Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Intelligence Fuckups, and Condi

LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
edited April 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
Pants Man wrote: »
she's incredibly smart, speaks five languages, is an expert on foreign relations in eastern europe, seems to have the ability for developing nuanced opinions on certain matters (like abortion), and is generally held in high esteem among foreign leaders, but most of all, in a white house full of fuck ups, she manages to keep her head above the fray.

Well, there's also the fact that she lied her fucking ovaries off as part of the Bush administration selling the Iraq War to the public.

At this point she has about as much credibility as Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, George Tenet or just about anyone who helped beat the drums of war back in 2002.

Lawndart on
«1

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    she's incredibly smart, speaks five languages, is an expert on foreign relations in eastern europe, seems to have the ability for developing nuanced opinions on certain matters (like abortion), and is generally held in high esteem among foreign leaders, but most of all, in a white house full of fuck ups, she manages to keep her head above the fray.

    And yet so so incompetent at her actual jobs. Did the Bush Administration help our national security from January 2001 to January 2005? Have we accomplished any serious diplomatic successes that I'm not aware of from January 2005 to now? Or are we still largely viewed as being governed by a bunch of unilateral arrogant jackasses? You would think a competent chief diplomat might be able to do something about that.

    Or pay attention to the memo telling them that Bin Laden was determined to strike within in the US in August of 2001. I've also read that she was responsible for adding Iran and North Korea to the "axis of evil" a truly retarded action based purely to inspire hyperbolic fear in the American people.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    she's incredibly smart, speaks five languages, is an expert on foreign relations in eastern europe, seems to have the ability for developing nuanced opinions on certain matters (like abortion), and is generally held in high esteem among foreign leaders, but most of all, in a white house full of fuck ups, she manages to keep her head above the fray.

    Well, there's also the fact that she lied her fucking ovaries off as part of the Bush administration selling the Iraq War to the public.

    At this point she has about as much credibility as Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, George Tenet or just about anyone who helped beat the drums of war back in 2002.

    whatever. if you want to impeach every single person who supported that rhetoric, you might as well go after 95% of congress while you're at it. i'm more concerned with her activites as Sec of state, and by most accounts she's been pretty successful in an administration that kind of sucks ass

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    There's a difference between those who believed it and those who propagated it, and she is firmly in the latter camp.

  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Hoz wrote: »
    There's a difference between those who believed it and those who propagated it, and she is firmly in the latter camp.

    i don't think there is a difference if you're a legislator in the United States congress and voted for military action. if you make that vote, you're pretty much propagating it to the rest of the country.

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    she's incredibly smart, speaks five languages, is an expert on foreign relations in eastern europe, seems to have the ability for developing nuanced opinions on certain matters (like abortion), and is generally held in high esteem among foreign leaders, but most of all, in a white house full of fuck ups, she manages to keep her head above the fray.

    Well, there's also the fact that she lied her fucking ovaries off as part of the Bush administration selling the Iraq War to the public.

    At this point she has about as much credibility as Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, George Tenet or just about anyone who helped beat the drums of war back in 2002.

    whatever. if you want to impeach every single person who supported that rhetoric, you might as well go after 95% of congress while you're at it. i'm more concerned with her activites as Sec of state, and by most accounts she's been pretty successful in an administration that kind of sucks ass

    So she's off the hook for her activities as National Security Advisor?

    Also, lumping in Congress with the Executive branch when it comes to foreign intelligence and the advocacy of foreign policy decisions tends to ignore that one of those branches is responsible for actively gathering and parsing that intelligence.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2008
    To be really shallow: she's tainted.

    Smart totally qualified and all that, but she's got the stink of the Bush administration and I dunno if she'll ever be able to wash it off.

  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    There's a difference between those who believed it and those who propagated it, and she is firmly in the latter camp.

    i don't think there is a difference if you're a legislator in the United States congress and voted for military action. if you make that vote, you're pretty much propagating it to the rest of the country.
    What the fuck are you talking about? Propagating it to the rest of the country? The vote for authorization was preempted by months of public debate prodded forward by the Bush administration. The authorization was the final decision.

