WMD and bad intel - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #61 11-22-2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

...Given that there was so much public intel and nobody else ever said he had nukes, I think he probably mispoke...

If you went on Meet the Press and made a false statement about nuclear weapons, would you wait 6 months to correct the record?

Quote:

...Cheney maybe lots o fthings, but he isn't incompetent...

I disagree. What has he ever accomplished, other than acquire power? The first Gulf War went well, but he had good help. Everything else he touches turns to poop. Just ask the shareholders at Halliburton. His big initiative as their CEO was to acquire Dresser Industries, complete with a great big asbestos liability.

He seems like a malevolent version of Peter Sellers' character in "Being There." It's like he's a total dumb ass who conveys an air of tremendous competence. He has no clue about the world around him but everyone thinks he's a genius.

For those who haven't seen "Being There", please do. It's one of Peter Sellers' best movies, and that's saying something. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078841/

Honus · #62 11-22-2005, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

That phrase is unambiguous. But if you put it in the context of the entire interview, then it becomes a bit more likely that he merely mispoke...

That's a reasonable interpretation, but two things cut against it.

First, you assume that Cheney gave a darn about whether his statement about nuclear weapons was consistent with the rest of his comments. He knows that people don't listen and don't pay attention. If he can slip an unambiguous claim about nukes into a discussion, he's going to take that opportunity.

Second, why did he wait 6 months to correct the record?

peragro · #63 11-22-2005, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

If you went on Meet the Press and made a false statement about nuclear weapons, would you wait 6 months to correct the record?I disagree. What has he ever accomplished, other than acquire power? The first Gulf War went well, but he had good help. Everything else he touches turns to poop. Just ask the shareholders at Halliburton. His big initiative as their CEO was to acquire Dresser Industries, complete with a great big asbestos liability.

He seems like a malevolent version of Peter Sellers' character in "Being There." It's like he's a total dumb ass who conveys an air of tremendous competence. He has no clue about the world around him but everyone thinks he's a genius.

For those who haven't seen "Being There", please do. It's one of Peter Sellers' best movies, and that's saying something. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078841/

What's definite is the guy can't win. He's blasted for being associated with Halliburton, now he's denigrated for not doing enough for Halliburton. Ironic that he doesn't own Halliburton stock yet is ridiculed for it and Mr. Moore and Al Gore both own Halliburton stock and aren't ridiculed for it.

I'm amazed that we see the same news programs and read the same stories.

peragro · #64 11-22-2005, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Second, why did he wait 6 months to correct the record?

because it seems evident to most people from the gist of the interview what he meant. It was only when disingenuous "reporters" began to make hay out of a ridiculuous point that there was any need for record correction.

Read the link Bot posted.

Southernstar · #65 11-22-2005, 09:11 PM

So now we begin to see who knew what and when.

The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.

One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.

The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Much of the contents of the September 21 PDB were later incorporated, albeit in a slightly different form, into a lengthier CIA analysis examining not only Al Qaeda's contacts with Iraq, but also Iraq's support for international terrorism. Although the CIA found scant evidence of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the agency reported that it had long since established that Iraq had previously supported the notorious Abu Nidal terrorist organization, and had provided tens of millions of dollars and logistical support to Palestinian groups, including payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.

Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.

boneheaddoctor · #66 11-22-2005, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

What's definite is the guy can't win. He's blasted for being associated with Halliburton, now he's denigrated for not doing enough for Halliburton. Ironic that he doesn't own Halliburton stock yet is ridiculed for it and Mr. Moore and Al Gore both own Halliburton stock and aren't ridiculed for it.

I'm amazed that we see the same news programs and read the same stories.

this is what happens when you are do indocrinated you only believe what NPR and Michael Moore tells you........

peragro · #67 11-22-2005, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southernstar

So now we begin to see who knew what and when.

The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.

One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.

