Faulty Intelligence?

[El_Guero]

OK . . .

You admit that the enemy:

Tried to assassinate a US President;

Desired WMD;

Said they were trying to gain WMD;

and were in violation of the terms of peace ending their first war against the free world.

So . . . why do you continue to support a theory that our president should be judged by intelligence that he did not have?

Being one of the VERY few that knew what was happening before it did, I find it ironic that I have more compassion for our government and their mistake than you do. I find it strange as well.

Faulty intelligence did come from the "enemy" (pre-invasion, could Iraq be considered the "enemy"?), but good intelligence came from our own intelligence agencies. This good intelligences was, um, adjusted and turned into faulty intelligence.

Should the President have relied on the best intelligence the CIA had, intelligence supplied by the enemy or the "alternative" pov? The President can be blamed for egregious lack of judgement.

I haven't seen any evidence that Saddam said he was working with or protecting al Qaeda.

The "enemy", if by enemy you mean Iraq, is not the culprit in this case.

I noticed.

 

[Daisy]

OK . . .

You admit that the enemy:

Tried to assassinate a US President;

Desired WMD;

Said they were trying to gain WMD;

Ok

and were in violation of the terms of peace ending their first war against the free world.

I don't know enough about this one to say one way or the other.

So . . . why do you continue to support a theory that our president should be judged by intelligence that he did not have?

I can't very well continue to do something I haven't done in the first place.

You don't seem to get the issue: the CIA gave the information and an underling in the Dept. of Defense produced an "alternate" report which was simply not supported by the evidence.

Being one of the VERY few that knew what was happening before it did,...

Psychic?

...I find it ironic that I have more compassion for our government and their mistake than you do. I find it strange as well.

It seems it was not a mistake - the evidence for the "alternate" report was altered to fit the forgone conclusion, judging by this Inspector General's report and the Downing Street memos (thanks, Poncho, for those links).

 

[poncho]

So the evidence was good enough to bomb a little but not a lot?

But that's not really the point, now, is it? As I pointed out, the issue is that the "faulty intelligence" was believed by more than Bush. It was believed by those who came before him, and by those in other nations.

Don't confuse things.

It is not presumptuous at all, when you change the topic that i addressed. The topic I addressed was that the intelligence Bush used was the same intelligence that Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and others all agreed on. It may have been faulty, but it was believed by many more than Bush who saw it.

So? That's not the point I was addressing. If you are going to address me, then address the point I made. It is a little presumptous for you to lecture me on the point I made, while ignoring it.

Great. Now try paying attention to the thread.

... Seriously, I have been a little smart aleck just having some fun here. But please pay attention to what I said. I was not talking about the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. I was talking about the reports of the existence of WMDs. They were believed by all.

Lets see here, the Bush's have publically claimed Bill Clinton is their adopted son, Gore was beholden to said adopted son and Kerry is a brother bonesman to G. H. W. Bush and G. W. Bush and they are all globalists. See any connections?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Lets see here, the Bush's have publically claimed Bill Clinton is their adopted son, Gore was beholden to said adopted son and Kerry is a brother bonesman to G. H. W. Bush and G. W. Bush and they are all globalists. See any connections?

No, not of any relevance.

 

[poncho]

No, not of any relevance.

:laugh: Thanks for not letting me down.

 

[Pastor Larry]

How is any of that relevant in the least? You have drawn a wierd conclusion from a concoction of relationships that have no bearing on the question at hand. (And then wonder why people don't take you seriously.)

 

[poncho]

How is any of that relevant in the least? You have drawn a wierd conclusion from a concoction of relationships that have no bearing on the question at hand. (And then wonder why people don't take you seriously.)

I'm sorry I didn't realize you asked a question. My bad. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Pastor Larry]

Then you should.

 

[poncho]

I should what? Oh nevermind.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You should wonder why people don't take you seriously. There is no reason tom take you seriously. These kind of nonsensical arguments that you tried to make above contribute nothing to intelligent discussion about issues. It is a political game. We deserve better.

