OT: Bush warned preinvasion intel was 'misleading'

OT: Bush warned preinvasion intel was 'misleading'

Post by John H » Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:17:45



presented another cut'n'paste:

Go back to bed, Harry!

--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

 
 
 

OT: Bush warned preinvasion intel was 'misleading'

Post by Doug Kante » Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:03:16


Quote:

> presented another cut'n'paste:

> Go back to bed, Harry!

Harry back to bed???  The information presented was not spin - it was this:

" The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was
probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, "was intentionally
misleading the debriefers'' in making claims about Iraqi support for Al
Qaeda's work with *** weapons. "

Perhaps you really wanted to spend the day mindlessly staring into space
like a lizard warming itself on a rock. Perhaps this information is
disturbing your reverie. Oh well.

If your president read this report and went ahead with his plans anyway, do
you call it lying, or a mistake?

 
 
 

OT: Bush warned preinvasion intel was 'misleading'

Post by John H » Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:21:02



Quote:




>> presented another cut'n'paste:

>> Go back to bed, Harry!

>Harry back to bed???  The information presented was not spin - it was this:

>" The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was
>probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, "was intentionally
>misleading the debriefers'' in making claims about Iraqi support for Al
>Qaeda's work with *** weapons. "

>Perhaps you really wanted to spend the day mindlessly staring into space
>like a lizard warming itself on a rock. Perhaps this information is
>disturbing your reverie. Oh well.

>If your president read this report and went ahead with his plans anyway, do
>you call it lying, or a mistake?

Well here, doug. Since you obviously don't read your own news, here's another
cut'n'paste for you:

washingtonpost.com
Hindsight in Iraq

By Jim Hoagland
Sunday, November 6, 2005; B07

We were so stupid that we let our idiot president and an Arab con man fool us on
a life-and-death issue.

As a campaign theme for elections in 2006 and 2008, that proposition may lack a
little something. Yet Democrats who supported the invasion of Iraq but now
cannot support the consequences of their vote are flirting with it. To them,
good night, and good luck.

I doubt that swing voters will buy an admission of faux gullibility as a
rationale for supporting Democrats over Republicans. Even when stated in
slightly more elegant form, as it must be, that argument trivializes and
falsifies the serious debate that did occur over Saddam Hussein's capabilities
and intentions. Making President Bush's alleged "lies" on prewar intelligence
the campaign focal point also underlines the failure of the Democrats to come up
with convincing alternative policies for Iraq and the Middle East.

Worse: A backward-looking strategy obscures the political progress that Iraqis
are making against terrorist bombings and assassinations.

Americans already know too little about the process of coalition-building and
public campaigning underway for Iraq's December elections. That process
represents the best chance to reduce American troop levels and unwanted U.S.
political hegemony in Iraq. Flinging dust in the American electorate's eyes can
only produce harmful results.

There is an enormous amount to criticize and reexamine about the conduct of the
war and the misbegotten, heavy-handed occupation that has followed. One
politician who has consistently done that responsibly is Sen. Chuck Hagel
(R-Neb.), who nonetheless believes that the war is still winnable. That is the
fundamental question for critics and supporters, Democrats and Republicans, to
debate today.

"If winning is defined as having a free, independent, self-governing nation in
Iraq, I think that is still possible. But the options are evaporating for
America to influence that outcome if changes are not made," Hagel said in an
interview.

"We have to stop isolating ourselves in the world and use Iraq to shore up
alliances instead of damage them. And we have to avoid the mistakes of Vietnam,
especially simultaneously propping up and manipulating a corrupt local regime
that could not defend itself," he added.

Iraqi voters defied the terrorist campaign to adopt a new democratic
constitution last month. In recent days the national election commission has
registered party lists and candidates for the December elections for a permanent
government. This progression carries promise for the future.

The Sunni minority, which boycotted January's transitional elections, shows
every sign of voting in greater numbers this time. This will help encourage the
creation of cross-sectarian coalitions, as does the awarding of parliament seats
on a provincial rather than a national level.

