White House Official Fox News A Wing of the Republican Party

[JB3]

I think I remember a couple of months back that Pelosi was lied to by the CIA and the Bush administration during that period.

Man, I give up on you. lol

Pelosi claims she was lied to, which was not supported by ANYONE from the CIA or ANYONE else that received the same briefings. Fact of the matter is that she knew EXACTLY what the Bush admin. was doing and did not speak up about it until it served the purposes of herself and her party.

 

[Kulindahr]

Please. The Bush administration, for all of the mistakes it made, never attempted to exclude a news organization in the way the Obama administration is.

For some perspective, here's a column on the issue from Clarence Page, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune and a staunch Obama supporter.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped1025pageoct25,0,4938426.column

I'm not often thrilled with Page, but that column is an excellent one!

I really liked this line:

They also provoke a classic reflex: Other media and pundits from all sides circle their -- Our! -- wagons in solidarity, even when our embattled brothers and sisters make us feel like holding our noses while we defend the move.

You are so biased that you would even excuse Bush and claim he only made "mistakes" and broke no laws?
And let's not forget that he lied to us and the Democrats to go to war at a time when we were terrified. He's the one that said that Iraq had nuclear weapons and that they were connected to Al Qaeda. Sure, let's blame the Democrats for Bush's lies...lol

I got some anxiety attacks, but I was never "terrified". If any members of Congress were terrified after 9/11, they shouldn't be in Congress.

One thing that's been pointed out and documented repeatedly is that a number of not just our allies but our foes saw the intelligence on Iraq and came to the same conclusions Bush did. The only real lie he told us was that we had to go to war over it -- even Reagan wouldn't have fallen for that; but then he didn't have Dick Cheney pulling his strings.

No one's "blaming the Democrats for Bush's lies". If you can reach that conclusion from what Droid said, you're part of the problem in America: one of the people tied so tightly to his personal view of things that his understanding of everything around him is distorted.

But I can see clearly that now I should not take your posts too seriously. Thanks.

Which, being interpreted, means, "You don't see the world according to my bias, so I'm not going to consider your views as worth anything."

 

[chance1]

Kulin, that's the video I was referring to.

Rachel notes that she tried on numerous occasions to get an audience with Bush, but was never granted one. Instead, he surrounded himself with Beck, Hannity, and so on. DROID: the reporters she mentions as getting interviews with Bush are also commentators, not news reporters per se.

To be honest, I don't see what the problem is, either with Bush doing it, or Obama doing it....

there's a big diff between sitting down for an interview and giving access to news information

why are you mixing them?

If Barack Obama doesn't want to go on Sean Hannity that is his right - I would suggest he would do himself a service by doing so but he certainly is under no obligation

we are talking about the black balling of a news organization - an attempt to exclude them from basic news information

to declassify them from a news organization to ..............

yech

your post is patently absurd and off point

and needs to be pointed out

 

[Kulindahr]

What are the Democrats guilty of? That Bush and Cheney LIED and DECEIVED everyone and broke laws. Pelosi and the Democrats are not responsible...Bush and his cronies are.

The Democrats are guilty of going along with Bush even though congressional Democrat leaders saw the same information he did, and came to the same conclusion as numerous intelligence agencies throughout the world. They are also guilty of caving in and believing that war in Iraq would be necessary, but mostly they are guilty of signing over the war-making authority of Congress.

 

[Kulindahr]

1. Or Bush for spending half his Presidency at either Camp David or on vacation? I remember the color coded treat levels that they kept using to scare the shit out of us. How about the envelopes with white powder in them that were sent to the Capitol? How about the wiretapping and spying?

What does all that have to do with anyone being terrified?

2. Nah, that's bullshit. It was all orchestrated by Bush and Cheney. What other allies though? Blair? The UK? Please. They are essentially a state of the US. I thought it was obvious to us all. Come one Kuli...I trust you are smarter than that. lol

China, Italy, and Russia have all been listed as countries which agreed that Saddam had WMDs.

