Bush Mocked As He Arrives on Inauguration Dais

[Hugo Chavez]

HAHA

Democrats sit on the intelligence committees.
They signed of on this.
the brief on pre-war iraq intelligence
http://intelligence.senate.gov/108301.pdf

2003-2004
Republicans                                 Democrats
   Pat Roberts, Kansas              John D. Rockefeller IV, W.Virginia
        Chairman                       Vice Chairman
   Orrin G. Hatch, Utah       Carl Levin, Michigan
   Mike DeWine, Ohio        Dianne Feinstein, California
   Christopher S. Bond, Missouri    Ron Wyden, Oregon
   Trent Lott, Mississippi       Richard Durbin, Illinois
   Olympia J. Snowe, Maine    Evan Bayh, Indiana
   Chuck Hagel, Nebraska       John Edwards, North Carolina
   Saxby Chambliss, Georgia    Barbara Mikulski, Maryland
   John Warner, Virginia         
     
 
Bill Frist, Tennessee, Ex Officio
Thomas A. Daschle, South Dakota, Ex Officio

duh...  What is your point?  They all got to see the fictional intelligence brief crafted in the Pentagon and made their decisions based on lies.  Thanks for making my point.

[Hugo Chavez]

LOL why the anger hugo?

I read the downing street memo from the link it provided and it doesnt seem to me that they where falsifying info only planning a military action. I can understand your thinking as if you are getting conflicting intelligence and you choose to push one more so than the other you could be looked at as not being truthful.

FACT: there was conflicting intel about iraq and its wmd program not just from our country and britian but from other countries as well.

Again ive asked everybody that has this view this question, why is it that he would go through all of this fabricate intel and not plant wmd? This man could mobilize an entire country the best military force this world has ever seen but he cant plant wmd to validate his "lie"

Your link with videos says that even the head of the CIA said that the info colin powell was reporting on was 100% correct again conflicting reports hindsight is always 20/20 bro.

passage from the July 23 ministers' meeting:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

So you clown, Richard Dearlove, head of MI6 comes back from Washington and reports that the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.  Further, when you have the Yellow Cake forgery and the Bush admin getting the pentagon to come up with intelligence that much turned out to be bad or just outright lies like the bogus link between Saddam and Mohamed Atta it becomes clear that the reality matches what Richard Dearlove reported back.

Most of these crap lies created by the Bush admin through the pentagon went into the intelligence brief for Congress.  How can anyone not wonder if force would have been authorized without the effort by the admin to falsify the intelligence?

Fact and I'm sorry this fucks with you so hard that you have to look a fool with your spin attempt: Bush lied and people died.  It is a felony to lie to Congress and that's exactly what Bush did.  He should have been impeached, tried and sent away.

[tonymctones]

passage from the July 23 ministers' meeting:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

So you clown, Richard Dearlove, head of MI6 comes back from Washington and reports that the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.  Further, when you have the Yellow Cake forgery and the Bush admin getting the pentagon to come up with intelligence that much turned out to be bad or just outright lies like the bogus link between Saddam and Mohamed Atta it becomes clear that the reality matches what Richard Dearlove reported back.

Most of these crap lies created by the Bush admin through the pentagon went into the intelligence brief for Congress.  How can anyone not wonder if force would have been authorized without the effort by the admin to falsify the intelligence?

Fact and I'm sorry this fucks with you so hard that you have to look a fool with your spin attempt: Bush lied and people died.  It is a felony to lie to Congress and that's exactly what Bush did.  He should have been impeached, tried and sent away.

Again so its your impression that there was NO intel saying that iraq had or was working towards wmd not from the US not from britian notfrom any other country?

Again i could understand that being that they would have been pushing certain intel and not others which would be fixing intel to around policy would it not?

[Hugo Chavez]

Again so its your impression that there was NO intel saying that iraq had or was working towards wmd not from the US not from britian notfrom any other country?

Again i could understand that being that they would have been pushing certain intel and not others which would be fixing intel to around policy would it not?

