Utopia Talk / Politics / Colin Powell Agrees,

Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 06:10:24 THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU FOLKS FOR YEARS. Colin Powell Rips CIA Over Sham WMD Source Wednesday, 16 Feb 2011 07:22 PM Article Font Size By Newsmax Wires Former Secretary of State Colin Powell is demanding answers from the CIA and Pentagon after an Iraqi defector stepped forward to admit that he fabricated claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in advance of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Powell -- who has stated that his prewar speech to the United Nations accusing Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction was a "blot" on his record â?? spoke out a day after Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi told the Guardian newspaper that he made up claims of mobile biological weapons and clandestine factories when making reports to Germany's intelligence service, the BND. The BND had approached Janabi, who was codenamed "Curveball" by U.S. and German intelligence officials, in 2000 and again in 2002 looking for inside information about Iraq. "They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime," Janabi told the British newspaper. "I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy. ... Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right. I had a problem with the Saddam regime, I wanted to get rid of him and now I had this chance." The revelations shocked Powell, who presented America's case against Saddam in a Feb. 5, 2003, speech to the U.N. "It has been known for several years that the source called Curveball was totally unreliable," Powell told the Guardian. "The question should be put to the CIA and the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] as to why this wasn't known before the false information was put into the NIE sent to Congress, the president's State of the Union address and my 5 February presentation to the U.N." The DIA is the Defense Department's intelligence arm. The NIE is the National Intelligence Estimate, a classified document that reflects the views of America's 16 intelligence agencies and is given to key policymakers. In his speech, Powell made mention of "firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails â?¦ The source was an eyewitness who supervised one of these facilities." That source was Janabi, who now admits it was all a lie. That fateful presentation by the soldier-diplomat to the world body lent considerable credibility to then-President George W. Bush's case against Iraq and for going to war to remove Saddam from power. Bush and other high U.S. officials cited the threat posed by Iraqi biological weapons as justification for the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. "I'm the one who presented it to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It is painful now," Powell said in an 2005 interview with Barbara Walters. In the speech, Powell said he had relied on information he received at CIA briefings. Although he told Walters that then-CIA Director George Tenet "believed what he was giving to me was accurate," Powell admitted that "the intelligence system did not work well. â?¦ There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up. "That devastated me," he said. http://www...-iraq-wmd/2011/02/16/id/386373
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 06:16:35 THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU FOLKS FOR YEARS. " Who is we and what have you been telling, for years?
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 06:25:20 We are those of us who asked for proof that Bush lied about his reasons for starting the war in Iraq and we have been telling you for years that he did *NOT* willfully and knowingly lie about WMD's like you folks have been accusing him of for years.
asdasdfasdfasdfasdfa Member	Thu Feb 17 06:34:36 This is what is known for years: stovepiping http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/27/031027fa_fact "The Stovepipe How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq's weapons. ... A retired C.I.A. officer described for me some of the questions that would normally arise in vetting: “Does dramatic information turned up by an overseas spy square with his access, or does it exceed his plausible reach? How does the agent behave? Is he on time for meetings?” The vetting process is especially important when one is dealing with foreign-agent reports—sensitive intelligence that can trigger profound policy decisions. In theory, no request for action should be taken directly to higher authorities—a process known as “stovepiping”—without the information on which it is based having been subjected to rigorous scrutiny. The point is not that the President and his senior aides were consciously lying. What was taking place was much more systematic—and potentially just as troublesome. Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, whose book “The Threatening Storm” generally supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, told me that what the Bush people did was “dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership. Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from them. "
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 06:39:50 Hot Rod Member Thu Feb 17 06:25:20 We are those of us who asked for proof that Bush lied about his reasons for starting the war in Iraq and we have been telling you for years that he did *NOT* willfully and knowingly lie about WMD's like you folks have been accusing him of for years. " Incorrect, and moving the goalposts now won't help. Bush administration ignored multiple warnings about their intel, from different sources. Including warnings about Curveball, all while loudly promoting the most far fetched crap out there. The Bush administration ignored evidence from the UN weapons inspectors that Curveball's claims were false. Curveball had identified a particular Iraqi facility as a docking station for mobile labs. Satellite photography had showed a wall made such access impossible, but it was theorised that this wall was temporary. "When United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors visited the site on February 9, 2003, they found that the wall was a permanent structure and could find nothing to corroborate Curveball's statements."[21] Instead, the inspectors found the warehouse to be used for seed processing.[22] Wiki
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Feb 17 06:51:52 What happened to the old liars, "there *WERE* wmds"? rofl
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Feb 17 06:54:06 "When United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors visited the site on February 9, 2003, they found that the wall was a permanent structure and could find nothing to corroborate Curveball's statements."[21] Instead, the inspectors found the warehouse to be used for seed processing.[22] I remember this kind of stuff being revealed every week BEFORE the invasion, and the whole world outside of the USA knew it too, but back then, there was hardly an american alive that wouldnt have a hissy tantrum whenever they were told, correctly of course, this was all bullshit.
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Feb 17 06:56:20 "Colin Powell Rips CIA Over Sham WMD Source" newsmax...lmao "Colin Powell, the US secretary of state at the time of the Iraq invasion, has called on the CIA ***and Pentagon*** to explain why they failed to alert him"
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 06:57:51 They are still at at, long after the shit was out. Cheney still lies about Saddam-AQ working together and Rumsfeld just repeated the old "Saddam threw inspectors out" lie.
