Well, Mikebutler222,

I could swear that I said that Tenet's credibility as a witness is suspect to say the best. He twists the story to whichever way suits his POV at the time.

Did you see him on 60 Minutes? http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id= 2739654n

Mikebutler222, They constantly tied Iraq to Al Queda even though there was no evidence of it. Even the administration admits that this was wrong, right before they claim that they never tried to make the connection and that, right before they imply it again.

You may want to think that this White House is simply inept and stupid enough to have been duped by malefactors outside of their control. I chose to not believe that. I chose to believe that they were complicit in the orchestration of a deliberate disinformation campaign. That's lying. It's different if you are wrong by accident, that's not what happened here.

As to Bill Moyers, did you watch the program? Did you read the transcript? I do think he's done some really dumb stuff (the whole thing with Joseph Campbell for example) but that doesn’t mean that he has no journalistic integrity and his chronicling it certainly doesn't discount the work done by Knight Ridder contemporaneously with the build up to the war.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Mikebutler222, They constantly tied Iraq to Al Queda even though there was no evidence of it. [/quote]

"No evidence" of an Al Qaeda/Saddam link? Wanna re-state that before I bring in the 9/11 commission and other sources who say otherwise? There most assuredly was an Al Qaeda/Saddam link. In fact, one thing we’ve learned, post-invasion, is how wrong the “Saddam and Al Qaeda are mortal enemies who would be at each other‘s throats” theorists were.

BTW, guess who is was announced recently that the US had captured in Iraq? Let me give you a hint, former officer in Saddam’s Iraqi army, Al Qaeda leader, mastermind of the 7/7 bombing in London…..

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]You may want to think that this White House is simply inept and stupid enough to have been duped by malefactors outside of their control. I chose to not believe that. [/quote]

Why would I want to believe that and what evidence is there of this? How about the simplest, most supported by evidence third choice, which is that US intelligence agencies believed, going back to the mid-1990s and with good reason, that Saddam was hiding WMDs and that‘s why he refused full and free inspections for better than a decade?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]I chose to believe that they were complicit in the orchestration of a deliberate disinformation campaign. That's lying. It's different if you are wrong by accident, that's not what happened here. [/quote]

An interesting false choice you offer there. And, again, the “lies” thing is an interesting claim, but one that continues to go unsupported. In fact, if you like, I can provide you with mountains of quotes from Democrats saying the same things about Saddam and WMDs that Bush said long before he came to office. I can provide mountains of quotes from Democrats with access to the same to intel reports as Bush, saying the same things about Saddam and WMDs in 2002 and 2003. Do we need to go down that route?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]As to Bill Moyers, did you watch the program? Did you read the transcript? [/quote]

I read the transcript of PBS's favorite liberal polemist. You can't possibly believe he did anything more than preach to the choir. He even raises that hoary “and they tried to link 9/11 and Saddam”, insinuating that the “link” was Saddam’s involvement in 9/11 and not the legitimate question of how we should view Saddam and the threat he posed differently in a post 9/11 world.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]... doesn’t mean that he has no journalistic integrity...... [/quote]

Please, don't embarrass yourself. It's like directing me to a Michael Moore "documentary"...

"No evidence" of an Al Qaeda/Saddam link? Wanna re-state that before I bring in the 9/11 commission and other sources who say otherwise? There most assuredly was an Al Qaeda/Saddam link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun 16.html

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

 Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

Why would I want to believe that and what

evidence is there of this?

If there is a third choice between 1. They are liars and 2. They were fooled, I'll be glad to give it the consideration it deserves.

An interesting false choice you offer there.

It's not a choice that I offer it's a statement of  fact. It is a fact that I chose to believe that "they were complicit in the orchestration of a deliberate disinformation campaign." is a statement of what I believe, you are free to believe anything else.

"How about the simplest, most supported by evidence third choice, which is that US intelligence agencies believed, going back to the mid-1990s and with good reason, that Saddam was hiding WMDs and that‘s why he refused full and free inspections for better than a decade?"

And yet they couldn't prove it, and so they made up "facts" and spoke in absolutes and insisted on the veracity of those made up "facts". If I use those techniques, I wind up in arbitration, and out of the business. If they use these techniques...

"that Saddam was hiding WMDs and that‘s why he refused full and free inspections for better than a decade"

This is a case of convicting someone because he refuses testify against himself. 

