Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
AROCES

Poll: Obama Seen as Greater Failure than Bush

333 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

AROCES
Some intelligence officers disagree . . . . they say that they informed the White House that information being received was faulty or that its sources were not reliable and they claim that the White House ignored their advice and presented it as fact anyway.

Receiving such reports, did not the president have this same responsibility as Congress to confirm the information, such as the phony African uranium buy, before putting it before Congress, the media and the American people?

Then why did they provide information to the President that themselves knows is not reliable? You dont go report to the President and say, we are not sure. :rolleyes:

As you can see, you been listening to the according to the no name officers reported by bloggers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
The patriot act is not in any way shape or form over blown. Cause of it, over 20,000 Americans are added to the terror watch list per month, still to this day. The PA is the greatest threat to freedom today.

20K per month, since when?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
All of them? Then who plants the roadside bombs? Who voted in the poll that wanted Americans out of Iraq as soon as possible? Why did the people cheer and support the reporter who threw the shoe at Bush? All of them or a few of them?

The left, Bush haters and terrorist are the once who cheered and that is about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
How come you never go after the source of the intelligence then? The CIA head George Tenet.

We all know why, for that wont make it strange how it works and it's gotta be Bush.

We've had this discussion about ten times in the past two years and you still don't remember the information about Tenet. If I repeat it now, you'll ignore it again so why bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
We've had this discussion about ten times in the past two years and you still don't remember the information about Tenet. If I repeat it now, you'll ignore it again so why bother?

You said members of congress been lied to, why not subpoena Tenet and make him talk that Bush altered his reports?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
The left, Bush haters and terrorist are the once who cheered and that is about it.

Oh, forgive me . . . . no one is planting roadside bombs . . . . no one wanted the U.S. to withdraw immediately . . . . no one supported the reporter who threw the shoe . . . . that was all lies of the left wing media. Everyone knows that the Iraqis love us . . . . after all ONE of them visited the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Oh, forgive me . . . . no one is planting roadside bombs . . . . no one wanted the U.S. to withdraw immediately . . . . no one supported the reporter who threw the shoe . . . . that was all lies of the left wing media. Everyone knows that the Iraqis love us . . . . after all ONE of them visited the White House.

Yeah, the Iraqis you speak for, not those themselves are getting bombed in Public Market and ELECTED their leader who visited the United States.

By the way he was back here just few weeks ago to tell Obama the Iraqis hates us.>LOL :lol:

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead
The left, Bush haters and terrorist are the once who cheered and that is about it.

:lol:

Acoces, please excuse me from asking, no offense but are you George W. Bush in disguise? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
:lol:

Acoces, please excuse me from asking, no offense but are you George W. Bush in disguise? lol

And that includes you who cheered when someone threw a shoe at Bush, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Then why did they provide information to the President that themselves knows is not reliable? You dont go report to the President and say, we are not sure. :rolleyes:

As you can see, you been listening to the according to the no name officers reported by bloggers.

Not all of the information came from them . . . . the story of the African sale of uranium came from foreign intelligence, supposedly . . . . Bush used it to his advantage even though he was wrned that it probably wasn't reliable.

As for "blogs," it was an official memo to the President, signed by former and present intelligence officers of the United States that said things like, "You may not realize the extent of the current ferment within the Intelligence Community and particularly the CIA. In intelligence, there is one unpardonable sin—cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy. There is ample indication that this has been done with respect to Iraq. What remains not entirely clear is who the cooks are and where they practice their art. Are their kitchens only in the Pentagon, the National Security Council, and the Vice President’s office?"

And "On October 4, 2002, a week before Congress voted on the war resolution, the National Intelligence Council, an interagency body under the CIA Director as head of the entire Intelligence Community, published an unclassified version of a memorandum that had been briefed to Congressmen and Senators over the previous weeks.