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Feb 17 07:00:15 Well, why would such dshonest mass-murderers ever stop, when they have followers like hotrod religiously gulping down anything they want him to gulp down like one of freds mexican whores?
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 07:01:54 CR - Incorrect, and moving the goalposts now won't help. Bush administration ignored multiple warnings about their intel, from different sources. Including warnings about Curveball, all while loudly promoting the most far fetched crap out there. The Bush administration did not inform President Bush of those warnings. "Although he told Walters that then-CIA Director George Tenet "believed what he was giving to me was accurate," Powell admitted that "the intelligence system did not work well. â?¦ There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up." Powell.
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Feb 17 07:05:35 "The Bush administration did not inform President Bush of those warnings." ALL WE HAVE EVER ASKED YOU FOR IS TO *PROVE* THAT. And you have NEVER been able to do even that. LOL! /paraphrase
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 07:06:45 I just did with the OP. "Although he told Walters that then-CIA Director George Tenet "believed what he was giving to me was accurate," Powell admitted that "the intelligence system did not work well. �¢?�¦ There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up." Powell.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 07:07:16 Rod, nobody is going to argue that Bush was a clueless idiot. If you want to play this card, that's fine. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy, all retards, all clueless. But I call bullshit on not knowing about UN inspectors warning about Curveball. No, that one they simply ignored.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 07:09:53 Then take it up with Colin Powell. I just proved to you that the CIA did *NOT* give the leadership accurate information.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 07:10:54 Remind me again on how Bush punished people in CIA and Pentagon for supposedly not informing him, on everything! I remember medals for Tenet and Franks, not much else? That also should be attributed to his total idiotic cluelessness?
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 07:12:49 Who is responsible for govt actions, Rod? The buck stops where?
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 07:13:04 Irrelevant. "Although he told Walters that then-CIA Director George Tenet "believed what he was giving to me was accurate," Powell admitted that "the intelligence system did not work well. �?�¢?�?�¦ There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up." Powell.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 07:19:56 You don't need CIA to tell you what the UN inspectors are reporting.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 07:21:11 But I am looking forward to Rod not blaming Obama for any actions of Obama administration. The "clueless idiot" defense.
asdasdfasdfasdfasdfa Member	Thu Feb 17 07:22:40 HR the CIA did not tell because the Bush admin changed the way the CIA had to work: stovepiping.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 07:40:44 What is wrong with you folks? Did you even read the OP? I give you the word of the person who is probably the most respected member of the Bush Administration and all you can come up with is the same tired old claims that he should have known because of information that he was not made aware of until after the fact. Powell clearly states, "There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up." What more do you want? That is why it is so darned frustrating to discuss anything with you folks because regardless of the quality of the proof given you you refuse to accept it if it goes against your preconceived beliefs. It is time for you folks to make up your minds, do you want honest debate or do you want to just sit there and refuse to believe that Sun gives light on a clear day.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 07:42:11 The US Secretary of State did not know what the UN inspectors were saying?
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 08:07:46 Evidently. Aren't people at that level briefed by the CIA as to what is going on? I really don't see them kicking back with their pipe and slippers and watching Dan Rather every evening. All I know is what Powell has clearly stated, "There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up." "What more do you want?" Again, all you are doing is repeating what you folks have been saying for years while I have given you fresh information directly from one of the people involved. Tell me. Just exactly *HOW* should Bush, Powell, et al have known what the inspectors were saying. Where does their pronouncements fall within the timeline leading up to the invasion? How were the principles informed of their pronouncements. You have never explained that. You just tell us that the inspectors said such and such and that Bush *knew* they said it and that Bush lied. Give us the timeline and the rest of the particulars to prove your case.
Aeros Member	Thu Feb 17 08:10:46 "Powell clearly states, "There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up." Rod, these "people in the intelligence community" were low to mid level analysts who were in the soup sifting the data and preparing products for their superiors. The fact is, Bush wanted his war and he needed the Intelligence to get it for him, not the other way around. Everyone knew this, and nobody was going to speak up. We are talking about an administration who fired the head of the Park Police just because she told the Washington Post the agency was under staffed. Ain't no way some schmuck at CIA with a Mortgage is going to piss off his political appointee boss by speaking out, especially at the height of the pre-war hysteria that had swept the US at the time.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 08:14:29 "Evidently. " Nope, Powell is specific about CIA, he did not say that he wasn't informed about the UN reports. Nobody even said that administration did not know or wasn't informed about the UN inspectors reports. "By the time President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein of the deadly weapons he was allegedly trying to build, every piece of fresh evidence had been tested -- and disproved -- by U.N. inspectors, according to a report commissioned by the president and released Thursday. The work of the inspectors -- who had extraordinary access during their three months in Iraq between November 2002 and March 2003 -- was routinely dismissed by the Bush administration and the intelligence community in the run-up to the war, according to the commission led by former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.) and retired appellate court judge Laurence H. Silberman." http://www...1854-2005Apr2?language=printer
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 08:26:21 ""The question should be put to the CIA and the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] as to why this wasn't known before the false information was put into the NIE sent to Congress, the president's State of the Union address and my 5 February presentation to the U.N." Powell also appears to be lying here, if he is talking about Bush's SOTU niger claims. "July 23, 2003|By Dana Milbank, Walter Pincus, Washington Post (07-23) 04:00 PST Washington â?? 2003-07-23 04:00:00 PST Washington -- The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa, White House officials said Tuesday. The officials made the disclosure hours after they were alerted by the CIA to the existence of a memo sent to Bush's deputy national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, on Oct. 6. The White House said Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, on Friday night had discovered another memo from the CIA, dated Oct. 5, also expressing doubts about the Africa claims." http://art...ush-s-deputy-national-security
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 08:34:10 "was routinely dismissed by the Bush administration and the intelligence community in the run-up to the war..." AND THAT IS PROBABLY WHY THE "Bush administration and the intelligence community" DID NOT INFORM THE PRESIDENT AND THE LEADERSHIP OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE WORK OF THE INSPECTORS. I am not sure if you are trolling or if you are just bull headed, but you are wasting my time. Believe what you feel you must, I doubt there is any more proof to give you, even Tenent said he did not tell Bush everything because he himself was not informed of everything by his staff. This really does not say much for you as an open minded debater. You have a great day.
