Study: False statements preceded war

[HAL 9000 96]

No, he gets a daily briefing, pretty much every day, where he can come to an intelligent decision as to what course of action to take.

Don't bring down our intelligence gatherers.

Wasn't there a trend of intelligence folks leaving their jobs right after all these lies started to become public mantra. I remember interviews on the radio from ex-analysts about how their data was cherry-picked, manipulated, and filtered to suit the needs of the present administration.

i'm quiet aware of all of how intel work is done. it's what i did in the military for 20 years.

Well don't discredit yourself then...

Coincidentally what I was recruited for for several years.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I say... it was pretty bald-faced in Europe. Only here in the US, it seems, do people buy into these trial-lawyer arguments which form the "public debate".

[HAL 9000 96]

As I say... it was pretty bald-faced in Europe. Only here in the US, it seems, do people buy into these trial-lawyer arguments which form the "public debate".

You mean the Chewbacca defense??

It just doesn't make sense...

[Ban Hammer 14,268]

No, he gets a daily briefing, pretty much every day, where he can come to an intelligent decision as to what course of action to take.

Don't bring down our intelligence gatherers.

Wasn't there a trend of intelligence folks leaving their jobs right after all these lies started to become public mantra. I remember interviews on the radio from ex-analysts about how their data was cherry-picked, manipulated, and filtered to suit the needs of the present administration.

i'm quiet aware of all of how intel work is done. it's what i did in the military for 20 years.

Well don't discredit yourself then...

Coincidentally what I was recruited for for several years.

my previous posts have been aimed at the bush lied nonsense that some are floating around, along with him cherry picking intel. i'm not buying either statement.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I see that - once again - none of the Bushies actually manages to substantially refute Bush's blatant al-Libi lie.

Bush may have been wrong, he may have cherry picked a few of his facts but he didn't lie.

He sold as fact to the public what he knew to be questionable at best. How's that not lying?

news flash - all intel is questionable.

Newsflash: He dismissed the intelligence and took the word of the enemy - which the DIA debunked - at face value and sold as fact that which he knew not to be fact. You find that to be honest and appropriate conduct by the commander in chief? I sure don't.

dismissed it? can ya'll make up your mind? earlier it was cherrypicked.

He dismissed this particular piece which didn't strenghten the case for his desired war and used others which did further his case. This is what's commonly referred to as cherry-picking. You know that.

what you are missing out on is this - any briefing at that level has cherry picked intel due to the massive quantities of intel available. i also doubt that bush read every bit of it available and picked out what he wanted as he'd be busy for the rest of his life reading.

Chuck, he had two things:

1) The testimony of an AQ operative

2) The evaluation of that testimony by the DIA concluding that it is not credible

He dismissed 2 and ran with 1 as 1 furthered his cause while 2 did not. Later, he turned around blaming bad intel while it's really been bad selection on his part all along.

Bush's claim that "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.", made months after he's been advised that this particular testimony lacks credibility, should at least have been made with that important caveat. He purposely spread this false message to garner public support for his ill conceived desire to take the country to war in Iraq without due cause. I don't understand how anyone can be satisfied with a commander in chief that lacks this essential bit of integrity.

Edited January 24, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh go on, it's going cheap.

[Ban Hammer 14,268]

I see that - once again - none of the Bushies actually manages to substantially refute Bush's blatant al-Libi lie.

Bush may have been wrong, he may have cherry picked a few of his facts but he didn't lie.

He sold as fact to the public what he knew to be questionable at best. How's that not lying?

news flash - all intel is questionable.

Newsflash: He dismissed the intelligence and took the word of the enemy - which the DIA debunked - at face value and sold as fact that which he knew not to be fact. You find that to be honest and appropriate conduct by the commander in chief? I sure don't.

dismissed it? can ya'll make up your mind? earlier it was cherrypicked.

He dismissed this particular piece which didn't strenghten the case for his desired war and used others which did further his case. This is what's commonly referred to as cherry-picking. You know that.

what you are missing out on is this - any briefing at that level has cherry picked intel due to the massive quantities of intel available. i also doubt that bush read every bit of it available and picked out what he wanted as he'd be busy for the rest of his life reading.

