package for the Congress though. It's a shame that so many waited to open it and take a close look at their present, and now want to return it for a refund.
Click to expand...

You mean the same intellegence your President Clinton believed in...

That Clinton's Nat'l Security Advisor believed in....

That Clinton's CIA director believed in....

That Clinton's wife believed in.....

That Clinton's Sec'y of Defense believed in....

That Clinton's Vice President believed in.....


Shall I continue Pookie?

I can you know, for pages and pages, because EVERYONE believed the intellegence, ESPECIALLY your DemocRats!
 
BlueEyesInLevis said:
You mean the same intellegence your President Clinton believed in...

That Clinton's Nat'l Security Advisor believed in....

That Clinton's CIA director believed in....

That Clinton's wife believed in.....

That Clinton's Sec'y of Defense believed in....

That Clinton's Vice President believed in.....


Shall I continue Pookie?

I can you know, for pages and pages, because EVERYONE believed the intellegence, ESPECIALLY your DemocRats!
Click to expand...


No, I mean the intelligence that the Bush Administration used because of their sloppy procedures. That article Zip posted explains it quite well. Click on the link and read it. Take off the rose colored glasses first though.

Edited to add: The Congress believed a lot of what the Bush Administration presented to them. They know better now than to trust them too. Live and learn.
 
BlueEyesInLevis said:
You mean the same intellegence your President Clinton believed in...

That Clinton's Nat'l Security Advisor believed in....

That Clinton's CIA director believed in....

That Clinton's wife believed in.....

That Clinton's Sec'y of Defense believed in....

That Clinton's Vice President believed in.....


Shall I continue Pookie?

I can you know, for pages and pages, because EVERYONE believed the intellegence, ESPECIALLY your DemocRats!
Click to expand...

Did those people authorize a war? No

Did those people change the way that intelligence information was vetted? No

And here's the kicker:

Wait for it....

Did those people give Tenet a fucking medal for providing bad intelligence? No.


Why in the world would Bush give Tenet the highest civilian honor possible after he gave him flawed evidence?
 
Pookie said:
No, I mean the intelligence that the Bush Administration used because of their sloppy procedures. That article Zip posted explains it quite well. Click on the link and read it. Take off the rose colored glasses first though.

Edited to add: The Congress believed a lot of what the Bush Administration presented to them. They know better now than to trust them too. Live and learn.
Click to expand...
No its YOU that has on the blinders.

Those so-called "blinders" are opinions of that author. Intellegence is rarely entirely consistant. (I know that must be a shock to you) There has been contridictory intellegence from that area well before Bush took over. And that contridictory evidence was weighed by Presidents Clinton and Bush and they BOTH came to the same conclusions and that was the PREPONDERANCE of the intell suggested WMDs. What is different now is the Democrats are attempting to rewrite history and hide from the fact that they has the SAME intell as did Bush and supported him and the war.

Edited to add: Yes the Congress believed a lot of what the Bush Adminstration said because it was 100% consistant with that the Clinton Administration said too.
 
BlueEyesInLevis said:
No its YOU that has on the blinders.

Those so-called "blinders" are opinions of that author. Intellegence is rarely entirely consistant. (I know that must be a shock to you) There has been contridictory intellegence from that area well before Bush took over. And that contridictory evidence was weighed by Presidents Clinton and Bush and they BOTH came to the same conclusions and that was the PREPONDERANCE of the intell suggested WMDs. What is different now is the Democrats are attempting to rewrite history and hide from the fact that they has the SAME intell as did Bush and supported him and the war.

Edited to add: Yes the Congress believed a lot of what the Bush Adminstration said because it was 100% consistant with that the Clinton Administration said too.
Click to expand...

You didn't read the article, did you?
 
zipman said:
Did those people authorize a war? No
HAD THE WORLD TRADE CENTERS BEEN DESTROYED? NO!

Did those people change the way that intelligence information was vetted? No
How the fuck do YOU know how they vetted their info??????????????

I certainly never recall anyone in the Clinton Admin. saying. Gee...We're really not POSITIVE that Iraq has WMDs ..or.. Gee, We're not really SURE that aspirin factory really ISNT an aspiring factory maybe we should hold off on bombing it until we get better info.
And here's the kicker:

Wait for it....

Did those people give Tenet a fucking medal for providing bad intelligence? No.


Why in the world would Bush give Tenet the highest civilian honor possible after he gave him flawed evidence?
Click to expand...

Gee Zippy, I dont know, why do Democrats keep re-electing Ted Kennedy after vehicular homicide? Why do Democrats make a former Klansman the Senate majority leader?
 
zipman said:
Did those people authorize a war? No

Did those people change the way that intelligence information was vetted? No

And here's the kicker:

Wait for it....

Did those people give Tenet a fucking medal for providing bad intelligence? No.


Why in the world would Bush give Tenet the highest civilian honor possible after he gave him flawed evidence?
Click to expand...

Details. details. You're just nit picking. :D
 
BlueEyesInLevis said:
Gee Zippy, I dont know, why do Democrats keep re-electing Ted Kennedy after vehicular homicide? Why do Democrats make a former Klansman the Senate majority leader?
Click to expand...

If you read the link I posted you would know about how the information was vetted and how Bush's changing of that process impacted the veracity of the intelligence.

Here's a newsflash for you and I don't need to put it in large letters: Iraq was not involved with 9/11 no matter how much you try and link them and the attacks on 9/11 did not utilize WMD's.

Rather than actually discuss any of these legitimate issues, you want to discuss the Clintons and Ted Kennedy.

Happily, more and more Americans (and that includes Republicans) are opening their eyes.

LOL. :)
 
zipman said:
If you read the link I posted you would know about how the information was vetted and how Bush's changing of that process impacted the veracity of the intelligence.

Here's a newsflash for you and I don't need to put it in large letters: Iraq was not involved with 9/11 no matter how much you try and link them and the attacks on 9/11 did not utilize WMD's.

Rather than actually discuss any of these legitimate issues, you want to discuss the Clintons and Ted Kennedy.

Happily, more and more Americans (and that includes Republicans) are opening their eyes.

LOL. :)
Click to expand...
Liberals always try to forget 9/11, because 9/11 changed everything.

After 9/11 Terrorism wasnt something that just went on in Isreal or Europe it was here and it just cost us 3,000 lives.

FYI.... Iraq's suspected culpability in 9/11 was NOT the only reason we went to war. Bush AND Congress authorized war because it was believed he had WMDs (by ALL of the Intell agencies btw) and was not cooperating with the UN investiations.

I might also add he was also disposed because he was a MASS MURDERING tyrant who HAD used WMDs. Since he is now gone Iraq NOW has the beginnings of a DEMOCRACY, and women can now vote in Iraq (Something that doesnt seem to matter to Pookie) and even more importantly the MASS MURDERS have STOPPED (not that seems to matter to you and the rest of the anti-war left).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MusicForTheDeaf
Jeffrey Epstein may have been involved in plutonium diversion from US nuclear facilities on the behalf of Israel an the Mossad.
Replies
4
Views
116
Shaglus_Ziegler
Shaglus_Ziegler
Rexxxist
Is doomer misery erotic (enough)?
Replies
4
Views
144
Britva415
Britva415
realmint
Being sexualized
Replies
2
Views
147
Britva415
Britva415
W
Regrettable children's books
Replies
10
Views
226
StrangerDuJour
S
Pemulis
Dirty Talk You Still Think About
Replies
9
Views
368
cadman7777
C
Back
Top