And I am not worried about this trivial stuff. I find it humorous. You make me laugh as much as anyone I know. The fact that you can take a friendship between Bush 41 and Clinton, and the fact that a couple of people are in the same organization and turn it into globalist conspiracy is fit only for the improv. It is completely and absolutely absurd and that is why it is funny.

 

[poncho]

You should wonder why people don't take you seriously. There is no reason tom take you seriously. These kind of nonsensical arguments that you tried to make above contribute nothing to intelligent discussion about issues. It is a political game. We deserve better.

And I am not worried about this trivial stuff. I find it humorous. You make me laugh as much as anyone I know. The fact that you can take a friendship between Bush 41 and Clinton, and the fact that a couple of people are in the same organization and turn it into globalist conspiracy is fit only for the improv. It is completely and absolutely absurd and that is why it is funny.

Yer a barrel of laughs too PL. That's probably the only reason I keep coming back here.:laugh:

 

[Daisy]

You should wonder why people don't take you seriously. There is no reason tom take you seriously. These kind of nonsensical arguments that you tried to make above contribute nothing to intelligent discussion about issues. It is a political game. We deserve better.

And I am not worried about this trivial stuff. I find it humorous. You make me laugh as much as anyone I know. The fact that you can take a friendship between Bush 41 and Clinton, and the fact that a couple of people are in the same organization and turn it into globalist conspiracy is fit only for the improv. It is completely and absolutely absurd and that is why it is funny.

That was an exercise in pure gratuitous nastiness - off-topic and vicious.

Poncho makes more serious contributions than most here - plus he has a decent sense of humor.

Read the Downing Street Memos - they are no laughing matter.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

That was an exercise in pure gratuitous nastiness - off-topic and vicious.

Typical "Pastor" Larry! :BangHead:

 

[Rufus_1611]

That was an exercise in pure gratuitous nastiness - off-topic and vicious.

Poncho makes more serious contributions than most here - plus he has a decent sense of humor.

Read the Downing Street Memos - they are no laughing matter.

Typical "Pastor" Larry!

Amen two times.

 

[Pastor Larry]

That was an exercise in pure gratuitous nastiness - off-topic and vicious.

Where was I either gratiutous or nasty? I wasn't even off topic to a large degree. It was a direct response to what he said to me, that he later edited.

The truth is that there are people here who do not take Poncho seriously. There are people here who don't take me seriously. And that bothers me, somewhat. It should bother Poncho. It should bother everyone who is not taken seriously. You too, Daisy. That's not gratuitous or nasty.

Furthermore, note that my response was to what Poncho originally said, which he later apparently deleted. I wish he would have deleted it to begin with.

But it makes me wonder if you are so opposed to off topic posting, why you posted this response? Think about it. It does not have anything to do with the topic. It is a personal attack against me. ... I am not concerned by it, because I think your comments are misguided, but it does show that your concerns for being on topic and nice are not consistent. You violate them when you think it is warranted.

Poncho makes more serious contributions than most here - plus he has a decent sense of humor.

His contributions on conspiracy theory stuff are not serious. He may have a decent sense of humor, which is great. We need more people to take themselves less seriously here. I think if you and some other would take themselves less seriously, there would be far less vitriol. Unfortunately, some people jump on everything little thing.

Read the Downing Street Memos - they are no laughing matter.

That may be so.

Now, the question is will you rebuke Terry for his nasty and gratuitous insult against me ... that was off topic and vicious? Or do you reserve that only for people who disagree with you and have the audacity to say why? Let's wait and see. Terry is well known for personal attacks against those who disagree with him politically. He even wrote to me several years ago apologizing for his personal attacks against me, admitting that he had sinned by them. And now has returned to them. I don't quite understand that. But I do wonder if you will address his gratuitousness nastiness that was off topic and vicious.

How about Rufus? Will you rebuke him as well?

The fact that I disagree with Poncho or you or Terry or Galatian or some others on political issues doesn't mean that it needs to become nasty. I am not sure why you guys too often insist on taking it that way. I wish it wasn't so. I wish we could have a civil discussion on these things, even heated, without that kind of stuff.