I can provide mountains of quotes from Democrats

As if this makes a difference. I've said before, truth is not about what the majority thinks it is what it is (that's why they call it  "The Truth".)

Not that you thought so, but you are not talking to someone who came recently to the idea that invading Iraq was wrong. I'm no fan of the Dems who were wrong either so quote away, their opinions mean as little to me as they do to you.

with access to the same to intel reports as Bush,

No, not really, not the same access and not the same intel and they didn't get to see the intel that contradicted the intel they were seeing. (Granted, Clinton may have seen some of the same intel, but rank and file  Dems did not). The yellowcake receipt is an example. It was presented as a "proved document" but when the document itself is seen, it's an obvious fake (according to people who have seen it.) The fact of it's existence was presented. If you had only that (and nothing else) to go on, you might reasonably conclude that there is a clear and present danger (especially if you didn't know how ridiculous it was to think that Saddam had this "Underground civilization" where he had unlimited acces to power and infrastructure and was able to hide this underground country from spying eyes, but the Kurds knew all about it, even where they were!).

He even raises that hoary “and they tried to link 9/11 and Saddam”, insinuating that the “link” was Saddam’s involvement in 9/11 and not the legitimate question of how we should view Saddam and the threat he posed differently in a post 9/11 world.

That is goalpost moving.

Please, don't embarrass yourself. It's like directing me to a Michael Moore "documentary"...

"If A is not equal to B then A equals Not B" "If Bill Moyers has a "Liberal bias" then everything that is associated with Bill Moyers inaccurate." Sorry, Mikebutler222, that's just not a logical conclusion. 

Mike just agree… People who want us to fail only view the war as Al-Queada, Oil and WMD. Each week there is a new topic for them to focus on for their political gain.



So what the terrorists in the North East corner of Iraq were Al-Quadai…:). That is not Al-Quada.



So what Saddam paid 20,000 for each Marter who killed them selves in Isreal. It was not Al-Queada.



So what Saddams people killed and raped 10’s of thousands when they attacked Kuwait. He was just a misguided youth.



So what Saddam used chemicals against the Kurds and Iranians, he wsa just protecting the Sunnies. He also wanted every Kurd dead, but thats just a minor detail that people don’t like to talk about.



Did Saddam break 18 UN resolutions and we finally had a leader who wanted to take a pro-active approach against terrorism… YES… Was this after 10 massive attacks around the world and a ton of questions when the next attack was going to happen… I think so.



Did the stars align and we accomplish the perfect war. NO!



Have we killed or captured 95% of Al-Queada or any other idiot/leader who wants to associate with this organization… YES.



The big picture is FUKC the media. Our military is disgusted by the press. As we fight and kick some butt the media supports the enemy and the quest to lose. THEY SUCK…



It amazes me how they use people like Sheehan and Tilman family to support their agenda. Either way another Al-Queada or Talaban leader dies daily so cheers to that!

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] [quote=mikebutler222] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"No evidence" of an Al Qaeda/Saddam link? Wanna re-state that before I bring in the 9/11 commission and other sources who say otherwise? There most assuredly was an Al Qaeda/Saddam link. [/quote]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun 16.html

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
<?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. [/quote]

We’re all familiar with how the press ran with this and how “No links” was turned into “no collaborative relationship” (which any five year old knows isn’t the same thing) AND we remember how, after the press made a big thing of this the two Co-Chairmen of the 9/11 Commission (one Democrat, one Republican) said there was no disagreement between the Whitehouse and the Commission and how they couldn’t understand the hub-bub in the press.

Do you need me to produce the quotes from Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton?  Do you need me to produce the “Saddam and Al Qaeda were mortal enemies who would never meet” line from the administration critics that’s been proved to be fiction?

[quote=mikebutler222]

An interesting false choice you offer there.[/quote]

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

It's not a choice that I offer it's a statement of  fact. It is a fact that I chose to believe that "they were complicit in the orchestration of a deliberate disinformation campaign." is a statement of what I believe, you are free to believe anything else. [/quote]

It is a false choice you offered between being “ duped by malefactors outside of their control” or the “orchestration of a deliberate disinformation campaign” when there’s an obvious and logical third choice.  If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand the definition of the term.

