Top conservatives (real ones) investigated 2020 election and concluded that Trump los

7,435 Views | 108 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Osodecentx
Guy Noir
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 9:39a, 7/20/22
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
Reply Quote
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Guy Noir • 9:48a, 7/20/22
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
lol sure...ok
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Guy Noir • 9:50a, 7/20/22
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
I am not sure what you're reading or talking about. I was critical of Liz's strong support of dad, both before and after we learned the WMD evidence was a bunch of bull***** Does that mean she's her dad? No. It merely means she is a neocon who agrees with unnecessary military intervention and wars that needlessly kill young Americans - a position that was decidedly not Republican prior to 2000.

I know you're an establishment guy, but the idea that the U.S. was pushed into war with Iraq by 9/11 is a pile of hot, steaming garbage. I agree that 9/11 was the excuse used by the Bush admin, but the truth is there was no need to go to war in Iraq. We were sold on a line of goods about how Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them. That was a load of horse****, as we now know, and it got us stuck in a quagmire in which there were thousands of American casualties. Even Powell came out and said as much. He was duped. And the guy who was most responsible for influencing that decision was Cheney. He had a hard on for Iraq for years, following Bush I's decision not to overthrow Saddam. These are all well-documented facts.

I'd suggest doing a little research on him.
Reply Quote
3 edits
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 10:08a, 7/20/22
Mothra said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
I am not sure what you're reading or talking about. I was critical of Liz's strong support of dad, both before and after we learned the WMD evidence was a bunch of bull***** Does that mean she's her dad? No. It merely means she is a neocon who agrees with unnecessary military intervention and wars that needlessly kill young Americans - a position that was decidedly not Republican prior to 2000.

I know you're an establishment guy, but the idea that the U.S. was pushed into war with Iraq by 9/11 is a pile of hot, steaming garbage. There was no need to go to war in Iraq. We were sold on a line of goods about how Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them. That was a load of horse****, as we now know, and it got us stuck in a quagmire in which there were thousands of American casualties. Even Powell came out and said as much. He was duped. And the guy who was most responsible for influencing that decision was Cheney. He had a hard on for Iraq for years, following Bush I's decision not to overthrow Saddam. These are all well-documented facts.

I'd suggest doing a little research on him.
The Director of the CIA told Bush administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was incorrect
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 10:16a, 7/20/22
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
I am not sure what you're reading or talking about. I was critical of Liz's strong support of dad, both before and after we learned the WMD evidence was a bunch of bull***** Does that mean she's her dad? No. It merely means she is a neocon who agrees with unnecessary military intervention and wars that needlessly kill young Americans - a position that was decidedly not Republican prior to 2000.

I know you're an establishment guy, but the idea that the U.S. was pushed into war with Iraq by 9/11 is a pile of hot, steaming garbage. There was no need to go to war in Iraq. We were sold on a line of goods about how Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them. That was a load of horse****, as we now know, and it got us stuck in a quagmire in which there were thousands of American casualties. Even Powell came out and said as much. He was duped. And the guy who was most responsible for influencing that decision was Cheney. He had a hard on for Iraq for years, following Bush I's decision not to overthrow Saddam. These are all well-documented facts.

I'd suggest doing a little research on him.
The Director of the CIA told Bush administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was incorrect
  • In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal." The "massive stockpile" was just literally made up.
  • In December 2002, Bush declared, [url=http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/31/se.01.html]"We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon."[/url] That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, "We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon and lied and said he didn't know to hype the threat.
  • On CNN in September 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argued that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too. Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were exaggerated by administration officials and in any case, the claim that they're "only really suited" for nuclear weapons is just false.
  • On numerous occasions, Vice President Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He said this after the CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place.
  • More generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18, 2001, Rice received a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship, which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless, Bush continued to claim that Hussein was "a threat because he's dealing with al-Qaeda" more than a year later.
  • In August 2002, Cheney declared, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." But as Corn notes, at that time there was "no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation." Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney's speech, would later say in a documentary, "It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 10:28a, 7/20/22
Redbrickbear said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
lol sure...ok
It truly amazes me to see the establishment guys and Trump haters continue to defend the actions of the neocons.
Reply Quote
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 10:30a, 7/20/22
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
I am not sure what you're reading or talking about. I was critical of Liz's strong support of dad, both before and after we learned the WMD evidence was a bunch of bull***** Does that mean she's her dad? No. It merely means she is a neocon who agrees with unnecessary military intervention and wars that needlessly kill young Americans - a position that was decidedly not Republican prior to 2000.

I know you're an establishment guy, but the idea that the U.S. was pushed into war with Iraq by 9/11 is a pile of hot, steaming garbage. There was no need to go to war in Iraq. We were sold on a line of goods about how Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them. That was a load of horse****, as we now know, and it got us stuck in a quagmire in which there were thousands of American casualties. Even Powell came out and said as much. He was duped. And the guy who was most responsible for influencing that decision was Cheney. He had a hard on for Iraq for years, following Bush I's decision not to overthrow Saddam. These are all well-documented facts.

I'd suggest doing a little research on him.
The Director of the CIA told Bush administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was incorrect
  • In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal." The "massive stockpile" was just literally made up.
  • In December 2002, Bush declared, [url=http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/31/se.01.html]"We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon."[/url] That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, "We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon and lied and said he didn't know to hype the threat.
  • On CNN in September 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argued that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too. Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were exaggerated by administration officials and in any case, the claim that they're "only really suited" for nuclear weapons is just false.
  • On numerous occasions, Vice President Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He said this after the CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place.
  • More generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18, 2001, Rice received a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship, which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless, Bush continued to claim that Hussein was "a threat because he's dealing with al-Qaeda" more than a year later.
  • In August 2002, Cheney declared, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." But as Corn notes, at that time there was "no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation." Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney's speech, would later say in a documentary, "It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds

According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence that Iraq had WMDs amounted to a "slam dunk case".
Reply Quote
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 10:47a, 7/20/22
Mothra said:
Redbrickbear said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
lol sure...ok
It truly amazes me to see the establishment guys and Trump haters continue to defend the actions of the neocons.
Part of me sees this as confirmation that there is not much daylight between your average NPR listening liberal and the Bush-Romney type corporate shill/international war loving Republicans.

They differ on tax policy and on how fast they want the cultural revolution to move...other than that the Uniparty is very real.

Another issue is that it just confirms Trump broke them...they would support Stalin and Hitler before being caught dead giving aid and comfort to Trump.

Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 11:16a, 7/20/22
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
I am not sure what you're reading or talking about. I was critical of Liz's strong support of dad, both before and after we learned the WMD evidence was a bunch of bull***** Does that mean she's her dad? No. It merely means she is a neocon who agrees with unnecessary military intervention and wars that needlessly kill young Americans - a position that was decidedly not Republican prior to 2000.

I know you're an establishment guy, but the idea that the U.S. was pushed into war with Iraq by 9/11 is a pile of hot, steaming garbage. There was no need to go to war in Iraq. We were sold on a line of goods about how Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them. That was a load of horse****, as we now know, and it got us stuck in a quagmire in which there were thousands of American casualties. Even Powell came out and said as much. He was duped. And the guy who was most responsible for influencing that decision was Cheney. He had a hard on for Iraq for years, following Bush I's decision not to overthrow Saddam. These are all well-documented facts.

I'd suggest doing a little research on him.
The Director of the CIA told Bush administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was incorrect
  • In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal." The "massive stockpile" was just literally made up.
  • In December 2002, Bush declared, [url=http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/31/se.01.html]"We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon."[/url] That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, "We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon and lied and said he didn't know to hype the threat.
  • On CNN in September 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argued that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too. Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were exaggerated by administration officials and in any case, the claim that they're "only really suited" for nuclear weapons is just false.
  • On numerous occasions, Vice President Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He said this after the CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place.
  • More generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18, 2001, Rice received a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship, which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless, Bush continued to claim that Hussein was "a threat because he's dealing with al-Qaeda" more than a year later.
  • In August 2002, Cheney declared, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." But as Corn notes, at that time there was "no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation." Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney's speech, would later say in a documentary, "It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds

According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence that Iraq had WMDs amounted to a "slam dunk case".
I don't doubt that Tenet participated in the conspiracy, but as set forth in the well-documented facts above, there were other major actors who lied. And as much as I know you would like for it to be the case, they don't absolve Bush/Cheney of anything.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 11:18a, 7/20/22
Redbrickbear said:
Mothra said:
Redbrickbear said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
lol sure...ok
It truly amazes me to see the establishment guys and Trump haters continue to defend the actions of the neocons.
Another issue is that it just confirms Trump broke them...they would support Stalin and Hitler before being caught dead giving aid and comfort to Trump.
Any support for Hitler would evaporate pretty quickly once Trump endorsed him.
Reply Quote
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 11:24a, 7/20/22
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
I am not sure what you're reading or talking about. I was critical of Liz's strong support of dad, both before and after we learned the WMD evidence was a bunch of bull***** Does that mean she's her dad? No. It merely means she is a neocon who agrees with unnecessary military intervention and wars that needlessly kill young Americans - a position that was decidedly not Republican prior to 2000.