  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Also, lumping in Congress with the Executive branch when it comes to foreign intelligence and the advocacy of foreign policy decisions tends to ignore that one of those branches is responsible for actively gathering and parsing that intelligence.

    yeah, wouldn't it be awesome if congress had some sort of... oh i don't know... committee that paid attention to foreign policy and military intelligence or something?

    edit:
    Medopine wrote: »
    To be really shallow: she's tainted.

    Smart totally qualified and all that, but she's got the stink of the Bush administration and I dunno if she'll ever be able to wash it off.


    thanks for being honest.

    What the fuck are you talking about? Propagating it to the rest of the country? The vote for authorization was preempted by months of public debate. The authorization was the final decision.

    God, it must be so easy to think that the bush administration and the bush administration alone duped the entire country into a war under false pretenses. you're right, the congress was just a bunch of little toadies with no reason whatsoever to vote against military action.

    wait, how did obama vote on that?

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Also, lumping in Congress with the Executive branch when it comes to foreign intelligence and the advocacy of foreign policy decisions tends to ignore that one of those branches is responsible for actively gathering and parsing that intelligence.

    yeah, wouldn't it be awesome if congress had some sort of... oh i don't know... committee that paid attention to foreign policy and military intelligence or something?

    Yeah, wouldn't it be awesome if the Executive branch had some sort of group that was in charge of acquiring and processing foreign intelligence. Like, a Central Intelligence Agency? Or a Department of Defense?

  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    To be really shallow: she's tainted.

    Smart totally qualified and all that, but she's got the stink of the Bush administration and I dunno if she'll ever be able to wash it off.
    Basically this. Whatever her other accomplishments, she is the face of George W. Bush's diplomatic policy. That's a taint you don't get rid of with anything resembling simplicity, if it's possible to get rid of it at all.

    I have a blog. Read it. Blog-reading makes you pretty and popular.
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Also, lumping in Congress with the Executive branch when it comes to foreign intelligence and the advocacy of foreign policy decisions tends to ignore that one of those branches is responsible for actively gathering and parsing that intelligence.

    yeah, wouldn't it be awesome if congress had some sort of... oh i don't know... committee that paid attention to foreign policy and military intelligence or something?

    Yeah, wouldn't it be awesome if the Executive branch had some sort of group that was in charge of acquiring and processing foreign intelligence. Like, a Central Intelligence Agency? Or a Department of Defense?

    which is exactly my point. neither side has an excuse. there were obvious fuckups on both sides, and i'm not going to call condi rice a total lost cause because she made the same mistakes dozens of others both inside and outside of the bush administration made

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    God, it must be so easy to think that the bush administration and the bush administration alone duped the entire country into a war under false pretenses. you're right, the congress was just a bunch of little toadies with no reason whatsoever to vote against military action.

    wait, how did obama vote on that?
    I'm a little tired of competing with your ability to make blind inferences.

    Go pick up a book, or watch one of the many documentaries based upon this. Yes, the Bush administration was the force behind the push for war. Congress had as much do with advancing the war cause as it did in the execution of the planning, they merely served as enablers.

    And seriously, how is not being in congress when this debacle happened make Obama somehow comparable to Condoleezza Rice?

  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    whatever. if you want to impeach every single person who supported that rhetoric, you might as well go after 95% of congress while you're at it. i'm more concerned with her activites as Sec of state, and by most accounts she's been pretty successful in an administration that kind of sucks ass

    SOLD AMERICAN.

    Seriously, I'd be okay with canning everyone who voted for the war... or rather, hanging them out to dry so they lose their seats in primaries.

    Fuck, I could see that shit was a bad idea, and I'm just a private citizen with access to the internet. I knew Bush was lying, because he was saying the exact same shit his dad was saying when he lied to us about Panama.