No one’s said you’re not free to believe something that completely lacks evidentiary support.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] [quote=mikebutler222]

"How about the simplest, most supported by evidence third choice, which is that US intelligence agencies believed, going back to the mid-1990s and with good reason, that Saddam was hiding WMDs and that‘s why he refused full and free inspections for better than a decade?"[/quote]

And yet they couldn't prove it, and so they made up "facts" and spoke in absolutes and insisted on the veracity of those made up "facts". If I use those techniques, I wind up in arbitration, and out of the business. If they use these techniques...[/quote]

If you want to equate the process of arbitration to the risk the nation faced with the possibility of Saddam having those WMDs we had every reason to believe he was hiding, fine. Sounds pretty illogical to me.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] [quote=mikebutler222]

"that Saddam was hiding WMDs and that‘s why he refused full and free inspections for better than a decade"[/quote]

This is a case of convicting someone because he refuses testify against himself. [/quote]

Wow, now there’s the non-sequitar from Hell. This wasn’t a court proceeding. Saddam didn’t have 5th amendment rights. He had agreed to full and open weapons inspections after GW1, and for 11 years he had failed to allow them.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] [quote=mikebutler222]

I can provide mountains of quotes from Democrats[/quote]

As if this makes a difference. I've said before, truth is not about what the majority thinks it is what it is (that's why they call it  "The Truth".) [/quote]

Of course it makes a difference because it knocks down your “Bush lied” theory when people outside his administration and people in the previous administration looked at the same intelligence information and reached the same conclusions about Saddam having WMDs and the danger is posed to the nation.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] [quote=mikebutler222]

with access to the same to intel reports as Bush,[/quote]

No, not really, not the same access and not the same intel and they didn't get to see the intel that contradicted the intel they were seeing. (Granted, Clinton may have seen some of the same intel, but rank and file  Dems did not). [/quote]

Clinton did, and members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees (like Jay Rockefeller who called Saddam an “imminent threat” did.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] The yellowcake receipt is an example. It was presented as a "proved document" but when the document itself is seen, it's an obvious fake (according to people who have seen it.) [/quote]

You have the chorology wrong. The British believed Saddam had feelers in Niger long before any forged document surfaced. They believed Saddam DID have people contact Niger officials, something even Joe Wilson reported after his “sweet tea” visit there. Now, what export does Niger have beside yellow cake? Nada.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] [quote=mikebutler222]

 He even raises that hoary “and they tried to link 9/11 and Saddam”, insinuating that the “link” was Saddam’s involvement in 9/11 and not the legitimate question of how we should view Saddam and the threat he posed differently in a post 9/11 world.[/quote]

That is goalpost moving. [/quote]

Absolutely not. In fact, contrary to Moyer’s claims, not only did members of the administration not connect Saddam to the attacks of  9/11, Bush is on recording saying there’s no evidence to connect the Al Qaeda actions on that day to Saddam. Every time Bush or anyone else tried to make the case that the world changed after 9/11 some polemist like Moyers claimed that Bush, et al, were trying to make the case that Saddam was in on the attacks.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] [quote=mikebutler222]

 Please, don't embarrass yourself. It's like directing me to a Michael Moore "documentary"...[/quote]

"If A is not equal to B then A equals Not B" "If Bill Moyers has a "Liberal bias" then everything that is associated with Bill Moyers inaccurate." Sorry, Mikebutler222, that's just not a logical conclusion. 

[/quote]

Directing me to Moyers for objective reporting isn’t logical.

"He had agreed to full and open weapons inspections after GW1, and for 11 years he had failed to allow them."

So when he did allow for full and unimpeded inspections, how did we have justification for war? (Don't bother answering this, it really doesn't make a difference)

Directing me to Moyers for objective reporting isn’t logical.

Perhaps not, but directing you to the Knight Ridder reporters who did the work and uncovered the story is. (but OTOH it isn't because, it's not like they're going to change you mind either.) 

not only did members of the administration not connect Saddam to the attacks of  9/11,

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney _link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233810/

We could go around this stuff till the cows come home. You are going to believe what you want to believe and you're going to not believe what you don't want. I'm going to do the same. Let's just call it a draw, or you can claim you win, who cares?