I know you're an establishment guy, but the idea that the U.S. was pushed into war with Iraq by 9/11 is a pile of hot, steaming garbage. There was no need to go to war in Iraq. We were sold on a line of goods about how Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them. That was a load of horse****, as we now know, and it got us stuck in a quagmire in which there were thousands of American casualties. Even Powell came out and said as much. He was duped. And the guy who was most responsible for influencing that decision was Cheney. He had a hard on for Iraq for years, following Bush I's decision not to overthrow Saddam. These are all well-documented facts.

I'd suggest doing a little research on him.
The Director of the CIA told Bush administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was incorrect
  • In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal." The "massive stockpile" was just literally made up.
  • In December 2002, Bush declared, [url=http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/31/se.01.html]"We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon."[/url] That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, "We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon and lied and said he didn't know to hype the threat.
  • On CNN in September 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argued that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too. Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were exaggerated by administration officials and in any case, the claim that they're "only really suited" for nuclear weapons is just false.
  • On numerous occasions, Vice President Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He said this after the CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place.
  • More generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18, 2001, Rice received a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship, which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless, Bush continued to claim that Hussein was "a threat because he's dealing with al-Qaeda" more than a year later.
  • In August 2002, Cheney declared, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." But as Corn notes, at that time there was "no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation." Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney's speech, would later say in a documentary, "It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds

According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence that Iraq had WMDs amounted to a "slam dunk case".
I don't doubt that Tenet participated in the conspiracy, but as set forth in the well-documented facts above, there were other major actors who lied. And as much as I know you would like for it to be the case, they don't absolve Bush/Cheney of anything.
Sometimes people just make mistakes. They aren't lying, just factually incorrect. The stock broker who recommends buying stocks before the stocks go down isn't lying, he's just wrong.

In his new book, "The Great War of Our Time: The CIA's Fight Against Terrorism From Al Qaeda to ISIS," former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell apologizes to former Secretary of State Colin Powell for flawed CIA intelligence that Powell outlined in a 2003 speech at the United Nations.
"I thought it important to do so because here's a man with an incredible reputation, well-deserved over a long period of time, and he went out there and made this case, and we were wrong," CBS News senior security contributor said Monday on "CBS This Morning."
On February 5, 2003, Powell told the U.N. Security Council Iraq had "biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more," and had shipped "chemical weapons from production facilities out to the field."
In the book, Morell details how the CIA was wrong to conclude Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
"We said he has chemical weapons, he has a biological weapons production capability, and he's restarting his nuclear weapons program. We were wrong on all three of those," he said.
Morell said he was not a senior official at the time, so it wasn't up to him to apologize. But after learning the intelligence community had still not reached out about to Powell about the flawed evidence, Morell decided it was time.
"This has been on him, in a sense, for a very long period of time, so I wanted to apologize," he said.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-morell-apologizes-colin-powell-about-cia-pre-iraq-war-wmd-evidence/
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 12:00p, 7/20/22
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
I am not sure what you're reading or talking about. I was critical of Liz's strong support of dad, both before and after we learned the WMD evidence was a bunch of bull***** Does that mean she's her dad? No. It merely means she is a neocon who agrees with unnecessary military intervention and wars that needlessly kill young Americans - a position that was decidedly not Republican prior to 2000.

I know you're an establishment guy, but the idea that the U.S. was pushed into war with Iraq by 9/11 is a pile of hot, steaming garbage. There was no need to go to war in Iraq. We were sold on a line of goods about how Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them. That was a load of horse****, as we now know, and it got us stuck in a quagmire in which there were thousands of American casualties. Even Powell came out and said as much. He was duped. And the guy who was most responsible for influencing that decision was Cheney. He had a hard on for Iraq for years, following Bush I's decision not to overthrow Saddam. These are all well-documented facts.

I'd suggest doing a little research on him.
The Director of the CIA told Bush administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was incorrect
  • In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal." The "massive stockpile" was just literally made up.
  • In December 2002, Bush declared, [url=http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/31/se.01.html]"We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon."[/url] That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, "We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon and lied and said he didn't know to hype the threat.
  • On CNN in September 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argued that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too. Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were exaggerated by administration officials and in any case, the claim that they're "only really suited" for nuclear weapons is just false.
  • On numerous occasions, Vice President Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He said this after the CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place.
  • More generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18, 2001, Rice received a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship, which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless, Bush continued to claim that Hussein was "a threat because he's dealing with al-Qaeda" more than a year later.
  • In August 2002, Cheney declared, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." But as Corn notes, at that time there was "no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation." Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney's speech, would later say in a documentary, "It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds

According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence that Iraq had WMDs amounted to a "slam dunk case".
I don't doubt that Tenet participated in the conspiracy, but as set forth in the well-documented facts above, there were other major actors who lied. And as much as I know you would like for it to be the case, they don't absolve Bush/Cheney of anything.
Sometimes people just make mistakes. They aren't lying, just factually incorrect. The stock broker who recommends buying stocks before the stocks go down isn't lying, he's just wrong.
Don't disagree. But as documented above, that didn't happen here. Here, there was purposeful deception and overstatements made by both Bush and Cheney, which even shocked some of their generals.

But even if it was mere negligence, it got thousands of Americans killed, and that is inexcusable. You should not be defending them or supporting neocons.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 12:32p, 7/20/22
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
I am not sure what you're reading or talking about. I was critical of Liz's strong support of dad, both before and after we learned the WMD evidence was a bunch of bull***** Does that mean she's her dad? No. It merely means she is a neocon who agrees with unnecessary military intervention and wars that needlessly kill young Americans - a position that was decidedly not Republican prior to 2000.

I know you're an establishment guy, but the idea that the U.S. was pushed into war with Iraq by 9/11 is a pile of hot, steaming garbage. There was no need to go to war in Iraq. We were sold on a line of goods about how Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them. That was a load of horse****, as we now know, and it got us stuck in a quagmire in which there were thousands of American casualties. Even Powell came out and said as much. He was duped. And the guy who was most responsible for influencing that decision was Cheney. He had a hard on for Iraq for years, following Bush I's decision not to overthrow Saddam. These are all well-documented facts.

I'd suggest doing a little research on him.
The Director of the CIA told Bush administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was incorrect
  • In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal." The "massive stockpile" was just literally made up.
  • In December 2002, Bush declared, [url=http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/31/se.01.html]"We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon."[/url] That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, "We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon and lied and said he didn't know to hype the threat.
  • On CNN in September 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argued that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too. Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were exaggerated by administration officials and in any case, the claim that they're "only really suited" for nuclear weapons is just false.
  • On numerous occasions, Vice President Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He said this after the CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place.
  • More generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18, 2001, Rice received a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship, which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless, Bush continued to claim that Hussein was "a threat because he's dealing with al-Qaeda" more than a year later.
  • In August 2002, Cheney declared, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." But as Corn notes, at that time there was "no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation." Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney's speech, would later say in a documentary, "It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds

According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence that Iraq had WMDs amounted to a "slam dunk case".
I don't doubt that Tenet participated in the conspiracy, but as set forth in the well-documented facts above, there were other major actors who lied. And as much as I know you would like for it to be the case, they don't absolve Bush/Cheney of anything.
Sometimes people just make mistakes. They aren't lying, just factually incorrect. The stock broker who recommends buying stocks before the stocks go down isn't lying, he's just wrong.
Don't disagree. But as documented above, that didn't happen here. Here, there was purposeful deception and overstatements made by both Bush and Cheney, which even shocked some of their generals.

But even if it was mere negligence, it got thousands of Americans killed, and that is inexcusable. You should not be defending them or supporting neocons.
I wish we had pulled out when we caught Saddam.