Again you're missing the whole point.  The only thing that matters is if or if not there was a concerted effort to fix intelligence.  That's been shown to be the case, PERIOD!  You're attempting a red herring.  Adding a truth to a package of lies doesn't preserve the package.  It's still a package of lies.  The crime is still there and isn't diminished because there may be a truth contained within.  It's like saying it's ok to rob your back because some of the money is yours   If the intelligence that was not fixed was not strong enough to make a case for war and there was an effort to manufacture intelligence to make the case solid, then the crime is there, how in the hell do you not see that?  Your denial as usual is comical.

[240 is Back]

;;;;;

[tonymctones]

Again you're missing the whole point.  The only thing that matters is if or if not there was a concerted effort to fix intelligence.  That's been shown to be the case, PERIOD!  You're attempting a red herring.  Adding a truth to a package of lies doesn't preserve the package.  It's still a package of lies.  The crime is still there and isn't diminished because there may be a truth contained within.  It's like saying it's ok to rob your back because some of the money is yours   If the intelligence that was not fixed was not strong enough to make a case for war and there was an effort to manufacture intelligence to make the case solid, then the crime is there, how in the hell do you not see that?  Your denial as usual is comical.

haha so you have the downing street memo that could be interpreted in the way ive given or your way, what intelligence was fabricated by bush? specifically what intelligence was fabricated by bush.

[Hugo Chavez]

Remember the Powell speech at the UN?  Well why did Bush go to the UN?  Only a short time before that, Bush said F-You to the UN and said we would do it alone.  What changed Bush's mind?  Why did Powell go to the UN to make the case?  So above in the downing street memos we see the head of MI6 saying the intelligence was being fixed.  Bush changed coarse on UN approval because Blair made it a stipulation to signing on.  So Powell is sent to the UN to make the case and shows up with a 19 page brief with which he proceeds to make the case against Saddam.  It then turned out that 11 fucking pages of that was plagiarized from a student paper written around the time of the first gulf war, based on intelligence obtained prior to the 1st gulf war?  Oh My God man, if that is not the icing on the "fixing the intelligence" cake.  How can you not see all of this Tony?  Someone broke into the Nigerian Embassy in Rome, to steal official letterhead which was used to forge the documents connecting Saddam to the purchase.  The CIA tells Bush, sorry the intelligence isn't there on Saddam so they make their own intelligence agency in the pentagon to fabricate crap?  Hello?  Bush lied!!!!  It's the only point that matters!!!

[Hugo Chavez]

haha so you have the downing street memo that could be interpreted in the way ive given or your way, what intelligence was fabricated by bush? specifically what intelligence was fabricated by bush.

You fucking retard, there is only one way to interpret this!!!!!!!!

"the intelligence and facts were being fixed 
 around the policy."

That's from the head of MI6 dumbass!!!!

Obviously the intelligence that came from the pentagon and turned out to be absolute bullshit was fabricated!!!!  Obviously the people who prepared Powell's case to present at the UN knew they were using pre-gulf war intelligence plagiarized from a student to make the case. 

You think you'll be clever and demand the exact proof of what Bush lied on.  But that's not the way it works bubba.  That's like saying nobody can be convicted of a crime unless there is actual video of them being caught in the act.  All the information needed to show the administration made an effort to fix intelligence is there.  The facts across the board all support eachother.  If this were any ordinary case it would be a done deal for the prosecution.

[tonymctones]

Remember the Powell speech at the UN?  Well why did Bush go to the UN?  Only a short time before that, Bush said F-You to the UN and said we would do it alone.  What changed Bush's mind?  Why did Powell go to the UN to make the case?  So above in the downing street memos we see the head of MI6 saying the intelligence was being fixed.  Bush changed coarse on UN approval because Blair made it a stipulation to signing on.  So Powell is sent to the UN to make the case and shows up with a 19 page brief with which he proceeds to make the case against Saddam.  It then turned out that 11 fucking pages of that was plagiarized from a student paper written around the time of the first gulf war, based on intelligence obtained prior to the 1st gulf war?  Oh My God man, if that is not the icing on the "fixing the intelligence" cake.  How can you not see all of this Tony?  Someone broke into the Nigerian Embassy in Rome, to steal official letterhead which was used to forge the documents connecting Saddam to the purchase.  The CIA tells Bush, sorry the intelligence isn't there on Saddam so they make their own intelligence agency in the pentagon to fabricate crap?  Hello?  Bush lied!!!!  It's the only point that matters!!!

is the the intel that powell went on not the same intel that the director of the CIA looked him in the eye and said was 100% correct?