    Condi... it's too bad. She seems like a nice lady, but the fact of the matter is, she thrived in an environment where good people who stuck to their morals were forced to resign. Hell, bad people who had one moment of conscience were forced to resign, too. She didn't say a damn word in protest of the war. She needs some time in the wilderness before she gets to legitimately run for elected office. Maybe build houses for Habitat for Humanity or work with the Peace Corps. She does that for a few years, I'll argue that she deserves a chance.


    Anyway.

    Mark Penn leaving the Clinton campaign? Was there violence? Please tell me there was violence.

    I won't believe that he's actually gone unless someone can produce his head.
    MrMister wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I think you guys are totally overreacting to that.

    Seriously. Although I think it would actually be interesting to compare how much time modern male candidates spend in hair and makeup compared to their female counterparts. I'd predict that the gap is still there, but smaller than it used to be.

    To be perfectly honest, Clinton is a little frightening without her makeup.

    Constant stress is not good for you.

    Gary Gygax wrote:
    ''The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.''
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Hoz wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    God, it must be so easy to think that the bush administration and the bush administration alone duped the entire country into a war under false pretenses. you're right, the congress was just a bunch of little toadies with no reason whatsoever to vote against military action.

    wait, how did obama vote on that?
    I'm a little tired of competing with your ability to make blind inferences.

    Go pick up a book, or watch one of the many documentaries based upon this. Yes, the Bush administration was the force behind the push for war. Congress had as much do with advancing the war cause as it did in the execution of the planning, they merely served as enablers.

    hahaha i love the "i refuse to explain myself, please read book A or watch movie B so that you may be as educated as i" argument


    in a wider sense, if what you're saying is the case, obama saying he's the only candidate who was against the war from the beginning sould be totally irrelevant


    edit:
    And seriously, how is not being in congress when this debacle happened make Obama somehow comparable to Condoleezza Rice?

    he's not comparable to her, i'm saying that if congress was duped like you said then who gives a fuck who voted for the war? if they were all pawns in the bush administration's game, then it doesn't matter who voted for what.

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »

    hahaha i love the "i refuse to explain myself, please read book A or watch movie B so that you may be as educated as i" argument
    I am explaining myself, quite clearly. And you aren't even refuting my explanations. All you're doing is showing your ability to assume the unsupported. I'm not telling you to read a book to support my case, only to give you a way out of your amazing amount of stupidity.
    Pants Man wrote: »
    he's not comparable to her, i'm saying that if congress was duped like you said then who gives a fuck who voted for the war? if they were all pawns in the bush administration's game, then it doesn't matter who voted for what.
    Did I claim they are not responsible for their votes? No, I simply refuted your claim that they are as responsible as Condoleezza Rice, one of the architects of the foreign policy where this shit originated from.

  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Hoz wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »

    hahaha i love the "i refuse to explain myself, please read book A or watch movie B so that you may be as educated as i" argument
    I am explaining myself, quite clearly. And you aren't even refuting my explanations. All you're doing is showing your ability to assume the unsupported. I'm not telling you to read a book to support my case, only to give you a way out of your amazing amount of stupidity.

    what explanations? that the bush administration was behind everything and that congress had no culpability because they were all fooled? what evidence have you offered to support this, other than "well i read something that says so, so there phhhbbbttt"?

    here's my refutation: there are SEVERAL congressional committees that have access to the EXACT SAME INTELLIGENCE that the bush administration had and used to drum up support for the war. they offered no critique, no argument, and no real opposition to war. you give them a free pass. i do not.

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    what explanations? that the bush administration was behind everything and that congress had no culpability because they were all fooled? what evidence have you offered to support this, other than "well i read something that says so, so there phhhbbbttt"?

    here's my refutation: there are SEVERAL congressional committees that have access to the EXACT SAME INTELLIGENCE that the bush administration had and used to drum up support for the war. they offered no critique, no argument, and no real opposition to war. you give them a free pass. i do not.
    Oh my fucking God.

    THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MANUFACTURED THE INTELLIGENCE.

    That is not comparable to seventeen people in congress reading it and voting for the war.

  • LykouraghLykouragh Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    I don't understand your argument here, Mr. Pants Man.

    Obama wasn't in the Senate, but he did speak out against the war.... so we should say that he is just as responsible for the war as senators who did vote to authorize the war?

    Edit: On second readthrough you seem to be just saying that Congress shares responsibility for the war. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Hoz wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    what explanations? that the bush administration was behind everything and that congress had no culpability because they were all fooled? what evidence have you offered to support this, other than "well i read something that says so, so there phhhbbbttt"?

    here's my refutation: there are SEVERAL congressional committees that have access to the EXACT SAME INTELLIGENCE that the bush administration had and used to drum up support for the war. they offered no critique, no argument, and no real opposition to war. you give them a free pass. i do not.
    Oh my fucking God.

    THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MANUFACTURED THE INTELLIGENCE.

    That is not comparable to fifteen people in congress reading it and voting for the war.

    oohhh so your argument is that it was a conspiracy, not a massive intelligence fuckup among several different governmental agencies

    well that's more fun to believe anyway

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Lykouragh wrote: »
    I don't understand your argument here, Mr. Pants Man.

    Obama wasn't in the Senate, but he did speak out against the war.... so we should say that he is just as responsible for the war as senators who did vote to authorize the war?

    i'm not even talking about obama.

    i'm saying that if the argument is that the iraq war is just some massive operation organized and perpetrated by the bush administration, using a vote for the war against any congressman doesn't hold water, because they were all fooled by bush and his cronies.

    you can't say "OH YEAH well yooouuu voted for the iraq war so you're wrong" if it was all a massive conspiracy organized by the bush administration alone


    edit:
    Anyway, Clinton on her worst day still isn't as scary as McCain and whatever the hell lives on his face.

    yeah no shit

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    what explanations? that the bush administration was behind everything and that congress had no culpability because they were all fooled? what evidence have you offered to support this, other than "well i read something that says so, so there phhhbbbttt"?

    here's my refutation: there are SEVERAL congressional committees that have access to the EXACT SAME INTELLIGENCE that the bush administration had and used to drum up support for the war. they offered no critique, no argument, and no real opposition to war. you give them a free pass. i do not.
    Oh my fucking God.

    THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MANUFACTURED THE INTELLIGENCE.

    That is not comparable to fifteen people in congress reading it and voting for the war.

    oohhh so your argument is that it was a conspiracy, not a massive intelligence fuckup among several different governmental agencies

    well that's more fun to believe anyway
    It was a massive intelligence fuckup originating in the executive branch caused by not merely incompetence, but individuals of poor intentions doing everything in their power to interfere with the process, and everyone else in the administration just remaining passive to the ordeal (some to a higher degree than others, Rice), and then going hogwild with the results to trumpet the cause of war (some to a higher degree than others, Rice).

  • JebuJebu Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    what explanations? that the bush administration was behind everything and that congress had no culpability because they were all fooled? what evidence have you offered to support this, other than "well i read something that says so, so there phhhbbbttt"?

    here's my refutation: there are SEVERAL congressional committees that have access to the EXACT SAME INTELLIGENCE that the bush administration had and used to drum up support for the war. they offered no critique, no argument, and no real opposition to war. you give them a free pass. i do not.
    Oh my fucking God.

    THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MANUFACTURED THE INTELLIGENCE.

    That is not comparable to fifteen people in congress reading it and voting for the war.

    oohhh so your argument is that it was a conspiracy, not a massive intelligence fuckup among several different governmental agencies

    well that's more fun to believe anyway

    There is evidence that there was a fair amount of cherry-picking in terms of finding intelligence that suited the preconceptions guys like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney had. See: the intelligence report about Saddam faking his weapons stockpile to fool his neighbors, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, the CIA's reaction to the dubious report Powell gave before the U.N. using evidence from "Curveball", etc, etc, etc.