I'll defend the initial decision based on the information received from the CIA
Reply Quote
Whiskey Pete
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 12:46p, 7/20/22
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
Rawhide said:
whiterock said:
Rawhide said:
whiterock said:
Rawhide said:
whiterock said:
Rawhide said:
whiterock said:
Rawhide said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney
I can support a good candidate by giving them my vote.
I have a cousin who simultaneously uses the word "Republicans" in third person while getting irate when the GOP loses an election or when his GOP representatives fail to vote for or stop some legislation he doesn't like. Won't donate any money or go get involved in the local party. Just self-entitlement - as though he's owed a solution he wants by a party and politicians he refuses to support with anything other than a vote. Will call me in a panic that Beto might win. But actually send $100 bucks to help Abbot win? Why, only chumps do that.

If you aren't donating, you aren't really participating in elections. Phil Gramm had a great little riff on that one and he's right. It doesn't matter how good your platform is, if nobody knows about it. It doesn't matter how good your candidate might be, if nobody knows his/her name. My cousin knows he can't sell if he doesn't advertise and call on customers and direct mail and conventions and.......all of which costs money. But political campaigns? Why they're supposed to just spring organically from the ground and bear fruit without a drop of rain. And when such doesn't happen...."there go those Republicans again, letting me down."

A candidate is worth your vote, but you don't donate $20 to him/her?
You're not exactly putting much value into your vote.
Sorry you don't feel voting is worth more than donating.
because it's not, and you're a damned fool for thinking it is.
A vote + a donation is more powerful than just a vote.

Next time you get frustrated that the more conservative candidate lost a primary bid to a better funded moderate type, pull up this thread, read our exchange, and reflect a bit on what happened.

The better funded candidate usually wins. Because that candidate can get his/her message out in advertising, can hire people to call their voter list and remind them to vote, etc.....

George Soros has spent hundreds of millions dollars in the last decade in Texas building the Democrat party. He's dropped 7-digits in to COUNTY races. And Texas is today a purple state. Money moves needles in elections the way excavators move dirt. Your candidate might be the 2nd coming of Thomas Jefferson, but nobody will know it if he can't buy at least 300pts of TV ads and a few percentage points of those who do will forget to vote unless your candidate can hire people to touch every door handle in the district.

Not donating is saying your vote is worth nothing, dude.....


So, if my vote is worth nothing, I might as well stay home and not vote in the next election. Thanks for the insight. You saved me a trip to the voting booth.
why on earth would you vote for something you wouldn't give a $20 donation to support, or give a few hours of your time?

The value of your vote is up to you. You could donate. You could volunteer to work phone banks or put flyers on front doors.

In practice, in political parties there is a smaller class of people who donate money, and a larger class of people who donate their time. I know a guy who does signs. He just decided that was his thing. Been doing it for decades. He knows all the locations, all the landowners. If he supports you, he can get a three-digit number of signs up for you in a couple of weeks. His effort is worth a LOT of money. But you still have to buy the signs. And the guy I'm talking about is a name very few people know, unless you're an elected official in Austin or Waco, in which case that name gets a level deference that few in the donor class are afforded. I make it a point to see if he's in the room, just to shake his hand. I appreciate what he does.

You could have that much influence, too, if you'd get involved, one way or the other.
Or you could just ***** every time the Republicans don't meet your standards.

Your choice.

I choose to give a candidate my vote, not my hard earned money.

If you choose to give them your money, that's your choice.

If you want to call people fools or berate someone for choosing to vote but not donate, be careful or you could sound like liberals that attack people for not thinking or acting like they do.
I'm not attacking you. I'm just pointing out the obvious - that if someone is worthy of your vote, they're worthy of a $20 donation. And if they're not worth $20, then why are you voting for them? If your vote is as valuable as you suggest, the donation should be easy to make.


Would you rather I vote and not give money or not vote and not give money?
Not vote and not give money.
Sam speaking like a true Democrat.

Rawhide I want you to vote AND give money to candidates you think the country needs.

You can't vote in the Alaska primary, but you could send the candidate you like $20.
You can't vote in the PA Senate race, but you could send Dr. Oz $20.
You can't vote in a lot of races, but you could help the better candidate win.

Just insane that a mature individual would find virtue in NOT donating money to candidates they plan to vote for.

Sorry not sorry. It's my money and I have the freedom to choose to donate or not. I choose not to.
Reply Quote
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 12:48p, 7/20/22
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
I am not sure what you're reading or talking about. I was critical of Liz's strong support of dad, both before and after we learned the WMD evidence was a bunch of bull***** Does that mean she's her dad? No. It merely means she is a neocon who agrees with unnecessary military intervention and wars that needlessly kill young Americans - a position that was decidedly not Republican prior to 2000.

I know you're an establishment guy, but the idea that the U.S. was pushed into war with Iraq by 9/11 is a pile of hot, steaming garbage. There was no need to go to war in Iraq. We were sold on a line of goods about how Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them. That was a load of horse****, as we now know, and it got us stuck in a quagmire in which there were thousands of American casualties. Even Powell came out and said as much. He was duped. And the guy who was most responsible for influencing that decision was Cheney. He had a hard on for Iraq for years, following Bush I's decision not to overthrow Saddam. These are all well-documented facts.

I'd suggest doing a little research on him.
The Director of the CIA told Bush administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was incorrect
  • In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal." The "massive stockpile" was just literally made up.
  • In December 2002, Bush declared, [url=http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/31/se.01.html]"We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon."[/url] That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, "We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon and lied and said he didn't know to hype the threat.
  • On CNN in September 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argued that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too. Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were exaggerated by administration officials and in any case, the claim that they're "only really suited" for nuclear weapons is just false.
  • On numerous occasions, Vice President Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He said this after the CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place.
  • More generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18, 2001, Rice received a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship, which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless, Bush continued to claim that Hussein was "a threat because he's dealing with al-Qaeda" more than a year later.
  • In August 2002, Cheney declared, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." But as Corn notes, at that time there was "no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation." Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney's speech, would later say in a documentary, "It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds

According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence that Iraq had WMDs amounted to a "slam dunk case".
I don't doubt that Tenet participated in the conspiracy, but as set forth in the well-documented facts above, there were other major actors who lied. And as much as I know you would like for it to be the case, they don't absolve Bush/Cheney of anything.
Sometimes people just make mistakes. They aren't lying, just factually incorrect. The stock broker who recommends buying stocks before the stocks go down isn't lying, he's just wrong.
Don't disagree. But as documented above, that didn't happen here. Here, there was purposeful deception and overstatements made by both Bush and Cheney, which even shocked some of their generals.

But even if it was mere negligence, it got thousands of Americans killed, and that is inexcusable. You should not be defending them or supporting neocons.
I wish we had pulled out when we caught Saddam.

I'll defend the initial decision based on the information received from the CIA
Trusting the unaccountable deep state security agencies has always been a problem.

We should have reigned in the CIA after the cold war was over.

As for Iraq...we never should have gone in.

Once we went in...we should have gotten out a fast as possible.

If we could not have gotten out fast....we at least should have divided it up into real nation states (Kurdistan for the Kurds in the North, a Republic of Iraq for the Sunni Arabs in the center, a Republic of Basra for the Shiite Arabs in the South)
Reply Quote
1 edit
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 12:58p, 7/20/22
Redbrickbear said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
I am not sure what you're reading or talking about. I was critical of Liz's strong support of dad, both before and after we learned the WMD evidence was a bunch of bull***** Does that mean she's her dad? No. It merely means she is a neocon who agrees with unnecessary military intervention and wars that needlessly kill young Americans - a position that was decidedly not Republican prior to 2000.

I know you're an establishment guy, but the idea that the U.S. was pushed into war with Iraq by 9/11 is a pile of hot, steaming garbage. There was no need to go to war in Iraq. We were sold on a line of goods about how Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them. That was a load of horse****, as we now know, and it got us stuck in a quagmire in which there were thousands of American casualties. Even Powell came out and said as much. He was duped. And the guy who was most responsible for influencing that decision was Cheney. He had a hard on for Iraq for years, following Bush I's decision not to overthrow Saddam. These are all well-documented facts.