The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Much of the contents of the September 21 PDB were later incorporated, albeit in a slightly different form, into a lengthier CIA analysis examining not only Al Qaeda's contacts with Iraq, but also Iraq's support for international terrorism. Although the CIA found scant evidence of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the agency reported that it had long since established that Iraq had previously supported the notorious Abu Nidal terrorist organization, and had provided tens of millions of dollars and logistical support to Palestinian groups, including payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.

Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.

Would you be so kind as to list your references and give credit where credit is due, to do otherwise is plagerism.

boneheaddoctor · #68 11-22-2005, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

Would you be so kind as to list your references and give credit where credit is due, to do otherwise is plagerism.

bet you its a shadey lefty publication.

Honus · #69 11-22-2005, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

What's definite is the guy can't win. He's blasted for being associated with Halliburton, now he's denigrated for not doing enough for Halliburton.

He can't win because he's a total dick.

He did plenty for Halliburton. His government contacts brought them lots of $$$. My comment was about what he did for the company by trying to exercise is own "judgment." That effort got them a great big asbestos liability.

During the 2000 VP debates they were talking about the merits of private sector versus public sector. Leiberman made a comment about how the private sector had treated Cheney quite well. Cheney ackowledged as much and said the government had nothing to do with it. I was amazed that he said it with a straight face. Did he really think that Halliburton paid him millions of dollars, despite having no work experience in their field, because of his ability? Is he that arrogant? Or that clueless?

Cheney had a great comeback line, BTW, about how he was going to do everything he could to ensure that Leiberman got an opportunity to work in the private sector.

Quote:

Ironic that he doesn't own Halliburton stock yet is ridiculed for it and Mr. Moore and Al Gore both own Halliburton stock and aren't ridiculed for it...

Do you really see that as a significant issue?

Quote:

I'm amazed that we see the same news programs and read the same stories.

Of course, you realize that's a two-way street.

Honus · #70 11-22-2005, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

because it seems evident to most people from the gist of the interview what he meant. It was only when disingenuous "reporters" began to make hay out of a ridiculuous point that there was any need for record correction.

Read the link Bot posted.

Silly me. All this time I thought that a false, unambiguous claim about nuclear weapons was a significant issue.

peragro · #71 11-22-2005, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Silly me. All this time I thought that a false, unambiguous claim about nuclear weapons was a significant issue.

I guess you were mistaken, glad I could help clear that up.

Botnst · #72 11-22-2005, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That's a reasonable interpretation, but two things cut against it.

First, you assume that Cheney gave a darn about whether his statement about nuclear weapons was consistent with the rest of his comments. He knows that people don't listen and don't pay attention. If he can slip an unambiguous claim about nukes into a discussion, he's going to take that opportunity.

Second, why did he wait 6 months to correct the record?

Did you read the dialogue? I did. It looked to me like he said at least two conflicting things. One was that Saddam was reconstituting a nuke weapons program and the other was reconstituting nuke weapons. He was asked to clarify and he went with the nuke weapons line. Later, he went back to nuke programs. maybe he was caught-up in the given and take of the Russert interview. Maybe he's the Prince of Darkness. I think our own biases play a greater role in that determination than the facts would lead.

Bot

Botnst · #73 11-22-2005, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

Would you be so kind as to list your references and give credit where credit is due, to do otherwise is plagerism.

Aparently you ask too much or maybe his antenna to Clear Lake needs adjustment.

Bot

Botnst · #74 11-22-2005, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

He can't win because he's a total dick....

I guess that would be the carefully reasoned argument you wish to set as an eaxample for me to follow.

B

Honus · #75 11-22-2005, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Did you read the dialogue? I did. It looked to me like he said at least two conflicting things. One was that Saddam was reconstituting a nuke weapons program and the other was reconstituting nuke weapons. He was asked to clarify and he went with the nuke weapons line. Later, he went back to nuke programs. maybe he was caught-up in the given and take of the Russert interview. Maybe he's the Prince of Darkness. I think our own biases play a greater role in that determination than the facts would lead.

Bot

Fair enough.