Pre-War Intelligence a 'Hoax on the American People' - Page 2

TGB! · 02-11-2006, 07:50 PM

It wasnt a pilot who said this - it was a former General under Saddam.

Also, WILKERSON is the one who made the charges of the "secret cabal" run by CHENEY, RUMMY and BUSH which - which was summarliy dismissed as bullshit because yanno. . .the man was never at these "secret meetings".

As for "common knowledge" - youre marrying two things into one, a logical error. You assume because the intel was bad, that it was known it was bad, and thus if it was known that it was bad then there must have been a conspiracy to present it as good - none of which you or anyone else has any proof of of course - other than that old chestnut "Bush is evil".

ninty · 02-11-2006, 08:55 PM

The intel was bad because it is false. The decision to go to war was made before the intelligence was there to support it. The intelligence was fabricated to justify the war, thus bad intelligence. Much like the fact the decision to invade Afghanistan was made months before 9/11.

Nyck · 02-11-2006, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty

Much like the fact the decision to invade Afghanistan was made months before 9/11.

...? oOo:
, they would have loved to, but would not have had any backing. Hell Clinton and Bush were chastised by some for not looking at the info in hand about al qaeda and not attacking untill provoked

"During the public hearings on March 23-24, it was Kerrey who adopted the most right-wing, pro-war stance, repeatedly suggesting in his questions and comments that both the Clinton and Bush administrations blundered by failing to invade Afghanistan before September 11, despite the admitted lack of public support for such an adventure."

Christ there would have been as much outrage for that venture as there is for Iraq.

Now I could believe that the decsion to invade Iraq was made before 9/11, but not afghanistan. I mean in all intents and purposes I think the only thing that the normal citizen of the US knew about afghanistan was that Rambo fought along side then against the russians in Rambo 3.

the 9/11 attacks themselves worked to nudge along support for the war on afghanistan.

IMO Afghanistan could basically be seen as 1st a pain in the ass hinderance to the war on iraq and then a basis for reasoning to do so.

ninty · 02-11-2006, 09:33 PM

[quote:82849]A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.[/quote:82849]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatu ... ctg=policy
http://www.janes.com/security/internati ... _1_n.shtml

[quote="Tony Blair":82849] "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11."
Tony Blair. July 17, 2002 [Guardian][/quote:82849]

[url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1036571,00.html"]http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 71,00.html[/url]

Nyck · 02-11-2006, 09:39 PM

I added to my post above.

Like you said.

the intelligence was there, Bin Laden was connected to the bombing of embassys overseas, Clintona and Bush would have LOVED to go after OBL, but there was no way that the US would have had the support to attack afghanistan prior to 9/11

I still say Iraq was option 1 in the Bush administration and Al Qaeda brought the shit storm on themselves by bringing its self to the fore front with the 9/11 attacks and pushing Iraq to the backburner.

ninty · 02-11-2006, 10:11 PM

I see Clinton/Kerry and bush two or three sides of the same coin.

Clinton shot a cruise missile at an aspirin factory to take the heat off himself and Kerry and Bush's voting patterns are practically identical. They are (were) protrayed as opposites, however I don't think there is really much difference between the two. Kerry and Bush both voted for the war, not to mention Skull & Bones. They have the same background.

The difference as I see it between a position like yours and a position like mine is you see the US trying to stop Al Qaeda before the attacks, then the attacks happen and then the US has justification to go forward. I see it as not a coincidence that the US wanted into Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran and then 9/11 happened.

TGB! · 02-11-2006, 10:46 PM

[quote:51ee3]
Clinton shot a cruise missile at an aspirin factory to take the heat off himself and Kerry and Bush's voting patterns are practically identical.[/quote:51ee3]

I wasnt aware Texas Govenors could vote in the Senate or House -

[quote:51ee3]The decision to go to war was made before the intelligence was there to support it.[/quote:51ee3]

A statement which you have ZERO proof to support, other than international "assumptions" and statements made by anonymous or foreign nationals. As soon as you get me a memo, or hell ANYTHING, domestic that CANT be refuted - Ill start singing the same "I Hate Bush" song you all seem stuck on.

Just because your bar is set ridiculously low in regards to evidence - doesnt mean everyone elses is.

[quote:51ee3]The intelligence was fabricated to justify the war, thus bad intelligence.[/quote:51ee3]

Again - zero proof.

[quote:51ee3]not to mention Skull & Bones.[/quote:51ee3]

Oh god - give me a fucking break. . .they are two white men with a shitload of money - whoope fucking doo. Comments like that only expose even further your absolute LACK of intelligence, understanding or clarity on the subject of American politics ninty.

ninty · 02-11-2006, 10:52 PM

1) Does the president not vote?
2&3) Reference Downing Street memos.
4) Can't deny many of those who go through S&B as well as other many freemason units are in extremly high places areound the world.

I'd rather not have a president who's sworn a blood oath to the devil or whatever god they worship. Migh be a conflict of interest. Oath to the clan, or oath to uphold the constitution.

c312 · 02-11-2006, 11:03 PM

I don't understand the significance of the DS memo

TGB! · 02-11-2006, 11:09 PM

[quote:99f59]1) Does the president not vote?[/quote:99f59]

He is the PRESIDENT - of course he doesnt vote.

[quote:99f59]2&3) Reference Downing Street memos.[/quote:99f59]

Who wrote the Downing Street memo? Where did it orginate? What did my reply say?

[quote:99f59]4) Can't deny many of those who go through S&B as well as other many freemason units are in extremly high places areound the world.[/quote:99f59]

And? It is a PRESTIGIOUS fraternity. . .why WOULDNT the rich and powerful have been in it. Its a strawman (and pretty damn ridiculous) argument. "Oh skull-and-bones - big old conspiracy! Oooga Booga!" Seriously.

[quote:99f59] I don't understand the significance of the DS memo[/quote:99f59]

There is ZERO significance. It is a foreign officials ASSESSMENT of SUPPOSED meetings between American and British officials. . .it is not an indictment of the two admins nor is it in anyway a smoking gun. But of course ANY official who comes out and says so-and-so lied, its treated as FACT, without the same scrutiny that Anti-Iraq-War blubberers seem to apply to other facets of the debate.

Short Hand · 02-11-2006, 11:15 PM

Fuck.. Powell could come out and tell us all this was a scam.. AND YOU still would be a beleiver to the end... This thread went in an akward direction. rolleyes:

TGB! · 02-11-2006, 11:20 PM

[quote="Short Hand":ac468]Fuck.. Powell could come out and tell us all this was a scam.. AND YOU still would be a beleiver to the end... This thread went in an akward direction. rolleyes:[/quote:ac468]

I think its been pretty much agreed - that you know fuck-all when it comes to knowing fuck-all. . .so why do you INSIST on picking up after NINTY's scraps? Seriously - has there ever been a SINGLE time youve argued something on your own without having someone co-sign for you?

c312 · 02-11-2006, 11:32 PM

I mean, i just read the Downing street memos and I'm not sure what it says, it doesn't seem to be that significant to me.

ninty · 02-12-2006, 01:35 AM

I guess it's pretty easy to justify either side of any topic when the response is always "that guy is lying" or deny things ever taking place.

Short Hand · 02-12-2006, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty

I guess it's pretty easy to justify either side of any topic when the response is always "that guy is lying" or deny things ever taking place.

Or play the "lets label this person an idiot game" rolleyes: . TGB will never change.