3. Right. Downplaying Bush's guilt by upping the Democrats'...please.

Where did I mention Bush?

= = = = = = = = = = =

Your posts show a very polar mind, elvin: any time someone makes a comment about a topic, you automatically divide it into your view and all the rest, and make everything fit. Above, I pointed out the guilt of Democrats, and you automatically turned that into defense of Bush. If you're aware of what goes on in CE & P, you'll recall that about my only consistent defense of Bush has been that he's good at chopping wood (and indeed so good he used fifty of his IQ points doing it, leaving seventy-five for being president).

Above that, you take all the evil in the world and lay it on Bush and Cheney. Documentation has been posted in this forum, long ago, that quite a number of nations had concluded that Iraq still had WMDs or the components to assemble them quickly, but that doesn't fit your polarized view, so it goes by the wayside.

The pattern has appeared earlier in this forum with your sweeping generalizations which I challenged, and you never answered, lumping everyone who would criticize Obama or Democrats into one group, to which you assigned a variety of attributes, thus putting us all into tidy slots in a polarized world.

 

[JB3]

2. Nah, that's bullshit. It was all orchestrated by Bush and Cheney. What other allies though? Blair? The UK? Please. They are essentially a state of the US. I thought it was obvious to us all. Come one Kuli...I trust you are smarter than that. lol

You're joking right?

MI5 and MI6 are some of the foremost intelligence gathering entities on the face of the earth. They believed that Iraq had WMDs and sent that information along to their US counterparts. Germany's Intelligence agencies provided a secret source that provided the case for regime change in Iraq. Almost ALL of the intelligence for THAT aspect of the operation came from Germany, since they handled that source exclusively.

If you think that the US simply made stuff up and bullied the other intelligence agencies and nations, not only are you extremely naive, but you have absolutely no understanding of the sequence of events that led up to the invasion of Iraq.

 

[JB3]

And you're having trouble reading. These are your words:

"The Democrats are guilty of going along with Bush even though congressional Democrat leaders saw the same information he did, and came to the same conclusion as numerous intelligence agencies throughout the world. They are also guilty of caving in and believing that war in Iraq would be necessary, but mostly they are guilty of signing over the war-making authority of Congress."

The Democrats were lied to. Just like they lied to the rest of the world for going to war. The problem is that the Senate and Congress have a leader that presented them with false information and scare tactics to get us into that war. All the other coutries didn't believe us. Well, except for the UK. The CIA is the one that provided this "false" information. I don't believe any others did. They caved in because of the pressure and the lies. They also felt that the US was under an imminent attack and were terrified. They kept selling that Iraq had nuclear weapons and would be delivered in no time.



I'd like to see that actually. What other nations were ready to go to war with the info given? If you could please supply a link or a quote, I would appreciate it.



I must have missed it, Sorry. Just like you and others have missed mine. But I didn't sweat it or made an issue out of them.

Do us all a favor and read up on the sequence of events that lead up to the Iraq War. Both Germany and England were heavily involved with providing the US with the intelligence that ultimately led to the war.

You don't seem to grasp the idea that, even if they were given false information, the democrats are still responsible for their votes. They believed it and beat the drum of war as loudly as anyone else, and it doesn't matter if it was false.

 

[JB3]

That only covers the US intelligence community. Read up on the role of the German and British community's role. It was much larger, and much more independent than you think.

 

[JB3]

I didn't find any links actually. Coulc you provide?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article839897.ece

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,542708,00.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,542840,00.html

As you can see, much of what was presented by the Bush administration was information collected by these agencies. So no, the US did not orchestrate the intelligence.