Aeros Member	Thu Feb 17 08:35:06 Its always amusing to watch when Hot Rod's carefully constructed fantasies get pierced.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 08:36:23 "AND THAT IS PROBABLY WHY THE "Bush administration and the intelligence community" DID NOT INFORM THE PRESIDENT AND THE LEADERSHIP OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE WORK OF THE INSPECTORS" Ahahahaha..Bush administration did not inform Bush! You know, I actually can see that.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 08:38:26 BULL *FUCKING* SHIT. Denying proof does not qualify as "piercing" anything. Did you even read the OP, or compare my arguments with CR's? Of course you didn't.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 08:42:27 CR - Ahahahaha..Bush administration did not inform Bush! You know, I actually can see that. And that is *EXACTLY* what we have been telling you for years and Colin Powell verifies it in the article in the OP. (My last was for Aeros.)
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 08:46:13 How unbelievably clueless was this guy? Did he know anything before pushing his policies? Judging by the results, he really didn't. Explains how the mighty US got to this point. But we gotta save Rod's "Bush administration did not inform Bush!", this is gold and should be used more often, when debating presidents.
W Member	Thu Feb 17 09:01:47 This is why Hot Rod is a fucking hack.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 09:06:05 btw Rod, are we talking only about the fake intel behind Powell presentation? Because there are other claims that were made, niger, saddam-AQ working together, alluminum tubes, etc. Is it your claim that Bush wan't briefed on any intel doubts, ever?
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 09:09:30 Notice how Powell doesn't mention al Libi, only Curveball". Libi's tortured confessions were the second source behind his UN presentation. And everybody was briefed on DIA doubts about Libi, White House, Pentagon, State. http://www...ady.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 09:11:16 Most, if not ALL, of the major intelligence agencies of The West agreed before the invasion that they believed that Iraq had WMD's.
Rugian Member	Thu Feb 17 09:12:59 If he was briefed about any doubts, he certainly didn't convey it: "The nigga bought aluminum tubes! Do I need to tell you what the fuck you can do with an aluminum tube!?! ALUMINUM!" -Bush
Rugian Member	Thu Feb 17 09:14:40 From a pre-war press conference: Bush: "I didn't want to say this. The motherfucker bought yellow cake. All right! From Africa. He went to Africa and bought some yellow cake." News Reporter: "Are you sure?" Bush: "Yes I'm sure, bitch!" He sounds pretty confident of the veracity of the intel to me.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 09:17:00 "Most, if not ALL, of the major intelligence agencies of The West agreed before the invasion that they believed that Iraq had WMD's. " Most, if not all, also said that the intel was weak and unverified. Guess what part the administration chose to promote? Specifically Bush was personnally briefed that there is no crebile intel on Saddam-AQ working together, and yet he chose to claim it was, later on.
W Member	Thu Feb 17 09:18:54 Between inspections: 1998-2002In August, 1998, absent effective monitoring, Scor remarked that Iraq could "reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program."[58] Ritter later accused some UNSCOM personnel of spying, and he strongly criticized the Bill Clinton administration for misusing the commission's resources to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military.[59] In June, 1999, Ritter responded to an interviewer, saying: "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."[60] In June 2000, he penned a piece for Arms Control Today entiled The Case for Iraq's Qualitative Disarmament.[61] 2001 saw the theatrical release of his documentary on the UNSCOM weapons inspections in Iraq, In Shifting Sands: The Truth About Unscom and the Disarming of Iraq. The film was funded by an Iraqi-American businessman who, unknown to Ritter, had received Oil-for-Food coupons from the Iraqi regime.[62] In 2002, Scott Ritter stated that, as of 1998, 90â??95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed. Technical 100% verification was not possible, said Ritter, not because Iraq still had any hidden weapons, but because Iraq had preemptively destroyed some stockpiles and claimed they had never existed. Many people were surprised by Ritter's turnaround in his view of Iraq during a period when no inspections were made.[63] During the 2002â??2003 build-up to war Ritter criticized the Bush administration and maintained that it had provided no credible evidence that Iraq had reconstituted a significant WMD capability. In an interview with Time in September 2002 Ritter said there were attempts to use UNSCOM for spying on Iraq.[64] In doing so, he was merely confirming what had been known since 1999: according to the New York Times for Jan. 8, 1999, , "In March [1998], in a last-ditch attempt to uncover Saddam Hussein's covert weapons and intelligence networks, the United States used the United Nations inspection team to send an American spy into Baghdad to install a highly sophisticated electronic eavesdropping system."[65][66] UNSCOM encountered various difficulties and a lack of cooperation by the Iraqi government. In 1998, UNSCOM was withdrawn at the request of the United States before Operation Desert Fox. Despite this, UNSCOM's own estimate was that 90-95% of Iraqi WMDs had been successfully destroyed before its 1998 withdrawal. After that Iraq remained without any outside weapons inspectors for four years. During this time speculations arose that Iraq had actively resumed its WMD programmes. In particular, various figures in the George W. Bush administration as well as Congress went so far as to express concern about nuclear weapons. There is dispute about whether Iraq still had WMD programs after 1998 and whether its cooperation with the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) was complete. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said in January 2003 that "access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect" and Iraq had "cooperated rather well" in that regard, although "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance of the disarmament."