Why do you guys believe that disagreement has to turn personal?

 

[El_Guero]

You are taking yourself and the trolls too seriously.


Don't go thinking that this means I agree with you. I seldom do.

Where was I either gratiutous or nasty? I wasn't even off topic to a large degree. It was a direct response to what he said to me, that he later edited.

The truth is that there are people here who do not take Poncho seriously. There are people here who don't take me seriously. And that bothers me, somewhat. It should bother Poncho. It should bother everyone who is not taken seriously. You too, Daisy. That's not gratuitous or nasty.

Furthermore, note that my response was to what Poncho originally said, which he later apparently deleted. I wish he would have deleted it to begin with.

But it makes me wonder if you are so opposed to off topic posting, why you posted this response? Think about it. It does not have anything to do with the topic. It is a personal attack against me. ... I am not concerned by it, because I think your comments are misguided, but it does show that your concerns for being on topic and nice are not consistent. You violate them when you think it is warranted.

His contributions on conspiracy theory stuff are not serious. He may have a decent sense of humor, which is great. We need more people to take themselves less seriously here. I think if you and some other would take themselves less seriously, there would be far less vitriol. Unfortunately, some people jump on everything little thing.

That may be so.

Now, the question is will you rebuke Terry for his nasty and gratuitous insult against me ... that was off topic and vicious? Or do you reserve that only for people who disagree with you and have the audacity to say why? Let's wait and see. Terry is well known for personal attacks against those who disagree with him politically. He even wrote to me several years ago apologizing for his personal attacks against me, admitting that he had sinned by them. And now has returned to them. I don't quite understand that. But I do wonder if you will address his gratuitousness nastiness that was off topic and vicious.

How about Rufus? Will you rebuke him as well?

The fact that I disagree with Poncho or you or Terry or Galatian or some others on political issues doesn't mean that it needs to become nasty. I am not sure why you guys too often insist on taking it that way. I wish it wasn't so. I wish we could have a civil discussion on these things, even heated, without that kind of stuff.

Why do you guys believe that disagreement has to turn personal?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Don't go thinking that this means I agree with you. I seldom do.

Don't worry ... I know you don't. And I am okay with that.


Too seriously? Perhaps. But it seems to me to go to the heart of communication and exchange. The reality is that what goes on in this news forum is not going to change the world. World-changers aren't participating here. But it is fun to read, to mix it up a little bit, to disagree or agree, and then be done with it and move on to something else.

 

[Daisy]

Where was I either gratiutous or nasty? I wasn't even off topic to a large degree. It was a direct response to what he said to me, that he later edited.

It was both gratuitous and nasty - personal attacks by definition are. It was off-topic as the topic is the report, not a fellow poster. If he rethunk his post, more credit to him.

The truth is that there are people here who do not take Poncho seriously. There are people here who don't take me seriously. And that bothers me, somewhat. It should bother Poncho. It should bother everyone who is not taken seriously. You too, Daisy. That's not gratuitous or nasty.

It is gratuitous and nasty to point it out about a particular person. You can say that you find his post laughable if you point out exactly why, but not him.

Furthermore, note that my response was to what Poncho originally said, which he later apparently deleted. I wish he would have deleted it to begin with.

Perhaps you ought to have either quoted him, deleted your response or gone to PM - all anyone sees is your vicious attack posts and his mild response.

But it makes me wonder if you are so opposed to off topic posting, why you posted this response?

I'm opposed to personal attacks.

You are the one who has throughout this thread objected to what you've falsely claimed to be off-topic, so when your post is truly off-topic, it's, um, unintentionally ironic.

Think about it. It does not have anything to do with the topic. It is a personal attack against me. ... I am not concerned by it, because I think your comments are misguided, but it does show that your concerns for being on topic and nice are not consistent. You violate them when you think it is warranted.

This is not a personal attack on you, this is an attack on your post. I said your post was vicious and nasty, not that you were. Do you see the difference between criticizing someone's post (good) and criticizing someone's personality (bad)?

Now, the question is will you rebuke Terry for his nasty and gratuitous insult against me ... that was off topic and vicious?