 

[JB3]

Source: wikipedia

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/10/iraq.curveball/index.html

 

[JB3]

I am looking and reading. The issue to me is that Bush presented the
"evidence" as collected and analyzed but the CIA. Not any other country. I will have to look into this more but this war was orchestrated and set forth by the US with information from the CIA and our satellites. I can see however that Germany did not want to go to war with Iraq just like France, New Zealand, Canada. If they were supposeddly to have info on WMD's, I doubt that they would have opted to not go to war. So it all feels very wrong to me and just leads me back to the CIA and Bush and Cheney.

Also, we went in there with false information. Why would we need to rely on Germany's intelligence when we have the CIA? It's so suspicious. Especially when Germany didn't go to war. I thought the CIA's info would be the more credible. Could it be that Germany was doing what Bush and Cheney wanted? To find other sources to get us into war since we clearly had no evidence? And so that misleading evidence was used by Bush to justify the war?

Its suspicious, but that's what happened. I mean, if the US asks if you have any intelligence about Iraq, you can't very well say 'No' if you actually have some.

Germany had contact with 'Curveball' starting in 1999, and they passed the intelligence along when asked to by the CIA. So, it wasn't exactly possible for Germany to start collecting evidence to serve Bush's purposes if he wasn't in office yet.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/10/iraq.curveball/index.html

 

[Kulindahr]

And you're having trouble reading. These are your words:

Yes, those are my words.
Where did I defend Bush?

The Democrats were lied to. Just like they lied to the rest of the world for going to war. The problem is that the Senate and Congress have a leader that presented them with false information and scare tactics to get us into that war. All the other coutries didn't believe us. Well, except for the UK. The CIA is the one that provided this "false" information. I don't believe any others did. They caved in because of the pressure and the lies. They also felt that the US was under an imminent attack and were terrified. They kept selling that Iraq had nuclear weapons and would be delivered in no time.

Check other posts; the CIA didn't give lies to half a dozen other countries about WMDs in Iraq.

I'd like to see that actually. What other nations were ready to go to war with the info given? If you could please supply a link or a quote, I would appreciate it.

Me do research for your topic? If you want to address something new, you do the research.

 

[Kulindahr]

Source: wikipedia

Could you provide something that talks about the question?

 

[Kulindahr]

Also, we went in there with false information. Why would we need to rely on Germany's intelligence when we have the CIA? It's so suspicious. Especially when Germany didn't go to war. I thought the CIA's info would be the more credible. Could it be that Germany was doing what Bush and Cheney wanted? To find other sources to get us into war since we clearly had no evidence? And so that misleading evidence was used by Bush to justify the war?

Intelligence sharing between NATO allies is pretty common; one will ask, "Hey, you guys got anything on this?" and the others will respond, usually with a request of their own back, so information is traded.

There's one very simple reason why we'd ask, too: our humint sucks, and has for years. We have excellent technical intelligence sources, and for those others come to us.

Conjecturing that Germany would make stuff up for Bush is pushing the realm of conspiracy theory....

 

[JB3]

Intelligence sharing between NATO allies is pretty common; one will ask, "Hey, you guys got anything on this?" and the others will respond, usually with a request of their own back, so information is traded.

There's one very simple reason why we'd ask, too: our humint sucks, and has for years. We have excellent technical intelligence sources, and for those others come to us.

Conjecturing that Germany would make stuff up for Bush is pushing the realm of conspiracy theory....

...Especially since they started collecting it before he was even elected.

 

[Kulindahr]

No. I won't. Because I know who got us into this war and I know how they terrified us into buying it. But thanks anyway.

The war with Fox news?

Easy -- Obama got us into it.

 

[palemale]

Its suspicious, but that's what happened. I mean, if the US asks if you have any intelligence about Iraq, you can't very well say 'No' if you actually have some.

