1.
Cheney and Rumsfeld set up a special office, The Office of Special Planning," that "cherry picked" information that suited their case and disregarded information that contradicted it then "by passed" regular intelligence channels for analyses, or "Stove Piped it" directly to Cheney who made "numerous statements reflecting Feiths assessments" and called it the "best source of information".When you are ready to see the real use of the Office of Special Plans, instead of the leftist moonbats unsubstantiated claims, this link will take you to a pdf file of the report issued by the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Feb0706DoDIntellMS.pdfYou might also read the following article by Michael Rubin, who actually did work in the Pentagon and OSP.
http://www.nationalreview.com/rubin/rubin200405180836.aspThis is not the first time this story has appeared but has been reported on and followed for a number of years. Some senators have stated they were approached by intelligence officers who left because they were concerned about what was happening. Seymour Hersh wrote excellent articles for the New Yorker exposing it as well as articles and pieces by ex Intelligence officers like Ray McGovern, Melvin Goodman, and journalists David Sirota and Christy Harvey, besides others, including a previous Senate report. This is a good summary of what happened by Sitora and Harvey.Nothing like unbiased reporters (insert eyes rolling emotiocon here).
Seymour Hersh is well known through the Socialist circles. They quote him most often. Are you also a Socialist? Just curious.
McGovern, although a retired CIA Analyst, is best described as “a nutcase.”
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/nutjob-ray-mc...n-heckles-rummy.htmlMelvin Goodman is another good one you chose. He was quoted as saying, "Congresswoman [Cynthia ‘smack a cop’] McKinney is viewed as a contrarian, and I hope someday her views will be considered conventional wisdom."
You sure know who to place your trust in.
Click here: They Knew...: Despite the whitewash, we now know that the Bush administration was warned before the war that its I http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/they_knew_0802/Yes, you are right, they did a masterful job at summarizing the moonbat left. Too bad their information is grossly flawed. Did you miss my quote from the 911 Commission Report where Clarke was worried about Bin Laden escaping to Iraq? They also distort transcripts for their own agenda. i.e. “In March 2003, Cheney went on national television days before the war and claimed Iraq “
has reconstituted nuclear weapons.””
From the transcript provided in the article by Sitora and Harvey, “And I think that would be the fear here, that even if he were tomorrow to give everything up, if he stays in power, we have to assume that as soon as the world is looking the other way and preoccupied with other issues, he will be back again rebuilding his BW and CW capabilities, and once again reconstituting his nuclear program.”
I don’t know about you, but that seems to me to be quite a glaring misquote!
People should keep in mind the previous writings by the Project for a New American Century and since the late 1990's the CIA reports all concluded Iraq had no WMD program and even had Powell quoted those reports.I applaud you for visiting a conservative site (if you actually did instead of quoting what someone else said), but you’ll need to show me where they said that.
I will refer you to the “Addendums to the Duelfer Report,” where it is stated, “The investigation centered on the possibility that WMD materials were moved to Syria. As is obvious from other sections of the Comprehensive Report, Syria was involved in transactions and shipments of
military and other material to Iraq in contravention of the UN sanctions. This indicated a flexibility with respect to international law and a strong willingness to work with Iraq—at least when there was considerable profit for those involved. Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined. There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.”
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/DuelferRpt/Addendums.pdfIn my post I pointed out that the DOD report was just "the latest" report. The Washington Post may have "attributed" quotes by Levin to the IG's report but Levin read the report and his quotes on the report are very clear.The ‘correction’ says their quotes were wrongfully attributed and were from a report by Levin from Oct. 2004, no “may have” about it!
Here is an excerpt but you can read more in depth from Jason Leopold's piece in Truthout:
Click here: Jason Leopold | DoD Report Appears to Confirm Downing Street Memo http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020907J.shtml I will only reiterate that the so called Downing Street Memo, alleged minutes of an alleged meeting were manually copied and any originals destroyed. As such, it is impossible to verify their authenticity. From an article critical of the Bush Administration and the Iraq theater of the War on terror, “The eight memos - all labeled "secret" or "confidential" - were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times. Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.” (June 18, 2005, Las Vegas Sun)
Look upon it like Dan Rather eventually admitted about his “documents” obtained through Kinkos, “fake but accurate.”