I will only say that this is what I was on about in the Newt conversation. Once people want to believe something, they will let themselves believe it. You can say that right now Newt is the most hated Republican by by Republicans and Democrats. I don't care to disagree, what I say is that, should Newt get the mo, people will start to dispise him less. If he gets the Nom, people who today would say they dispise him will convert to true believers.

"He had agreed to full and open weapons inspections after GW1, and for 11 years he had failed to allow them."

So when he did allow for full and unimpeded inspections, how did we have justification for war? (Don't bother answering this, it really doesn't make a difference)

He never did allow for full and unimpeded inspections...

Directing me to Moyers for objective reporting isn’t logical.

Perhaps not, but directing you to the Knight Ridder reporters who did the work and uncovered the story is. (but OTOH it isn't because, it's not like they're going to change you mind either.) 

I couldn't care less about what Moyers SAYS another report alludes to. Particularly when we have the details available from people who were actually there when the tubes were dicussed.

not only did members of the administration not connect Saddam to the attacks of  9/11,

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney _link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233810/

Thanks for making my point with these cites.

We could go around this stuff till the cows come home.

We could, let's not bother...

I will only say that this is what I was on about in the Newt conversation. Once people want to believe something, they will let themselves believe it. You can say that right now Newt is the most hated Republican by by Republicans and Democrats.

I've never said Newt is hated by Republicans. I have said Newt is reviled by most Democrats. Until Rove took his place, he was the picture of the anti-Christ to most of them.

 I don't care to disagree, what I say is that, should Newt get the mo, people will start to dispise him less. If he gets the Nom, people who today would say they dispise him will convert to true believers.

He stands zero chance of getting the nomination, I will agree, however, that "Big Mo" has a way of changing what his foes (Democrats) think of him.

You can say that right now Newt is the most hated Republican by by Republicans and Democrats. I don't care to disagree, what I say is that, should Newt get the mo, people will start to dispise him less. If he gets the Nom, people who today would say they dispise him will convert to true believers.

Newt is not "hated" by Republicans.  I admire the heck out of the guy, but as I stated before.  We want to win, and there is no chance that a Republican ticket headed by Newt Gingrich is ever going to win a national election.  The Democrats hate him almost as much as they hate Rove (the evil genius Dark Overlord of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.  Hmmm that reminds me I need to renew my membership card.)  To win the election, we need to have a candidate who can draw in moderates, independents and conservative Democrat voters as well as the Republican Party core voters.  That ain't Newt.

Newt is not ever going to be the parties candidate for President.

We could go around this stuff till the cows come home.

We could, let's not bother...

See? I knew we could find common ground.

"You can say that right now Newt is the most hated Republican by by Republicans and Democrats."

Can is not "did". And even if you can't say it, it's not the point. I'd repeat the point, but I think it has been well made already. If you want to see what it is, then re read.

BL,

All I can say to this is to repeat the questions I've asked before. Do you really think that Newt doesn't know of his political vulnerabilities? Given that he is a brilliant politician, do you really think that he hasn't plotted out a course to win, given that he's going through the effort of running (apparently)?

Please take note of the civil and respectful tone I take with you despite the disgusting things you have said to me in the past.

All I can say to this is to repeat the questions I've asked before. Do you really think that Newt doesn't know of his political vulnerabilities? Given that he is a brilliant politician, do you really think that he hasn't plotted out a course to win, given that he's going through the effort of running (apparently)?

I think that Newt is a brilliant man. Sure he knows his political and personal vunerabilities. He can run a brilliant and strategic campaign, but that doesn't mean that he will get the party's nod as the lead.  Possibly as a second place VP candidate.  Maybe that is his aim, to be in the VP slot, knowing that he cannot carry the ticket as President.  Maybe his aim is to be appointed to a cabinet position, something that I could easily see happening.  Possibly his aim is to create a high enough profile during the campaign that some of his ideas are included in the final party platform.

Speaking as a registered Republican, which I assume you are not, I would have a very hard time voting for Newt (and McCain either for that matter of fact) for President.  I would hold my nose and do it anyway though, because the alternative is horrific. 

 "Possibly as a second place VP candidate."

Once you say you're going to settle for second, that's what happens to you in life.
John F. Kennedy

That's not the Newt I think he is.

"You can say that right now Newt is the most hated Republican by by Republicans and Democrats."<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Can is not "did".