    I wouldn't say it's a conspiracy so much as a bunch of people who thought invading Iraq was a good idea and didn't listen to any evidence that might contradict that.

  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Hoz wrote: »
    It was a massive intelligence fuckup originating in the executive branch caused by not merely incompetence, but individuals of poor intentions doing everything in their power to interfere with the process, and everyone else in the administration just remaining passive to the ordeal (some to a higher degree than others, Rice), and then going hogwild with the results to trumpet the cause of war (some to a higher degree than others, Rice).

    i mean, that kind of sounds like a conspiracy to me, but maybe we just have different definitions of the word

    edit:
    Jebu wrote: »
    There is evidence that there was a fair amount of cherry-picking in terms of finding intelligence that suited the preconceptions guys like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney had. See: the intelligence report about Saddam faking his weapons stockpile to fool his neighbors, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, the CIA's reaction to the dubious report Powell gave before the U.N. using evidence from "Curveball", etc, etc, etc.

    I wouldn't say it's a conspiracy so much as a bunch of people who thought invading Iraq was a good idea and didn't listen to any evidence that might contradict that.

    oh, i think there was a ton of cherry picking going on in the bush administration. but that doesn't excuse congress in the least.

    i think what happened is that there were various intelligence agencies who did an incredibly shitty job at communicating with each other, leaders of those intelligence agencies (Tenet) who jumped on the most explosive information they got because of being afraid of missing something that would lead to another attack, and members of both congress and the bush administration who took a hold of that incendiary information and ran with it.

    the vetting process SHOULD have started with the CIA and then continued through congress and the administration, but it didn't. at ALL of those levels there should havebeen a greater effort to examine the evidence available. the was a massive failure on all levels, and the American people even shoulder some of the blame.

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    It was a massive intelligence fuckup originating in the executive branch caused by not merely incompetence, but individuals of poor intentions doing everything in their power to interfere with the process, and everyone else in the administration just remaining passive to the ordeal (some to a higher degree than others, Rice), and then going hogwild with the results to trumpet the cause of war (some to a higher degree than others, Rice).

    i mean, that kind of sounds like a conspiracy to me, but maybe we just have different definitions of the word
    Well, by definition a conspiracy is unlawful. Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld rubbing their balls against every department in the executive branch isn't unlawful, it just produced extremely poor results (which these individuals were looking for to some degree).

    In conclusion, go read a book or watch one of a handful of Iraq war documentaries before acting like an authority on this. Seriously.

  • ZoolanderZoolander Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    It was a massive intelligence fuckup originating in the executive branch caused by not merely incompetence, but individuals of poor intentions doing everything in their power to interfere with the process, and everyone else in the administration just remaining passive to the ordeal (some to a higher degree than others, Rice), and then going hogwild with the results to trumpet the cause of war (some to a higher degree than others, Rice).

    i mean, that kind of sounds like a conspiracy to me, but maybe we just have different definitions of the word
    Oh please, the war was decided on before any information about WMDs or any other shit.

  • LykouraghLykouragh Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    My impression was that the Bush administration had, in fact, lied to Congress.

    The following is from Wikipedia's article on the legitimacy of the invasion;

    "The Bush administration initially suggested the discrepancy between the allegations and the subsequent findings was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it became apparent that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely disputed,[16] which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration. An in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies by the Senate Intelligence Committee was frustrated according to the New York Times.[17]"

    The citation leads here:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/opinion/07sun1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    That is a NY times article which seems to affirm the conclusion that Bush did not allow subcommittees in either the Senate or the House access to the intelligence data, which apparently stated firmly that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Lykouragh wrote: »
    That is a NY times article which seems to affirm the conclusion that Bush did not allow subcommittees in either the Senate or the House access to the intelligence data, which apparently stated firmly that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

    it's not that, it's that rumsfeld and others didn't like the analysis they were getting, so they used the analysis they did like (or wanted to hear). again, congress still got the information that the administration was using. why did they not do their own vetting of the information? i'm not saying that the bush administration doesn't have responsiblity here (or even most of it), but the congressional committees clearly did not do their jobs.

