More on BHO & Benghazi

[cvfd1399 0]

It was from the CIA, read the link.

[cvfd1399 0]

I will stick with the link that is directly from the CIA website that I posted, and not that other site. Like I said before majority of people reading that report in 2000 whatever it was would conclude the same thing that Iraq was in violation and needed to be dealt with.

Now on to the topic of bad intel, have you or anyone hopped on the CIA's back about the abysmal intel that was fed to bush?

[billvon 2,434]

>I will stick with the link that is directly from the CIA website that I posted, and not
>that other site.

OK. The link I provided was the CIA report released without all the redactions from the earlier release. It was only released this March.

>. . I said before majority of people reading that report in 2000 whatever it was would
>conclude the same thing that Iraq was in violation and needed to be dealt with.

Uh - no. They saw the original report, not the edited/redacted version.

>have you or anyone hopped on the CIA's back about the abysmal intel that was fed
>to bush?

Hell yes. Putting intel in a report just because the president demanded it is deplorable, and several people lost their jobs (rightly) over it. Tenet was the most prominent example.

[jakee 1,259]

cvfd1399

It was from the CIA, read the link.

Uh, yeah - but again how under your standards of verification, aka absolute proof, could they have possibly known what Saddam was planning on doing in the future?

Given that the CIA was wrong* and the UN inspectors were right how is it you can claim that it was impossible for the inspectors to know they were right but possible for the CIA to know they were right?



* In intelligence it produced under severe political pressure, of course.

(Oh, and speaking of knowing how to read a link, you still haven't explained where your police pay averages came from. Planning on doing that ever?)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,434]

>Given that the CIA was wrong* and the UN inspectors were right how is it you can
>claim that it was impossible for the inspectors to know they were right but possible for
>the CIA to know they were right?

It wasn't. But by that point the issue was no longer intelligence, it was trying to make up an excuse for war. Tyler Drumheller, the highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe, tried to get information to the administration shortly before the war. They had a mole in Hussein's inner circle - Naji Sabri, the Iraqi foreign minister - who told them that Saddam had no nuclear program. Drumheller tried his best to get this information to the administration but was ignored. In his own words:

"Sabri told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs. The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "

That pretty much sums it up. The goal was not to gather intelligence, or even tell the public the truth about that intelligence, good or bad. The goal was to gather support for regime change, and any lie told to "sex up" the threat was seen as a necessary evil to accomplish that goal.

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

Planning on doing that ever?

"Im moving on with my life."

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

Hell yes. Putting intel in a report just because the president demanded it is deplorable, and several people lost their jobs (rightly) over it. Tenet was the most prominent example.

Ok just asking, all you hear about is BUSH lied, but all he did was embellish what was fed to him by the CIA. I have never personally heard anything ever happen to the CIA over it either.

[billvon 2,434]

>Ok just asking, all you hear about is BUSH lied, but all he did was embellish what was
>fed to him by the CIA.

And which he demanded they give him.

Yes, other people lied. People within the CIA lied; Tenet lost his job over it. Bush lied. Democrats lied. Obama lied. The results of Bush's lies are that 4000 American soldiers died, 100,000 Iraqis died, and today we have ISIS taking over Iraq. The results of Obama's lies is that the deaths of 4 Americans were misreported.

[jakee 1,259]

cvfd1399

Quote

Planning on doing that ever?

"Im moving on with my life."

So you don't think it's worth admitting you were wrong? You just ignore it and hope it goes away?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

Ok just asking, all you hear about is BUSH lied, but all he did was embellish what was fed to him by the CIA.

Yeah. He pushed as hard as hell for what he wanted, and when it still wasn't quite good enough he invented more. How do you not call that lying?

And come to think of it, to be honest, how is 'embellishing' your way into a decade long quagmire of a foreign occupation any better than lying your way into it? What is even the distinction?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[RonD1120 58]

In that case, you have completely misunderstood why I started this thread.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[winsor 187]

billvon

>Ok just asking, all you hear about is BUSH lied, but all he did was embellish what was
>fed to him by the CIA.

And which he demanded they give him.

Yes, other people lied. People within the CIA lied; Tenet lost his job over it. Bush lied. Democrats lied. Obama lied. The results of Bush's lies are that 4000 American soldiers died, 100,000 Iraqis died, and today we have ISIS taking over Iraq. The results of Obama's lies is that the deaths of 4 Americans were misreported.

Johnson's incompetence got tens of thousands killed, while Nixon was cashiered for covering up something he did not sanction, and about which he did not know in advance.

That's the way our system works. Bush was a delusional incompetent, but Obama is an active dissembler (whenever he actually says anything with content).


