Accurate Intel on WMD in Iraq was Ignored!

from JoeUser Forums



Today on Meet the Press Pat Robertson and Jay Rockefeller talked about the report of the Presidential Commission on Intelligence. It was clear from their discussion that a number of intelligence agencies told the administration and the world that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction or the ability to produce them. The Department of Energy clearly indicated that Saddam had no nuclear capability. Elements of the CIA, the U N chief weapons inspector and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency also advised that Saddam did not have WMD or the capability to produce them.

The question of why the Bush Administration ignored this intelligence will be examined in the second phase of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on our intelligence system. It appears that administration officials in DoD and the White House ignored those agencies which did not support the notion of WMD in Iraq. This is disturbing and it looks more and more as if the administration only used that intelligence which supported their preconceived intent to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
politics
20,628 views 79 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is getting to be broken record with you. Lighten up will ya?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
someone should look into why the cia inspector general's report (which forms the core of the commission's report) wasn't released when it was completed--before last november's election.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Kingbee, what's to look at. We all know that if the report was released, dubya would not be president today. He was president in 2004, held the power, and got reelected on a lie and fabrication. This won't be looked at until either 2006, if the dems gain control over Congress, or 2008 if a dem becomes president and opts to reveal it all.

Why these jingleberry republicans refuse to see what's right in front of them astounds me. Bush lied. People died. They're still dying. Every day. All because this moron decided to unseat a dictator. Big fucking deal. Like he was the only dictator on the planet. Hell, dubya's buddies are dictators. All he wanted was the oil. And to prove to papa that he could do it. So, he did. The cost is meaningless to him.

Nah, they're not going to look at it, unless people, all people raise their voices against not knowing the truth. As long as people choose to remain blissfully ignorant, dubya gets a free pass.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
This is getting to be broken record with you. Lighten up will ya?


--Didn't you know DR. they're listening to their favorite tune......

Joke: How do you drive a democrat insane, tie them up, then put a broken record player in their proximity [so they can hear it loud n' clear, then play: "Bush rocks...Bush rules...and you democrats are gonna lose..." over and over and over and overand over and over and over........................................................ [or choose your own song]



Hell, dubya's buddies are dictators.



--Really!? You mean he has a personal phone line to KJI, etc....wow,bet the phone bills are expensive....

All he wanted was the oil.


--Really...Can't accept that....so just call me ignorant....
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
You ever have a faucet that drips. No matter what you do, plonk, plonk, plonk. After a while it is like an icepick in your head. It doesn't persuade you of anything, mind you, or enlighten. Just plonk, plonk, plonk.

Even people who might love drippy faucets, after a while, get so irritated at the monotony that they learn to ignore it. Even people who might agree with the tone or the spirit of the drip tune it out after a while.

The moral? Anything monotonous becomes torturous after a while, even if you think it is "right". The only folks who embrace mantras are the religious and paranoid cause freaks. Both are eventually weeded out of politics.

And that is why Democrats and activists in general are rarely welcomed for long on either side. Balance, Col. One trick ponies get more than just boring.
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
The only folks who embrace mantras are the religious and paranoid cause freaks. Both are eventually weeded out of politics.


--What about Nixon, he showed signs of being paronoid even before he ran for office...

One trick ponies get more than just boring.


--Don't they get shot...? Or is that one legged ponies...? never was sure
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bakerstreet

First I have covered a lot of issues in my Blogs are far from a one trick poney. You problem is that when the facts show that the path we are on is not solving the issue at hand you bury your head in the sand or become defensive. That does not change the facts or the results of the policies we have been following under Bush. You like he never honestly evaluate the impact of what is taking place and where it is not working make adjustments to try and accomplish the objective. Anyone who can look at the deficit, trade, energy costs, health care costs come lack of border security and the way in which this country is considered by the world and believe it is a good move forward simply is in a dream world. We have empirical data which clearly documents policies we are following or not solving problems in hand. No amount of BS can change those facts and the longer we wait to try another approach to solve the many problems we are faced with the more difficult a solution will be.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
That does not change the facts or the results of the policies we have been following under Bush.


Like the man said....A one trick pony! I could go back to EVERY single one of your articles and find this sentence from you somewhere in it! Indeed a one trick pony! AND a one track mind to boot.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are the one trick poney. Every fact pointed out you refuse to accept if you feel it is not supportive of GWB! Facts are facts. What I point out may be negative toward the Bush policies because the results of his policies are not solving this countries problems.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col - 18 of your last 20 articles are attacks on Bush. Your "trick" is the 'I Hate Bush Beyond All Reason' You want to blame the downfall of the civilized world at his feet. You yourself refuse to acknowledge any points that refute your own arguments, so don't attack others for the same thing.