[67] On March 7, in an address to the Security Council, Hans Blix stated: "Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as is required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002)... while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3â??4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance." Some U.S. officials understood this contradictory statement as a declaration of noncompliance. There were no weapon inspections in Iraq for nearly four years after the UN departed from Iraq in 1998, and Iraq asserted that they would never be invited back.[68] In addition, Saddam had issued a secret order that Iraq did not have to abide by any UN Resolution since in his view the United States had broken international law.[69] In 2001 Saddam stated that "we are not at all seeking to build up weapons or look for the most harmful weapons . . . however, we will never hesitate to possess the weapons to defend Iraq and the Arab nation".[70] The International Institute for Strategic Studies in Britain published in September 2002 a review of Iraq's military capability, and concluded that Iraq could assemble nuclear weapons within months if fissile material from foreign sources were obtained.[71] However, it concluded that without such foreign sources, it would take years at a bare minimum. The numbers were viewed as overly optimistic by many critics (such as the Federation of American Scientists and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). PreludeSee also: Rationale for the Iraq War and The Iraq War Main articles: Iraq disarmament crisis and The UN Security Council and the Iraq war In late 2002 Saddam Hussein, in a letter to Hans Blix, invited UN weapons inspectors back into the country. Subsequently the Security Council issued resolution 1441 authorizing new inspections in Iraq. The carefully-worded UN resolution put the burden on Iraq, not UN inspectors, to prove that they no longer had weapons of mass destruction. The United States claimed that Iraq's latest weapons declaration left materials and munitions unaccounted for; the Iraqis claimed that all such material had been destroyed, something which had been stated years earlier by Iraq's highest ranking defector, Hussein Kamel al-Majid. According to reports from the previous UN inspection agency, UNSCOM, Iraq produced 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and sarin, and nearly 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells, with chemical agents, that are still unaccounted for. In fact, in 1995, Iraq told the United Nations that it had produced at least 30,000 liters of biological agents, including anthrax and other toxins it could put on missiles, but that all of it had been destroyed.[citation needed] In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program. Some former UNSCOM inspectors disagree about whether the United States could know for certain whether or not Iraq had renewed production of weapons of mass destruction. Robert Gallucci said, "If Iraq had [uranium or plutonium], a fair assessment would be they could fabricate a nuclear weapon, and there's no reason for us to assume we'd find out if they had." Similarly, former inspector Jonathan Tucker said, "Nobody really knows what Iraq has. You really can't tell from a satellite image what's going on inside a factory." However, Hans Blix said in late January 2003 that Iraq had "not genuinely accepted UN resolutions demanding that it disarm."[72] He claimed there were some materials which had not been accounted for. Since sites had been found which evidenced the destruction of chemical weaponry, UNSCOM was actively working with Iraq on methods to ascertain for certain whether the amounts destroyed matched up with the amounts that Iraq had produced.[73][74] In the next quarterly report, after the war, the total amount of proscribed items destroyed by UNMOVIC in Iraq can be gathered.[75] Those include: 50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles 2 large propellant casting chambers 14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol Some 122 mm chemical warheads Some chemical equipment 224.6 kg of expired growth media Scott Ritter argued that the WMDs Saddam had in his possession all those years ago, if retained, would have long since turned to harmless substances. He stated that Iraqi Sarin and tabun have a shelf life of approximately five years, VX lasts a bit longer (but not much longer), and finally he said botulinum toxin and liquid anthrax last about three years.[76][77] Coalition expanded intelligenceOn May 30, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz stated in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine that the issue of weapons of mass destruction was the point of greatest agreement among Bush's team among the reasons to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He said, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but, there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two."[82] The same day, General James T. Conway, senior Marine commander in Iraq, expressed similar thoughts in a satellite interview with reporters at the Pentagon. "It was to do with information management. The intention was to dramatise it."[83] In an interview with BBC in June 2004, David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, made the following comment: "Anyone out there holding â?? as I gather Prime Minister Blair has recently said â?? the prospect that, in fact, the Iraq Survey Group is going to unmask actual weapons of mass destruction, [is] really delusional." In 2002, Scott Ritter, a former UNSCOM weapons inspector heavily criticized the Bush administration and Media outlets for using the testimony of an alleged former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist Khidir Hamza, who defected from Iraq in 1994 as a rationale for invading Iraq; We seized the entire records of the Iraqi Nuclear program, especially the administrative records. We got a name of everybody, where they worked, what they did, and the top of the list, Saddam's "Bombmaker" [Which was the title of Hamza's book, and earned the nickname afterwards] was a man named Jafar Dhia Jafar, not Khidir Hamza, an if you go down the list of the senior administrative personnel you will not find Hamza's name in there. In fact, we didn't find his name at all. Because in 1990, he didn't work for the Iraqi Nuclear Program. He had no knowledge of it because he worked as a kickback specialist for Hussein Kamel in the Presidential Palace. He goes into northern Iraq and meets up with Ahmad Chalabi. He walks in and says, i'm Saddam's "Bombmaker". So they call the CIA and they say, "we know who you are, you're not Saddam's "Bombmaker", go sell your story to someone else." And he was released, he was rejected by all intelligence services at the time, he's a fraud. And here we are, someone who the CIA knows is a fraud, the US Government knows is a fraud, is allowed to sit in front