BSBD,

Winsor

[RonD1120 58]

To expand on your misunderstanding, I do not believe that SC has any influence on foreign policy at all. The purpose of SC to explore, discuss and vent feelings, beliefs and fantasies.

Anyone who thinks these posts are actually important, beyond momentary therapy, is, well, adolescent.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 58]

billvon

The results of Obama's lies is that the deaths of 4 Americans were misreported.

No, the results of BHO's lies are far more reaching and costly than just this instance. Benghazi is the one I am focusing on in this thread. It is the one that reveals his and HC's sinister motives.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[airdvr 200]

billvon

>Point being I could bury that contraband in my backyard and they'd never be able to
>find it. You can only verify that something isn't where you thought it might be and you
>were unable to find it anywhere else.

True. And there's no way we can verify that Bush was not behind 9/11. In fact a lot of people believe that. It's just very unlikely.

The best information we have, provided both by our CIA and the UN inspection teams, is that Saddam Hussein had no WMD's at the beginning of the war.

If we are to assume you are correct; why was there no select committee set up to investigate these lies?

Sometimes it seems that the left is upset because of the Benghazi investigation and the lack of an investigation about the purported lies told by Bush et.al.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,434]

>No, the results of BHO's lies are far more reaching and costly than just this instance.

Sure, you might claim some damage to the image of the US or some such. Bush's lies killed 4000 US soldiers. They were men and women with families who signed up to defend the US - and were sent to their deaths based on Bush's lies.

Odd how you can so quickly wave those deaths away as meaningless, but call Obama's lies "costly." It makes me wonder what you really value.

[jakee 1,259]

RonD1120

Anyone who thinks these posts are actually important, beyond momentary therapy, is, well, adolescent.

Great. I think you're intentionally misunderstanding Dan in order to manufacture that little dig at him.

That's not adolescent, that's what children do.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[turtlespeed 212]

jakee

***Anyone who thinks these posts are actually important, beyond momentary therapy, is, well, adolescent.

Great. I think you're intentionally misunderstanding Dan in order to manufacture that little dig at him.

That's not adolescent, that's what children do.

What age group?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 622]

i thought Ron was talking about his own posts.

[kallend 1,648]

airdvr

***
The USA is 1 for 5 in wars since 1945. All we do is kill lots of people (including our own troops) and achieve very little.

I know you'll want to block on a technicality but the first Gulf War worked out pretty well.

That's the 1 in "1 for 5"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[winsor 187]

kallend

******
The USA is 1 for 5 in wars since 1945. All we do is kill lots of people (including our own troops) and achieve very little.

I know you'll want to block on a technicality but the first Gulf War worked out pretty well.

That's the 1 in "1 for 5"

You forgot Vietnam. We achieved Peace With Honor (tm) in Vietnam.

I, too, thought we did badly until I saw the documentaries from Sylvester Stallone and Chuck Norris. Watch them, they will set you straight as well.


BSBD,

Winsor

[kallend 1,648]

cvfd1399

You read a different report that I did. Although they did not find WMD, almost every section stated that Hussein still kept the information, and could quickly reconfigure existing chemical plants to weaponize WMD, was actively seeking and making chemicals that only needed a slight alteration to be chemicals in WMD and the CIA report stated his intention was to wait out the investigations then restart.

Well, I suppose Saddam could have lobotomized his scientists and engineers, but that wasn't part of the deal he agreed to.

FACT is that he had no WMDs, just as the CIA and UN inspectors reported.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[headoverheels 291]

kallend

******
The USA is 1 for 5 in wars since 1945. All we do is kill lots of people (including our own troops) and achieve very little.

I know you'll want to block on a technicality but the first Gulf War worked out pretty well.

That's the 1 in "1 for 5"

So, you don't have Grenada in the "win" column?

[kallend 1,648]

headoverheels

*********
The USA is 1 for 5 in wars since 1945. All we do is kill lots of people (including our own troops) and achieve very little.

I know you'll want to block on a technicality but the first Gulf War worked out pretty well.

That's the 1 in "1 for 5"

So, you don't have Grenada in the "win" column?


Shirley, you jest.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[funjumper101 15]

Perhaps the willfully ignorant who are worked up about the Benghazi attack could become educated as to prior events related to embassy/consulate security.

I don't see a thread here calling out the POTUS at that time for the security failures. I wonder why that is?

Interesting factual info here -

— John Garamendi on Monday, May 5th, 2014 in an interview on MSNBC's "The Ed Show" said "During the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died."

More info -

Garamendi said that "during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died." There are actually different ways to count the number of attacks, especially when considering attacks on ambassadors and embassy personnel who were traveling to or from embassy property. Overall, we found Garamendi slightly understated the number of deadly attacks and total fatalities, even using a strict definition. Garamendi’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/