Among the key judgments: “Most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”

The clumsy clause conceals a crass cave-in. The preponderant view, then as now, among nuclear scientists and engineers of the Intelligence Community and the Department of Energy’s national laboratories is that Iraq had not been able to reconstitute in any significant way the nuclear development program dismantled by UN inspectors prior to 1998. The conclusions of the vast majority of analysts dovetailed with the findings repeatedly presented to the UN by International Atomic Energy Agency Director Mohamed ElBaradei and his inspectors after their inspection work at the turn of the year; i. e., that Iraq had no nuclear program worthy of the name."

And "The memorandum concedes that the IAEA “made significant strides toward dismantling Iraq’s nuclear weapons program,” but claims that, in the absence of inspections since late 1998, “most analysts assess that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear program.” “Most analysts” in the Pentagon, perhaps; and in the Vice President’s office, surely; in the intelligence/scientific/engineering community, no."

And, "What is at play here is a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions. It is essential that you be able to separate fact from fiction—for your own sake, and for the credibility of our country’s intelligence community. We urge you to do two things immediately:

(1) Invite UN inspectors to return to Iraq without further delay; and

(2) Ask Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Chair of your Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, to launch an immediate inquiry into the performance of the CIA and other intelligence agencies in providing the intelligence upon which you have based your fateful decision for war against Iraq."

Hardly a blog but certainly something you will discount as being left wing intelligence officers or some other absurd rebuttal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead
The Clinton Administration, some leading members of Congress, other leaders of contries and the UNITED NATIONS all have warned the world about Saddam's WMD.

So who's playbook was it really is?

forget partisan politics... doesn't matter

What matters is the players.

the Clintons and the Bushes have been role players for a long stretch now.

they may eat at opposite spots at the table but rest assured they do eat at the same table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar
Some intelligence officers disagree . . . . they say that they informed the White House that information being received was faulty or that its sources were not reliable and they claim that the White House ignored their advice and presented it as fact anyway.

Yes there was some that was faulty like the uranium, aluminum rods and yellow cake. this information was givin to England and the U.S. from Italy. Bush talked about it till the CIA said it was more then likley false and the president stopped talking about that information, however there was no way to know for sure since we had many other sources saying he was trying to obtain wmd. I don't think the president said anthing was a fact, he only sighted the information he had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Not all of the information came from them . . . . the story of the African sale of uranium came from foreign intelligence, supposedly . . . . Bush used it to his advantage even though he was wrned that it probably wasn't reliable.

Warned by an unnamed official according to the report, right?

As for "blogs," it was an official memo to the President, signed by former and present intelligence officers of the United States that said things like, "You may not realize the extent of the current ferment within the Intelligence Community and particularly the CIA. In intelligence, there is one unpardonable sin—cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy. There is ample indication that this has been done with respect to Iraq. What remains not entirely clear is who the cooks are and where they practice their art. Are their kitchens only in the Pentagon, the National Security Council, and the Vice President's office?"

Sure, and someone has that memo now.

And "On October 4, 2002, a week before Congress voted on the war resolution, the National Intelligence Council, an interagency body under the CIA Director as head of the entire Intelligence Community, published an unclassified version of a memorandum that had been briefed to Congressmen and Senators over the previous weeks.

Among the key judgments: "Most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

The clumsy clause conceals a crass cave-in. The preponderant view, then as now, among nuclear scientists and engineers of the Intelligence Community and the Department of Energy's national laboratories is that Iraq had not been able to reconstitute in any significant way the nuclear development program dismantled by UN inspectors prior to 1998. The conclusions of the vast majority of analysts dovetailed with the findings repeatedly presented to the UN by International Atomic Energy Agency Director Mohamed ElBaradei and his inspectors after their inspection work at the turn of the year; i. e., that Iraq had no nuclear program worthy of the name."

And "The memorandum concedes that the IAEA "made significant strides toward dismantling Iraq's nuclear weapons program," but claims that, in the absence of inspections since late 1998, "most analysts assess that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear program." "Most analysts" in the Pentagon, perhaps; and in the Vice President's office, surely; in the intelligence/scientific/engineering community, no."

