Top CIA Official Blasts Bush and Co. on Iraq Intel, Bush to be Impeached - The Orange Mane

freak6 · 02-10-2006, 08:57 AM

While Democrats claimed that Bush was using the information about the allegedly foiled plot as political tool to try and rally support for the domestic eavesdropping program, a former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East from 2000 until last year accused the administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq.

According to Paul Pillar, the former national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, the administration selectively used intelligence to justify the already-settled decision to go to war in Iraq. The Washington Post reported that Pillar said the administration additionally ignored warnings that the country could easily be gripped by violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Pillar admitted that the intelligence agencies made mistakes in concluding that Hussein had obtained weapons of mass destruction, but that those misjudgments didn't drive the decision to invade the country (see "Democrats Shut Down Senate For Rare Closed-Door Session On Iraq Intelligence").

"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he said, the administration "went to war without requesting — and evidently without being influenced by — any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq. It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized."

It is the first time that such a senior intelligence officer — Pillar was considered the CIA's leading counterterrorism analyst — has so directly and publicly condemned the administration's handling of intelligence, according to the paper.

In the Foreign Affairs article, Pillar writes that the Bush Administration "repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war," including information on the "supposed connection" between Hussein and al Qaeda, which analysts had discounted. "Feeding the administration's voracious appetite for material on the Saddam-al Qaeda link consumed an enormous amount of time and attention." He also writes that pre-war assessments by the intelligence community indicated that a post-war Iraq "would not provide fertile ground for democracy" and that officials predicted the sectarian fighting between Sunnis and Shiites over power.

freak6 · 02-10-2006, 09:00 AM

Smear campaign should be coming on soon. This is huge news. Finally a top CIA official tells what those of us informed already knew.

Old Dude · 02-10-2006, 09:01 AM

surprise

Boobs McGee · 02-10-2006, 09:29 AM

finally, someone with some balls AND some pull is gonna set us free

Spider · 02-10-2006, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronconia

finally, someone with some balls AND some pull is gonna set us free

doubt it ...... after all the evidence doesnt fit on a bumper sticker , most of the republicans here will ignore this or defend Bush to the hilt

loborugger · 02-10-2006, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronconia

finally, someone with some balls AND some pull is gonna set us free

Set us free

Where are we going? What is he freeing us from. The truth may come out... but setting us free?

Oh, and I am not so sure that former gov't officials have much pull, but time will tell.

The only thing new here is the speaker, not the message. In the last 3 years, it has become painfully obvious that the current regime use what it wanted while ignoring what it had to for its case in Iraq.

defenseman · 02-10-2006, 12:15 PM

There has been plenty of rhetoric from various sources, not just the CIA, and the jury is still out. Get the "no-kidding" evidence together, prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I'm right there with you. It's not a matter of supporting the president, it's a matter of factual and solid information being provided to no kidding shut the lid on an issue, OR blowing the lid off of a real problem. Facts and follow through, vice just tossing accusations across the board, is what is required. If the CIA agent has the evidence, put it on the table. And I do mean evidence. If he's guilty, then go after him. But, better to have your ducks in a row before you take on ANY president. Mr. Clinton dodged a bullet, because various individuals DID NOT have their ducks in a row...dman

freak6 · 02-10-2006, 02:25 PM

Well I was kidding about the impeachment, which is long overdue anyway. The point is that Bush misused, and misrepresented the evidence, (in the USMC we call that LIEING and we demote you for it, or kick you out) they picked and choose the info they wanted, set up thier own intel division within the whitehouse to do so. Then they would spout off whatever BS intel they got ahold of, whether it had been screened by analysts or not. It was raw intel. All you have to do DMAN is look at the State of the Union. The niger uranium, yellowcake...well the CIA told the administration no less that 4 times NOT to include that in the State of the Union, he did anyway.

Also, that intel more than likely was derived from bogus paperwork created by the CIA themselves as a hoax to shake the hell out of the fools at the whitehouse that they were using BS intelligence evidence, and saying it was factual. They made that paperwork with every fault that a basic analyst would be able to discern immediately as fake. The sadly funny part is that the WH didn't get it, and clinged to this document as real. The CIA was to embarrassed to admit that they created it though. Ugh. This is all from reports from inside analysts as reported in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh who broke every story on Iraq from the bad intel to Abu Ghraib well before the photos appeared. Anyway DMAN, the State of the Union is blatant evidence, as is the speach and the Univ. of Cincy, the mushroom cloud talk. etc...