I'd suggest doing a little research on him.
The Director of the CIA told Bush administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was incorrect
  • In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal." The "massive stockpile" was just literally made up.
  • In December 2002, Bush declared, [url=http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/31/se.01.html]"We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon."[/url] That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, "We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon and lied and said he didn't know to hype the threat.
  • On CNN in September 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argued that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too. Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were exaggerated by administration officials and in any case, the claim that they're "only really suited" for nuclear weapons is just false.
  • On numerous occasions, Vice President Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He said this after the CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place.
  • More generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18, 2001, Rice received a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship, which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless, Bush continued to claim that Hussein was "a threat because he's dealing with al-Qaeda" more than a year later.
  • In August 2002, Cheney declared, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." But as Corn notes, at that time there was "no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation." Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney's speech, would later say in a documentary, "It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds

According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence that Iraq had WMDs amounted to a "slam dunk case".
I don't doubt that Tenet participated in the conspiracy, but as set forth in the well-documented facts above, there were other major actors who lied. And as much as I know you would like for it to be the case, they don't absolve Bush/Cheney of anything.
Sometimes people just make mistakes. They aren't lying, just factually incorrect. The stock broker who recommends buying stocks before the stocks go down isn't lying, he's just wrong.
Don't disagree. But as documented above, that didn't happen here. Here, there was purposeful deception and overstatements made by both Bush and Cheney, which even shocked some of their generals.

But even if it was mere negligence, it got thousands of Americans killed, and that is inexcusable. You should not be defending them or supporting neocons.
I wish we had pulled out when we caught Saddam.

I'll defend the initial decision based on the information received from the CIA

As for Iraq...we never should have gone in. In retrospect, yes

Once we went in...we should have gotten out a fast as possible. Agreed, after we captured Saddam

If we could not have gotten out fast....we at least should have divided it up into real nation states (Kurdistan for the Kurds in the North, a Republic of Iraq for the Sunni Arabs in the center, a Republic of Basra for the Shiite Arabs in the South)
I like the 3 country idea
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 12:59p, 7/20/22
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
I am not sure what you're reading or talking about. I was critical of Liz's strong support of dad, both before and after we learned the WMD evidence was a bunch of bull***** Does that mean she's her dad? No. It merely means she is a neocon who agrees with unnecessary military intervention and wars that needlessly kill young Americans - a position that was decidedly not Republican prior to 2000.

I know you're an establishment guy, but the idea that the U.S. was pushed into war with Iraq by 9/11 is a pile of hot, steaming garbage. There was no need to go to war in Iraq. We were sold on a line of goods about how Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them. That was a load of horse****, as we now know, and it got us stuck in a quagmire in which there were thousands of American casualties. Even Powell came out and said as much. He was duped. And the guy who was most responsible for influencing that decision was Cheney. He had a hard on for Iraq for years, following Bush I's decision not to overthrow Saddam. These are all well-documented facts.

I'd suggest doing a little research on him.
The Director of the CIA told Bush administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was incorrect
  • In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal." The "massive stockpile" was just literally made up.
  • In December 2002, Bush declared, [url=http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/31/se.01.html]"We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon."[/url] That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, "We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon and lied and said he didn't know to hype the threat.
  • On CNN in September 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argued that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too. Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were exaggerated by administration officials and in any case, the claim that they're "only really suited" for nuclear weapons is just false.
  • On numerous occasions, Vice President Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He said this after the CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place.
  • More generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18, 2001, Rice received a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship, which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless, Bush continued to claim that Hussein was "a threat because he's dealing with al-Qaeda" more than a year later.
  • In August 2002, Cheney declared, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." But as Corn notes, at that time there was "no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation." Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney's speech, would later say in a documentary, "It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds

According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence that Iraq had WMDs amounted to a "slam dunk case".
I don't doubt that Tenet participated in the conspiracy, but as set forth in the well-documented facts above, there were other major actors who lied. And as much as I know you would like for it to be the case, they don't absolve Bush/Cheney of anything.
Sometimes people just make mistakes. They aren't lying, just factually incorrect. The stock broker who recommends buying stocks before the stocks go down isn't lying, he's just wrong.
Don't disagree. But as documented above, that didn't happen here. Here, there was purposeful deception and overstatements made by both Bush and Cheney, which even shocked some of their generals.

But even if it was mere negligence, it got thousands of Americans killed, and that is inexcusable. You should not be defending them or supporting neocons.
I wish we had pulled out when we caught Saddam.

I'll defend the initial decision based on the information received from the CIA
You mean you will defend the decision despite the CIA's statement in early 2004, to policymakers that it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal" that was provided to Bush and Cheney?

Or Tenet's statement to Bush/Cheney prior to the war "that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009"?

Or the CIA's statement to Cheney that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta never met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer, despite Cheney's statement that there was a report to the contrary?

Or the CIA's memo to Rice which concluded there was little evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, only for Bush to later represent to the American people that there was in order to justify an invasion?

Or the CIA's numerous briefings to Bush/Cheney that there was no credible evidence that there was an ongoing nuclear weapons program in Iraq, only to have Cheney represent to the American people there was in order to justify an invasion?
Reply Quote
1 edit
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 1:01p, 7/20/22
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
I am not sure what you're reading or talking about. I was critical of Liz's strong support of dad, both before and after we learned the WMD evidence was a bunch of bull***** Does that mean she's her dad? No. It merely means she is a neocon who agrees with unnecessary military intervention and wars that needlessly kill young Americans - a position that was decidedly not Republican prior to 2000.

I know you're an establishment guy, but the idea that the U.S. was pushed into war with Iraq by 9/11 is a pile of hot, steaming garbage. There was no need to go to war in Iraq. We were sold on a line of goods about how Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them. That was a load of horse****, as we now know, and it got us stuck in a quagmire in which there were thousands of American casualties. Even Powell came out and said as much. He was duped. And the guy who was most responsible for influencing that decision was Cheney. He had a hard on for Iraq for years, following Bush I's decision not to overthrow Saddam. These are all well-documented facts.

I'd suggest doing a little research on him.
The Director of the CIA told Bush administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was incorrect
  • In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal." The "massive stockpile" was just literally made up.
  • In December 2002, Bush declared, [url=http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/31/se.01.html]"We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon."[/url] That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, "We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon and lied and said he didn't know to hype the threat.
  • On CNN in September 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argued that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too. Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were exaggerated by administration officials and in any case, the claim that they're "only really suited" for nuclear weapons is just false.
  • On numerous occasions, Vice President Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He said this after the CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place.
  • More generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18, 2001, Rice received a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship, which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless, Bush continued to claim that Hussein was "a threat because he's dealing with al-Qaeda" more than a year later.
  • In August 2002, Cheney declared, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." But as Corn notes, at that time there was "no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation." Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney's speech, would later say in a documentary, "It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds

According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence that Iraq had WMDs amounted to a "slam dunk case".
I don't doubt that Tenet participated in the conspiracy, but as set forth in the well-documented facts above, there were other major actors who lied. And as much as I know you would like for it to be the case, they don't absolve Bush/Cheney of anything.
Sometimes people just make mistakes. They aren't lying, just factually incorrect. The stock broker who recommends buying stocks before the stocks go down isn't lying, he's just wrong.
Don't disagree. But as documented above, that didn't happen here. Here, there was purposeful deception and overstatements made by both Bush and Cheney, which even shocked some of their generals.

But even if it was mere negligence, it got thousands of Americans killed, and that is inexcusable. You should not be defending them or supporting neocons.
I wish we had pulled out when we caught Saddam.

I'll defend the initial decision based on the information received from the CIA
You mean you will defend the decision despite the CIA's statement in early 2004, to policymakers that it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal" that was provided to Bush and Cheney?

Or Tenet's statement to Bush/Cheney prior to the war "that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009"?

Or the CIA's statement to Cheney that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta never met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer, despite Cheney's statement that there was a report to the contrary?

Or the CIA's memo to Rice which concluded there was little evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, only for Bush to later represent to the American people that there was in order to justify an invasion?

Or the CIA's numerous briefings to Bush/Cheney that there was no credible evidence that there was an ongoing nuclear weapons program in Iraq, only to have Cheney represent to the American people there was in order to justify an invasion?
I'll defend the initial decision based on the information received from the CIA that WMDs were a slam dunk
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 1:05p, 7/20/22
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
I am not sure what you're reading or talking about. I was critical of Liz's strong support of dad, both before and after we learned the WMD evidence was a bunch of bull***** Does that mean she's her dad? No. It merely means she is a neocon who agrees with unnecessary military intervention and wars that needlessly kill young Americans - a position that was decidedly not Republican prior to 2000.