Chuck, he had two things:

1) The testimony of an AQ operative

2) The evaluation of that testimony by the DIA concluding that it is not credible

He dismissed 2 and ran with 1 as 1 furthered his cause while 2 did not. Later, he turned around blaming bad intel while it's really been bad selection on his part all along.

Bush's claim that "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.", made months after he's been advised that this particular testimony lacks credibility, should at least have been made with that important caveat. He purposely spread this false message to garner public support for his ill conceived desire to take the country to war in Iraq without due cause. I don't understand how anyone can be satisfied with a commander in chief that lacks this essential bit of integrity.

i'm also certain there was some that supported what the aq op said too. as i've said before, it's a ####### shoot when it comes to intel. throw in someone who sounds credible but is there to muddy the waters and you get a fiasco.

however, i'm certain that no one will understand the difficulties in sorting the wheat from the chaff in that sort of business.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I see that - once again - none of the Bushies actually manages to substantially refute Bush's blatant al-Libi lie.

Bush may have been wrong, he may have cherry picked a few of his facts but he didn't lie.

He sold as fact to the public what he knew to be questionable at best. How's that not lying?

news flash - all intel is questionable.

Newsflash: He dismissed the intelligence and took the word of the enemy - which the DIA debunked - at face value and sold as fact that which he knew not to be fact. You find that to be honest and appropriate conduct by the commander in chief? I sure don't.

dismissed it? can ya'll make up your mind? earlier it was cherrypicked.

He dismissed this particular piece which didn't strenghten the case for his desired war and used others which did further his case. This is what's commonly referred to as cherry-picking. You know that.

what you are missing out on is this - any briefing at that level has cherry picked intel due to the massive quantities of intel available. i also doubt that bush read every bit of it available and picked out what he wanted as he'd be busy for the rest of his life reading.

Chuck, he had two things:

1) The testimony of an AQ operative

2) The evaluation of that testimony by the DIA concluding that it is not credible

He dismissed 2 and ran with 1 as 1 furthered his cause while 2 did not. Later, he turned around blaming bad intel while it's really been bad selection on his part all along.

Bush's claim that "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.", made months after he's been advised that this particular testimony lacks credibility, should at least have been made with that important caveat. He purposely spread this false message to garner public support for his ill conceived desire to take the country to war in Iraq without due cause. I don't understand how anyone can be satisfied with a commander in chief that lacks this essential bit of integrity.

And its not just those things either - there are many, many sources with many different stories all which saying the same basic thing. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to infer what went down.

[HAL 9000 96]

No, he gets a daily briefing, pretty much every day, where he can come to an intelligent decision as to what course of action to take.

Don't bring down our intelligence gatherers.

Wasn't there a trend of intelligence folks leaving their jobs right after all these lies started to become public mantra. I remember interviews on the radio from ex-analysts about how their data was cherry-picked, manipulated, and filtered to suit the needs of the present administration.

i'm quiet aware of all of how intel work is done. it's what i did in the military for 20 years.

Well don't discredit yourself then...

Coincidentally what I was recruited for for several years.

my previous posts have been aimed at the bush lied nonsense that some are floating around, along with him cherry picking intel. i'm not buying either statement.

Then what happened? Was he just an idiot in your opinion?

I don't paint him as that stupid. Specially with his family connections.

[HAL 9000 96]

I see that - once again - none of the Bushies actually manages to substantially refute Bush's blatant al-Libi lie.

Bush may have been wrong, he may have cherry picked a few of his facts but he didn't lie.

He sold as fact to the public what he knew to be questionable at best. How's that not lying?

news flash - all intel is questionable.

Newsflash: He dismissed the intelligence and took the word of the enemy - which the DIA debunked - at face value and sold as fact that which he knew not to be fact. You find that to be honest and appropriate conduct by the commander in chief? I sure don't.

dismissed it? can ya'll make up your mind? earlier it was cherrypicked.

He dismissed this particular piece which didn't strenghten the case for his desired war and used others which did further his case. This is what's commonly referred to as cherry-picking. You know that.

what you are missing out on is this - any briefing at that level has cherry picked intel due to the massive quantities of intel available. i also doubt that bush read every bit of it available and picked out what he wanted as he'd be busy for the rest of his life reading.