Germany had contact with 'Curveball' starting in 1999, and they passed the intelligence along when asked to by the CIA. So, it wasn't exactly possible for Germany to start collecting evidence to serve Bush's purposes if he wasn't in office yet.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/10/iraq.curveball/index.html

Droid, the story you cite does indeed say that the Germans had contact with Curveball. You neglect to say what, as the story reports, conclusions the Germans came to based on their contacts with Curveball. This intelligence the Germans passed along to the Bush Administration is in fact quite damning and reflects very poorly on Bush. Following is the most salient point in the article, which you left out of your post:

"Subsequent U.S. investigations into the intelligence failure around the claims found that German intelligence considered the defector "crazy" and "out of control," while friends said he was a "liar.""

In other words, the Bush administration knew Curveball was crazy, out of control and a liar, yet they still relied on his "evidence" to take the country to war.

 

[JB3]

Droid, the story you cite does indeed say that the Germans had contact with Curveball. You neglect to say what, as the story reports, conclusions the Germans came to based on their contacts with Curveball. This intelligence the Germans passed along to the Bush Administration is in fact quite damning and reflects very poorly on Bush. Following is the most salient point in the article, which you left out of your post:

"Subsequent U.S. investigations into the intelligence failure around the claims found that German intelligence considered the defector "crazy" and "out of control," while friends said he was a "liar.""

In other words, the Bush administration knew Curveball was crazy, out of control and a liar, yet they still relied on his "evidence" to take the country to war.

Ah, but you're taking that completely out of context. (as seems to be the trend with you and Elvin lately) This is what the article actually said:

Just days after Powell's presentation, U.N. weapons inspectors presented evidence they said disproved those claims. But six weeks later, on March 20, 2003, the United States launched its invasion, toppling Hussein's government in three weeks but locking itself in a war against an insurgency that has cost more than 4,000 American lives.

No biological weapons, no germ labs, no weapons of mass destruction of any kind were found in Iraq after the invasion. Curveball -- Rafid Alwan -- remained in hiding in Germany, where he had been interviewed by the German intelligence service, the BND.

Subsequent U.S. investigations into the intelligence failure around the claims found that German intelligence considered the defector "crazy" and "out of control," while friends said he was a "liar."

AFTER the invasion, during investigations into the intelligence and where it failed, they discovered that information. Essentially, Germany didn't tell the US their doubts about the intelligence until after the invasion had occurred.

 

[JB3]

Are you kidding? That's ironic...I'll tell you in a bit.

First, you guys had me laughing my ass off last night. I was wondering how far you guys would go. First someone wants to put half the blame on Nancy Pelosi for Iraq. Then it was just a small "mistake" by Bush. Then it's not the CIA's fault...or Bush's or Cheney's. Then it was Germany's fault. I tell you what? Why don't we blame it on Guatemala? Yeah, the Guatemalans are responsible for Iraq.

Now with your little comment above...I'm sure we could blame Obama for Iraq. Sure, why not? Obama went to Germany...it's all a big conspiracy. Obama is responsible for all that ills us today.

Btw, Fox has always had it out for Obama. They started it all. I thought it was obvious.

What's that word? Malarkee?

Only on Jub...I tells ya.

Oh please. You dismiss anything that doesn't fit into your tidy little liberal worldview, even if your worldview is completely ass-backwards and wrong. This has been demonstrated consistently in this thread and in others. You want to laugh your ass off? Fine.

Just know that the rest of us are laughing at your incredible ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

 

[palemale]

Ah, but you're taking that completely out of context. (as seems to be the trend with you and Elvin lately) This is what the article actually said:



AFTER the invasion, during investigations into the intelligence and where it failed, they discovered that information. Essentially, Germany didn't tell the US their doubts about the intelligence until after the invasion had occurred.

The article says that subsequent investigations revealed what the Germans thought about Curveball. It does not say, as you claim, that the Germans didn't tell the US their doubts about the intelligence. Indeed, George Will, in an article in the Washington Post, said quite the opposite, that prior to the invasion, the Germans, British and some US intelligence officials, were expressing their doubts about Curveball. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110901942.html Before you criticize others for intellectual dishonesty and ignorance, you should make sure you're intellectual honesty and knowledge is up to snuff.