of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and give testimony as a expert witness. I got a problem with that, I got a problem with the American media, and iv'e told them over and over and over again that this man is a documentable fraud, a fake, and yet they allow him to go on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and testify as if he actually knows what he is talking about. [84] On June 4, 2003, U.S. Senator Pat Roberts announced that the U.S. Select Committee on Intelligence that he chaired would, as a part of its ongoing oversight of the intelligence community, conduct a Review of intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. On July 9, 2004, the Committee released the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq. On July 17, 2003, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in an address to the U.S. Congress, that history would forgive the United States and United Kingdom, even if they were wrong about weapons of mass destruction. He still maintained that "with every fiber of instinct and conviction" Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. On February 3, 2004, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw announced an independent inquiry, to be chaired by Lord Butler of Brockwell, to examine the reliability of British intelligence relating to alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.[85] The Butler Review was published July 14, 2004. Presentation slide used by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at the UN Security Council in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of IraqIn the build up to the 2003 war the New York Times published a number of stories claiming to prove that Iraq possessed WMD. One story in particular, written by Judith Miller helped persuade the American public that Iraq had WMD: in September 2002 she wrote about an intercepted shipment of aluminum tubes which the NYT said were to be used to develop nuclear material.[citation needed] It is now generally understood that they were not intended (or well suited) for that purpose but rather for artillery rockets.[citation needed] The story was followed up with television appearances by Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice all pointing to the story as part of the basis for taking military action against Iraq. Miller's sources were introduced to her by Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi exile favorable to a U.S. invasion of Iraq.[citation needed] Miller is also listed as a speaker for The Middle East Forum, an organization which openly declared support for an invasion.[citation needed] In May 2004 the New York Times published an editorial which stated that its journalism in the build up to war had sometimes been lax. It appears that in the cases where Iraqi exiles were used for the stories about WMD were either ignorant as to the real status of Iraq's WMD or lied to journalists to achieve their own ends.[citation needed] Despite the intelligence lapse, Bush stood by his decision to invade Iraq stating: But what wasn't wrong was Saddam Hussein had invaded a country, he had used weapons of mass destruction, he had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction, he was firing at our pilots. He was a state sponsor of terror. Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing for world peace and the security of our country. In a speech before the World Affairs Council of Charlotte, NC, on April 7, 2006, President Bush stated that he "fully understood that the intelligence was wrong, and [he was] just as disappointed as everybody else" when U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.[86] Intelligence shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq was heavily used as support arguments in favor of military intervention with the October 2002 C.I.A. report on Iraqi WMDs considered to be the most reliable one available at that time.[87] "According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) - Congressional Record, October 9, 2002[88] On May 29, 2003, Andrew Gilligan appears on the BBC's Today program early in the morning. Among the contentions he makes in his report are that the government "ordered (the September Dossier, a British Government dossier on WMD) to be sexed up, to be made more exciting, and ordered more facts to be...discovered." The broadcast is not repeated.[89] On May 27, 2003, a secret Defense Intelligence Agency fact-finding mission in Iraq reported unanimously to intelligence officials in Washington that two trailers captured in Iraq by Kurdish troops "had nothing to do with biological weapons." The trailers had been a key part of the argument for the 2003 invasion; Secretary of State Colin Powell had told the United Nations Security Council, "We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails. We know what the fermenters look like. We know what the tanks, pumps, compressors and other parts look like." The Pentagon team had been sent to investigate the trailers after the invasion. The team of experts unanimously found "no connection to anything biological"; one of the experts told reporters that they privately called the trailers "the biggest sand toilets in the world." The report was classified, and the next day, the CIA publicly released the assessment of its Washington analysts that the trailers were "mobile biological weapons production." The White House continued to refer to the trailers as mobile biological laboratories throughout the year, and the Pentagon field report remained classified. It is still classified, but a Washington Post report of April 12, 2006 disclosed some of the details of the report. According to the Post: A spokesman for the DIA asserted that the team's findings were neither ignored nor suppressed, but were incorporated in the work of the Iraqi Survey Group, which led the official search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The survey group's final report in September 2004 â?? 15 months after the technical report was written â?? said the trailers were "impractical" for biological weapons production and were "almost certainly intended" for manufacturing hydrogen for weather balloons.[90] "No one was more surprised than I that we didn't find (WMDs)." General Tommy Franks December 2, 2005.[91] On February 6, 2004, U.S. President George W. Bush named an Iraq Intelligence Commission, chaired by Charles Robb and Laurence Silberman, to investigate U.S. intelligence, specifically regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. On February 8, 2004, Dr Hans Blix, in an interview on BBC TV, accused the U.S. and UK governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the government of Saddam Hussein.