This in turn opens new vistas for two Shiite secular politicians, Ayad Allawi
and Ahmed Chalabi, who will compete head to head for Sunni support in Baghdad
province and then need to bargain for Kurdish support to form a government.
Chalabi and other Shiite leaders are moving away from the Islamic bloc that won
in January and that dominates the current government but is unpopular with the
Kurds.

Chalabi? Isn't he the aforesaid Arab con man of journalistic and political lore
who tricked alert politicians such as Jay Rockefeller, and the entire CIA, into
believing Hussein was moments away from blowing them to kingdom come? The same
guy who provided the opportunity for shallow journalistic exposs and a magazine
cover -- on the Columbia Journalism Review, of all places -- that were redolent
with whiffs of anti-Arab stereotyping that would have been denounced if other
ethnic groups had been so targeted?

Yes, Chalabi is back, in Iraq and in Washington. He visits here this week at the
invitation of an administration that listened to him before the war -- except of
course when he opposed the occupation and other things they wanted to do -- and
then tried to eliminate him from Iraqi politics in Allawi's favor. I know, the
story line gets confusing, but remember, we are in Valerie Plame deep-cover
territory here.

The visit would be a good occasion for the American public to catch up on the
thing that interests Hagel -- the chances of democracy in Iraq -- and on how
Chalabi would hurry American troops home. Rockefeller, Harry Reid and other
Democrats could ask him in person how he so brilliantly tricked them, and then
explain that in detail to their constituents.

But I suspect the story line will be the easy irony of Chalabi resurfacing and
the faux gullibility thing, even if it has to be sold in defiance of the facts.
Who wants facts when you can have fun?

--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

 
 
 

OT: Bush warned preinvasion intel was 'misleading'

Post by thunde » Tue, 08 Nov 2005 06:45:44

Quote:

> What is missing here?  Let's think about it.

> Nobody, including the Democrats, said STOP!!!

23 Senators and 133 Representatives said stop.  No one was listening, but
you are right, plenty of blame to go around.
Quote:
> Hmmm - enough blame to spread around perhaps?

 
 
 

OT: Bush warned preinvasion intel was 'misleading'

Post by Skippe » Tue, 08 Nov 2005 07:04:08

Quote:

> Most of the righties here are in such deep denial about Bush's lies,
> screw-ups, cover-ups and incompetency, they've got their heads way
> inside each others' large intestines. It is a bit of fun watching them
> try so very hard to rationalize Presidummy Bush.
> I see Bush's latest defeat was at the economic summit in South America.
> Good. Almost everything that hurts Bush politically helps Americans and
> other inhabitants of this planet.

You have been virulently anti-American for years, no matter which party
was in power. Now that we are at war with our sworn enemies while you
continue your fifth column activities, it does raise questions about
just why you remain in the country whose values you hate.

--
Skipper

 
 
 

OT: Bush warned preinvasion intel was 'misleading'

Post by thunde » Tue, 08 Nov 2005 07:22:19

Quote:

>>23 Senators and 133 Representatives said stop.  No one was listening, but
>>you are right, plenty of blame to go around.

> It was a half hearted stop at best and nobody of consequence said it - at
> all.

Those that did paid the price.  Let's see, there was Ritter, Shinseki,
Wilson, France . . .  Need I go on?  Yes, our Congress abdicated, but make
no mistake, this was Bush's war.  He went for the glory.  He has to be man
enough to take the hit.
 
 
 

OT: Bush warned preinvasion intel was 'misleading'

Post by John H » Tue, 08 Nov 2005 07:38:28

Quote:





>>> presented another cut'n'paste:

>>> Go back to bed, Harry!

>> Harry back to bed???  The information presented was not spin - it was this:

>> " The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was
>> probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, "was intentionally
>> misleading the debriefers'' in making claims about Iraqi support for Al
>> Qaeda's work with *** weapons. "

>> Perhaps you really wanted to spend the day mindlessly staring into space
>> like a lizard warming itself on a rock. Perhaps this information is
>> disturbing your reverie. Oh well.

