Study: False statements preceded war

[yogib37 3]

Geez Loise people....Are you really so delusional and conspiratorial that you actually beleive that sitting U.S. President, along with a select group of "insiders", conspired to lead this country into war.....WHILST......nobody else noticed, for reasons UNKNOWN???? Is this what is known as "fuzzy logic"?

Poleeze, pass out the tin foil hats for everyone here that subsribes to this nonsense as CLEARLY the far left loones are abound in this forum!

Yes he lied and this IRAQ war was planed before 9-11.

here is some facts:

The Project for the New American Century.

The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required.

By William Rivers Pitt

02/25/03 -- - The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.

The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:

* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;

* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;

* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;

* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;

* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions." Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.

Why is this important? After all, wacky think tanks are a cottage industry in Washington, DC. They are a dime a dozen. In what way does PNAC stand above the other groups that would set American foreign policy if they could? Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.

Vice President ####### Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."

PNAC has recently given birth to a new group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to

22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but his Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match for the Bush administration's plans.

PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News.

The desire for these freshly empowered PNAC men to extend American hegemony by force of arms across the globe has been there since day one of the Bush administration, and is in no small part a central reason for the Florida electoral battle in 2000. Note that while many have said that Gore and Bush are ideologically identical, Mr. Gore had no ties whatsoever to the fellows at PNAC. George W. Bush had to win that election by any means necessary, and PNAC signatory Jeb Bush was in the perfect position to ensure the rise to prominence of his fellow imperialists. Desire for such action, however, is by no means translatable into workable policy. Americans enjoy their comforts, but don't cotton to the idea of being some sort of Neo-Rome.

On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open wide before them, and stormed right through it.

Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier. In many places, it uses exactly the same language to describe America's new place in the world.

Recall that PNAC demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP.

In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons. Bush has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while simultaneously engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing nuclear chicken with North Korea. Somewhere in all this lurks at least one of the "major theater wars" desired by the September 2000 PNAC report.

Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.

All of the horses are traveling together at speed here. The defense contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be handsomely paid for arming this new American empire. The corporations that own the news media will sell this eternal war at a profit, as viewership goes through the stratosphere when there is combat to be shown. Those within the administration who believe that the defense of Israel is contingent upon laying waste to every possible aggressor in the region will have their dreams fulfilled. The PNAC men who wish for a global Pax Americana at gunpoint will see their plans unfold. Through it all, the bankrollers from the WTO and the IMF will be able to dictate financial terms to the entire planet. This last aspect of the plan is pivotal, and is best described in the newly revised version of Greg Palast's masterpiece, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."

There will be adverse side effects. The siege mentality average Americans are suffering as they smother behind yards of plastic sheeting and duct tape will increase by orders of magnitude as our aggressions bring forth new terrorist attacks against the homeland. These attacks will require the implementation of the newly drafted Patriot Act II, an augmentation of the previous Act that has profoundly sharper teeth. The sun will set on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The American economy will be ravaged by the need for increased defense spending, and by the aforementioned "constabulary" duties in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Former allies will turn on us. Germany, France and the other nations resisting this Iraq war are fully aware of this game plan. They are not acting out of cowardice or because they love Saddam Hussein, but because they mean to resist this rising American empire, lest they face economic and military serfdom at the hands of George W. Bush. Richard Perle has already stated that France is no longer an American ally.

As the eagle spreads its wings, our rhetoric and their resistance will become more agitated and dangerous.

Many people, of course, will die. They will die from war and from want, from famine and disease. At home, the social fabric will be torn in ways that make the Reagan nightmares of crack addiction, homelessness and AIDS seem tame by comparison.

This is the price to be paid for empire, and the men of PNAC who now control the fate and future of America are more than willing to pay it. For them, the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.

The plan was running smoothly until those two icebergs collided. Millions and millions of ordinary people are making it very difficult for Bush's international allies to keep to the script. PNAC may have designs for the control of the "International Commons" of the Internet, but for now it is the staging ground for a movement that would see empire take a back seat to a wise peace, human rights, equal protection under the law, and the preponderance of a justice that will, if properly applied, do away forever with the anger and hatred that gives birth to terrorism in the first place. Tommaso Palladini of Milan perhaps said it best as he marched with his countrymen in Rome. "You fight terrorism," he said, "by creating more justice in the world."

The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required. The tide can be stopped, and the men who desire empire by the sword can be thwarted. It has already begun, but it must not cease. These are men of will, and they do not intend to fail.

William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two books - "War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in May 2003 from Pluto Press. He teaches high school in Boston, MA. Scott Lowery contributed research to this report.

Edited January 24, 2008 by yogib37

[joelunchbox 0]

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President ####### Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

___

Why is this still important? It shows that this administration will do what it wants regardless of any facts. Point in fact: the administration is holding secret meetings (luckily not as secret as they want) to set up a treaty that will keep us in Iraq indefinitely and even worse--is being written to keep the present Iraqi govt. in place. Yes, we will be defending a sitting political body for the first time in our history. Note: this is not a "treaty" because a formal treaty needs approval by the congress. this agreement WILL be binding because following presidents do not override their preceding agreements. This administration is out of control. If you don't look back and see how we got where we are today, you are .......something else.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Lol, Ok Gary. My claims have a public record. State of the Union Speech after State of the Union Speech only proves my point and paints your defense of the indefensible as exactly that.