I know you're an establishment guy, but the idea that the U.S. was pushed into war with Iraq by 9/11 is a pile of hot, steaming garbage. There was no need to go to war in Iraq. We were sold on a line of goods about how Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them. That was a load of horse****, as we now know, and it got us stuck in a quagmire in which there were thousands of American casualties. Even Powell came out and said as much. He was duped. And the guy who was most responsible for influencing that decision was Cheney. He had a hard on for Iraq for years, following Bush I's decision not to overthrow Saddam. These are all well-documented facts.

I'd suggest doing a little research on him.
The Director of the CIA told Bush administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was incorrect
  • In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal." The "massive stockpile" was just literally made up.
  • In December 2002, Bush declared, [url=http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/31/se.01.html]"We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon."[/url] That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, "We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon and lied and said he didn't know to hype the threat.
  • On CNN in September 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argued that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too. Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were exaggerated by administration officials and in any case, the claim that they're "only really suited" for nuclear weapons is just false.
  • On numerous occasions, Vice President Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He said this after the CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place.
  • More generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18, 2001, Rice received a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship, which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless, Bush continued to claim that Hussein was "a threat because he's dealing with al-Qaeda" more than a year later.
  • In August 2002, Cheney declared, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." But as Corn notes, at that time there was "no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation." Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney's speech, would later say in a documentary, "It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds

According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence that Iraq had WMDs amounted to a "slam dunk case".
I don't doubt that Tenet participated in the conspiracy, but as set forth in the well-documented facts above, there were other major actors who lied. And as much as I know you would like for it to be the case, they don't absolve Bush/Cheney of anything.
Sometimes people just make mistakes. They aren't lying, just factually incorrect. The stock broker who recommends buying stocks before the stocks go down isn't lying, he's just wrong.
Don't disagree. But as documented above, that didn't happen here. Here, there was purposeful deception and overstatements made by both Bush and Cheney, which even shocked some of their generals.

But even if it was mere negligence, it got thousands of Americans killed, and that is inexcusable. You should not be defending them or supporting neocons.
I wish we had pulled out when we caught Saddam.

I'll defend the initial decision based on the information received from the CIA
You mean you will defend the decision despite the CIA's statement in early 2004, to policymakers that it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal" that was provided to Bush and Cheney?

Or Tenet's statement to Bush/Cheney prior to the war "that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009"?

Or the CIA's statement to Cheney that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta never met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer, despite Cheney's statement that there was a report to the contrary?

Or the CIA's memo to Rice which concluded there was little evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, only for Bush to later represent to the American people that there was in order to justify an invasion?

Or the CIA's numerous briefings to Bush/Cheney that there was no credible evidence that there was an ongoing nuclear weapons program in Iraq, only to have Cheney represent to the American people there was in order to justify an invasion?
I'll defend the initial decision based on the information received from the CIA that WMDs were a slam dunk
There's much evidence to the contrary that the CIA was telling Bush/Cheney just the opposite. See above.

Regardless, it's clear that Bush/Cheney were looking for any excuse to invade and institute regime change. The decision was made. It just needed justification. They knew there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and little chance that Iraq could use these alleged WMDs against us. We don't invade every country that possess WMDs and is hostile to us.

This was mere pretext.
Reply Quote
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 1:09p, 7/20/22
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
I am not sure what you're reading or talking about. I was critical of Liz's strong support of dad, both before and after we learned the WMD evidence was a bunch of bull***** Does that mean she's her dad? No. It merely means she is a neocon who agrees with unnecessary military intervention and wars that needlessly kill young Americans - a position that was decidedly not Republican prior to 2000.

I know you're an establishment guy, but the idea that the U.S. was pushed into war with Iraq by 9/11 is a pile of hot, steaming garbage. There was no need to go to war in Iraq. We were sold on a line of goods about how Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them. That was a load of horse****, as we now know, and it got us stuck in a quagmire in which there were thousands of American casualties. Even Powell came out and said as much. He was duped. And the guy who was most responsible for influencing that decision was Cheney. He had a hard on for Iraq for years, following Bush I's decision not to overthrow Saddam. These are all well-documented facts.

I'd suggest doing a little research on him.
The Director of the CIA told Bush administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was incorrect
  • In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal." The "massive stockpile" was just literally made up.
  • In December 2002, Bush declared, [url=http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/31/se.01.html]"We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon."[/url] That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, "We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon and lied and said he didn't know to hype the threat.
  • On CNN in September 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argued that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too. Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were exaggerated by administration officials and in any case, the claim that they're "only really suited" for nuclear weapons is just false.
  • On numerous occasions, Vice President Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He said this after the CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place.
  • More generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18, 2001, Rice received a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship, which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless, Bush continued to claim that Hussein was "a threat because he's dealing with al-Qaeda" more than a year later.
  • In August 2002, Cheney declared, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." But as Corn notes, at that time there was "no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation." Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney's speech, would later say in a documentary, "It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds

According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence that Iraq had WMDs amounted to a "slam dunk case".
I don't doubt that Tenet participated in the conspiracy, but as set forth in the well-documented facts above, there were other major actors who lied. And as much as I know you would like for it to be the case, they don't absolve Bush/Cheney of anything.
Sometimes people just make mistakes. They aren't lying, just factually incorrect. The stock broker who recommends buying stocks before the stocks go down isn't lying, he's just wrong.
Don't disagree. But as documented above, that didn't happen here. Here, there was purposeful deception and overstatements made by both Bush and Cheney, which even shocked some of their generals.

But even if it was mere negligence, it got thousands of Americans killed, and that is inexcusable. You should not be defending them or supporting neocons.
I wish we had pulled out when we caught Saddam.

I'll defend the initial decision based on the information received from the CIA
You mean you will defend the decision despite the CIA's statement in early 2004, to policymakers that it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal" that was provided to Bush and Cheney?

Or Tenet's statement to Bush/Cheney prior to the war "that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009"?

Or the CIA's statement to Cheney that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta never met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer, despite Cheney's statement that there was a report to the contrary?

Or the CIA's memo to Rice which concluded there was little evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, only for Bush to later represent to the American people that there was in order to justify an invasion?

Or the CIA's numerous briefings to Bush/Cheney that there was no credible evidence that there was an ongoing nuclear weapons program in Iraq, only to have Cheney represent to the American people there was in order to justify an invasion?
I'll defend the initial decision based on the information received from the CIA that WMDs were a slam dunk
There's much evidence to the contrary that the CIA was telling Bush/Cheney just the opposite. See above.

Regardless, it's clear that Bush/Cheney were looking for any excuse to invade and institute regime change. The decision was made. It just needed justification. They knew there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and little chance that Iraq could use these alleged WMDs against us. We don't invade every country that possess WMDs and is hostile to us.

This was mere pretext.
From Tenet's book:
Mr. Tenet takes blame for the flawed 2002 National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq's weapons programs, calling the episode "one of the lowest moments of my seven-year tenure." He expresses regret that the document was not more nuanced, but says there was no doubt in his mind at the time that Saddam Hussein possessed unconventional weapons. "In retrospect, we got it wrong partly because the truth was so implausible," he writes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27intel.html
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 1:18p, 7/20/22
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
I am not sure what you're reading or talking about. I was critical of Liz's strong support of dad, both before and after we learned the WMD evidence was a bunch of bull***** Does that mean she's her dad? No. It merely means she is a neocon who agrees with unnecessary military intervention and wars that needlessly kill young Americans - a position that was decidedly not Republican prior to 2000.

I know you're an establishment guy, but the idea that the U.S. was pushed into war with Iraq by 9/11 is a pile of hot, steaming garbage. There was no need to go to war in Iraq. We were sold on a line of goods about how Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them. That was a load of horse****, as we now know, and it got us stuck in a quagmire in which there were thousands of American casualties. Even Powell came out and said as much. He was duped. And the guy who was most responsible for influencing that decision was Cheney. He had a hard on for Iraq for years, following Bush I's decision not to overthrow Saddam. These are all well-documented facts.