>> If your president read this report and went ahead with his plans anyway, do
>> you call it lying, or a mistake?

>Most of the righties here are in such deep denial about Bush's lies,
>screw-ups, cover-ups and incompetency, they've got their heads way
>inside each others' large intestines. It is a bit of fun watching them
>try so very hard to rationalize Presidummy Bush.

>I see Bush's latest defeat was at the economic summit in South America.
>Good. Almost everything that hurts Bush politically helps Americans and
>other inhabitants of this planet.

Just for you, Harry:

ad_icon

ZIP code where you park at night:

Do you currently have auto insurance?           Yes No
Have you had a U.S. driver's license for more than 3 years?             Yes No
Has any driver in your household had 2 or more accidents or moving violations in
the last 3 years?               Yes No

washingtonpost.com
Hindsight in Iraq

By Jim Hoagland
Sunday, November 6, 2005; B07

We were so stupid that we let our idiot president and an Arab con man fool us on
a life-and-death issue.

As a campaign theme for elections in 2006 and 2008, that proposition may lack a
little something. Yet Democrats who supported the invasion of Iraq but now
cannot support the consequences of their vote are flirting with it. To them,
good night, and good luck.

I doubt that swing voters will buy an admission of faux gullibility as a
rationale for supporting Democrats over Republicans. Even when stated in
slightly more elegant form, as it must be, that argument trivializes and
falsifies the serious debate that did occur over Saddam Hussein's capabilities
and intentions. Making President Bush's alleged "lies" on prewar intelligence
the campaign focal point also underlines the failure of the Democrats to come up
with convincing alternative policies for Iraq and the Middle East.

Worse: A backward-looking strategy obscures the political progress that Iraqis
are making against terrorist bombings and assassinations.

Americans already know too little about the process of coalition-building and
public campaigning underway for Iraq's December elections. That process
represents the best chance to reduce American troop levels and unwanted U.S.
political hegemony in Iraq. Flinging dust in the American electorate's eyes can
only produce harmful results.

There is an enormous amount to criticize and reexamine about the conduct of the
war and the misbegotten, heavy-handed occupation that has followed. One
politician who has consistently done that responsibly is Sen. Chuck Hagel
(R-Neb.), who nonetheless believes that the war is still winnable. That is the
fundamental question for critics and supporters, Democrats and Republicans, to
debate today.

"If winning is defined as having a free, independent, self-governing nation in
Iraq, I think that is still possible. But the options are evaporating for
America to influence that outcome if changes are not made," Hagel said in an
interview.

"We have to stop isolating ourselves in the world and use Iraq to shore up
alliances instead of damage them. And we have to avoid the mistakes of Vietnam,
especially simultaneously propping up and manipulating a corrupt local regime
that could not defend itself," he added.

Iraqi voters defied the terrorist campaign to adopt a new democratic
constitution last month. In recent days the national election commission has
registered party lists and candidates for the December elections for a permanent
government. This progression carries promise for the future.

The Sunni minority, which boycotted January's transitional elections, shows
every sign of voting in greater numbers this time. This will help encourage the
creation of cross-sectarian coalitions, as does the awarding of parliament seats
on a provincial rather than a national level.

This in turn opens new vistas for two Shiite secular politicians, Ayad Allawi
and Ahmed Chalabi, who will compete head to head for Sunni support in Baghdad
province and then need to bargain for Kurdish support to form a government.
Chalabi and other Shiite leaders are moving away from the Islamic bloc that won
in January and that dominates the current government but is unpopular with the
Kurds.

Chalabi? Isn't he the aforesaid Arab con man of journalistic and political lore
who tricked alert politicians such as Jay Rockefeller, and the entire CIA, into
believing Hussein was moments away from blowing them to kingdom come? The same
guy who provided the opportunity for shallow journalistic exposs and a magazine
cover -- on the Columbia Journalism Review, of all places -- that were redolent
with whiffs of anti-Arab stereotyping that would have been denounced if other
ethnic groups had been so targeted?