Tony Blair said about the “memo,” “The trouble with having a political discussion on the basis of things that are leaked is that they are always taken right out of context. Everything else is omitted from the discussion and you end up focusing on a specific document," he said.
"It would be absolutely weird if, when the Iraq issue was on the agenda, you were not constantly raising issues, trying to work them out, get them in the right place," he said. (Yahoo AP News, 06/29/2005)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18485That was their comments on the report. We will see what will be declassified and let the public decide for itself.Yes, we will.
2.
The Uranium in Niger is controlled by the French. Wilson went to Niger and found that there was no evidence of any plans or secret deals to sell uranium to Saddam and all the uranium was carefully accounted for. Even Tenet warned Bush not to make the statement because it wasn't true and Bush did remove it from a previous speech but then repeated it in his State of the Union address "attributing it to British Intelligence."Ah yes, the famous “16 words” that has the left in a tither, still. Too bad the British have consistently stood by those words. For more background:
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.htmlPlame's name was leaked and it's a crime to divulge a CIA's identity. This is a law that the right wing came up with that came back to bite them in the butt.Correction. It is illegal to divulge the name of a CIA undercover operative or one that was undercover within the past 5 years. Valerie Plame no longer fell into that category when her name was let known by Richard Armitage. Since Wilson’s charges were discredited by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in their July 2004 report, unanimously accepted, incidentally, there wasn’t even any reason to “out” her or anybody.
Armitage came out and 'took the sword" but that's not what the current court proceedings are finding. Not to get side tracked but already we have Cheney's notes implicating him and the president in a cover up and obstruction of justice in trying to get "Libby to take the fall." And more interesting details continue to unravel as the case continues.You need to read better. Armitage did not “take the sword,” but revealed her name at a party, where even he says he gossips at times. Armitage was known to Fitzgerald early on in his investigation and that it wasn’t a deliberate “leak.” Libby is not on trial for “leaking” anyone’s name, no one is. His crime is they accuse him of lying and obstructing justice. This is purely a witch hunt in the clearest sense.
Despite the best efforts by the pundits in the corporate media to discredit it the British government has never disavowed the findings, claims or authenticity of the Downing Street Memo. They found that the "Facts where Fixed to Fit the Policy."I refer you to above where Tony Blair did indeed deny the veracity of the DSM. If anything, the story of Iraq seeking yellowcake is what they have consistently stood by. Get your facts straight.
3.
As I point out, at the time of the 9/11 attacks the CIA claimed al Qaeda to number around two thousand, a good majority of them in the camps in Afghanistan but other camps also. As I pointed out there are over 50 million people in Iraq alone and an estimated billion Muslim people living world wide. 2,000 members is a very small percentage of people.How many does it take to execute a terrorist attack?
Besides, aren’t you also saying that the CIA’s intelligence couldn’t be trusted in the run-up to the Iraq invasion? Is this ‘pick and choose?’
There were only a couple of "contact" meetings between Iraq and members of al Qaeda and they went no where. Saddam had no tolerance for religious extremists, especially ones who wanted to overthrow his government. They had been long time enemies. Anyone who followed the region, as I have for over 25 years, knew that, and the corporate media should have known also and questioned the administrations claims deeper.The Iraqi's participated in the meetings in hopes of infiltrating the group. Nothing came out of the meetings and US intelligence knew that.I refer you back to the statements from the 911 Commission Report.