I'd suggest doing a little research on him.
The Director of the CIA told Bush administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was incorrect
  • In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal." The "massive stockpile" was just literally made up.
  • In December 2002, Bush declared, [url=http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/31/se.01.html]"We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon."[/url] That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, "We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon and lied and said he didn't know to hype the threat.
  • On CNN in September 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argued that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too. Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were exaggerated by administration officials and in any case, the claim that they're "only really suited" for nuclear weapons is just false.
  • On numerous occasions, Vice President Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He said this after the CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place.
  • More generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18, 2001, Rice received a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship, which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless, Bush continued to claim that Hussein was "a threat because he's dealing with al-Qaeda" more than a year later.
  • In August 2002, Cheney declared, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." But as Corn notes, at that time there was "no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation." Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney's speech, would later say in a documentary, "It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds

According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence that Iraq had WMDs amounted to a "slam dunk case".
I don't doubt that Tenet participated in the conspiracy, but as set forth in the well-documented facts above, there were other major actors who lied. And as much as I know you would like for it to be the case, they don't absolve Bush/Cheney of anything.
Sometimes people just make mistakes. They aren't lying, just factually incorrect. The stock broker who recommends buying stocks before the stocks go down isn't lying, he's just wrong.
Don't disagree. But as documented above, that didn't happen here. Here, there was purposeful deception and overstatements made by both Bush and Cheney, which even shocked some of their generals.

But even if it was mere negligence, it got thousands of Americans killed, and that is inexcusable. You should not be defending them or supporting neocons.
I wish we had pulled out when we caught Saddam.

I'll defend the initial decision based on the information received from the CIA
You mean you will defend the decision despite the CIA's statement in early 2004, to policymakers that it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal" that was provided to Bush and Cheney?

Or Tenet's statement to Bush/Cheney prior to the war "that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009"?

Or the CIA's statement to Cheney that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta never met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer, despite Cheney's statement that there was a report to the contrary?

Or the CIA's memo to Rice which concluded there was little evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, only for Bush to later represent to the American people that there was in order to justify an invasion?

Or the CIA's numerous briefings to Bush/Cheney that there was no credible evidence that there was an ongoing nuclear weapons program in Iraq, only to have Cheney represent to the American people there was in order to justify an invasion?
I'll defend the initial decision based on the information received from the CIA that WMDs were a slam dunk
There's much evidence to the contrary that the CIA was telling Bush/Cheney just the opposite. See above.

Regardless, it's clear that Bush/Cheney were looking for any excuse to invade and institute regime change. The decision was made. It just needed justification. They knew there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and little chance that Iraq could use these alleged WMDs against us. We don't invade every country that possess WMDs and is hostile to us.

This was mere pretext.
From Tenet's book:
Mr. Tenet takes blame for the flawed 2002 National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq's weapons programs, calling the episode "one of the lowest moments of my seven-year tenure." He expresses regret that the document was not more nuanced, but says there was no doubt in his mind at the time that Saddam Hussein possessed unconventional weapons. "In retrospect, we got it wrong partly because the truth was so implausible," he writes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27intel.html
I am not sure how that changes anything I said. Again, I agree there were multiple failures. That's not in dispute.

You've attempted to lay all of the blame at Tenet, instead of recognizing that he shares blame, that Bush/Cheney misrepresented the intelligence, and were looking for a reason to invade. Tenet's admissions don't change any of that.
Reply Quote
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 1:58p, 7/20/22
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
I am not sure what you're reading or talking about. I was critical of Liz's strong support of dad, both before and after we learned the WMD evidence was a bunch of bull***** Does that mean she's her dad? No. It merely means she is a neocon who agrees with unnecessary military intervention and wars that needlessly kill young Americans - a position that was decidedly not Republican prior to 2000.

I know you're an establishment guy, but the idea that the U.S. was pushed into war with Iraq by 9/11 is a pile of hot, steaming garbage. There was no need to go to war in Iraq. We were sold on a line of goods about how Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them. That was a load of horse****, as we now know, and it got us stuck in a quagmire in which there were thousands of American casualties. Even Powell came out and said as much. He was duped. And the guy who was most responsible for influencing that decision was Cheney. He had a hard on for Iraq for years, following Bush I's decision not to overthrow Saddam. These are all well-documented facts.

I'd suggest doing a little research on him.
The Director of the CIA told Bush administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was incorrect
  • In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal." The "massive stockpile" was just literally made up.
  • In December 2002, Bush declared, [url=http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/31/se.01.html]"We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon."[/url] That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, "We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon and lied and said he didn't know to hype the threat.
  • On CNN in September 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argued that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too. Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were exaggerated by administration officials and in any case, the claim that they're "only really suited" for nuclear weapons is just false.
  • On numerous occasions, Vice President Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He said this after the CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place.
  • More generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18, 2001, Rice received a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship, which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless, Bush continued to claim that Hussein was "a threat because he's dealing with al-Qaeda" more than a year later.
  • In August 2002, Cheney declared, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." But as Corn notes, at that time there was "no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation." Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney's speech, would later say in a documentary, "It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds

According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence that Iraq had WMDs amounted to a "slam dunk case".
I don't doubt that Tenet participated in the conspiracy, but as set forth in the well-documented facts above, there were other major actors who lied. And as much as I know you would like for it to be the case, they don't absolve Bush/Cheney of anything.
Sometimes people just make mistakes. They aren't lying, just factually incorrect. The stock broker who recommends buying stocks before the stocks go down isn't lying, he's just wrong.
Don't disagree. But as documented above, that didn't happen here. Here, there was purposeful deception and overstatements made by both Bush and Cheney, which even shocked some of their generals.

But even if it was mere negligence, it got thousands of Americans killed, and that is inexcusable. You should not be defending them or supporting neocons.
I wish we had pulled out when we caught Saddam.

I'll defend the initial decision based on the information received from the CIA
You mean you will defend the decision despite the CIA's statement in early 2004, to policymakers that it had "no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal" that was provided to Bush and Cheney?

Or Tenet's statement to Bush/Cheney prior to the war "that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009"?

Or the CIA's statement to Cheney that 9/11 conspirator Mohamed Atta never met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer, despite Cheney's statement that there was a report to the contrary?

Or the CIA's memo to Rice which concluded there was little evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, only for Bush to later represent to the American people that there was in order to justify an invasion?

Or the CIA's numerous briefings to Bush/Cheney that there was no credible evidence that there was an ongoing nuclear weapons program in Iraq, only to have Cheney represent to the American people there was in order to justify an invasion?
I'll defend the initial decision based on the information received from the CIA that WMDs were a slam dunk
There's much evidence to the contrary that the CIA was telling Bush/Cheney just the opposite. See above.

Regardless, it's clear that Bush/Cheney were looking for any excuse to invade and institute regime change. The decision was made. It just needed justification. They knew there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and little chance that Iraq could use these alleged WMDs against us. We don't invade every country that possess WMDs and is hostile to us.

This was mere pretext.
From Tenet's book:
Mr. Tenet takes blame for the flawed 2002 National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq's weapons programs, calling the episode "one of the lowest moments of my seven-year tenure." He expresses regret that the document was not more nuanced, but says there was no doubt in his mind at the time that Saddam Hussein possessed unconventional weapons. "In retrospect, we got it wrong partly because the truth was so implausible," he writes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27intel.html
I am not sure how that changes anything I said. Again, I agree there were multiple failures. That's not in dispute.

You've attempted to lay all of the blame at Tenet, instead of recognizing that he shares blame, that Bush/Cheney misrepresented the intelligence, and were looking for a reason to invade. Tenet's admissions don't change any of that.
There were multiple failures.
I believe Bush acted in good faith based in part on faulty intel
Tenet's admissions support my conclusion. It was Tenet's agency, he made the call
I see the support you marshal and understand the conclusion you have made. We just disagree.

I don't see how a back and forth between you and me accomplishes anything positive. I sense we are both convinced of the rightness of our position
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 2:17p, 7/20/22
I am not sure how Tenet's admission to faulty intel supports Bush/Cheney's purposeful misrepresentations of the evidence they were provided. That evidence does not contradict anything the Vox report stated. How do you explain that?
Reply Quote
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 3:52p, 7/20/22
Mothra said:
I am not sure how Tenet's admission to faulty intel supports Bush/Cheney's purposeful misrepresentations of the evidence they were provided. That evidence does not contradict anything the Vox report stated. How do you explain that?
Do we really want to do this?