Chuck, he had two things:

1) The testimony of an AQ operative

2) The evaluation of that testimony by the DIA concluding that it is not credible

He dismissed 2 and ran with 1 as 1 furthered his cause while 2 did not. Later, he turned around blaming bad intel while it's really been bad selection on his part all along.

Bush's claim that "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.", made months after he's been advised that this particular testimony lacks credibility, should at least have been made with that important caveat. He purposely spread this false message to garner public support for his ill conceived desire to take the country to war in Iraq without due cause. I don't understand how anyone can be satisfied with a commander in chief that lacks this essential bit of integrity.

i'm also certain there was some that supported what the aq op said too. as i've said before, it's a ####### shoot when it comes to intel. throw in someone who sounds credible but is there to muddy the waters and you get a fiasco.

however, i'm certain that no one will understand the difficulties in sorting the wheat from the chaff in that sort of business.

Well its the angel vs devil on the man's shoulder...

Gee, the word of an operative vs our own intel... gee...

[Dan J 277]

I see that - once again - none of the Bushies actually manages to substantially refute Bush's blatant al-Libi lie.

Bush may have been wrong, he may have cherry picked a few of his facts but he didn't lie.

He sold as fact to the public what he knew to be questionable at best. How's that not lying?

news flash - all intel is questionable.

Newsflash: He dismissed the intelligence and took the word of the enemy - which the DIA debunked - at face value and sold as fact that which he knew not to be fact. You find that to be honest and appropriate conduct by the commander in chief? I sure don't.

dismissed it? can ya'll make up your mind? earlier it was cherrypicked.

He dismissed this particular piece which didn't strenghten the case for his desired war and used others which did further his case. This is what's commonly referred to as cherry-picking. You know that.

what you are missing out on is this - any briefing at that level has cherry picked intel due to the massive quantities of intel available. i also doubt that bush read every bit of it available and picked out what he wanted as he'd be busy for the rest of his life reading.

Chuck, he had two things:

1) The testimony of an AQ operative

2) The evaluation of that testimony by the DIA concluding that it is not credible

He dismissed 2 and ran with 1 as 1 furthered his cause while 2 did not. Later, he turned around blaming bad intel while it's really been bad selection on his part all along.

Bush's claim that "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.", made months after he's been advised that this particular testimony lacks credibility, should at least have been made with that important caveat. He purposely spread this false message to garner public support for his ill conceived desire to take the country to war in Iraq without due cause. I don't understand how anyone can be satisfied with a commander in chief that lacks this essential bit of integrity.

i'm also certain there was some that supported what the aq op said too. as i've said before, it's a ####### shoot when it comes to intel. throw in someone who sounds credible but is there to muddy the waters and you get a fiasco.

however, i'm certain that no one will understand the difficulties in sorting the wheat from the chaff in that sort of business.

The bad intel argument only goes so far. It might be acceptible to be wrong about a few things. But just about every justification Bush used to go to war has been either disproved or shown to be a selective choice of facts.

Bush may not been the only one responsible, but as the leader, he should be the one taking responsibility for his and his administration actions. If a CEO leads the company down the wrong path, the CEO gets sacked.

[HAL 9000 96]

Exactly...

Deductive logic, reasoning, or just plain old thinking should yield an obvious answer here. 900+ lies people...

[Ban Hammer 14,268]

i'm also certain there was some that supported what the aq op said too. as i've said before, it's a ####### shoot when it comes to intel. throw in someone who sounds credible but is there to muddy the waters and you get a fiasco.

however, i'm certain that no one will understand the difficulties in sorting the wheat from the chaff in that sort of business.

Well its the angel vs devil on the man's shoulder...

Gee, the word of an operative vs our own intel... gee...

didya miss the bold part?

The bad intel argument only goes so far. It might be acceptible to be wrong about a few things. But just about every justification Bush used to go to war has been either disproved or shown to be a selective choice of facts.

Bush may not been the only one responsible, but as the leader, he should be the one taking responsibility for his and his administration actions. If a CEO leads the company down the wrong path, the CEO gets sacked.

sure, check out that ceo of home depot

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Exactly...

Deductive logic, reasoning, or just plain old thinking should yield an obvious answer here. 900+ lies people...

You sound like your trying to convince when all you do is show yourself as a crackpot. Go spread your hate somewhere else. Maybe a "Bush is behind 9/11" blog? That is where you belong.

[Peikko 1,575]