And, "What is at play here is a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions. It is essential that you be able to separate fact from fiction—for your own sake, and for the credibility of our country's intelligence community. We urge you to do two things immediately:

(1) Invite UN inspectors to return to Iraq without further delay; and

(2) Ask Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Chair of your Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, to launch an immediate inquiry into the performance of the CIA and other intelligence agencies in providing the intelligence upon which you have based your fateful decision for war against Iraq."

Hardly a blog but certainly something you will discount as being left wing intelligence officers or some other absurd rebuttal.

All these claims are after everything was said and done. The lesson here is you dont play hide and seek and play goodguy after that you know this and that.

For then few will believe you as in the case now..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

Warned by an unnamed official according to the report, right?

It's better than the situation where the finest intelligence organization in the world could not discover that the uranium sale from Africa was bogus . . . . it took a journalist.

What were the names of the intelligence agents who gave Tenet the false information? It goes both ways.

Sure, and someone has that memo now.

Yes, the White House.

All these claims are after everything was said and done. The lesson here is you dont play hide and seek and play goodguy after that you know this and that.

Wrong again . . . . it was dated February 8, 2003 and signed by five intelligence officers. Since that time they have formed an organization as oversight to keeping intelligence honest and correct. It now has 70 members, all current or ex agents of intelligence gathering bodies in the United States.

The things they really said "after the fact" were . . . . "In our first Memorandum for the President (George W. Bush), dated February 5, 2003, we provided a same-day commentary on Colin Powell’s U.N. speech. We warned the president that “an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future [and that] far from eliminating the [terrorist] threat, it would enhance it exponentially.”

"We strongly urged the former president to widen the discussion on Iraq “beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” VIPS’ second pre-war Memorandum for the President was titled, “Forgery, Hyperbole, Half-Truth: A Problem”—a reference to the bogus intelligence we saw being ginned up to “justify” war.

"President Bush ignored our warning and the warnings of other informed individuals and groups. The corporate media uncritically echoed the Bush administration’s misuse and misrepresentation of the intelligence, despite the questions raised—including those raised by our unique movement. (It was the first time an alumni group of intelligence officials had formed expressly to chronicle and to halt the corruption of intelligence.)"

For then few will believe you as in the case now..

Believe them or not . . . . it's your choice . . . . but it is certain that they have more experience, insights and information than anyone posting here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Yes there was some that was faulty like the uranium, aluminum rods and yellow cake. this information was givin to England and the U.S. from Italy. Bush talked about it till the CIA said it was more then likley false and the president stopped talking about that information, however there was no way to know for sure since we had many other sources saying he was trying to obtain wmd. I don't think the president said anthing was a fact, he only sighted the information he had.

The Senate report states that the CIA on October 11, 2002 received copies of documents that supposedly supported the claim that Iraq had a deal to obtain uranium from Africa. SR p. 58. On January 13, 2003 (which was before the first above mentioned uranium claim of January 20, 2003), the Iraq nuclear analyst for the State Department's intelligence bureau (INR) sent an e-mail to several American intelligence community analysts outlining the reasons why he believed that the document supposedly supporting the uranium deal was probably a "hoax" and a "forgery". SR p. 62.

After the State Department's intelligence bureau alerted the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency about the problems with the documents, said agencies published assessments that, as summarized in the Senate report, stated that "Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa." SR pp. 77, 62, 64

Concerning the State of the Union Address of January 28, 2003, the Senate report reveals that a NSC official at the White House and a CIA official discussed the draft of that speech that the White House had sent to the CIA that stated "we know that (Hussein) has recently sought to buy uranium in Africa." SR pp. 64-65. The final draft that President Bush actually gave was that the "British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The CIA Director who had previously told the White House that the President should not make any uranium claim because CIA analysts believed it was weak.

So it really doesn't matter if he made any comments about the hoax after he learned it was false, it becomes obvious that he had sufficient reason not to mention it at all. Even so, it became one of the most compelling reasons for Congress to give war powers to Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Yeah, the Iraqis you speak for, not those themselves are getting bombed in Public Market and ELECTED their leader who visited the United States.