Saddam was so far from building a nuke, what a joke.

freak6 · 02-10-2006, 02:27 PM

LIES

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

freak6 · 02-10-2006, 02:31 PM

TRUTH

They thus knew, he wrote, that senior policymakers "would frown on or ignore analysis that called into question a decision to go to war and welcome analysis that supported such a decision. . . . [They] felt a strong wind consistently blowing in one direction. The desire to bend with such a wind is natural and strong, even if unconscious."

Pillar wrote that the prewar intelligence asserted Hussein's "weapons capacities," but he said the "broad view" within the United States and overseas "was that Saddam was being kept 'in his box' " by U.N. sanctions, and that the best way to deal with him was through "an aggressive inspections program to supplement sanctions already in place."

"If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication," Pillar wrote, "it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath."

Pillar describes for the first time that the intelligence community did assessments before the invasion that, he wrote, indicated a postwar Iraq "would not provide fertile ground for democracy" and would need "a Marshall Plan-type effort" to restore its economy despite its oil revenue. It also foresaw Sunnis and Shiites fighting for power.

Pillar wrote that the intelligence community "anticipated that a foreign occupying force would itself be the target of resentment and attacks -- including guerrilla warfare -- unless it established security and put Iraq on the road to prosperity in the first few weeks or months after the fall of Saddam."

Now compare that to what Cheney and Co. said about how we would be greated in Iraq. Look at the lack of planning that went into this invasion, compared to what was needed. They fkd up even the most basic thing! TROOP STRENGTH.

We take a town, but we don't have the troops to hold it, then we loose that town, and more Marines die because we have go back in and retake it. That is the by far the most dangerous type of combat, house to house. But the lack of troop strength makes my Marine brothers and sisters, and soldiers too, risk thier lives day after day, with the IEDS all over too.

The Generals that said we needed more troops were all ignored, fired, and forced into retirement. One Marine general resigned right as we started Fallujah because the White House was playing politics with his troops!!!

BLATANT EVIDENCE RIGHT THERE how incompetent they are.

Rascal · 02-10-2006, 02:34 PM

I've said this before, but being wrong is not lying until evidence supports that they knew what they were saying was wrong at the time. And being wrong is not grounds for impeachment.

freak6 · 02-10-2006, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rascal

I've said this before, but being wrong is not lying until evidence supports that they knew what they were saying was wrong at the time. And being wrong is not grounds for impeachment.

State of the UNION!!! The CIA said do NOT use the yellowcake evidence, over and over they told them, but they did, that is LYING!!!!!!!

The Top Intelligence Officer of the CI FKN A just said it. What is it gonna take to get through to you people!!! We got suckered into a BS war, and my friends just got blown up because of it!!!!!!!!

freak6 · 02-10-2006, 02:49 PM

http://www.lifeisajoke.com/videos8.htm

CLICK HERE!!!!!

freak6 · 02-10-2006, 02:53 PM

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

It's a slaughter on the Administration right here folks. Click and watch!!!

How is he still in office??

How could anyone vote for him!?!?!

Ignorance of the truth.I serioiusly deserve my own TV show. I want to go head to head with Hannity, the loofa man Orielly, Race Limbaugh, Bush, Rummy, any of them.

I'd just say 'roll the tape'...

the August 6th PDB Bush received -

"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May sayingthat a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives".

Bush "I wasn't on point, I DIDNT FEEL A SENSE OF URGENCY"

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 02-10-2006, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rascal

I've said this before, but being wrong is not lying until evidence supports that they knew what they were saying was wrong at the time.

The evidence is plain for all to see.

The question is: will you look at it?

Downing Street Minutes, July 23, 2002
Also known as the Downing Street Memo
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/1

All Eight Leaked Downing Street Documents
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/833

Iraq Options Paper, March 8, 2002
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/834

Legal Background Paper, March 8, 2002
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/835

David Manning Memo, March 14, 2002
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/836

Christopher Meyer Letter, March 18, 2002
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/837

Peter Ricketts Letter, March 22, 2002
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/838

Jack Straw Memo, March 25, 2002
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/839

Cabinet Office Briefing Paper, July 21, 2002
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/189

Downing Street Minutes, July 23, 2002
Also known as the Downing Street Memo
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/1

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 02-10-2006, 04:43 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 02-12-2006, 09:51 PM

Career CIA Analyst Says BushCo Cherry-Picked Intelligence..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060210/...ntelligence_dc

baja · 02-12-2006, 11:32 PM

What has amazed me through this experience in the theater of the absurd over these last several years is the Bush handlers operated with the confidence that the majority of the American people would be either too stupid or too apathetic to put up any real resistance to the tainting and possible ruining of United States of America.