If you showed any signs at all of being balanced, maybe you would be taken seriously. But all you do is scream about Bush destroying everything we should hold dear. If Bush proposed a research grant to cure cancer, you'd probably jump up and down claiming he's taking money from the budget and unfairly increasing the defecit.
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
Every fact pointed out you refuse to accept


---Its the same way with liberals...

What I point out may be negative toward the Bush policies because the results of his policies are not solving this countries problems.


--Then Why haven't i heard you criticize congress...hmm? They're not doing much...
Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top
Col - 18 of your last 20 articles are attacks on Bush. Your "trick" is the 'I Hate Bush Beyond All Reason' You want to blame the downfall of the civilized world at his feet. You yourself refuse to acknowledge any points that refute your own arguments, so don't attack others for the same thing


--Ooops, didn't see zoomba's comment...
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col - 18 of your last 20 articles are attacks on Bush. Your "trick" is the 'I Hate Bush Beyond All Reason' You want to blame the downfall of the civilized world at his feet. You yourself refuse to acknowledge any points that refute your own arguments, so don't attack others for the same thing


Like I SAID.... a one trick pony!!!
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why these jingleberry republicans refuse to see what's right in front of them astounds me. Bush lied. People died. They're still dying. Every day. All because this moron decided to unseat a dictator. Big fucking deal. Like he was the only dictator on the planet. Hell, dubya's buddies are dictators. All he wanted was the oil. And to prove to papa that he could do it. So, he did. The cost is meaningless to him.


There was no "war for oil". Can you just get over your crazy conspiracies already?


You are the one trick poney. Every fact pointed out you refuse to accept if you feel it is not supportive of GWB! Facts are facts. What I point out may be negative toward the Bush policies because the results of his policies are not solving this countries problems.


The problem is you never show "facts". Just your obsessiveness with blaming Bush for everything. When someone presents real "facts" that show you are constantly wrong, you just disappear or move the conversation to something else.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

The problem is you never show "facts". Just your obsessiveness with blaming Bush for everything. When someone presents real "facts" that show you are constantly wrong, you just disappear or move the conversation to something else.


I am TRULY glad that I am not the only one seeing this!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is the national debt. Bush added 2 Trillion since he took office. If you go to OMB and look at the Bush projection Table S-10 you will see he projects a national debt of $9.949 Triillion by the time he leaves office! If you look at mr reply in "Ther Buck Stops" you will see the unemployment rate was 3.7% in Dec 2000 and in march 2005 is 5.4% I have done my homework. Bush has failed and his policies will continue to fail!



The Debt To the Penny
Current Amount

04/08/2005 $7,789,330,877,191.02


Current
Month

04/07/2005 $7,788,009,463,759.88
04/06/2005 $7,782,421,898,856.14
04/05/2005 $7,782,816,546,352.29
04/04/2005 $7,780,782,448,066.81
04/01/2005 $7,783,719,222,961.24



Prior
Months

03/31/2005 $7,776,939,047,670.14
02/28/2005 $7,713,137,673,664.71
01/31/2005 $7,627,742,597,775.41
12/31/2004 $7,596,165,867,424.14
11/30/2004 $7,525,209,508,979.45
10/29/2004 $7,429,677,448,545.04


Prior Fiscal
Years

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is the national debt. Bush added 2 Trillion since he took office. If you go to OMB and look at the Bush projection Table S-10 you will see he projects a national debt of $9.949 Triillion by the time he leaves office! If you look at mr reply in "Ther Buck Stops" you will see the unemployment rate was 3.7% in Dec 2000 and in march 2005 is 5.4% I have done my homework. Bush has failed and his policies will continue to fail!



The Debt To the Penny
Current Amount


Sorry but draginol already debunked this theory on another thread. Remember? With diret quotes from the OMB site?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col. YOU overlook the fact that the President of the United States does not work at your bidding, any more than your commanding officers did in the military.

We already elected him, and we won't do so again. Thereafter, if we voted on every decision the President made, nothing would ever get done. In leiu of that, Bush's opponents seek to stonewall and undermine his authority. That isn't respectfully taking part in Democracy, that is undermining it.