W Member	Thu Feb 17 09:20:25 "In a speech before the World Affairs Council of Charlotte, NC, on April 7, 2006, President Bush stated that he "fully understood that the intelligence was wrong, and [he was] just as disappointed as everybody else" when U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.[86]" This part is good, especially when multiple reports were saying that Iraq DID NOT HAVE ANY WMDS. But they ignored that and invaded anyways.....so?
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 09:34:03 The aluminum tube issue was based on a story by Judith Miller in The New York Times. Not sure how the yellow cake in Niger turned out and I never heard of al Libi. The saddam-AQ working together I know was based on flimsy evidence, but we learned that after the fact I believe. What was the timeline on all of that. Didn't all of the facts you are talking about come to light *after* the invasion? We have gone over this countless times before and you are offering *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* new. Whereas I have offered you new evidence that you are ignoring. Powell clearly states, "There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up." The simple fact is, you have absolutely zero proof that Bush or any of his major lieutenants willfully and purposely lied, whereas I have given you proof that they were unaware because information was withheld by their subordinates. Take it or leave it. I'm through with your unmitigated stubbornness.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 09:40:52 "The saddam-AQ working together I know was based on flimsy evidence, but we learned that after the fact I believe. " Incorrect. "Ten days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President Bush was advised that U.S. intelligence found no credible connection linking the attacks to the regime of Saddam Hussein, or evidence suggesting linkage between Saddam and the al-Qaida terrorist network, according to a published report. The report, published Tuesday in The National Journal, cites government records, as well as present and former officials with knowledge of the issue. The information in the story, written by National Journal contributor Murray Waas, points to an abiding administration concern for secrecy that extended to keeping information from the Senate committee charged with investigating the matter. In one of the Journal report's more compelling disclosures, Saddam is said to have viewed al-Qaida as a threat, rather than a potential ally. Presidential brief The president's daily brief, or PDB, for Sept. 21, 2001, was prepared at the request of President Bush, the Journal reported, who was said to be eager to determine whether any linkage between the Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraqi regime existed. And a considerable amount of the Sept. 21 PDB found its way into a longer, more detailed Central Intelligence Agency assessment of the likelihood of an al-Qaida-Iraq connection. The Journal story reports that that assessment was released to Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, and other senior policy-makers in the Bush administration." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10164478/ns/us_news-security/
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 09:46:29 "Whereas I have offered you new evidence that you are ignoring. " yes, who can forget? "Bush administration dismissed UN inspectors report but Bush did not dismiss himself, because Bush administration does not include Bush. Or any senior members of his administration. Other members of Bush administration, Bush is not responsible for them."
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 09:49:22 If MSNBC is to be believed then I stand corrected on that issue.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Feb 17 09:50:15 I am tired of you too.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 09:55:38 You would have saved us both a lot of effort had you just accepted Powell's statement instead of bringing up all of the other issues that did not apply to his statement about the WMD's. It was clear that is all his statement was intended to clarify, but as I have said. You folks refuse to accept the truth no matter the evidence.
W Member	Thu Feb 17 10:11:57 Oh that is rich coming from you...
W Member	Thu Feb 17 10:18:07 "You folks refuse to accept the truth no matter the evidence. " I.E. http://www...hread=42681&time=1297959358795
chen Member	Thu Feb 17 10:27:51 So why are they not being charged with war crimes?
milton bradley Member	Thu Feb 17 10:35:32 the board laughs at the lonely moron once again lol
Paramount Member	Thu Feb 17 11:57:26 "Bush administration did not inform Bush!" - Hot Rod lol
milton bradley Member	Thu Feb 17 11:59:46 "So why are they not being charged with war crimes?" because the USA hasnt got the balls to actually follow through on their much boasted beliefs in a society of law, when it comes to their wealthy and powerful elite. They'll have to send him off to Europe for that.
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Feb 17 12:01:58 The interesting thing about Powell speaking up and reiterating his fury at the BS he was told to report at the UN, that we all have known about since before, and which led to, his resignation, is that he's stoking the flames. Will that be enough to provoke Tenet into speaking out on what directives he was given by the Bush admin behind the scenes?
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 14:47:46 MB - Will that be enough to provoke Tenet into speaking out on what directives he was given by the Bush admin behind the scenes? "About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a "slam dunk case" that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward." MORE: http://art...unk-war-plan?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS Powell clearly states, "There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up." There is your proof. Now kindly stick your head in the sand and ignore it.
milton bradley Member	Thu Feb 17 14:52:58 Oh, well, lonely moron if journalist Woodward's claim is *PROOF*, moron, then so is this, moron: President Bush committed an impeachable offense by ordering the CIA to to manufacture a false pretense for the Iraq war in the form of a backdated, handwritten document linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda Suskind says he spoke on the record with U.S. intelligence officials who stated that Bush was informed unequivocally in January 2003 that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. http://tod...6030573/ns/today-today_people/ There, moron, is your proof, moron. Now, moron, kindly stick your moronic head in the sand and ignore it. Moron.
milton bradley Member	Thu Feb 17 14:55:01 * Moron.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 15:01:36 I guess you can be excused for that nonsense since you have no idea who Bob Woodward is.