[Hugo Chavez]

is the the intel that powell went on not the same intel that the director of the CIA looked him in the eye and said was 100% correct?

the 19 pages given to Powell was prepared by the British.  After they knowingly signed onto the war knowing the intelligence was being fixed in Washington.  They aided in the fix after signing on.

and even so, what's your point?  Hardly the first time a president would place the ball in a potential scapegoats hands ready to ask the guy to fall on his sword at the first sign of trouble. Doesn't mean anything! Just another red herring attempt.

[tonymctones]

the 19 pages given to Powel was prepared by the British.  After they knowingly signed onto the war knowing the intellengence was being fixed in Washington.  They aided in the fix after signing on.

IC IC so it was not only bush but england as well?

Your post to pbs said that powell meet with the CIA director who said that the intel he had was 100% right.

[Hugo Chavez]

IC IC so it was not only bush but england as well?

Your post to pbs said that powell meet with the CIA director who said that the intel he had was 100% right.

Did you not read what I just said or not understand it?  You're just doing the same thing, act like I didn't say anything or just interpret what I say to mean what you want.  Slow down sparky, go back and read that again because it answers your spin attmept here.

[tonymctones]

Did you not read what I just said or not understand it?  You're just doing the same thing, act like I didn't say anything or just interpret what I say to mean what you want.  Slow down sparky, go back and read that again because it answers your spin attmept here.

im not spinning anything in your link to the pbs site it says that the intel used for powells information was said to be 100% right by the cia director.

[Hugo Chavez]

im not spinning anything in your link to the pbs site it says that the intel used for powells information was said to be 100% right by the cia director.

What's your point?  You found the scapegoat?  Fucking newsflash pal, it's old news.  Bush setting up a scapegoat to take the fall doesn't mean jack.  It's actually one more thing that makes Bush look guilty.

[grab an umbrella]

What's your point?  You found the scapegoat?  Fucking newsflash pal, it's old news.  Bush setting up a scapegoat to take the fall doesn't mean jack.  It's actually one more thing that makes Bush look guilty.

Hugo holy shit are you retarded.  First you say that the CIA director says they didn't have intel on wmd's.  Then you link him to a site where the CIA director says intel about WMD's that powell has is 100% correct.  Which one is it?

Obama 53% of the popular vote
McCain 46% of the popular vote

Yeah America was REALLY sure about Obama.

[Hugo Chavez]

Hugo holy shit are you retarded.  First you say that the CIA director says they didn't have intel on wmd's.  Then you link him to a site where the CIA director says intel about WMD's that powell has is 100% correct.  Which one is it?

that not exactly what I said.  we're talking about the overall case for war.  They did not like what they were getting from the CIA and they did go to Feith at the Pentagon to create and falsify intellegence to bolster the case for war.  That's a fact.

Here:

Well, the president wandered into the Situation Room, totally unscheduled, just to say, "Hi. Keep it up! Good work!"-- raise everybody's morale. [He] saw me and dragged me and a few others into the conference room and started talking about Iraq, and having me go through all the evidence that we had piled up from the weeks and months before to see if there was a connection between what had happened on 9/11 and Iraq.

And he said: "Saddam! Saddam! See if there's a connection to Saddam!" And this wasn't "See if there's a connection with Iran, and while you're at it, do Iraq, and while you're at it, do the Palestinian Islamic group." It wasn't "Do due diligence." It wasn't "Have an exhaustive review." It was "Saddam, Saddam." I read that pretty clearly, that that was the answer he wanted.