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • HarrierHarrier Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    what explanations? that the bush administration was behind everything and that congress had no culpability because they were all fooled? what evidence have you offered to support this, other than "well i read something that says so, so there phhhbbbttt"?

    here's my refutation: there are SEVERAL congressional committees that have access to the EXACT SAME INTELLIGENCE that the bush administration had and used to drum up support for the war. they offered no critique, no argument, and no real opposition to war. you give them a free pass. i do not.
    Oh my fucking God.

    THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MANUFACTURED THE INTELLIGENCE.

    That is not comparable to fifteen people in congress reading it and voting for the war.

    oohhh so your argument is that it was a conspiracy, not a massive intelligence fuckup among several different governmental agencies

    well that's more fun to believe anyway
    Yes, actually I do think it was a conspiracy. Bush and his merry men were gunning to go after Saddam from the day they got into office. I could smell it, and I was a 16-year-old Republican back then. I knew- knew- that when he started ramping up the rhetoric on Iraq after September 11th that we would be going to war with Iraq. It was a matter of when, not if.

    So yes, it was a conspiracy. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Our dogshit president and his shit-oozing cronies lied and manipulated us into a war so he could finish fucking the whore his father had to pull out of back in 91.

    I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Harrier wrote: »
    Yes, actually I do think it was a conspiracy. Bush and his merry men were gunning to go after Saddam from the day they got into office. I could smell it, and I was a 16-year-old Republican back then. I knew- knew- that when he started ramping up the rhetoric on Iraq after September 11th that we would be going to war with Iraq. It was a matter of when, not if.

    So yes, it was a conspiracy. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Our dogshit president and his shit-oozing cronies lied and manipulated us into a war so he could finish fucking the whore his father had to pull out of back in 91.

    i would rather people just say this and be honest than tiptoe around it

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2008
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Lykouragh wrote: »
    That is a NY times article which seems to affirm the conclusion that Bush did not allow subcommittees in either the Senate or the House access to the intelligence data, which apparently stated firmly that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

    it's not that, it's that rumsfeld and others didn't like the analysis they were getting, so they used the analysis they did like (or wanted to hear). again, congress still got the information that the administration was using. why did they not do their own vetting of the information? i'm not saying that the bush administration doesn't have responsiblity here (or even most of it), but the congressional committees clearly did not do their jobs.
    That committee oversees the intelligence departments, it doesn't oversee what the administration does with the intelligence. And what exactly do you think they could have done?

  • HarrierHarrier Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Harrier wrote: »
    Yes, actually I do think it was a conspiracy. Bush and his merry men were gunning to go after Saddam from the day they got into office. I could smell it, and I was a 16-year-old Republican back then. I knew- knew- that when he started ramping up the rhetoric on Iraq after September 11th that we would be going to war with Iraq. It was a matter of when, not if.

    So yes, it was a conspiracy. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Our dogshit president and his shit-oozing cronies lied and manipulated us into a war so he could finish fucking the whore his father had to pull out of back in 91.

    i would rather people just say this and be honest than tiptoe around it
    Well yes, I was getting frustrated as well. It's like the 'lie/misspoke' thing.

    I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Hoz wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Lykouragh wrote: »
    That is a NY times article which seems to affirm the conclusion that Bush did not allow subcommittees in either the Senate or the House access to the intelligence data, which apparently stated firmly that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

    it's not that, it's that rumsfeld and others didn't like the analysis they were getting, so they used the analysis they did like (or wanted to hear). again, congress still got the information that the administration was using. why did they not do their own vetting of the information? i'm not saying that the bush administration doesn't have responsiblity here (or even most of it), but the congressional committees clearly did not do their jobs.
    That committee oversees the intelligence departments, it doesn't oversee what the administration does with the intelligence. And what exactly do you think they could have done?

    oh, i don't know, maybe say "hey, we're getting this noise about WMD's from an administration that clearly is gunning for a war with iraq, why don't we do some fucking fundamental investigating as to how they arrived at these conclusions?"