I made my judgement based on what the CIA told Bush. The testimony of the witnesses in the room convinced me.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 5:00p, 7/20/22
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
I am not sure how Tenet's admission to faulty intel supports Bush/Cheney's purposeful misrepresentations of the evidence they were provided. That evidence does not contradict anything the Vox report stated. How do you explain that?
Do we really want to do this?

I made my judgement based on what the CIA told Bush. The testimony of the witnesses in the room convinced me.
You're missing my point. Both can be true. Tenet may have overstated the evidence of WMDs to the admin, while at the same time the admin misrepresented the intelligence to the public, and used it as pretext to go to war. One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.
Reply Quote
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 5:53p, 7/20/22
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
I am not sure how Tenet's admission to faulty intel supports Bush/Cheney's purposeful misrepresentations of the evidence they were provided. That evidence does not contradict anything the Vox report stated. How do you explain that?
Do we really want to do this?

I made my judgement based on what the CIA told Bush. The testimony of the witnesses in the room convinced me.
You're missing my point. Both can be true. Tenet may have overstated the evidence of WMDs to the admin, while at the same time the admin misrepresented the intelligence to the public, and used it as pretext to go to war. One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.
You're missing my point. Both can be true.
The administration had bad intel and acted in good faith to protect the world.
One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.

You've made your judgement. I've made mine. Do we want to derail a decent thread?
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 6:12a, 7/21/22
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
I am not sure how Tenet's admission to faulty intel supports Bush/Cheney's purposeful misrepresentations of the evidence they were provided. That evidence does not contradict anything the Vox report stated. How do you explain that?
Do we really want to do this?

I made my judgement based on what the CIA told Bush. The testimony of the witnesses in the room convinced me.
You're missing my point. Both can be true. Tenet may have overstated the evidence of WMDs to the admin, while at the same time the admin misrepresented the intelligence to the public, and used it as pretext to go to war. One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.
You're missing my point. Both can be true.
The administration had bad intel and acted in good faith to protect the world.
One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.

You've made your judgement. I've made mine. Do we want to derail a decent thread?


I am not missing that point at all. I agree that the admin can have bad intel and act in good faith. My point is that's not what the evidence shows occurred. The evidence shows that the admin misrepresented the intel to the American public - to the shock of its generals.

To buy your position that it was all just an innocent mistake, one has to ignore the evidence presented in the vox article. I suppose that's exactly what you're going to do - ignore the evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.

I agree with you that the cia gave the bush admin bad intel. But the evidence also shows that the Bush admin and your boy Cheney still lied to the American public about the intel they were given to garner support for a war. That's not only a proven fact, but it's despicable - far worse than anything trump has done IMO.
Reply Quote
5 edits
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 8:07a, 7/21/22
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
I am not sure how Tenet's admission to faulty intel supports Bush/Cheney's purposeful misrepresentations of the evidence they were provided. That evidence does not contradict anything the Vox report stated. How do you explain that?
Do we really want to do this?

I made my judgement based on what the CIA told Bush. The testimony of the witnesses in the room convinced me.
You're missing my point. Both can be true. Tenet may have overstated the evidence of WMDs to the admin, while at the same time the admin misrepresented the intelligence to the public, and used it as pretext to go to war. One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.
You're missing my point. Both can be true.
The administration had bad intel and acted in good faith to protect the world.
One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.

You've made your judgement. I've made mine. Do we want to derail a decent thread?


I am not missing that point at all. I agree that the admin can have bad intel and act in good faith. My point is that's not what the evidence shows occurred. The evidence shows that the admin misrepresented the intel to the American public - to the shock of its generals.

To buy your position that it was all just an innocent mistake, one has to ignore the evidence presented in the vox article. I suppose that's exactly what you're going to do - ignore the evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.

I agree with you that the cia gave the bush admin bad intel. But the evidence also shows that the Bush admin and your boy Cheney still lied to the American public about the intel they were given to garner support for a war. That's not only a proven fact, but it's despicable - far worse than anything trump has done IMO.
My boy Cheney?
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 8:14a, 7/21/22
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
I am not sure how Tenet's admission to faulty intel supports Bush/Cheney's purposeful misrepresentations of the evidence they were provided. That evidence does not contradict anything the Vox report stated. How do you explain that?
Do we really want to do this?

I made my judgement based on what the CIA told Bush. The testimony of the witnesses in the room convinced me.
You're missing my point. Both can be true. Tenet may have overstated the evidence of WMDs to the admin, while at the same time the admin misrepresented the intelligence to the public, and used it as pretext to go to war. One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.
You're missing my point. Both can be true.
The administration had bad intel and acted in good faith to protect the world.
One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.

You've made your judgement. I've made mine. Do we want to derail a decent thread?


I am not missing that point at all. I agree that the admin can have bad intel and act in good faith. My point is that's not what the evidence shows occurred. The evidence shows that the admin misrepresented the intel to the American public - to the shock of its generals.

To buy your position that it was all just an innocent mistake, one has to ignore the evidence presented in the vox article. I suppose that's exactly what you're going to do - ignore the evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.

I agree with you that the cia gave the bush admin bad intel. But the evidence also shows that the Bush admin and your boy Cheney still lied to the American public about the intel they were given to garner support for a war. That's not only a proven fact, but it's despicable - far worse than anything trump has done IMO.
My boy Cheney?
Sure! You and his daughter oppose an insurrection twenty years later. That makes you a Cheney cultist…didn't you know?
Reply Quote
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 8:16a, 7/21/22
Sam Lowry said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
I am not sure how Tenet's admission to faulty intel supports Bush/Cheney's purposeful misrepresentations of the evidence they were provided. That evidence does not contradict anything the Vox report stated. How do you explain that?
Do we really want to do this?

I made my judgement based on what the CIA told Bush. The testimony of the witnesses in the room convinced me.
You're missing my point. Both can be true. Tenet may have overstated the evidence of WMDs to the admin, while at the same time the admin misrepresented the intelligence to the public, and used it as pretext to go to war. One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.
You're missing my point. Both can be true.
The administration had bad intel and acted in good faith to protect the world.
One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.

You've made your judgement. I've made mine. Do we want to derail a decent thread?


I am not missing that point at all. I agree that the admin can have bad intel and act in good faith. My point is that's not what the evidence shows occurred. The evidence shows that the admin misrepresented the intel to the American public - to the shock of its generals.

To buy your position that it was all just an innocent mistake, one has to ignore the evidence presented in the vox article. I suppose that's exactly what you're going to do - ignore the evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.

I agree with you that the cia gave the bush admin bad intel. But the evidence also shows that the Bush admin and your boy Cheney still lied to the American public about the intel they were given to garner support for a war. That's not only a proven fact, but it's despicable - far worse than anything trump has done IMO.
My boy Cheney?
Sure! You and his daughter oppose an insurrection twenty years later. That makes you a Cheney cultist…didn't you know?
Damn! I thought the Secret Service destroyed those text msg to protect my boy Cheney
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 8:18a, 7/21/22
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
I am not sure how Tenet's admission to faulty intel supports Bush/Cheney's purposeful misrepresentations of the evidence they were provided. That evidence does not contradict anything the Vox report stated. How do you explain that?
Do we really want to do this?

I made my judgement based on what the CIA told Bush. The testimony of the witnesses in the room convinced me.
You're missing my point. Both can be true. Tenet may have overstated the evidence of WMDs to the admin, while at the same time the admin misrepresented the intelligence to the public, and used it as pretext to go to war. One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.
You're missing my point. Both can be true.
The administration had bad intel and acted in good faith to protect the world.
One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.

You've made your judgement. I've made mine. Do we want to derail a decent thread?


I am not missing that point at all. I agree that the admin can have bad intel and act in good faith. My point is that's not what the evidence shows occurred. The evidence shows that the admin misrepresented the intel to the American public - to the shock of its generals.

To buy your position that it was all just an innocent mistake, one has to ignore the evidence presented in the vox article. I suppose that's exactly what you're going to do - ignore the evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.

I agree with you that the cia gave the bush admin bad intel. But the evidence also shows that the Bush admin and your boy Cheney still lied to the American public about the intel they were given to garner support for a war. That's not only a proven fact, but it's despicable - far worse than anything trump has done IMO.
Intel does not dictate policy. It informs policy-makers.

Yes, intel overstated WMD inventory. But inventory was frankly not the key issue. Capability was the key issue. and Saddam had actually used WMDs on his own people, so capability was a given, something intel did not at all indicate had been lost.