Yes, Chalabi is back, in Iraq and in Washington. He visits here this week at the
invitation of an administration that listened to him before the war -- except of
course when he opposed the occupation and other things they wanted to do -- and
then tried to eliminate him from Iraqi politics in Allawi's favor. I know, the
story line gets confusing, but remember, we are in Valerie Plame deep-cover
territory here.

The visit would be a good occasion for the American public to catch up on the
thing that interests Hagel -- the chances of democracy in Iraq -- and on how
Chalabi would hurry American troops home. Rockefeller, Harry Reid and other
Democrats could ask him in person how he so brilliantly tricked them, and then
explain that in detail to their constituents.

But I suspect the story line will be the easy irony of Chalabi resurfacing and
the faux gullibility thing, even if it has to be sold in defiance of the facts.
Who wants facts when you can have fun?


? 2005 The Washington Post Company
Advertising Links       What's this?
Save on All Your Calls with Vonage
When looking for local regional and long distance calling, use Vonage to make
calls to all 50 states and Canada. Get voicemail, great international rates and
more. Sign up today.
www.vonage.com
Compare Mortgage Offers
Up to four free mortgage, refinance or home equity offers - one easy form.
www.nextag.com
MyCashNow - $100 - $1,500 Overnight
Payday Loan Cash goes in your account overnight. Very low fees. Fast decisions.
Direct deposit is not required. No credit check. Confidential - secure.
www.mycashnow.com

--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

 
 
 

OT: Bush warned preinvasion intel was 'misleading'

Post by Skippe » Tue, 08 Nov 2005 08:19:31

Quote:

> We're at war in Iraq because we have an irresponsible, incompetent
> dumfoch in the White House by name of Presidummy Bush.

Was Iraq shooting at American planes during the Clinton Administration?
Did Saddam attempt to assassinate George Bush while Clinton was in
office? What did Clinton do about those offenses? Face it, the
appea***t methods of Chamberlain, Carter, and Clinton lead to further
conflicts, not diminishing threats.

--
Skipper

 
 
 

OT: Bush warned preinvasion intel was 'misleading'

Post by Bert Robbin » Tue, 08 Nov 2005 08:20:16


Quote:

>>>23 Senators and 133 Representatives said stop.  No one was listening, but
>>>you are right, plenty of blame to go around.

>> It was a half hearted stop at best and nobody of consequence said it - at
>> all.

> Those that did paid the price.  Let's see, there was Ritter, Shinseki,
> Wilson, France . . .  Need I go on?  Yes, our Congress abdicated, but make
> no mistake, this was Bush's war.  He went for the glory.  He has to be man
> enough to take the hit.

Ritter was being blackmailed.

Shinseki wasn't towing the party line, when you get that high in the
military your job is political and Shinseki couldn't with the political
battles.

Who hired Wilson? Why didn't Wilson have to write a written report. This is
the key question in this whole affair.

France? You mean the people leading France that were getting paid off with
oil contracts form Saddam's Iraq?

You need to get better examples.

 
 
 

OT: Bush warned preinvasion intel was 'misleading'

Post by John H » Tue, 08 Nov 2005 08:41:42

Quote:


>> We're at war in Iraq because we have an irresponsible, incompetent
>> dumfoch in the White House by name of Presidummy Bush.

>Was Iraq shooting at American planes during the Clinton Administration?
>Did Saddam attempt to assassinate George Bush while Clinton was in
>office? What did Clinton do about those offenses? Face it, the
>appea***t methods of Chamberlain, Carter, and Clinton lead to further
>conflicts, not diminishing threats.

Notice what Harry reverts to when outgunned.
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

 
 
 

OT: Bush warned preinvasion intel was 'misleading'

Post by Skippe » Tue, 08 Nov 2005 10:35:30

Quote:



>>> We're at war in Iraq because we have an irresponsible, incompetent
>>> dumfoch in the White House by name of Presidummy Bush.
>> Was Iraq shooting at American planes during the Clinton Administration?
>> Did Saddam attempt to assassinate George Bush while Clinton was in
>> office? What did Clinton do about those offenses? Face it, the
>> appea***t methods of Chamberlain, Carter, and Clinton lead to further
>> conflicts, not diminishing threats.
> Notice what Harry reverts to when outgunned.

