Ummm - that is incorrect. he is tax and spend alright, but hardly a conservative (perhaps a Christian conservative, but not fiscal).



I cannot speak for all, but when I see honest rhetoric from a member of the left, I immediately brand them as dangerous!

Seriously, we have one here (who has become infrequent of late) named Stevendedalus. I do not put you into that camp, because from your writings to date, I think you really are centrist.

That's as black and white as it gets.  

We can argue "sufficient" & "all" forever - if someone is unhappy with results or things turn out not as anticipated, then by definition the intel was "not sufficient." The problem is it's never sufficient by after-the-fact standards.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
President Bush, State of the Union Address. The CIA knew this was not true AS THE PRESIDENT SAID IT. Later, the statement was retracted by the Administration.

Remember the leaked British Memo, shortly after the 2004 elections, that the Bush administration tailored intel to make the case for invasion? Remember the "unamed Whitehouse Official" that said, "yup, that's the case" and supported the memo? We now know that offical was Slam Dunk Tenet.

Things "didn't turn out as anticipated" because the facts were forced, from the beginning, to fit the hypothesis. We came up with the outcome and action plan first, and then tried to justify it with shaky intelligence. We relied on (and I can't remember his name, Chaleb?)an Iraqi exhiles for intelligence, people who hadn't been in the country since the first Iraq war, and who later was arrested and discredited. (didn't he accept money from the oil for food program while playing the Bush administration?)

I would suggest we had NO evidence to go into Iraq that wasn't later refuted. Which is why we found no WMDs. AND AT THE TIME THESE PLANS WERE DRAWN UP, THERE WERE INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS WHO SAID THE SAME THING. THEY WERE IGNORED BY THE ADMINISTRATION. David Kay was amazed when he started his inspections after the war began at the flimsy evidence and 10 year old lists. He couldn't even get anyone within the CIA to prioritize target zones to a "high, medium or low" probability of finding WMD's. The reason, he later concluded, is the intelligence was terrible.

For all these reasons, this admistration failed terribly.

Erm, no. The Brits still stand by that, and last I heard, the president has not called them liars. You are confusing perhaps Joe Wilson with Tony Blair?



Agreed. But then it appears we (the royal one) are believing those we want to, not those that may be right. Truth is no one knows the latter yet. And more truth is that you last statements were dependant upon sides that support your view - with no more validity than the opposing sides.

The leaked British memo has already been shown (to those who want to believe it) to be a fake. The Brits stand by their Intel on Saddam to this day. Now, again, refer to Daiwa's statement. Both may be true. Some say they are. The principals deny it. The Truth? may never be known, but the belief is with which side you are on.

Dude,
I don't think anyone, even bush, thinks the intel on this was either right or good. He'd say it's the best we could do, I don't think so given what all the other people I've cited have said. If it's the best we can do, I don't have to worry about being audited on my taxes. Man, they suck.

Dude! (is that the velvet glove approach for jousting?)

I said the Brits still stand by it. And Bush has not repudiated it, just toned it down. To the effect that (PC here) "It should not have been emphasized". Just more PC BS. The spinmeisters are having a field day, but when you go to the words, basically what is being said is nothing. "I thought that the evidence could have been but may not have occurred during the duration of said time frame in a manner beffitting my earlier statement, to be in the realm of what some would believe to be......"

But you know what this whole debate is doing? Validating Daiwa's post. We know more, but know we know not all yet. And knowing that we know not all yet, we know that it is still debatable. Facts are not. Hypothesis are.

Yes. But what David Kaye has said on the intel I take as fact. Why? He's the boots on the ground who was sent to gather the facts by Bush. It's hard to argue with what he says about the state of the intelligence.

And when I trot out my boots in the ground, what then?  yes, they are there.  And as opposite yours as are some of my opinions.  That is the bugga boo of trusting others when others can trump your facts with their facts which are not facts, just opinions.  yes some say as yours do. And some say as Mine do.  And in the end, it is just our derriere.  In who we believe.

Quite frankly this argument is the tired old one, and one I will not go down here.  As I have already too many times.  Who you beleive and who I believe is the sticking point and the point of non-debate as it is not facts we are debating but credibility and neither of us know who is lying and who is truthful.  And who wants to sell a book.

i don't know does blair count.

They were just as cooked up as the Bush National Guard Memos.

i don't know does blair count.

Nope, we're talking US intel here. Blair doesn't have access to that. And Blair's own intel suggests we messaged things to fit our agenda. So, let's stick to US people. Who in the US says this intel was good, in a position to know? Let's stick with facts (they were as cooked up as the bush national guard memos), please.

Come on, surely there are people who say the intel was good? David Kaye? No. Tenet? No. Scott Ritter? No. Defense Intelligence Agency (investigated those trailers we heard so much about) Wooos. No. I know, the Iraq Survey Group! They were appointed to study this! They had access to all the info! Nope. Sorry. George Tenet? Nope.

WHO THEN?

For what it's worth Bush will go down in history as a poor President because he was ill-advised. If you're going to listen to people like Cheney and Rumsfeld then your listening to second class!

Still waiting on that name. One person who says the intel was good and we should have used wmds as a justification for war. One person.

I got it! I know one.

Rush Limbaugh.
Woops,
Nope.
Crap.