Al Qaeda' has grown since Bush's wars and harassment of Muslim people in the West. It is the chief reason for the recruiting and growing numbers for al Qaeda. Simple police work and international cooperation crippled al Qaeda'a leadership, one of the chief reasons it is currently ineffective. Bush's wars have increased anger and hatred toward Amercia and helped al Qaeda's numbers grow with a new and even more dangerous leadership.Balderdash. If you can handle it, purchase a copy of the book “The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11,” by Dinesh D’Souza. In it, he lays out how many of the very things near and dear to the left is hated vehemently by radical Islam and used as a recruiting tool to grow. No, it does not say all of the blame lies on the left, but they have yet to accept any blame for their culpability in raising the ire of Muslims in the Middle East with their “progressive attitudes.
5.
Israel was destroyed by the Romans, ancient history, and the Jews expelled. Israel ceased to exist, like Carthage. Since the 7th century the Arabs have been the majority people and dominate culture in the region and the Jews a small minority, a historical fact. They lived together in peace until the 1880's European Zionist movement claimed Palestine and came and took it with terror and violence, and they have continued ever since. Indeed, even polls in Europe find Israel and the US to be the number one threats to peace.Oh please. Israel was conquered by Rome, not totally destroyed. Sects of Jews have always been in the region, even though many were driven out.
http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-palestine If the Arabs and Jews were so peaceful under Arab domination, why then do they begrudge their Jewish brethren a small sliver of land? Why was there no Palestinian refugee problem until after the Arab defeat in 1967?
7
My original post stands, Bush ignored all the warnings prior to 9/11.And, I’ll ask again, what would you have had him do that previous administrations were doing? Seems I recall more actual attacks under the previous administration, although not as severe as the one under Bush. Show me any intelligence report that contained anything beyond vague warnings that both administrations constantly saw.
8.
You can play with all the facts you want but the US lost the Vietnam War. After 59,000 deaths and tens of thousands wounded, maimed and suffering PTS, with no end in site, the American people, led by the Peace Movement, ended the war. The military was cracking and mutinying. See the documentary, Sir, No Sir, which documents the events.I don’t need to “play with facts,” I saw it firsthand. Instead of reading leftwing propaganda, try seeking out Viet Nam Veterans and ask them if they mutinied, ask your brothers if they did or even if they committed war crimes. The left has built a cottage industry around their lies about Viet Nam and people like you won’t let go of them or seek the truth. Don’t take my word for it, ask other Viet Nam Veterans.
For three decades now, the left has taken what may amount to a small number of events and turned them into a major undertaking. Bogus reporting is what was rampant during Viet Nam, much like it is today. At it’s height, the number of prosecutions for what could be described as a “mutiny” reached barely over 100. Most often, the charge was insubordination, not anything like “combat refusal.” Insubordination could result from something as minor as refusing to sleep under a mosquito net.
The costs were not worth the price.Tell that to the boat people.
As the Pentagon Papers pointed out the war was lie from the beginning and they could not achieve victory. Yet they continued to lie to the American people.Have you ever actually read the Pentagon Papers or even seen them? Or, do just take someones word for it?
I didn't checkout your link about returning Vietnam Vets being spit on. I lived through the period and . I have never seen anyone blame the Vets or show hostilty to them. I never remember seeing, reading or hearing about Vets being spit on or harassed in anyway. I do remember once reading that some older WW2 Vets blamed them for losing the war but as I say, we recognized that the soldiers who went to fight believed they were doing the right thing. We understood that they too are victims.You really should look them over. They are actual news articles or records of news article stating such things did indeed happen, dating from the late 60s. Just because you didn’t see it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, if to a minority. I also “lived through the period” and had to walk around airports in uniform.
Yes, I also heard we were blamed for “losing” it by “the class of 45,” but never actually witnessed it myself. I think some of it came from Kerry’s claims in his early book, “The New Soldier,” which he refused to allow to be reprinted during the last campaign. My guess is that if true, they are a distinct minority.
Funny how the left had us as deranged ticking time bombs until after the Rambo movies and then we became victimized walking time bombs. Today, they sooth their conscience by denying they mistreated returning Veterans and claim we made it all up. The left just can’t resist somehow slandering Viet Nam Veterans.