I'm aware of that, and saying "I've never said" isn't the same thing as saying "don't falsely claim that I've ever said".

My point is/was Newt’s standing with Republicans isn’t the issue, never was. It’s perceptions about his viability as a candidate that is his problem. The polls say Democrats hate him, he’s a lighting rod to most independents, so GOPers won’t give him their nomination.

As to your second point, you seem to be asserting that as a “brilliant politician” Newt can correct whatever deficiencies he has with voters already deeply incinded to spit on the ground when his name is mentioned. Seems to me brilliance helps, but there are things in this world even brilliance won’t overcome, and Newt’s standing among Democrats is one of them.

You could have John Wooden coach a team of ten year-olds and have the Chicago Bulls coached by Rosie O’Donnell (first name that came to mind) and my money’s still on the Bulls. YMMV

Long as we're all on the same page.

For me, in this long long march towards the election, I'll watch Newt.

If he pulls it off it'll be a lesson for the ages. If he doesn't, no big loss (of my attention).

I am on the ABH train. Anybody but Hillary. Seriously though, I think it will be Rudy with Mit as his VP.

So we’ll put you down as a Sharpton vote? A Nader vote? David Duke?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

If he pulls it off it'll be a lesson for the ages. If he doesn't, no big loss (of my attention).

[/quote]

True, true...

Newt who… My point is Newt does not mean JACK Shi!..

Just like it really means JACK Shi! if push vetos every bill till he is gone…



This bull shi! that we lost the war… No wonder why the dems are around 25%… THey suck almost as much as their leadership.



The media is so stupid to support these losers. Pelousi the trader wo sends mixed signals to our enemies. Reid who declares we lost. These idiots supported Ned Lamont in CT. He and anyone else who supported cut and run is gone.



Long live the liberal negative idiots. They are gods gift to the republicans.



Mitt is leading the south and mid west. He is the man when it comes to family values, vetoes and cutting government budgets… Ohh yeah he also saved some huge companies and the olypics. Forgot to mention he also set up a state health care plan that is the benchmark for all others.



Mitt with Michael Savage as VP… I meant Michael Steel from MD.

Let me ask you this thusly.

Deadlines are a bad idea, right?

Why?

Because (according to the president) the enemy will then just sit back and do nothing until that date, at which time they'll hatch their hoary plans, right?

What is so bad about that?

The enemy sits back and the work of establishing a working government can go forward. The establishment of an effective police force can go forward. When we leave, the Terrorists hatch their hoary plans into an atmoshpere that has had time to catch it's breath and smell peace and prosperity. The enemy will say "Ok, there Moh, let's give it a go!" But Moh will be at his job, making money and feeding his family and getting a good night's sleep and regular nookie from the little missus. Moh's in no mood to go back to war! Who LIKES to be at war? Nobody! Only people with less chance of survival outside the war zone want to be in a war. (I'll say that this is among civilians, people who chose a military career are different, most combatants in Iraq are not career military types).

And did you notice the deadline that was set? April 1 2008. "April Fools! We ain't leaving! What NOW? Come ON, BRANG IT Beyatches!" All their plans were set to go off on April 2, except there are dark skies as C5A Galaxies drop 250,000 soldiers to the ground to whack the moles that stick their heads up all at once! GAME; SET; MATCH; MO FOs!

"Well if the Dems would just say that's what their plan is..." We don't tell the enemy when that we're just gonna pretend to leave!

I believe they call that the Columbo Close.

"Phew, I can't believe I just got past that interrogation, man, I'm smart! Now let me do something that would make me look guilty as heck if Columbo were here, but since he left... Lemme call my mistress/co conspirator on the phone... Hello, honeypants..."

Door opens, in come the inspector....

"Uh just one more thing sir! I forgot, I'm sorry, you said you don't have the phone number for Miss Honeypants, is that correct sir?"

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Let me ask you this thusly.

Deadlines are a bad idea, right?

Why?

Because (according to the president) the enemy will then just sit back and do nothing until that date, at which time they'll hatch their hoary plans, right?

What is so bad about that? [/quote]

Nothing, I guess, if you plan to concede the fight to Al Qeada.

BTW, you should ask Jim Webb (D-VA) that question too, since before the election he said anyone who wants to set a date-certain knows nothing about war.