Even with your caveots, I think this is a great compliment, thank you. It is all anyone should ever ask of anybody. I try to look at everything outside of my own sphere. Some people have good ideas that I don't agree with; some are just too nutty to worry with.

Example: Limbaugh sometimes can make sense with a few qualifications, Michael Savage is on planet Bizzarro and that blonde headed bimbo (I even tried to read her book) (what the hell is her name??? Laura something) Well, I couldn't get past the first 2 pages. But, Billy Crystal can make sense. I listen to republican members of congress, some very conservative, and I think, OK, I don't agree with every word, but I see where they are coming from. McCain falls into that camp, Rudy, too, Specter, Warner, even (and this will surprise you) Newt. Newt is smart. Again, I don't buy everything he's selling, but he has some truths.

I wonder what the rest of Joe User thinks when they read a pretty liberal guy write "Newt is Smart"?

Ummm - that is incorrect. he is tax and spend alright, but hardly a conservative (perhaps a Christian conservative, but not fiscal).



I cannot speak for all, but when I see honest rhetoric from a member of the left, I immediately brand them as dangerous!

Seriously, we have one here (who has become infrequent of late) named Stevendedalus. I do not put you into that camp, because from your writings to date, I think you really are centrist.

Conservative point taken. Gotta run! Maybe later this evening some other members will read what we've written and go off on both of us. That'd be way cool! I'm sure it's coming.... if not, I'll write another, um, post.

That's as black and white as it gets.  

We can argue "sufficient" & "all" forever - if someone is unhappy with results or things turn out not as anticipated, then by definition the intel was "not sufficient." The problem is it's never sufficient by after-the-fact standards.

Bingo! And in many cases that is what the detractors will judge one by. Regardless of the sanctitiy of the person.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
President Bush, State of the Union Address. The CIA knew this was not true AS THE PRESIDENT SAID IT. Later, the statement was retracted by the Administration.

Remember the leaked British Memo, shortly after the 2004 elections, that the Bush administration tailored intel to make the case for invasion? Remember the "unamed Whitehouse Official" that said, "yup, that's the case" and supported the memo? We now know that offical was Slam Dunk Tenet.

Things "didn't turn out as anticipated" because the facts were forced, from the beginning, to fit the hypothesis. We came up with the outcome and action plan first, and then tried to justify it with shaky intelligence. We relied on (and I can't remember his name, Chaleb?)an Iraqi exhiles for intelligence, people who hadn't been in the country since the first Iraq war, and who later was arrested and discredited. (didn't he accept money from the oil for food program while playing the Bush administration?)

I would suggest we had NO evidence to go into Iraq that wasn't later refuted. Which is why we found no WMDs. AND AT THE TIME THESE PLANS WERE DRAWN UP, THERE WERE INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS WHO SAID THE SAME THING. THEY WERE IGNORED BY THE ADMINISTRATION. David Kay was amazed when he started his inspections after the war began at the flimsy evidence and 10 year old lists. He couldn't even get anyone within the CIA to prioritize target zones to a "high, medium or low" probability of finding WMD's. The reason, he later concluded, is the intelligence was terrible.

For all these reasons, this admistration failed terribly.

I don't care how sanctimonious a person is, if they tailor intelligence to fit their hypothesis, they are not acting in good faith. They are only hearing what they want to hear. They are ignoring every other option. That is not a great leader.

Erm, no. The Brits still stand by that, and last I heard, the president has not called them liars. You are confusing perhaps Joe Wilson with Tony Blair?



Agreed. But then it appears we (the royal one) are believing those we want to, not those that may be right. Truth is no one knows the latter yet. And more truth is that you last statements were dependant upon sides that support your view - with no more validity than the opposing sides.

The leaked British memo has already been shown (to those who want to believe it) to be a fake. The Brits stand by their Intel on Saddam to this day. Now, again, refer to Daiwa's statement. Both may be true. Some say they are. The principals deny it. The Truth? may never be known, but the belief is with which side you are on.

Ummm, no. Bush retracted the statement. It was a big-to-do.

Dude,
I don't think anyone, even bush, thinks the intel on this was either right or good. He'd say it's the best we could do, I don't think so given what all the other people I've cited have said. If it's the best we can do, I don't have to worry about being audited on my taxes. Man, they suck.

"The committee chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts, said he believed last year that the White House was correct in repudiating the uranium claim. "Now I don't know whether it's accurate or not. That's the whole question," Roberts, a Republican, said in an interview."
From CBS news. Originally, there was more in the state of the union about the urnanium. The CIA (according to the Washington Post) yanked most of it for lack of evidence. They meant for all of it to be yanked, but it wasn't. Later, weasel press secretary said it was left in by accident.

Dude! (is that the velvet glove approach for jousting?)

I said the Brits still stand by it. And Bush has not repudiated it, just toned it down. To the effect that (PC here) "It should not have been emphasized". Just more PC BS. The spinmeisters are having a field day, but when you go to the words, basically what is being said is nothing. "I thought that the evidence could have been but may not have occurred during the duration of said time frame in a manner beffitting my earlier statement, to be in the realm of what some would believe to be......"

But you know what this whole debate is doing? Validating Daiwa's post. We know more, but know we know not all yet. And knowing that we know not all yet, we know that it is still debatable. Facts are not. Hypothesis are.

We know more, but know we know not all yet. And knowing that we know not all yet, we know that it is still debatable. Facts are not. Hypothesis are.

Hypothesis are debatable. Yes. But what David Kaye has said on the intel I take as fact. Why? He's the boots on the ground who was sent to gather the facts by Bush. It's hard to argue with what he says about the state of the intelligence. He saw the intelligence. He had to try to use the intelligence to find the WMDs. He couldn't. He said the intelligence on WMD's was horrible.

It is this presentation of evidence not properly vetted, (of which the yellow cake is a good example) AS FACT that makes this President one of the worst ever. Read the quote. He didn't say "we suspect", or "we have evidence that suggests". He said

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

THAT'S presenting conjecture, hypothesis as fact: and as a justification for war.

Yes. But what David Kaye has said on the intel I take as fact. Why? He's the boots on the ground who was sent to gather the facts by Bush. It's hard to argue with what he says about the state of the intelligence.

And when I trot out my boots in the ground, what then?  yes, they are there.  And as opposite yours as are some of my opinions.  That is the bugga boo of trusting others when others can trump your facts with their facts which are not facts, just opinions.  yes some say as yours do. And some say as Mine do.  And in the end, it is just our derriere.  In who we believe.

Quite frankly this argument is the tired old one, and one I will not go down here.  As I have already too many times.  Who you beleive and who I believe is the sticking point and the point of non-debate as it is not facts we are debating but credibility and neither of us know who is lying and who is truthful.  And who wants to sell a book.

That is the bugga boo of trusting others when others can trump your facts with their facts which are not facts, just opinions. yes some say as yours do. And some say as Mine do. And in the end, it is just our derriere. In who we believe.

Yes, but I told you who my sources who say the intel was poor. They are pretty impressive sources. Who says the intel was good? Name one person. That's all I ask. Who says the intel was thorough, comprehensive, and en pointe? Rumsfeld? Rice? Powell? Armitage? I think even they admit the intel lacking. And that's my only point. It IS lacking. Not opinion, fact. If you believe otherwise, God himself coming off the mountain wouldn't move your opinion, and certainly not this poor sinner. I think even Bush has come to understand he made an error here.

I site sources. I quote them. Quote someone, since the war began, who says the intel was en pointe, without qualifications.