milton bradley Member	Thu Feb 17 15:07:44 I know who he is, moron, far better than you, moron, as I know anything about anything that isnt about pedophilia, better than you, moron. My source is also a Pulitzer winning journalist, moron. Heres some more stuff, moron, that Woodward, whose words are *PROOF* according to you, said, moron: "...states that President Bush "rarely leveled with the public to explain what he was doing and what should be expected... The president was rarely the voice of realism on the Iraq war." It also calls him "the nationâ??s most divisive figure" and described his foreign policy as a failure, saying "He had not rooted out terror wherever it existed... He had not achieved world peace. He had not attained victory in his two wars." So, moron, that is irrefutable proof that Bush rarely levelled with the american public, that his foreign policy was a failure, that he was the nations most divisive figure, isnt it, moron. You just said his words are proof, moron.
milton bradley Member	Thu Feb 17 15:08:23 * Poor, lonely moron. Laughed at by everyone at UP.
milton bradley Member	Thu Feb 17 15:13:06 In fact, suskind and woodward have even worked together and are about as similar as one is likely to find among journalists "If Bob Woodward is the chronicler of the Bush administration, Ron Suskind is the analyst" - wiki
KreeL Member	Thu Feb 17 15:14:45 "There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up" This is false. MANY MANY MANY MANY spoke up.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 15:18:31 mb - "...states that President Bush "rarely leveled with the public to explain what he was doing and what should be expected... The president was rarely the voice of realism on the Iraq war." It also calls him "the nationâ??s most divisive figure" and described his foreign policy as a failure, saying "He had not rooted out terror wherever it existed... He had not achieved world peace. He had not attained victory in his two wars." Totally irrelevant to the subject of this thread, but of course you must stir up the muddy waters with your irrelevancies? And there you go with your favorite subject of pedophilia again. We all know you are a pervert, no need to keep bringing up the subject. LOL, they may laugh at my witticisms, but you make them want to puke you pervert.
milton bradley Member	Thu Feb 17 15:20:33 christ hotrod is sooooo easy. Strange that he just cant admit it when its such basic, common knowledge for the general population of this forum. I guess thats part of this mental illness he shares with Beck, of being completely batshit stupid, insane and uneducated, and yet, apparently unaware of his mentally unhealthy condition; even, incredibly, thinking he's not.
milton bradley Member	Thu Feb 17 15:21:19 As I predicted, moron: "Now, moron, kindly stick your moronic head in the sand and ignore it. Moron."
milton bradley Member	Thu Feb 17 15:21:40 * Moronic moron.
milton bradley Member	Thu Feb 17 15:23:45 "LOL, they may laugh at my witticisms" ROFL! Listen moron, noone laughs at your...LOL..."witticisms"...LMFAO...the board laughs, moron, when you try to debate and winces, moron, when you try to be witty...moron
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 18:24:05 Wow, that is some rant spread out over four posts. Especially the repeated use of the word moron. 10 times you used it. You are showing definite signs of severe mental illness, I guess that comes from losing so many arguments to me. I suggest you get some professional help. BTW, the subject of the thread is if Bush, Powell, etc were informed of all of the Intel about the WMD's, I guess you missed that as did CrownRoyay. Actually, I think that is another sign of mental illness, not being able to focus.
miltonfriedman Member	Thu Feb 17 19:37:53 "You are showing definite signs of severe mental illness, I guess that comes from losing so many arguments to me." Umm... no. Self-proclaimed victory like calling Federal Reserve data a "liberal" source is called trolling, retard.
KreeL Member	Thu Feb 17 22:39:54 "BTW, the subject of the thread is if Bush, Powell, etc were informed of all of the Intel about the WMD's" Oh yeah, I forgot bush can't read. Scott Ritter, Joe Wilson, and a buttload of others were in the news refuting the lies for weeks, if not months. Of course, you already knew that because you can read, right nimrod?
Hot Rod Member	Thu Feb 17 23:16:30 Before or after the invasion?
chen Member	Fri Feb 18 13:56:26 Invade first, manufacture reasons later.
KreeL Member	Fri Feb 18 15:51:54 I assume you could read before the invasion, nimrod.
Milton Bradley Member	Fri Feb 18 15:52:57 Thats a bit of an assumption.
KreeL Member	Fri Feb 18 16:17:40 Well, let's call it a stretch...
earthpig GTFO HOer	Fri Feb 18 16:31:47 Aeros' 08:10:46 post is a correct representation of the way the production of the goods in question can work.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Feb 19 00:00:30 You folks are truly incredible. "Although he told Walters that then-CIA Director George Tenet "believed what he was giving to me was accurate," Powell admitted that the intelligence system did not work well. "There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up."" ~ Colin Powell. Are you folks seriously suggesting that Bush knew there were no WMD's, but ordered two of his chief lieutenants , The Secretary of State and The Director of The CIA, to lie? And they did? Well you all can lie about me making shit up as much as you want, but I am comfortable in my opinion that you all have your heads up each others asses.
milton bradley Member	Sat Feb 19 01:45:20 "Are you folks seriously suggesting that Bush knew there were no WMD's, but ordered two of his chief lieutenants , The Secretary of State and The Director of The CIA, to lie?" Moron, your hero, Donald Trump thinks so too, moron, along with the majority of the world, moron, so you can stop pretending to be so surprised, moron. Moron, are you seriously suggesting a politician could never lie, moron? What kind of big govt, politician loving moron are you, moron? Moron.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Feb 19 05:55:36 So you get your news from Donald Trump, I'm sure he was a Bush insider that knew all of the details. You never cease proving you lack of intelligence.
asdasdfasdfasdfasdfa Member	Sat Feb 19 08:42:59 >>Powell admitted that the intelligence system did not work well. "There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up."<< I tell you for the last fucking time: the Bush admin changed the way the CIA reported their data. It's the fault of the Bush admin that the doubts were surpressed.
