reo Posted April 19, 2017 Report Share Posted April 19, 2017 Just now, TitanDuckFan said: Indeed. I'm sure w/ you being massively partisan that you'd completely believe that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmmmbeeer Posted April 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, TitanDuckFan said: Bullshit. Show me the facts, and you'll convince me. I show you the facts, and you say you have to do more research. Like what? Consult sources even more partisan than you? Or that maybe? If you decide to care? Because let's face it, you're fine with the bullshit meme your stance is predicated on. This thread is a prime example of the kind of partisanship you exhibit in every political thread. The Nigerian yellow cake deal was a blatant lie on the part of the Bush admin to push for war against Iraq. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted April 19, 2017 Report Share Posted April 19, 2017 8 minutes ago, mmmmmbeeer said: The Nigerian yellow cake deal was a blatant lie on the part of the Bush admin to push for war against Iraq. No, the Nigerian yellow cake deal was either misguided Intel from SISMI (Italian intelligence) or an outright lie that SIMSI took to the CIA, who then informed Bush of the report. Even Wiki knows/admits that much. A number of conflicting reports were around at that time, about everything from the yellow cake to the aluminum tubes used in centrifuges. But at the heart of all of it, was the CIA assembling the known, or believed Intel. And they believed it first. Tenet and Morell among them. So this all boils down to "the 16 words" uttered in the SOTU address. The Intel was faulty, no doubt. But to hang it all around Bush's neck as a lie he cooked up is just as bad if not worse. It requires anyone that believes that BS to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to what was known and expressed by the intelligence agency we're supposed to trust daily with the safety and security of the country. The CIA. Who put more credence in one Intel source than the next. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmmmbeeer Posted April 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2017 The intel was debunked prior to Bush using it as motivation to attack. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No1TitansFan Posted April 19, 2017 Report Share Posted April 19, 2017 There were elements in the CIA who thought Sadam still had WMDs, but there were many others who did not. That's why under Clinton, that intelligence never rose to the level that it was considered credible because of the refuting evidence presented by other CIA officials. When Condoleeza Rice went before the UN waving her little packets of white powder saying Sadam could have similar packets of Anthrax, that was a total lie. Sadam's defunct Anthrax program had been confirmed ended by UN inspectors years earlier didn't produce powdered anthrax with an indefinite shelf like the US did; they produced a sludge like substance with a shelf life of 2 years after which it wasn't functional. The Iraqi scientist whose story was presented as proof the program had been reinstated had been completely discredited by West German intelligence and they told the US so when they handed him over; they warned that he was a mercenary who would say whatever he thought his payers wanted to hear so he could continue to get paid. His info on the facility where the new production was allegedly taking place was discredited by satellite imagery; he talked about a back gate where trucks pulled up to loading docks, none of which existed. Yes there were people in the CIA who claimed to have intelligence based on second hand knowledge of WMD production but the agency never treated it as credible because it didn't meet the criteria of being credible intelligence. That's how the CIA operates. Bush's people changed that, they had an agenda and asked for only 'intelligence' that 'proved' what they wanted for their agenda. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted April 19, 2017 Report Share Posted April 19, 2017 32 minutes ago, mmmmmbeeer said: The intel was debunked prior to Bush using it as motivation to attack. Don't waste your time. The but Clinton excuse is all they have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted April 19, 2017 Report Share Posted April 19, 2017 6 minutes ago, oldschool said: Don't waste your time. The but Clinton excuse is all they have. You guys make no fucking sense. On one hand, Bush was dumb as a box of rocks. But on the other hand, he was smart enough to cook up a lie that fooled the congress, the Brits, the Aussies, the media and half the U.N. Listen to yourselves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Btowner Posted April 19, 2017 Report Share Posted April 19, 2017 2 hours ago, TitanDuckFan said: It's not about what I posted. It's about what the former head of the CIA has made public, that you refuse to acknowledge, or believe. And you don't care, because it doesn't fit your politics or your worldview. Yet you're among the first to call me partisan. That makes you and your opinion a joke. Have a nice day. LOL LOL is right. This is the funniest post in this thread. So at some point, you trusted the public announcements of career FBI and CIA officials. Interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyitsmeallen Posted April 19, 2017 Report Share Posted April 19, 2017 6 hours ago, Little Earl said: lol at your stupid dribble. -Lol at your stupid dribble. Obama issued more executive orders and memorandums than Bush. memorandums? Really? Wow...you are wrong about executive orders. Bush-291 Obama- 276 Source Bush's poll numbers were high after 911 and had nothing to do with Iraq. -You are correct that his numbers were up after 9/11 buti was talking about right before the Iraq war. In 2003... not 2001.... the poll taken March 14-15 2003 his aproval rating was 58%. The Iraq war started March 20th 2003 with our first Invasions. The polls on March 22-23 2003 his approval rating was 71%.... I wonder what caused his approval rating to jump 13% in a week... Source After Bill Clinton and all the Democrats lied about WMDs, Bush went in. Bush thought he could solve Middle East problems by bringing in democracy to the region. He was wrong, just like everything you wrote above. -You can't seriously believe this? Bush lied almost 1000 times about WMD and the war in Iraq. Here is 1 source I can find plenty more. Obama did not get Bin Laden, it was our forces that used intel built up and gathered during much of the Bush years. Obama had very little to do with it. -Obama was president and he authorized the mission to kill him. It wasn't Bush's policies that caused the financial meltdown. And Obama did such a great job with the economy that he lost the White house, Congress, and numerous other Democrat state seats. -Obama didn't lose the White House he was a 2 term president. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted April 19, 2017 Report Share Posted April 19, 2017 Lets be real, if the Russia/Trump stuff had any real legs people in the administration would be resigning and offering to testify for immunity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmmmbeeer Posted April 20, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2017 3 hours ago, OILERMAN said: Lets be real, if the Russia/Trump stuff had any real legs people in the administration would be resigning and offering to testify for immunity. Flynn's lawyer came out and offered Flynn's testimony in exchange for immunity. The FBI deferred. This would lead one to believe that FBI has a case without Flynn's testimony.....could be wrong but can't think of another good reason why they would turn down his offer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmmmbeeer Posted April 20, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2017 I really don't think the question is if Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians, I think the question is if the FBI and our free press can gather the evidence to prove it happened. There's smoke, upon smoke, upon smoke, upon more smoke just billowing around this story. There's a fire, we just need to find it. This is, by far, the most vicious conspiracy any of us will see in our lifetimes. We're living history. Let's hope justice prevails. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted April 20, 2017 Report Share Posted April 20, 2017 12 hours ago, mmmmmbeeer said: Flynn's lawyer came out and offered Flynn's testimony in exchange for immunity. The FBI deferred. This would lead one to believe that FBI has a case without Flynn's testimony.....could be wrong but can't think of another good reason why they would turn down his offer. That was the joke Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted April 20, 2017 Report Share Posted April 20, 2017 18 hours ago, TitanDuckFan said: You guys make no fucking sense. On one hand, Bush was dumb as a box of rocks. But on the other hand, he was smart enough to cook up a lie that fooled the congress, the Brits, the Aussies, the media and half the U.N. Listen to yourselves. Bush was an idiot. Cheney and Rove weren't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted April 20, 2017 Report Share Posted April 20, 2017 24 minutes ago, reo said: Bush was an idiot. Cheney and Rove weren't. Mitt Romney and Harry Whittington both think you're full of shit. And so do I BTW. Thanks for playing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.