I said to him, "We have already done that research prior to the attack" -- in fact, we'd done it a couple of times -- "and there's nothing there." And the facial expression back was, "That wasn't the right answer."

So I said, "Well, but we will do it again." And we asked CIA to do it again. CIA did it again, came up with the same answer. That answer was written up and handed to the president by George Tenet in one of his morning meetings, and it said, "For the third or fourth time, we've gone back to look at the relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and there is no real cooperation between those two."



There's a point at which multiple visits by a senior official from the White House -- when he's telling you what he believes over and over and over again, and he's not dissuaded by the evidence that you have to the contrary, and [it's] coming in the context of a public discussion about Iraq -- there's a point at which [it] crosses the line. And you, as an intelligence analyst at CIA, are now thinking, they want me to say X. Whether or not it's true, they want me to say X.

Now, does anyone ever take the analyst aside and say, "To hell with the truth -- write this"? No. It's a little bit more subtle than that, but not a lot more subtle than that.

I remember vividly, in the driveway outside of the West Wing, Scooter Libby, from the vice president's office, grabbing me and saying, "I hear you don't believe this report that Mohamed Atta was talking to Iraqi people in Prague." I said, "I don't believe it because it's not true." And he said: "You're wrong. You know you're wrong. Go back and find out; look at the rest of the reports, and find out that you're wrong." I understood what he was saying, which was: "This is a report that we want to believe, and stop saying it's not true. It's a real problem for the vice president's office that you, the counterterrorism coordinator, are walking around saying that this isn't a true report. Shut up!" That's what I was being told.

I'm somebody who has been in Washington national security for 30 years. I'm not easily intimidated. Imagine if you're an analyst at the CIA who's been there for four or five years.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/interviews/clarke.html#3


Ron Suskind’s new book alleges that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein linking the dictator to the 9/11 terrorists. The American Conservative’s Philip Giraldi argues today that “an extremely reliable and well placed source in the intelligence community” told him Suskind’s overall claim “is correct,” but that it was Douglas Feith’s Office of Special Plans — not the CIA — that forged the letter:

My source also notes that Dick Cheney, who was behind the forgery, hated and mistrusted the Agency and would not have used it for such a sensitive assignment. Instead, he went to Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans and asked them to do the job. … It was Feith’s office that produced the letter and then surfaced it to the media in Iraq. Unlike the [Central Intelligence] Agency, the Pentagon had no restrictions on it regarding the production of false information to mislead the public. Indeed, one might argue that Doug Feith’s office specialized in such activity.

A CIA counterrorism expert said that, in the run-up to war, Feith’s office recommended that the CIA’s finding of no link between Iraq al Qaeda relations “be ignored. Not challenged, not made the subject of a critical dialogue between policymakers and analysts, but ignored.”

[Hugo Chavez]

Wurmser would be the founding participant of the unnamed, secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon, set up in Feith's office, which would be the nucleus of the Defense Department's Iraq disinformation campaign that was established within weeks of the attacks in New York and Washington. While the CIA and other intelligence agencies concentrated on Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda as the culprit in the 9/11 attacks, Wolfowitz and Feith obsessively focused on Iraq. It was a theory that was discredited, even ridiculed, among intelligence professionals. Daniel Benjamin, co-author of The Age of Sacred Terror, was director of counterterrorism at the National Security Council in the late 1990s. "In 1998, we went through every piece of intelligence we could find to see if there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq," he says. "We came to the conclusion that our intelligence agencies had it right: There was no noteworthy relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq. I know that for a fact." Indeed, that was the consensus among virtually all anti-terrorism specialists.

In short, Wurmser, backed by Feith and Rhode, set out to prove what didn't exist.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html

[Hugo Chavez]

On March 9, 2004, Los Angeles Times' staff reporter Greg Miller writes that during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, George J. Tenet, Director of the CIA, revealed that "A special intelligence unit at the Pentagon provided private prewar briefings to senior White House officials on alleged ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda without the knowledge of [the] CIA Director ... [and the] disclosure suggests that a controversial Pentagon office played a greater role than previously understood in shaping the administration's views on Iraq's alleged ties to the terrorist network behind the Sept. 11 attacks, and that it bypassed usual channels to make a case that conflicted with the conclusions of CIA analysts."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Office_of_Special_Plans

[a_joker10]

duh...  What is your point?  They all got to see the fictional intelligence brief crafted in the Pentagon and made their decisions based on lies.  Thanks for making my point.