Big mistake of the war was political, in allowing the narrative to focus on securing inventory rather than destroying capability. We actually did the latter, which was the more important need.

On W's desk was two sets of intelligence. One, which said Saddam didn't have much inventory anymore, was in a manila folder about a quarter-inch thick, mostly from a defector who re-defected. The other set, which went on into great detail about WMD production facilities, scientists, stores of raw materials, supply chain details, etc..... was in floor-to-ceiling stacks that occupied half the room. And then, as the 9/11 Commission report noted, there loomed Al Qaeda, who was reaching out to Saddam, because he had WMDs. This intel said Saddam was intrigued, as he had tried to attack the US before and failed (noted above) but AQ had demonstrated an ability to hit America hard where it hurt. So the real threat was the looming marriage of the WMD capability of an Iraqi regime with the operational capability of AQ to deliver those weapons. As W looked past those two sets of papers at the TV on his wall which showed bodies being brought out of the smoldering rubble of the WTC, he had no choice. He could not risk it. There was no need to risk it. Iraq was not the Soviet Union. We faced no deterrence from invasion other than cost/benefit calculations. We had to act against the threat of allowing a world-wide terror group that had just attacked us to gain proximity to state-owned WMD capability, by removing the piece of that equation we could more easily remove in the shortest period of time = Saddam.

If you had been sitting in W's chair, you would have made the same decision. and it would have been the right one.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 8:21a, 7/21/22
Osodecentx said:
Sam Lowry said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
I am not sure how Tenet's admission to faulty intel supports Bush/Cheney's purposeful misrepresentations of the evidence they were provided. That evidence does not contradict anything the Vox report stated. How do you explain that?
Do we really want to do this?

I made my judgement based on what the CIA told Bush. The testimony of the witnesses in the room convinced me.
You're missing my point. Both can be true. Tenet may have overstated the evidence of WMDs to the admin, while at the same time the admin misrepresented the intelligence to the public, and used it as pretext to go to war. One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.
You're missing my point. Both can be true.
The administration had bad intel and acted in good faith to protect the world.
One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.

You've made your judgement. I've made mine. Do we want to derail a decent thread?


I am not missing that point at all. I agree that the admin can have bad intel and act in good faith. My point is that's not what the evidence shows occurred. The evidence shows that the admin misrepresented the intel to the American public - to the shock of its generals.

To buy your position that it was all just an innocent mistake, one has to ignore the evidence presented in the vox article. I suppose that's exactly what you're going to do - ignore the evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.

I agree with you that the cia gave the bush admin bad intel. But the evidence also shows that the Bush admin and your boy Cheney still lied to the American public about the intel they were given to garner support for a war. That's not only a proven fact, but it's despicable - far worse than anything trump has done IMO.
My boy Cheney?
Sure! You and his daughter oppose an insurrection twenty years later. That makes you a Cheney cultist…didn't you know?
Damn! I thought the Secret Service destroyed those text msg to protect my boy Cheney
Is there any issue more pressing than the Iraq war in 2022? You can tell by the lengths the RINOs and the left will go to distract from it. This committee is a perfect example.
Reply Quote
Guy Noir
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 8:39a, 7/21/22
Mothra said:
Guy Noir said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
4th and Inches said:
Rawhide said:
J.B.Katz said:
How many of you MAGAts have contributed to Peter Navarro's defense fund?

So he doesn't have to honor a congressional subpeona.

I don't give money to politicians. Period.
only sheeple give money to TV preachers and politicians
Agree on TV preachers.

Disagree on politicians. You need to support good candidates that reflect your values.
I sent money to Cheney


Given that the polls indicated she's about to be soundly defeated, I'm not sure that's money well spent.
She will probably lose, but she deserves support and it is money well spent


I guess if you like war mongers.
I do not understand why you cannot separate Liz Cheney from Dick Cheney and why you exaggerate about Dick Cheney's propensity to go to war. The USA was pushed into war in the Middle East due to 9/11. The foray into Iraq was wrapping up some unfinished business. Would you be happy if the USA was still executing a "No fly zone" over Iraq 30 years later?
I am not sure what you're reading or talking about. I was critical of Liz's strong support of dad, both before and after we learned the WMD evidence was a bunch of bull***** Does that mean she's her dad? No. It merely means she is a neocon who agrees with unnecessary military intervention and wars that needlessly kill young Americans - a position that was decidedly not Republican prior to 2000.

I know you're an establishment guy, but the idea that the U.S. was pushed into war with Iraq by 9/11 is a pile of hot, steaming garbage. I agree that 9/11 was the excuse used by the Bush admin, but the truth is there was no need to go to war in Iraq. We were sold on a line of goods about how Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them. That was a load of horse****, as we now know, and it got us stuck in a quagmire in which there were thousands of American casualties. Even Powell came out and said as much. He was duped. And the guy who was most responsible for influencing that decision was Cheney. He had a hard on for Iraq for years, following Bush I's decision not to overthrow Saddam. These are all well-documented facts.

I'd suggest doing a little research on him.
I am well aware of the events. We we already in a conflict with Iraq at the time. We were enforcing a "No fly zone" over Iraq at the time.

I think it would have been better to not invade Iraq in hind sight, but pretending now, that we as a country we were all knowing at the time is a misrepresentation of the events.

The sentiment at the time was to clean up the numerous issues we had in the Middle east to prevent any other 9/11 events. I think using the term War Monger term is extreme. If you use it to describe Dick Cheney that is one thing, to describe his daughter is going too far. What next, are his grandchildren War Mongers too? I think not.
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 10:08a, 7/21/22
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
I am not sure how Tenet's admission to faulty intel supports Bush/Cheney's purposeful misrepresentations of the evidence they were provided. That evidence does not contradict anything the Vox report stated. How do you explain that?
Do we really want to do this?

I made my judgement based on what the CIA told Bush. The testimony of the witnesses in the room convinced me.
You're missing my point. Both can be true. Tenet may have overstated the evidence of WMDs to the admin, while at the same time the admin misrepresented the intelligence to the public, and used it as pretext to go to war. One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.
You're missing my point. Both can be true.
The administration had bad intel and acted in good faith to protect the world.
One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.

You've made your judgement. I've made mine. Do we want to derail a decent thread?


I am not missing that point at all. I agree that the admin can have bad intel and act in good faith. My point is that's not what the evidence shows occurred. The evidence shows that the admin misrepresented the intel to the American public - to the shock of its generals.

To buy your position that it was all just an innocent mistake, one has to ignore the evidence presented in the vox article. I suppose that's exactly what you're going to do - ignore the evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.

I agree with you that the cia gave the bush admin bad intel. But the evidence also shows that the Bush admin and your boy Cheney still lied to the American public about the intel they were given to garner support for a war. That's not only a proven fact, but it's despicable - far worse than anything trump has done IMO.
My boy Cheney?
I thought you loved you some Cheneys.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 10:09a, 7/21/22
Sam Lowry said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
I am not sure how Tenet's admission to faulty intel supports Bush/Cheney's purposeful misrepresentations of the evidence they were provided. That evidence does not contradict anything the Vox report stated. How do you explain that?
Do we really want to do this?

I made my judgement based on what the CIA told Bush. The testimony of the witnesses in the room convinced me.
You're missing my point. Both can be true. Tenet may have overstated the evidence of WMDs to the admin, while at the same time the admin misrepresented the intelligence to the public, and used it as pretext to go to war. One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.
You're missing my point. Both can be true.
The administration had bad intel and acted in good faith to protect the world.
One does not preclude the other. That's what you seem to be missing.

You've made your judgement. I've made mine. Do we want to derail a decent thread?


I am not missing that point at all. I agree that the admin can have bad intel and act in good faith. My point is that's not what the evidence shows occurred. The evidence shows that the admin misrepresented the intel to the American public - to the shock of its generals.

To buy your position that it was all just an innocent mistake, one has to ignore the evidence presented in the vox article. I suppose that's exactly what you're going to do - ignore the evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.

I agree with you that the cia gave the bush admin bad intel. But the evidence also shows that the Bush admin and your boy Cheney still lied to the American public about the intel they were given to garner support for a war. That's not only a proven fact, but it's despicable - far worse than anything trump has done IMO.
My boy Cheney?
Sure! You and his daughter oppose an insurrection twenty years later. That makes you a Cheney cultist…didn't you know?
Classic case of my enemy's enemy is my friend for Sam.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.