Krause hasn't had an on topic comeback since '98. He's little more than
the class clown...somewhat entertaining, but always changing the topic
when Challenged.

--
Skipper

 
 
 

OT: Bush warned preinvasion intel was 'misleading'

Post by John H » Tue, 08 Nov 2005 10:43:06

Quote:




>>>> We're at war in Iraq because we have an irresponsible, incompetent
>>>> dumfoch in the White House by name of Presidummy Bush.

>>> Was Iraq shooting at American planes during the Clinton Administration?
>>> Did Saddam attempt to assassinate George Bush while Clinton was in
>>> office? What did Clinton do about those offenses? Face it, the
>>> appea***t methods of Chamberlain, Carter, and Clinton lead to further
>>> conflicts, not diminishing threats.

>> Notice what Harry reverts to when outgunned.

>Krause hasn't had an on topic comeback since '98. He's little more than
>the class clown...somewhat entertaining, but always changing the topic
>when Challenged.

Unless you call feeling sorry for someone 'entertainment', Krause is not
entertaining.

Kevin, OTOH, is quite entertaining!!
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

 
 
 

OT: Bush warned preinvasion intel was 'misleading'

Post by Doug Kante » Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:17:58



Quote:
> On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 14:03:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"



>>> On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 06:41:47 -0500, Harry Krause

>>> presented another cut'n'paste:

>>> Go back to bed, Harry!

>>Harry back to bed???  The information presented was not spin - it was
>>this:

>>" The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was
>>probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, "was intentionally
>>misleading the debriefers'' in making claims about Iraqi support for Al
>>Qaeda's work with *** weapons. "

>>Perhaps you really wanted to spend the day mindlessly staring into space
>>like a lizard warming itself on a rock. Perhaps this information is
>>disturbing your reverie. Oh well.

>>If your president read this report and went ahead with his plans anyway,
>>do
>>you call it lying, or a mistake?

> What is missing here?  Let's think about it.

> Nobody, including the Democrats, said STOP!!!

> Hmmm - enough blame to spread around perhaps?

When one person does something wrong, it is childish to point to others. A
completely meaningless waste of time. When little kids do it, their parents
correct them.
 
 
 

OT: Bush warned preinvasion intel was 'misleading'

Post by Doug Kante » Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:19:37


Quote:

>> Most of the righties here are in such deep denial about Bush's lies,
>> screw-ups, cover-ups and incompetency, they've got their heads way
>> inside each others' large intestines. It is a bit of fun watching them
>> try so very hard to rationalize Presidummy Bush.

>> I see Bush's latest defeat was at the economic summit in South America.
>> Good. Almost everything that hurts Bush politically helps Americans and
>> other inhabitants of this planet.

> You have been virulently anti-American for years, no matter which party
> was in power. Now that we are at war with our sworn enemies while you
> continue your fifth column activities, it does raise questions about
> just why you remain in the country whose values you hate.

> --
> Skipper

 "Our Country, right or wrong..." Have you not perceived that that phrase is
an insult to the nation? -- Mark Twain, "Glances at History," in deVoto,
Letters from the Earth
 
 
 

OT: Bush warned preinvasion intel was 'misleading'

Post by atl_m.. » Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:55:21

Quote:



> >> We're at war in Iraq because we have an irresponsible, incompetent
> >> dumfoch in the White House by name of Presidummy Bush.

> >Was Iraq shooting at American planes during the Clinton Administration?
> >Did Saddam attempt to assassinate George Bush while Clinton was in
> >office? What did Clinton do about those offenses? Face it, the
> >appea***t methods of Chamberlain, Carter, and Clinton lead to further
> >conflicts, not diminishing threats.

> Notice what Harry reverts to when outgunned.
> --

Kind of like you telling others to "go back to bed", etc.?