This was written from the committee's perspective about the information they received leading up to the Iraq war.
You obviously didn't read the document and don't know how the intelligence committee works or its mandate is.

There are many mentions of different information that the senate committee received include a lot of dubious information.

The intelligence has the legal oversight over the intelligence committees and has access to all of the same information that the president has.

Thanks for coming out though.

[Hugo Chavez]

This was written from the committee's perspective about the information they received leading up to the Iraq war.
You obviously didn't read the document and don't know how the intelligence committee works or its mandate is.

There are many mentions of different information that the senate committee received include a lot of dubious information.

The intelligence has the legal oversight over the intelligence committees and has access to all of the same information that the president has.

Thanks for coming out though.

wrong:

A 14-page "congressional report made public [December 15, 2005,] concluded that President Bush and his inner circle had access to more intelligence and reviewed more sensitive material than what was shared with Congress when it gave Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq," Dafna Linzer reported in the December 16, 2005, Washington Post.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_lies_that_led_to_war

But you miss the whole point don't you?  It's not relevent if the same intelligence is seen by both the president and the Senate Intelligence committee when all the information I've posted above shows an effort originating from the whitehouse to have the intelligence delivered cooked.  Kind of a big oops in your thinking huh... yea...  Read the above posts man, either you didn't or they went right over your head.

[muscleforlife]

"There's a time and a place for everything, though, and the Inauguration event was not the time to jeer a departing President"

Thats exactly right.  Its immature and classless.  I do not like people like that.

The intell that was provided to the administration was at very least debateable.  You cannot be so sure Hugo.  I criticize the president and administration for Iraq as well, but if the intell was mixed, then it came down to a judgement.

I totally agree.
The jeering of an outgoing President was pretty lowbrow.
Sandra

[tonymctones]

What's your point?  You found the scapegoat?  Fucking newsflash pal, it's old news.  Bush setting up a scapegoat to take the fall doesn't mean jack.  It's actually one more thing that makes Bush look guilty.

so now its tenet, bush, england, pentegon special unit that are in on the fix? what about the other countries that lended intel to iraqs wmd program?

[Hugo Chavez]

so now its tenet, bush, england, pentegon special unit that are in on the fix? what about the other countries that lended intel to iraqs wmd program?

quit with the red herrings dipshit...  There's plenty to show a effort was made originating from the whitehouse to cook the intel on Iraq.  Intel originating from foreign intelligence services has no bearing on the criminal actions taken by the whitehouse through the pentagon to cook intel.  It's like you're saying that the bank robbers should get off because one of the accomplices brought gifts to pass out during the robbery

[shootfighter1]

IMO, we won't know for certain and could argue forever.  I see why some want an investigation, that I can understand.  If the administration purposely falsified documents, that is a real problem.  I get the impression that there were conflicting reports and the administration chose to go with the ones that suited their agenda in removing Sadaam.

[Hugo Chavez]

IMO, we won't know for certain and could argue forever.  I see why some want an investigation, that I can understand.  If the administration purposely falsified documents, that is a real problem.  I get the impression that there were conflicting reports and the administration chose to go with the ones that suited their agenda in removing Sadaam.

There's nothing to argue.  These guys are just being assclowns.  We know that the white house worked directly with OSP at the pentagon to fix intelligence.  We know that most of the intel that turned up to be bullshit originated from OSP.  We know they were working with Dick Cheney.  We know that they intentionally falisified links between Al Qaeda and Saddam.  We know that this was done to bolster the case for war.  That lies were manufactured to make this case is simply a known thing.  Now people keep tossing red herrings right and left and try to hide the fact under various other details but the fact remains, lies WERE manufactured, intel WAS cooked.  What is there to argue about?  nothing.