Milton Bradley Member	Sat Feb 19 09:28:31 C'mon, he doesnt care asda. Theres a reason he was voted the stupidest, biggest liar at UP.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Feb 19 12:04:12 asda, the change he mad was to fix the fuck up of some democrat that thought the CIA and FBI should not talk to each other because CIA was for foreign and the FBI was domestic. Bush changed to where they started trading Intel again. But, the machinery was not in place until after the war started IIRC. t was when he created the Homeland Security and changed the departments around that they started trading Intel again.
miltonfriedman Member	Sat Feb 19 12:59:27 "but I am comfortable in my opinion" Yes- that's why you are a liar and a pathetic human being.
murder Member	Sat Feb 19 15:21:27 Kill Janabi and his kids. Hell, kill his entire bloodline.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Feb 19 15:33:30 mf, we have been waiting years for your proof that Bush willfully lied about WMD. Where is it? All you give us is the same old claim sans proof, while we have given you the word of two of the people closest to Bush at the time that they were unaware of the truth about WMD's. Two people that *would have* known if Bush did. All you have given us is one great big huge fat lie. Guess that makes you the liar and the pathetic human being *KID*. I emphasize kid because there is no way that you qualify as a mature adult in your thinking.
milton bradley Member	Sat Feb 19 15:38:39 ^this from the guy voted the biggest, stupidest liar at UP lmao
Hot Rod Member	Sat Feb 19 15:42:24 LOL, Yeah. Voted by three fools and their multis. When are you *KIDS* going to grow up.
milton bradley Member	Sat Feb 19 16:06:08 Liar, you immature lying brat. Iirc, I counted about 18 different regular handles in one of the polls, which is a good majority of the board. But this is why you are voted voted the biggest, stupidest liar at UP, of course.
milton bradley Member	Sat Feb 19 16:06:51 I have to ask, do you seriously believe that the majority of this board does not think you are stupid and dishonest? Seriously?
asdasdfasdfasdfasdfa Member	Sat Feb 19 16:10:08 HR if you are too lazy to read the link that I gave you then just shut up and stay dumb. The change they made is called stovepiping: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/27/031027fa_fact
Hot Rod Member	Sat Feb 19 16:10:48 mb - Iirc, I counted about 18 different regular handles in one of the polls, which is a good majority of the board. Another great big huge fat lie. You would have had to have sucked all of their dicks to get that many votes. :)
milton bradley Member	Sat Feb 19 16:13:31 I noticed, moron, you ran away from yet another question, moron, demonstrating clearly that you know, moron, that the majority of this board does, in fact, consider you stupid and dishonest, moron. You lose again, moron, but you were born to lose, moron.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Feb 19 16:26:27 asda, your article supports what I have been saying for years. Bush was not give accurate information and he based his decision to go to war on that false information. "In theory, no request for action should be taken directly to higher authoritiesâ??a process known as â??stovepipingâ??â??without the information on which it is based having been subjected to rigorous scrutiny." Tenet told him it was a "SLAM-DUNK" that Hussein had WMD's. Powell stated in the above article, "Although he told Walters that then-CIA Director George Tenet "believed what he was giving to me was accurate," Powell admitted that the intelligence system did not work well." Both statements support what I and others have been saying for years, "Bush did *NOT* willfully and knowingly lie about WMD's. He was given faulty Intelligence. Now, unless someone has proof that Bush told his subordinates to give him faulty Intelligence, I think that ends the discussion until such time as *PROOF* to the contrary surfaces.
asdasdfasdfasdfasdfa Member	Sat Feb 19 19:40:47 "He was given faulty Intelligence. " Sure, because his people changed the way the CIA was giving information to the Bush admin. If he would have let the CIA worked as under Clinton then this would have never happened.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Feb 19 20:13:20 Do you honestly think *ANY* President of The United States of America would tell his subordinates to *NOT PROPERLY VET* crucial Intelligence that could lead the country to war? Man, not even FDR did that. That is the most insane thing you have ever said. BTW, under the Clinton administration, as I pointed out, The CIA and The FBI were prohibited by law from exchanging Intelligence.
miltonfriedman Member	Sat Feb 19 20:35:38 "mf, we have been waiting years for your proof that Bush willfully lied about WMD. Where is it? All you give us is the same old claim sans proof, while we have given you the word of two of the people closest to Bush at the time that they were unaware of the truth about WMD's. Two people that *would have* known if Bush did." asda has provided an excellent proof already. Please don't ask for "proof" when what you are really seeking is "evidence that supports my way of thinking." "Do you honestly think *ANY* President of The United States of America would tell his subordinates to *NOT PROPERLY VET* crucial Intelligence that could lead the country to war? " Yes. That person is named Bush.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Feb 19 21:38:36 Well then that removes all doubt, you are indeed the forum idiot. But, we all knew that already.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Feb 19 21:45:44 Now, get asdas stovepipe out of your and trundle off to the bathhouses where you belong.
miltonfriedman Member	Sat Feb 19 21:45:58 You know Bush told subordinates not to vet intelligence? So what are you arguing about then? We are in complete agreement.
	show deleted posts