By the way he was back here just few weeks ago to tell Obama the Iraqis hates us.>LOL :lol:

He could move into the White House and still not represent the collective opinions of Iraqis. Does Obama represent your opinions? If he visits Iraq, remember that he will be expressing everything that you believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar
The Senate report states that the CIA on October 11, 2002 received copies of documents that supposedly supported the claim that Iraq had a deal to obtain uranium from Africa. SR p. 58. On January 13, 2003 (which was before the first above mentioned uranium claim of January 20, 2003), the Iraq nuclear analyst for the State Department's intelligence bureau (INR) sent an e-mail to several American intelligence community analysts outlining the reasons why he believed that the document supposedly supporting the uranium deal was probably a "hoax" and a "forgery". SR p. 62.

After the State Department's intelligence bureau alerted the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency about the problems with the documents, said agencies published assessments that, as summarized in the Senate report, stated that "Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa." SR pp. 77, 62, 64

Concerning the State of the Union Address of January 28, 2003, the Senate report reveals that a NSC official at the White House and a CIA official discussed the draft of that speech that the White House had sent to the CIA that stated "we know that (Hussein) has recently sought to buy uranium in Africa." SR pp. 64-65. The final draft that President Bush actually gave was that the "British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The CIA Director who had previously told the White House that the President should not make any uranium claim because CIA analysts believed it was weak.

Yes this is correct, but again, this was such a small part of the intelligence we had that he was trying to get WMD.

So it really doesn't matter if he made any comments about the hoax after he learned it was false, it becomes obvious that he had sufficient reason not to mention it at all. Even so, it became one of the most compelling reasons for Congress to give war powers to Bush.

Then why did Clinton order air strikes just before Bush was elected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Yes this is correct, but again, this was such a small part of the intelligence we had that he was trying to get WMD.

Then why did Clinton order air strikes just before Bush was elected?

Is it a more responsible action to order air strikes to limited targets in response to intelligence or invade an entire nation?

Clinton's intelligence reports told him where the suspected areas were and he had them bombed. Rumsfeld said to the media, "We know he has them (WMDs) and we know where they are." So why not do the same as Clinton and not order a complete invasion that was so internationally unpopular that a really viable coalition couldn't be formed.

Edited by Dr. D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar
Is it a more responsible action to order air strikes to limited targets in response to intelligence or invade an entire nation?

Clinton's intelligence reports told him where the suspected areas were and he had them bombed. Rumsfeld said to the media, "We know he has them (WMDs) and we know where they are." So why not do the same as Clinton and not order a complete invasion that was so internationally unpopular that a really viable coalition couldn't be formed.

So you agree that under both presidents the intelligence reports both claimed that Saddam had WMD?

We had a coalition of about 30 countries how is this not viable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong
Is it a more responsible action to order air strikes to limited targets in response to intelligence or invade an entire nation?

Clinton's intelligence reports told him where the suspected areas were and he had them bombed. Rumsfeld said to the media, "We know he has them (WMDs) and we know where they are." So why not do the same as Clinton and not order a complete invasion that was so internationally unpopular that a really viable coalition couldn't be formed.

:tu:

I can't wait to hear the response lol

Full out invasion not required unless there was something to gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar
:tu:

I can't wait to hear the response lol

I know, you couldn't resists...ehh

Full out invasion not required unless there was something to gain.

There was somthing to gain, we removed Saddam from power, we ended his state sponsered terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong
I know, you couldn't resists...ehh

There was somthing to gain, we removed Saddam from power, we ended his state sponsered terrorism.

and you are sniffing glue again ;)

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
I know, you couldn't resists...ehh

There was somthing to gain, we removed Saddam from power, we ended his state sponsered terrorism.

saddam wasn't a sponsor of terrorists. who told you that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong
saddam wasn't a sponsor of terrorists. who told you that?

Bush you idiot !!!!!

:lol:

I was kidding on the idiot thing. Not Bush though, he's an idiot LOL

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar
saddam wasn't a sponsor of terrorists. who told you that?

Its a well known fact he was Saddam Hussein paid $25000 bonuses to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. here is one example

"Congressional investigators say Saddam Hussein used oil-for-food cash to make payments of $15,000 to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers."

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.