So very sad that they are correct in their calculation.

Spider · 02-13-2006, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja fan

What has amazed me through this experience in the theater of the absurd over these last several years is the Bush handlers operated with the confidence that the majority of the American people would be either too stupid or too apathetic to put up any real resistance to the tainting and possible ruining of United States of America.

So very sad that they are correct in their calculation.

, and whats even better is Bush isnt a conservative , he is a neo con , and these people that defend him dont understand the difference .......some people would let this country go to hell as long as their party was driving , we see signs of that now , the Denver 3 , the guy in wisconsin that went to jail for flipping off Bush , loyalty oaths ,wire tapping , Patriot act , etc..... These people will sit idle , and give bush the powers of a dictator and claim to be more American then anyone else , These are the same people you hear say , we support the troops , yet will have a flipping heart attack if their taxes get raised to support a war effort .....
These are the same people that will ridicule Cindy Sheehan , and let a Republican get by with being a nut case , it doesnt matter if you agree with Cindy or not , a gold star mother deserves more respect , even if you disagree with her ......
Lets look at some #'s here .... 44 million Americans without health insurence , so you know , alot of republicans dont have health care , yet these people will look you in the face and say they dont use welfare , just mind boggling .. if someone else has to pick up your tab on anything , you are taking welfare , but to raise taxes to pay for this , these same people will get their panties in a wad .......

enjolras · 02-13-2006, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by §Pide®

, and whats even better is Bush isnt a conservative , he is a neo con , and these people that defend him dont understand the difference.

He's actually a neo-liberal.

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.T...iberalism.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Jesterhole · 02-14-2006, 06:54 PM

I can't believe this story is getting no attention. All anyone can talk about is The Dick shooting someone.

If this story goes by without any fanfare from the press, I'm going to lose all hope in mainstream media. Not that I have a lot to start with mind you, but at least people like KO as MSNBC are trying to keep 'em honest.

Spider · 02-14-2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enjolras

He's actually a neo-liberal.

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.T...iberalism.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Spider · 02-14-2006, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesterhole

I can't believe this story is getting no attention. All anyone can talk about is The Dick shooting someone.

If this story goes by without any fanfare from the press, I'm going to lose all hope in mainstream media. Not that I have a lot to start with mind you, but at least people like KO as MSNBC are trying to keep 'em honest.

It will .....

baja · 02-14-2006, 07:05 PM

Why do you think so?

Spider · 02-14-2006, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja fan

Why do you think so?

2006 elections comming alot of vets running ,guys with backbone , they will bring this up ......

02-10-2006, 08:57 AM	#1
freak6 3,631 - WAKE UP!!!! Impeach President Cheney and Puppet Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: San Diego Posts: 4,651 Adopt-a-Bronco: MJK	Top CIA Official Blasts Bush and Co. on Iraq Intel, Bush to be Impeached While Democrats claimed that Bush was using the information about the allegedly foiled plot as political tool to try and rally support for the domestic eavesdropping program, a former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East from 2000 until last year accused the administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq. According to Paul Pillar, the former national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, the administration selectively used intelligence to justify the already-settled decision to go to war in Iraq. The Washington Post reported that Pillar said the administration additionally ignored warnings that the country could easily be gripped by violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Pillar admitted that the intelligence agencies made mistakes in concluding that Hussein had obtained weapons of mass destruction, but that those misjudgments didn't drive the decision to invade the country (see "Democrats Shut Down Senate For Rare Closed-Door Session On Iraq Intelligence"). "Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he said, the administration "went to war without requesting — and evidently without being influenced by — any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq. It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized." It is the first time that such a senior intelligence officer — Pillar was considered the CIA's leading counterterrorism analyst — has so directly and publicly condemned the administration's handling of intelligence, according to the paper. In the Foreign Affairs article, Pillar writes that the Bush Administration "repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war," including information on the "supposed connection" between Hussein and al Qaeda, which analysts had discounted. "Feeding the administration's voracious appetite for material on the Saddam-al Qaeda link consumed an enormous amount of time and attention." He also writes that pre-war assessments by the intelligence community indicated that a post-war Iraq "would not provide fertile ground for democracy" and that officials predicted the sectarian fighting between Sunnis and Shiites over power.