You have a valid point there. It actually does bother me, but I'm not the posting police.

How about Rufus? Will you rebuke him as well?

He didn't attack you.

The fact that I disagree with Poncho or you or Terry or Galatian or some others on political issues doesn't mean that it needs to become nasty. I am not sure why you guys too often insist on taking it that way. I wish it wasn't so. I wish we could have a civil discussion on these things, even heated, without that kind of stuff.

All I can suggest is to be careful of your own tone and to try not responding in kind to attacks on yourself - break the cycle.

It's hard and it's something I am trying to work on myself.
[/derail]

In light of this report and the Downing Street memos, the administration is going to have a hard sell in attacking Iran.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It was both gratuitous and nasty - personal attacks by definition are.

Then describe how. The truth is that it was neither. As you say below, look for the difference between attacking a post or idea, and attacking a person.

It was off-topic as the topic is the report, not a fellow poster.

He made a silly comment on the relationship between Bush 41, Clinton, Kerry, etc. That was off topic of the report, but my comments were on the topic of his comment.

If he rethunk his post, more credit to him.

Of course. But unfortunately he did it after I had responded. And thus I did not have time to edit my post to reflect his changed comments.

It is gratuitous and nasty to point it out about a particular person.

No, it’s not.

You can say that you find his post laughable if you point out exactly why, but not him.

I did point out why his post was laughable when I said You have drawn a wierd conclusion from a concoction of relationships that have no bearing on the question at hand..
I didn’t say he was laughable. I said he made me laugh. Perhaps you should go back and read more carefully before accusing me of calling someone laughable. I think many issues get started here because people do not read closely. And you have done just that.

Perhaps you ought to have either quoted him, deleted your response or gone to PM - all anyone sees is your vicious attack posts and his mild response.

No one saw a vicious attack because there wasn’t one. And I didn’t quoted him because typically, when you are responding to a complete post, and your post in the very next one, you typically don’t quote it.

I'm opposed to personal attacks.

Then why did you make one against me, calling my response gratuitous, nasty, and vicious, when it was none of the above?

You are the one who has throughout this thread objected to what you've falsely claimed to be off-topic, so when your post is truly off-topic, it's, um, unintentionally ironic.

Here again, you simply did not read closely. When you go back and read the thread, you will see that I commented on a very specific part of the report, namely, the virtually unanimous opinion that Iraq had WMDs. That was half of what you cited in the OP. You jumped in then and said that I was off topic. All you need to do is go back and read your OP, and see that what I said was on topic. Bush's warning that "Hussein had stockpiles of banned biological and chemical weapons" (quote from your OP) was almost universally accepted. And that was the point of my posts.

You have a valid point there. It actually does bother me, but I'm not the posting police.

Why didn’t you figure that out before you made false charges against me?

He didn't attack you.

He agreed with Terry, and you said Terry’s post bothers you. So why doesn’t Rufus’s agreement with it bother you? Isn’t that kind of inconsistent?

All I can suggest is to be careful of your own tone and to try not responding in kind to attacks on yourself - break the cycle.

I do. I have fun here. It is never personal. I do hate it when people misread things and I watch very carefully to not misread. There are times I start a post and then in reading it, I realize that I have misread something and so I don’t post it.

In light of this report and the Downing Street memos, the administration is going to have a hard sell in attacking Iran.

I don’t think there is any need to attack Iran at the moment, unless it is true that they are supplying arms to the Iraqi insurgents. In that case, I may be in favor of selected air strikes on weapons factories.

But I don’t think the Downing Street memos have anything to do with that.

 

[Daisy]

[***derailing comments omitted ***]

I don’t think there is any need to attack Iran at the moment, unless it is true that they are supplying arms to the Iraqi insurgents. In that case, I may be in favor of selected air strikes on weapons factories.

But I don’t think the Downing Street memos have anything to do with that.

Have you read them?

They don't have anything to do with Iran, but they do show that the WH decides the action first and seeks justification second.

The second link Poncho posted is also revealing and disheartening.