Bull sh!t. Bad intel isn't a lie. But who cares. Saddam is out and that is all that matters. You can have all the sour grapes you want. It's kind of fun to watch the BDS people cry about it. So please carry on. In the end what I wanted to happen did happen.

Sure it is. If the specific information you chose to support your case had the least factual foundation and the most reservation from the folks in the industry. Why else would you use specific claims in speeches and public addresses that were already known to be false at the time you were relaying them?

Mavi, come up with some original stuff from your soul instead of some cheap azz regurgitated bullshite that you heard from somebody else.

Jesus man - what does even mean?

[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?

[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?

Its not. Unfortunately there are many, soft euphemisms to choose from... Fortunately, they all mean the same thing...

[Ban Hammer 14,268]

When Clinton sends off 3,000 plus soldiers to die in Iraq we'll talk in cartoons. That should steam you up but then again, "Bad intel isn't a lie. But who cares." Otherwise the joke about what is reality and what is a lie will continue to stare directly at you Gary.

But take it directly from the mouth of the liar:

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

WMDs... I remember when a leader was held accountable for what came out of his mouth.

so what you are saying is bush should have researched and verified all of the intel he was going to cite. right

[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.

[Fandango 1,440]

I love how the general cry is that Bush is a gormless idiot, yet he's also a criminal genius capable of having 'convinced the world of a lie' which also involved time travel before he was POTUS.

Priceless

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not the point that was made. Still we can all stick to our preconceived illusions.

[Fandango 1,440]

Not the point that was made. Still we can all stick to our preconceived illusions.

Are you talking to me? Cos it really is the meat and potatoes of things. For x amt of years now, that's all I've heard. Truth be told, I didn't even vote for Bush, and I was mad as hell that he got in. But at the end of the day, to focus on 'Bush lied ppl died' is disingenuous....Bush didn't defy Congress and go to war on his own...the whole gov't put us there. And if ppl were honest and acknowledged the fact that years leading up to the war, years without Bush, our politicians were chanting the same battle cry...well, then we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we?

That vid I posted....one of the last things that Bush said is v poignant to me....our soldiers should know that the people who sent them to war still stand behind that....instead of somehow 'pulling the wool over the eyes of many Americans' by putting the onus solely on Bush. Honestly, when ppl start with this mantra...it makes me wonder how intelligent they could be to totally ignore the facts and the documented proof of what actually went on, instead of churning out some bullsh!t that they were fed by the liberal politicians DESPITE what one could actually SEE providing (s)he actually opens his eyes.

There are none so blind as those who do not see....

[Jenn! 918]

Again with this so called Downing Steet Memo. A secret and unsubstanciated piece of political BS. If this were real the dems would have been all over it. But not one word of it here. Why is that? Because it isn't real. Is that all you got?

Actually, the political climate in the UK was far more skeptical about the whole BS war if you want to know the truth, which I doubt you do. There was a massive outcry by the ordinary people in the UK who objected wholeheartedly to the half truths that were being bandied about. The average UK Joe didn't believe that either war was inevitable or wise, nor did they believe that Sadam Hussein possessed the weapons to effect anyone other than his immediate neighbours. Despite these massive protest Tony Blair went against the popular will and sided with the US in this shoddy affair. That the Democrats in the US didn't take this seriously really has no bearing on what went on in the UK at that time.

I was in Italy at the time, and the atmosphere was very similar.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not the point that was made. Still we can all stick to our preconceived illusions.

Are you talking to me? Cos it really is the meat and potatoes of things. For x amt of years now, that's all I've heard. Truth be told, I didn't even vote for Bush, and I was mad as hell that he got in. But at the end of the day, to focus on 'Bush lied ppl died' is disingenuous....Bush didn't defy Congress and go to war on his own...the whole gov't put us there. And if ppl were honest and acknowledged the fact that years leading up to the war, years without Bush, our politicians were chanting the same battle cry...well, then we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we?

That vid I posted....one of the last things that Bush said is v poignant to me....our soldiers should know that the people who sent them to war still stand behind that....instead of somehow 'pulling the wool over the eyes of many Americans' by putting the onus solely on Bush. Honestly, when ppl start with this mantra...it makes me wonder how intelligent they could be to totally ignore the facts and the documented proof of what actually went on, instead of churning out some bullsh!t that they were fed by the liberal politicians DESPITE what one could actually SEE providing (s)he actually opens his eyes.

There are none so blind as those who do not see....

As I said earlier - the general public concensus in the UK and much of Europe during the time this was all being decided was that this was a fit-up job; and the subsequent revelations from so many different sources from within the govt and from members of outside agencies essentially reflect those opinions and suggest that real concerns were over-ridden or ignored to push for a policy that had been pre-determined and would be prosecuted regardless of any evidence produced to the contrary.

The fact is... there was significant doubt, and this was not addressed; and in the UK at least - it critically undermined people's confidence in the honesty of the Blair Govt.

Ignoring those concerns as something that are not worthy of a debate or public hearing, especially in light of the massive amount of public opposition that went on - both in this country and overseas... is disingenuous... IMO. It's also very telling to me that the folks he stick to their guns on this issue that it was all fine and above board - don't appear to have had exposure to perspectives beyond that which the United States corporate media chose to focus on. Stories that were scandalous in the UK, barely broke water over here.

[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.

[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.

[Peikko 1,575]

Another twaddle post by the meastro.