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    I think they honestly thought there were WMDs in Iraq, they just didn't see the intelligence as an indicator of that so they made every effort to use it solely as a political tool.
    Pants Man wrote: »
    oh, i don't know, maybe say "hey, we're getting this noise about WMD's from an administration that clearly is gunning for a war with iraq, why don't we do some fucking fundamental investigating as to how they arrived at these conclusions?"
    I mean, wouldn't have that investigation been classified, due to the nature of the intelligence committee? In respect to the debate towards war, I don't think they could have done anything except give their fellow congressmen the heads up and hope they put stock in their opinions, which they obviously couldn't support.

  • JebuJebu Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    i think what happened is that there were various intelligence agencies who did an incredibly shitty job at communicating with each other, leaders of those intelligence agencies (Tenet) who jumped on the most explosive information they got because of being afraid of missing something that would lead to another attack, and members of both congress and the bush administration who took a hold of that incendiary information and ran with it.

    the vetting process SHOULD have started with the CIA and then continued through congress and the administration, but it didn't. at ALL of those levels there should have been a greater effort to examine the evidence available. the was a massive failure on all levels, and the American people even shoulder some of the blame.

    I pretty much agree with this. There was a massive failure of oversight on Congress' part, mostly because Republicans placed party above any other concern, and the Democrats were bloodied from the midterm elections and too fucking terrified to actually do anything. Basically the whole thing was a colossal failure of our entire government to actually do what it was set up to do. The media obviously didn't help either with its lack of oversight, but considering the public's favorable view on the invasion I have a hard time just saying it was the news networks since pretty much everyone is culpable.

  • TorgoTorgo Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    she's incredibly smart, speaks five languages, is an expert on foreign relations in eastern europe, seems to have the ability for developing nuanced opinions on certain matters (like abortion), and is generally held in high esteem among foreign leaders, but most of all, in a white house full of fuck ups, she manages to keep her head above the fray.

    In Hebrew slang, people made a new verb using her name to describe effectiveness. "Le condel", which means "To have a bunch of meetings, but to accomplish nothing." I don't think that's a vote of confidence about her foreign affairs credentials.

    :lol:

    History is a spoiler for the future. (Me on Twitter)
  • ElkiElki GOBS OF PUKE!!! YES!!!!!!!Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    i'm more concerned with her activites as Sec of state, and by most accounts she's been pretty successful in an administration that kind of sucks ass

    Um, what are those successes of hers?

  • LykouraghLykouragh Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Relevant to this topic:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030123-1.html

    She argues very convincingly, in Jan. 2003, that Iraq does indeed have WMD.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Elki wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    i'm more concerned with her activites as Sec of state, and by most accounts she's been pretty successful in an administration that kind of sucks ass

    Um, what are those successes of hers?

    The massive coalition we have in Iraq...

    The negotiations we successfully concluded with Iran...

    The respect we've gained on the world stage...

    The landmark global warming deal...

    The way we totally stabilized the Korean peninsula...

    The solution to the Israeli-Palestinean conflict...

    Or, as NSA!

    The WMDs we found in Iraq...

    The attack we stopped in early September, 2001...

    Stopping Saddam from cooperating with Al Qaeda as he's been doing since the early 90s...

    Oh wait, we did exactly the opposite of all of those things? And she was in charge of the responsible agencies? Ohhhh.

    Condi Rice is an incompetent hack, that she's perhaps slightly less incompetent than say, Donald Rumsfeld does not make her a brilliant figure.

    Hint: don't hire a Cold War expert after the Cold War ends.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2008
    There was no intel "fuckup." The Administration knew what the intel said and they decided to ignore it.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.