02-10-2006, 02:25 PM	#8
freak6 3,631 - WAKE UP!!!! Impeach President Cheney and Puppet Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: San Diego Posts: 4,651 Adopt-a-Bronco: MJK	Well I was kidding about the impeachment, which is long overdue anyway. The point is that Bush misused, and misrepresented the evidence, (in the USMC we call that LIEING and we demote you for it, or kick you out) they picked and choose the info they wanted, set up thier own intel division within the whitehouse to do so. Then they would spout off whatever BS intel they got ahold of, whether it had been screened by analysts or not. It was raw intel. All you have to do DMAN is look at the State of the Union. The niger uranium, yellowcake...well the CIA told the administration no less that 4 times NOT to include that in the State of the Union, he did anyway. Also, that intel more than likely was derived from bogus paperwork created by the CIA themselves as a hoax to shake the hell out of the fools at the whitehouse that they were using BS intelligence evidence, and saying it was factual. They made that paperwork with every fault that a basic analyst would be able to discern immediately as fake. The sadly funny part is that the WH didn't get it, and clinged to this document as real. The CIA was to embarrassed to admit that they created it though. Ugh. This is all from reports from inside analysts as reported in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh who broke every story on Iraq from the bad intel to Abu Ghraib well before the photos appeared. Anyway DMAN, the State of the Union is blatant evidence, as is the speach and the Univ. of Cincy, the mushroom cloud talk. etc... Saddam was so far from building a nuke, what a joke. Last edited by freak6; 02-10-2006 at 02:33 PM..

02-10-2006, 02:27 PM	#9
freak6 3,631 - WAKE UP!!!! Impeach President Cheney and Puppet Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: San Diego Posts: 4,651 Adopt-a-Bronco: MJK	LIES Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time." • White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03 "Absolutely." • White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03 "The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed." • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03 "This is about imminent threat." • White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03 Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies." • Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03 Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world." • Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03 Iraq "threatens the United States of America." • Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03 "Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa." • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03 "Well, of course he is.” • White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03 "Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction." • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03 "I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02 "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." • President Bush, 10/2/02 "There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." • President Bush, 10/2/02 "This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." • President Bush, 9/26/02 "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02 "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons." • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02 *Last edited by freak6; 02-10-2006 at 02:35 PM..*

02-10-2006, 02:31 PM	#10
freak6 3,631 - WAKE UP!!!! Impeach President Cheney and Puppet Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: San Diego Posts: 4,651 Adopt-a-Bronco: MJK	TRUTH They thus knew, he wrote, that senior policymakers "would frown on or ignore analysis that called into question a decision to go to war and welcome analysis that supported such a decision. . . . [They] felt a strong wind consistently blowing in one direction. The desire to bend with such a wind is natural and strong, even if unconscious." Pillar wrote that the prewar intelligence asserted Hussein's "weapons capacities," but he said the "broad view" within the United States and overseas "was that Saddam was being kept 'in his box' " by U.N. sanctions, and that the best way to deal with him was through "an aggressive inspections program to supplement sanctions already in place." "If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication," Pillar wrote, "it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath." Pillar describes for the first time that the intelligence community did assessments before the invasion that, he wrote, indicated a postwar Iraq "would not provide fertile ground for democracy" and would need "a Marshall Plan-type effort" to restore its economy despite its oil revenue. It also foresaw Sunnis and Shiites fighting for power. Pillar wrote that the intelligence community "anticipated that a foreign occupying force would itself be the target of resentment and attacks -- including guerrilla warfare -- unless it established security and put Iraq on the road to prosperity in the first few weeks or months after the fall of Saddam." Now compare that to what Cheney and Co. said about how we would be greated in Iraq. Look at the lack of planning that went into this invasion, compared to what was needed. They fkd up even the most basic thing! TROOP STRENGTH. We take a town, but we don't have the troops to hold it, then we loose that town, and more Marines die because we have go back in and retake it. That is the by far the most dangerous type of combat, house to house. But the lack of troop strength makes my Marine brothers and sisters, and soldiers too, risk thier lives day after day, with the IEDS all over too. The Generals that said we needed more troops were all ignored, fired, and forced into retirement. One Marine general resigned right as we started Fallujah because the White House was playing politics with his troops!!! BLATANT EVIDENCE RIGHT THERE how incompetent they are. *Last edited by freak6; 02-10-2006 at 02:39 PM..*