So, back to the point I have made to you, countless times. I support your right to voice your opinions, but your "cause" no longer serves any purpose. You either futily aim to effect the decisions of someone disinterested in your disdain, or you are trying to subvert the power of his office. Neither is worthy of your efforts.

So, sure, express your opinion, but playing Chicken Little five times a week just makes people deaf to your protest. Balance, Col, moderation will make your points far better. A few non-Bush-hater articles would go a long way.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
These are not theories. I gave you the actual data from the U S Government. The unemployment rates from BLS and the deficit info from the U S Treasury. This is not theory drmiler and BakerStreet it is factual info. 7.7 Trillion is more then 5.7 Trillion and 5.4% is higher then 3.7%. The policies are set by law which Congress passes not Bush. Thus even though Bush has been reelected, the Congress has he power to set policies that deal with the issues facing this countrty. If they fail to act, they can be replaced starting in 2006. The one thing you all miss is that these issues will not go away. The longer we fail to balance the budget and provide jobs the harder it will be to deal with these issues. At some point, we will be unable to pay the interest on the debt and pay for the essential functions of Government. No country can continue operating the way Bush and Congress is living on more and more borrowing!
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Instead of bitching about Bush, then, how's about telling us what to do about it, Col? Put your money where your mouth is. What are you suggesting?

Impeachment? You know as well as I do that there are no grounds for such.

The Legislature or the Judiciary to step in? Oh, surely you aren't suggesting a Terri Schiavo-like imbalance of power...

Armed uprising? Your persistance and your disrespect for the authority of the office seems to lead one to believe that we should just forcefull take back the power BUSH LEGITIMATELY HAS.

Put up or shut up. Stop talking about "we" as if you are in the Oval Office. Blame the right people for the right problems, and then tell us what to do about it.

Me, I think you can't. Me? I think you know that, and the solutions are immaterial. You just want to bang your drum.

Right now, tell us what to do to stop a sitting President from doing his job the way he wants to do it. Know, though, by doing so you are suggesting the subversion of your system of government.
Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
5.4% is higher then 3.7%.


I just want to continue to put this uneployment numbers into perspective yet again. That 3.7% is conpared to the highest rate in 35 years. Also the 5.4% is lower then the Average Clinton years and the 35 year average. Lets not forget the effects of having to pull the nation out of 911, corperate scandles, stock and Tech bust. Three of them started during someone elses watch.

Sorry if it sounds like I'll trolling, but that unemployments drum is sounding flat lately.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
just want to continue to put this uneployment numbers into perspective yet again. That 3.7% is conpared to the highest rate in 35 years. Also the 5.4% is lower then the Average Clinton years and the 35 year average. Lets not forget the effects of having to pull the nation out of 911, corperate scandles, stock and Tech bust. Three of them started during someone elses watch.

Sorry if it sounds like I'll trolling, but that unemployments drum is sounding flat lately.


ALL his drums are sounding the same lately and all flat!
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I reiterate. Right now, tell us what to do to stop a sitting President from doing his job the way he wants to do it. Know, though, by doing so you are suggesting the subversion of your system of government.

Short of that all this amounts to is droning political propaganda with no purpose.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
BakerStreet

Simple. Write your Senators and Congressmen and tell them we need new policies to balance the budget, fund Social Seurity, alter the trade policy, protect our borders for starters. Make it clear if they fail to change the ineffective Bush policies and begin to find solutions by 2006, those up for reelection are gone! Make it clear the same thing will take place in 2008 and thereafter. Congress has the power to set policy. The President can suggest policy and can even veto bills that he does not like. But Congress has the power to override the President if they choose! If they do not act then they are responsible and should be removed at their next reelection. Just ONE ELECTION that would remove members of Congress that do change the Bush policies is all it would take!
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Simple. Write your Senators and Congressmen and tell them we need new policies to balance the budget, fund Social Seurity, alter the trade policy, protect our borders for starters. Make it clear if they fail to change the ineffective Bush policies and begin to find solutions by 2006, those up for reelection are gone! Make it clear the same thing will take place in 2008 and thereafter. Congress has the power to set policy. The President can suggest policy and can even veto bills that he does not like. But Congress has the power to override the President if they choose! If they do not act then they are responsible and should be removed at their next reelection. Just ONE ELECTION that would remove members of Congress that do change the Bush policies is all it would take!


And who are people going to elect? Democrats? Don't you get that democrats do not have any ideas of their own. Just the constant whining and obstructing.