02-10-2006, 02:53 PM	#14
freak6 3,631 - WAKE UP!!!! Impeach President Cheney and Puppet Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: San Diego Posts: 4,651 Adopt-a-Bronco: MJK	http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv It's a slaughter on the Administration right here folks. Click and watch!!! How is he still in office?? How could anyone vote for him!?!?! Ignorance of the truth.I serioiusly deserve my own TV show. I want to go head to head with Hannity, the loofa man Orielly, Race Limbaugh, Bush, Rummy, any of them. I'd just say 'roll the tape'... the August 6th PDB Bush received - "Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. The FBI is conducting approximately 70 investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May sayingthat a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives". Bush "I wasn't on point, I DIDNT FEEL A SENSE OF URGENCY" *Last edited by freak6; 02-10-2006 at 02:59 PM..*

02-10-2006, 09:00 AM	#2
freak6 3,631 - WAKE UP!!!! Impeach President Cheney and Puppet Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: San Diego Posts: 4,651 Adopt-a-Bronco: MJK	Smear campaign should be coming on soon. This is huge news. Finally a top CIA official tells what those of us informed already knew.

02-10-2006, 09:01 AM	#3
Old Dude Host Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: As if I'd tell you crazies! Posts: 14,158	surprise

02-10-2006, 09:29 AM	#4
Boobs McGee I promise to stay alive till the day that I die Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Glendale Posts: 5,019 Adopt-a-Bronco: CassiusVAAAUGHN	finally, someone with some balls AND some pull is gonna set us free

02-10-2006, 12:15 PM	#7
defenseman Ring of Famer 2007 record pred. (7-9) Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 9,232	There has been plenty of rhetoric from various sources, not just the CIA, and the jury is still out. Get the "no-kidding" evidence together, prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I'm right there with you. It's not a matter of supporting the president, it's a matter of factual and solid information being provided to no kidding shut the lid on an issue, OR blowing the lid off of a real problem. Facts and follow through, vice just tossing accusations across the board, is what is required. If the CIA agent has the evidence, put it on the table. And I do mean evidence. If he's guilty, then go after him. But, better to have your ducks in a row before you take on ANY president. Mr. Clinton dodged a bullet, because various individuals DID NOT have their ducks in a row...dman

02-10-2006, 02:34 PM	#11
Rascal RIP Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 16,581 Adopt-a-Bronco: Turf	I've said this before, but being wrong is not lying until evidence supports that they knew what they were saying was wrong at the time. And being wrong is not grounds for impeachment.

02-10-2006, 02:49 PM	#13
freak6 3,631 - WAKE UP!!!! Impeach President Cheney and Puppet Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: San Diego Posts: 4,651 Adopt-a-Bronco: MJK	http://www.lifeisajoke.com/videos8.htm CLICK HERE!!!!!

02-10-2006, 04:43 PM	#16
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694

02-12-2006, 09:51 PM	#17
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694	Career CIA Analyst Says BushCo Cherry-Picked Intelligence.. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060210/...ntelligence_dc

02-12-2006, 11:32 PM	#18
baja It is what it Is. Pay attention. Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 53,922 Adopt-a-Bronco: Buy My Book	What has amazed me through this experience in the theater of the absurd over these last several years is the Bush handlers operated with the confidence that the majority of the American people would be either too stupid or too apathetic to put up any real resistance to the tainting and possible ruining of United States of America. So very sad that they are correct in their calculation. Last edited by baja; 02-12-2006 at 11:46 PM..

02-14-2006, 06:54 PM	#21
Jesterhole Ring of Famer Ridin' the McFailboat... Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 2,036	I can't believe this story is getting no attention. All anyone can talk about is The Dick shooting someone. If this story goes by without any fanfare from the press, I'm going to lose all hope in mainstream media. Not that I have a lot to start with mind you, but at least people like KO as MSNBC are trying to keep 'em honest.

02-14-2006, 07:05 PM	#24
baja It is what it Is. Pay attention. Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 53,922 Adopt-a-Bronco: Buy My Book	Why do you think so?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode