Stuck on stupid – NYC Nov. 2, 2005

Don’t know whether to laugh or cry when viewing these anti-war protest photos.

Hat tip: Little Green Footballs, who has more.

53 Responses to "Stuck on stupid – NYC Nov. 2, 2005"

Fat Tone says:

November 4, 2005 at 9:50 am

Somebody tell them that Halloween was on Monday..they need to wait a year for the next costume parade.
Norah says:

November 4, 2005 at 11:57 am

A majority (55%) think that the Bush administration was untruthful about the reasons to invade Iraq, according to ABC’s latest poll. Also, a majority disapprove of Bush’s job performance overall, don’t think he’s a good leader, or honest, and don’t think he understands the problems of people like them.

You guys are out of touch with mainstream America.
PCD says:

November 4, 2005 at 12:02 pm

Earth to Norah, ABC is biased and so is their poll. You are the one who isn’t honest and out of touch with America.
Lorica says:

November 4, 2005 at 1:36 pm

Norah can you name the reasons we went to war??
Baklava says:

November 4, 2005 at 1:54 pm

oooh. oooh. I remember a response here that was deleted.

I said:
NORAH,
If 90% think the world is flat does that mean the world is flat?

Please point out to us what Bush’s lie was.
webmistress says:

November 4, 2005 at 3:16 pm

Let’s talk about the “aluminum tube” issue.

From Colin Powell’s speech to the UN:

Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes. First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use. Second, Iraq had no business buying them for any purpose. They are banned for Iraq.

I am no expert on centrifuge tubes, but just as an old Army trooper, I can tell you a couple of things: First, it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets.

Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don’t think so.

POWELL: Second, we actually have examined tubes from several different batches that were seized clandestinely before they reached Baghdad. What we notice in these different batches is a progression to higher and higher levels of specification, including, in the latest batch, an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces. Why would they continue refining the specifications, go to all that trouble for something that, if it was a rocket, would soon be blown into shrapnel when it went off (emphasis mine)?

From CBS News (I know, I know, Dan Rather and all that, but there is some good input from one of Powell’s guys here.)

Experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the scientists who enriched uranium for American bombs, advised that the tubes were all wrong for a bomb program. At about the same time, Thielmann’s (worked for Powell) office was working on another explanation. It turned out the tubes’ dimensions perfectly matched an Iraqi conventional rocket.

“The aluminum was exactly, I think, what the Iraqis wanted for artillery” recalls Thielmann, who says he sent that word up to the Secretary of State months before. Houston Wood was a consultant who worked on the Oak Ridge analysis of the tubes. He watched Powell’s speech, too.

“I guess I was angry, that’s the best way to describe my emotions. I was angry at that” says Wood, who is among the world’s authorities on uranium enrichment by centrifuge. He found the tubes couldn’t be what the CIA thought they were. They were too heavy, three times too thick and certain to leak. (emphasis mine)

“Wasn’t going to work. They would have failed,” says Wood, who reached that conclusion back in 2001.

Thielmann reported to Secretary Powell’s office that they were confident the tubes were not for a nuclear program. Then, about a year later, when the administration was building a case for war, the tubes were resurrected on the front page of The New York Times.

—

So, did the administration willingly mis-use this information or was it a mistake?

–Mistress
Baklava says:

November 4, 2005 at 4:46 pm

You answer lies within what you bolded yourself – “He found the tubes couldn’t be what the CIA thought they were. They were too heavy, three times too thick and certain to leak.

The CIA (the intelligence agency was incorrect. ALL intelligence agencies around the world were incorrect. ALL of them were duped by Saddam.

How can you turn Bush or Powell into a liar just because the CIA was incorrect or said to be incorrect by a person?

We seemed to be making headway with you the other day. But you are still having a tendency to call someone a liar due to a disagreement in what something meant. Is this the type of converstation what you want? How did you envision the conversation to go?

Let’s put it this way. A car expert (CIA) says to a husband (Bush), “this windshield wiper will last 10 years”. The husband who needs new wipers buys them and tells the wife why. Next year the wife accuses the husband of lying or misusing the information because the wiper is completely falling off the metal bracket.

You can bash the husband as having “made a mistake” but how does it further relationships or the discussion we are having? We ALL recognize that stockpiles of WMD’s haven’t been located. THIS MEANS THAT ALL politicians who thought they were there were wrong and so were all of the intelligence agencies.

Do you see that yet?
webmistress says:

November 4, 2005 at 5:03 pm

Perhaps I bolded the wrong sentence. The following paragraph in the 2nd quote.

“Wasn’t going to work. They would have failed” says Wood, who reached that conclusion back in 2001.

The debate about the tubes came up BEFORE Powell’s speech to the UN.

Granted, Powell did qualify his conclusions about the use of the tubes in his speech, but there is also contention w/in the scientific community about his qualificatio:

In his U.N. speech, Secretary Powell acknowledged there was disagreement about the tubes, but he said most experts agreed with the nuclear theory.

“There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium” said Powell.

“Most experts are located at Oak Ridge and that was not the position there” says Wood, who claims he doesn’t know anyone in academia or foreign government who would disagree with his appraisal. “I don’t know a single one anywhere.”

In response to something you wrote, I have a question.

We seemed to be making headway with you the other day. But you are still having a tendency to call someone a liar due to a disagreement in what something meant. Is this the type of converstation what you want? How did you envision the conversation to go?

I am curious. What do you consider progress to be?

–Mistress
Lorica says:

November 4, 2005 at 10:32 pm

Mistress just because our experts didn’t think the tubes wouldn’t work, doesn’t mean that Sadamn’s intent wasn’t to make them work. Iraq’s scientist were under death threats to make their projects work. I do believe that Sadamn wanted nuclear weapons and would use them once he got them. For what reason did he have all the dual purpose explosives that were in his possesion?? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there is a good possibility it’s a duck. – Lorica
Baklava says:

November 5, 2005 at 1:40 am

I consider progress to be that liberals like yourself don’t think that conservatives are evil. We each have good intentions but we each have different solutions towards solving the problems.

Bush acted on the same intelligence that was presented to Clinton. While Clinton did nothing except say the same thing Bush did about Iraq, Bush decided to act on Iraq given the consequences of inaction and the lessons of 9/11.

While in a time of war you are trying Bush in the court of public opinion for lying, we are continuingly telling you that everyone said the same thing, but you are aiding and abetting the enemy. They feel emboldened by your actions.

Now. You can change your behavior once confronted with what you are doing or continue your course of action. Which one will it be Webmistress?

And… Why can’t you say that you simply disagreed with the action of going to Iraq and removing Saddam? Why does it have to be inaccurate charges and accusations over and over. Do you recognize the pattern? Do you want to continue this way? What would be your alternative?
Lorica says:

November 5, 2005 at 11:01 am

Very good points Baklava. Clinton never received this kind of bad press for Kosovo. No UN support, use of obscure NATO rules to get it to join the fight. Upsetting Russia, blowing up the Chinese embassy. That last was simply blamed on bad Intel, and we moved on. There were 3 reasons we went to war in Iraq, 2 of the 3 were right on. The 3rd was only slightly off, and yet that is what the detractors of this war want to harp about.

Sadamn Hussien was a ruthless, insane dictator. I for one am thankful that GW had the fortitude to do what needed to be done there, despite all the forces allied to the evil that is Sadamn Hussien. – Lorica
webmistress says:

November 5, 2005 at 12:11 pm

From Baklava:

I consider progress to be that liberals like yourself don’t think that conservatives are evil. We each have good intentions but we each have different solutions towards solving the problems.

I have stated previously that I do not consider all conservatives to be evil. I believe that liberals and conservatives have much in common–we all want to live free, productive and meaningful lives. We differ on how to achieve this goal.

Baklava wrote:

While in a time of war you are trying Bush in the court of public opinion for lying, we are continuingly telling you that everyone said the same thing, but you are aiding and abetting the enemy. They feel emboldened by your actions.

These types of statements don’t add to the debate. Just because you tell me something, doesn’t mean I will come to the same conclusion you do. I believe there is evidence that the available intelligence was either willfully or mistakenly manipulated to garner support for the Iraq war. Just because you say it wasn’t doesn’t necessarily make it so. Also, I strongly dislike having my patriotism called into question if I do not tow the Republican party line. I have a real problem w/that.
Norah says:

November 7, 2005 at 9:01 am

Yup. Every poll is biased and wrong. That must be it, right? Every single poll. Gosh.
Pam says:

November 7, 2005 at 9:09 am

Now you get it Norah
Baklava says:

November 7, 2005 at 12:11 pm

Webmistress paints with a broad brush even though Bush said the same things as almost every other Democrat between 1998 and 2002 by saying, “I believe there is evidence that the available intelligence was either willfully or mistakenly manipulated to garner support for the Iraq war”.

Tell us please which evidence. You can smear but the continuance of such merely aids and abets the enemy as they continually kill more of our servicemen and feel more condident that they will make us pull out! Because of folks like you who continue to smear in a time of war.

Webmistress wrote, “Also, I strongly dislike having my patriotism called into question“. I didn’t call into question your patriotism. I called into question your tactics during a time of war when you should simply say, “I disagree with being in Iraq or didn’t want us to go to Iraq“. You go further and say, “Bush lied” (during a time of war) where our service men are in harms way.

Webmistress wrote, “I have a real problem w/that.”

Well. I have a real problem with people continuing to call someone a liar without the evidence or specific statements to back it up. Which statement of Bush’s was a lie? What evidence was manipulated by Bush? Why do you refer to evidence gathered by intelligence agencies (in other countries even WAY before Bush was in office as manipulated?

With logic I can already tell you that your accusations are unfounded.

With logic I can already tell you that you are helping the enemy. They think (based on watching CNN) that they are on the verge of making us withdraw from Iraq. If only they kill a few more of our servicemen with IED’s. They’ll really have people like you livid and urging us to withdraw out of Iraq. Isn’t that the case Webmistress? That’s not calling into your patriotism at all. That’s simply using common sense and pointing out what I believe is happening. I could be wrong. They might NOT feel this close “” to making us withdraw. They may care less what the political atmosphere is like here in this country. Is this what you think Webmistress?

Norah,

I wrote to you:
NORAH,
If 90% think the world is flat does that mean the world is flat?

Please point out to us what Bush’s lie was.

To which you responded:
Yup. Every poll is biased and wrong. That must be it, right? Every single poll. Gosh.

If the poll that showed that 90% of the people thought the world was flat didn’t point out fact then that poll was wrong.

If someone didn’t lie but 90% of the people think that person lied, the poll is wrong.

Polls aren’t evidence of fact. Polls could be right or wrong. My question again Norah is:
Please point out to us what Bush’s lie was.
webmistress says:

November 7, 2005 at 3:57 pm

Baklava wrote:

Tell us please which evidence. You can smear but the continuance of such merely aids and abets the enemy as they continually kill more of our servicemen and feel more condident that they will make us pull out! Because of folks like you who continue to smear in a time of war.

New information is coming out daily about this issue. For example, the published reports yesterday that the information used from an Al Quaeda detainee may have been false. I can dig up a link if you wish. Also, the continued conflation of Iraq w/9-11. I’ve seen both sides of the argument on this, and it looks pretty sketchy to me that Saddamn had anything to do with. Don’t get me wrong–he is a horrible, dispicable person who deserves everything bad that happens to him.

Baklava wrote:

With logic I can already tell you that your accusations are unfounded.

I think the jury’s out on this one.

Baklava wrote:

I called into question your tactics during a time of war when you should simply say, “I disagree with being in Iraq or didn’t want us to go to Iraq”. You go further and say, “Bush lied” (during a time of war) where our service men are in harms way.

So, I’m supposed to shut my mouth when I see our government doing something wrong? I have to call B.S. on that!

For the record, I don’t advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this time. I think we would leave a dangerous power vacuum. I was also on the fence about the invasion, but now I don’t trust the reasons we were originally given.

–Mistress
Baklava says:

November 7, 2005 at 5:16 pm

Webmistress alleged, “For example, the published reports yesterday that the information used from an Al Quaeda detainee may have been false.

Here’s a take on that one:
The Intelligence War

This article is VERY damning about the New York Times and Democrats and their allegations concerning this latest allegation of your Webmistress. Please read it thoroughly. I had to read it twice to take it all in. It covers this allegation entirely. It also covers the Iraq and Al’Qaida link. I don’t know anyone who is saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 Webmistress but who says the war was against only those who carried out 9/11? Why are liberals trying to tie our hands around our backs when the War on Terror is much larger than who carried out 9/11?

Webmistress wrote, “So, I’m supposed to shut my mouth when I see our government doing something wrong?” Nope. Two points: 1) You should say you disagreed with going to war in Iraq if you did 2) You are free to say anything and everything but I’m free to say that there is a reality (my opinion:winkthat you are aiding the enemy because they feel they are this close “” to making us leave. So. If you want to keep going down the road that Bush lied when he merely reported what the CIA (intelligence) said and didn’t manufacture evidence (as you alledge) please understand that people like me will feel free to let you know that 1) Your allegation is false based on logic and facts and 2) question why would you continue down that road knowing that it is a false charge and it is giving ENERGY (aid and comfort) to the enemy.

It’s pure sports talk analogy stuff. It is very aparrent to people that cheering louder will help a home team’s defense and mess with the visiting team’s offense ability to carry out a play.

If in WWII, we questioned FDR like we are doing Bush about everything from the internment camps to the bombing of cities like Dresden, Germany and how much were we helping Europe before the war and on and on it would’ve been over in my opinion. We are in a serious war. Islamists (not Muslims Elendril) want us dead. The war in Iraq is a major offense to them. They do not want the west in the Arabian peninsula. Osama and Zarqawi (sp) have stated this over and over. It was truly offensive that we’ve been there since before 1991. Osama was really peeved about the first gulf war. He stated so many times before 2001.

We need to suck it up and start working TOGETHER. This is serious stuff. It isn’t like the issue should we cut taxes or raise taxes or spend “federal” money on stem cell research or not. This is serious serious stuff and you guys are really trying to make ANOTHER argument that the article I linked above totally refutes! This pattern of the left’s is NOT helpful in this war on terror at all.
Brian says:

November 8, 2005 at 12:56 am

Baklava,

Webmistress has every right to criticize the president and his administration for what they are doing wrong. You are the one who is aiding the enemy by supporting the president without question, and telling others to do so, even though his policies are seriously harming our nation. The president was wrong in his reasons for going to war with Iraq. The intelligence should be investigated to find out what went wrong in the decision to go to war with Iraq. According to the following article, where CIA officials actually were interviewed, the CIA was pressured by the administration to “find intelligence” that would support the decision to go to war. In addition to pressuring the CIA to find intelligence they want to hear, the president and his appointee, Peter Goss, have been decimating the CIA.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10472

Since Goss took over, between 30 and 90 senior CIA officials have made their exit, according to various sources, some fleeing into retirement, others taking refuge as consultants. Others, unable to retire, have stayed, but only to mark time at the agency. Morale, already low after several years during which the CIA was accused of a series of intelligence failures related to September 11 and Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, is now at rock-bottom. The agency’s vaunted Near East Division, in particular, which served as the “pointy end of the spear” as one CIA veteran put it, in simultaneous wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the “global war on terror” has been decimated.

Despite the vise-like squeeze on the CIA by Cheney and the Defense Department, the agency still got a lot on Iraq right. Not once in the period up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 did the U.S. intelligence community determine that Hussein posed a threat to the United States. The CIA concluded convincingly that there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and that Hussein had no connection to bin Laden’s attacks. “We, at CIA, were convinced within days — within hours, by midday on September 11 — that we had evidence that it was al-Qaeda and had no reason to suspect that Iraq was involved” says a former high-level official. “That was our position, and we held to it firmly.” According to Scheuer, after the CIA received repeated inquiries about Iraqâ€“al-Qaeda links from Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith’s office, the agency reviewed more than 70,000 documents and pieces of data, concluding that there was no tie between Hussein and al-Qaeda.

The CIA also correctly concluded that Iraq was not even close to developing nuclear weapons. And, long before the war, the CIA told the White House that if the United States invaded Iraq and carried out a prolonged occupation, it would spark an insurgency like the one now tearing Iraq apart. “We did predict this in papers that we wrote” says a former CIA official.

Paul Pillar was one of many inside the CIA who accurately foresaw the insurgency, according to Scheuer. A longtime CIA officer who served in battle-scarred venues such as Sri Lanka, Algeria, and Kashmir until becoming the national intelligence officer for the Middle East, Pillar “knows insurgencies inside out” says Scheuer admiringly. “It’s no surprise that Pillar would understand that there would be an insurgency in Iraq.”

By 2004, the CIA had issued a steady stream of finished intelligence products that, one after another, undermined the premises of the Bush administration’s basic assertions about the occupation. The team that put these together included McLaughlin, the bloodied Near East Division analysts, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Not only did the CIA’s work shoot holes in White House policy; several of its conclusions were leaked, finding their way on to the front pages of the major newspapers. More than anything else, it was these leaks that enraged Bush and Cheney and caused them to turn to Porter Goss as their enforcer.
PCD says:

November 8, 2005 at 8:17 am

Brian, why are you so Anti-American?
PCD says:

November 8, 2005 at 9:37 am

Another thing Brian, why are you such a partisan hypocrite? You are in outrage about Plame, yet the CIA leaking secret materials, you praise. It is a crime to leak classified documents.
Lorica says:

November 8, 2005 at 10:26 am

Brian What Reasons was the President wrong about??
Baklava says:

November 8, 2005 at 5:35 pm

Brian wrote, “Webmistress has every right to criticize the president and his administration for what they are doing wrong”

That’s my point Brian. If the president DIDN’T lie then Webmistress nor you should expect that you can just SAY he did and not expect that you’ll get flack. If you continue to say he did something wrong (lie), when he didn’t then you will continue to get verbal smackdowns and you won’t even realize it because you aren’t able to read the English language as well as you able to hate (my opinion that I have the right to have).

Brian wrote, “You are the one who is aiding the enemy by supporting the president without question”. Incorrect. Do you ever get tired of writing incorrect sentence after incorrect sentence? Would you like to understand English better so that we can actually understand each other? I don’t support the president without question. I just do not believe your lie accusation as well as Webmistress’s accusation of manipulating intelligence has merit.

Brian wrote, “The president was wrong in his reasons for going to war with Iraq. Yes. But we are there now! What would you do? Pull the troops out because there isn’t stockpiles of WMD’s and Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Albright and every major intelligence agency was WRONG? You have not offered solutions only reasons to hate Bush. Many of those reasons are invalid.

Brian wrote, “According to the following article, where CIA officials actually were interviewed, the CIA was pressured by the administration to “find intelligence” that would support the decision to go to war. Even if that ACCUSATION is true Brian it wasn’t Bush lying as you and the media keep saying. It’d been the CIA lying if they found erroneous info to give to Bush. In the 18 month long rush (yeah rush is what liberals said) to war, Bush was required to give the reasons and the liberals now want to pin Bush to the ground because Bush ASKED for the CIA to give the reasons? You are WEIRD Brian. Just plain Weird. When I represent my boss in a document like this last one I gave, She asked me to represent the security point of view and the business impact and I wrote it. I didn’t lie for her and the CIA shouldn’t have lied for Bush. And STILL you can’t come up with one Bush lie.

Brian laughingly wrote, “Morale, already low after several years during which the CIA was accused of a series of intelligence failures related to September 11 and Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction

Did the CIA predict 9/11? Did the CIA or any other countries intelligence agency get it right with respect to WMD’s in Iraq? NO BRIAN! How is it Bush’s fault that either a) he misled and then b) the CIA has low morale because of their failures? Explain your logic Brian. This is YOUR logic that is failing Brian. You can’t string to logical arguments together in a single post. Your reading comprehension needs help!

Sorry to be so truthful today. There is no beating around the bush (no pun intended) here because you keep trying to pummel a dead horse issue. You are obsessed (in my opinion) with no SOLUTIONS going forward.
Brian says:

November 8, 2005 at 10:05 pm

PCD,

What classified material was leaked?
Brian says:

November 8, 2005 at 10:06 pm

Lonica,

The president was wrong about there being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Brian says:

November 8, 2005 at 10:09 pm

Baklava,

You have the same annoying habit as Rush Limbaugh. You both distort what other people say and instead of responding to what they said, you respond to your own distortion. Webmistress and I did not say that President Bush lied. We were both questioning some of the claims made by the administration in their justification for going to war. Webmistress specifically posted statements made by Colin Powell about the use of aluminum tubes and then she posted statements by experts whose conclusions contradicted what Colin Powell said. You then went on to say that by doing this she is “aiding and abetting the enemy”. That’s just nonsense. If the administration is going to use questionable evidence to justify going to war, Americans have every right to speak out about it. By telling anyone that questions any claims made in justifying going to war by President Bush or his administration that they are aiding and abetting the enemy, you are supporting the president without question.

You said, “I just do not believe your lie accusation as well as Webmistress’s accusation of manipulating intelligence has merit.”

As I said before, you support the president without question.

You said, “Bush acted on the same intelligence that was presented to Clinton”.

That’s completely ridiculous. Do you really think that there was no new intelligence found on Iraq after Bill Clinton left office? How could you possibly know what intelligence was presented to Presidents Bush and Clinton?

Did you even read the article I linked to?

I will post the link again.
http://prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10472

You don’t see anything wrong with the CIA being pressured to provide intelligence that supports a policy rather than an unbiased view? You consider it WEIRD for expecting that the administration would ask the CIA for an objective, unbiased view? Here’s another quote from the article that you didn’t read:

From 2001 on, its covert operatives and analysts were ignored, pressured, and forced to toe the administration’s line; neoconservative ideologues considered those operatives to be virtually part of the enemy camp. Many of those who remain inside the CIA are distraught, convinced that their work is wasted on an administration that doesn’t want to hear the truth.

You said:

Brian laughingly wrote, “Morale, already low after several years during which the CIA was accused of a series of intelligence failures related to September 11 and Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction

Did the CIA predict 9/11? Did the CIA or any other countries intelligence agency get it right with respect to WMD’s in Iraq? NO BRIAN! How is it Bush’s fault that either a) he misled and then b) the CIA has low morale because of their failures? Explain your logic Brian. This is YOUR logic that is failing Brian.

As I said before, you didn’t even bother reading the article I linked to. In addition, you take my quote out of context. Here are some more quotes from the article on how the Bush Administration is decimating the CIA:

More broadly, the Goss team clamped down on dissenting views and radically politicized the CIA’s leadership. Even worse, say former agency officials, Goss has acquiesced in the dismantling of the CIA itself, which has bowed too easily to the supremacy of the new director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, who spent his days in Baghdad contradicting the CIA’s clear-eyed battle reports.

You said, you can’t string to logical arguments together in a single post. Your reading comprehension needs help!

What I did was post various points made in the article I linked to. Apparently this is too difficult for you to figure out.
PCD says:

November 9, 2005 at 7:56 am

Brian, you were the “person” who complained that everyone at the CIA was covert, therefore ALL information at the CIA is SECRET. Any leak would be of secret information using your low standards of logic.
Lorica says:

November 9, 2005 at 10:18 am

Brian That’s a reason, not a plurality. You said reasons just wanted to make sure you didn’t know more than you did. It is the same old reason that really has grown rather tiresome. So apparently the other REASONS are correct. Thanks for helping me clear that up. – Lorica
Baklava says:

November 9, 2005 at 11:56 am

Brian wrote, “The president was wrong about there being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

Yes. Most people were wrong. The intelligence agencies were wrong. Bill was wrong. John was wrong. Ted was wrong. Madeliene was wrong.

Glad we got that cleared up!! Again.
Baklava says:

November 9, 2005 at 12:09 pm

Brian wrote, “We were both questioning some of the claims made by the administration”

Information was fed to the administration by Intelligence. Yes. The intelligence was wrong.

Brian wrote, “statements made by Colin Powell about the use of aluminum tubes”

Yes. Information given to him by intelligence

Brian wrote, “administration is going to use questionable evidence ”

As everyone else did. You are obsessed with one person. Reading Comprehension Brian.

Brian accused incorrectly, “As I said before, you support the president without question”

No. I understand logic and am able to comprehend English. When it isn’t just one person who made the claims about Iraq and it went on BEFORE Bush’s presidency then I conclude that Bush wasn’t making lies or manipulating evidence. I conclude that the intelligence was FAULTY. Do you support the intelligence without question?:neutral:

Brian spun, “You don’t see anything wrong with the CIA being pressured to provide intelligence that supports a policy rather than an unbiased view?”

If that’s your characterization there is something wrong with it. But that is your characterization and there has been something wrong with every one of your characterizations. They don’t match up with the facts.

Brian included from the article of opinions, “From 2001 on, its covert operatives and analysts were ignored, pressured, and forced to toe the administration’s line”

Yep. Those were opinions from a newspaper. Thanks for the quote to show you how you get your facts.

BTW. I’m done with you for a week.

All I’ve been trying to get across to you is this:
1) You disagreed with those who wanted to go to war in Iraq. You had a differing opinion. As did some others.
2) You are using the fact that intelligence across the globe was incorrect (even before Bush was in office) to say, “see Bush didn’t want to see the truth, he lied, he manipulated, he pressured, etc to commit us to go to war in Iraq”
3) I have said repeatedly that we are there and what is your moving forward solution. You don’t present one. I can only guess that you are for pulling the troops out (as well as bashing Bush for being incorrect when it was Madeliene, John, Bill, Ted and every intelligence agency that was incorrect also. Please tell us Brian what you think the consequences of pulling the troops out of Iraq tomorrow morning would be. Have a good week!:roll:
PCD says:

November 9, 2005 at 12:27 pm

Baklava,

You ask the impossible of Brian. You asked him to think for himself. He hasn’t presented one thing on this blog that was little more than cut and paste from the MSM or DU or the DNC.
Baklava says:

November 9, 2005 at 1:09 pm

All I can tell is that because he disagreed with going to war he thinks the President should be impeached for saying the information that the CIA gave him and everyone else including Democrats (who said the same things).

He disagreed with going to war!

But we are there!

Now what?

He’ll never say and/or be honest about the bloodbath that’d happen to innocent Iraqi’s if we pull out tomorrow.

He’s all about one agenda. I’ve analyzed both sides of the argument. While part of me wishes that we weren’t in the situation we are in, the other part knows we are there and we have to MAKE the BEST of it and get RESOLVE and show the terrorists there that they aren’t this close “” to making us pull out.
PCD says:

November 9, 2005 at 1:23 pm

Baklava,

More and more evidence and statements are being recalled that the Democrats believed there were WMD in Iraq.
PCD says:

November 9, 2005 at 1:26 pm

Let me try to link the quotes by Sen. Carl Levin again.

Article

Fixed it, PCD –ST
Lorica says:

November 9, 2005 at 1:30 pm

I really want to speak to the “supporting the President without question” comment. That is not true, and it seems to me that most of us who support the President are pretty well informed. Informed not because we are blind, but because we have questions. Brian you can’t have it both ways. We follow the President unquestioningly over the war, but are in “rebellion” over a Supreme Court Nominee. If we are blind, we are blind. – Lorica
Baklava says:

November 9, 2005 at 1:43 pm

…and over the “illegal” immigrant issue.

…and over the first time federal spending on stem cell research (much better left to the private sector which has been and continues to be more efficient on the topic

…and over the lack of vetoes on spending bills (first Bush had over 23 vetoes) to control spending

Unfortunately, contradicting someone’s incorrect claim that Bush misled the country into war earns you a label as “supporting the president blindly” even though all we are saying is that we agreed with the decision to go to war and/or we are saying “we are there now and can’t pull out now”.

Brian wants to accuse without consequences. Have nobody show him the illogical nature of his argument.

It’s as if Bush while he were governor of Texas fed info to all of the world’s intelligence agencies so that leaders talked about Iraq in the same way that Bush did before Bush was president. Then the intelligence agencies didn’t predict 9/11, yet they are demoralized because of Bush’s pressure and expecting them to lie and mislead to make a case for war….

I’m sorry. Get me off of this turnip truck!
Lorica says:

November 9, 2005 at 1:44 pm

My favorite quote is the one about “body bags”. What is this obsession these guys have with them?? – Lorica
Baklava says:

November 9, 2005 at 1:45 pm

Isn’t the weekly standard great PCD? Doing the journalists job! Using logic, common sense and facts!
PCD says:

November 9, 2005 at 2:07 pm

I really think the MSM is going to face legislation where they will be forced into correcting or retracting incorrect or outright propagandistic stories, if not force them to have Ombudsmen with real power to correct things or fire the miscreant.
Baklava says:

November 9, 2005 at 4:36 pm

Unfortunately PCD, Congress shall make now law abridging that freedom of speech.

We must hold the press accountable for the misinformation.

Short of libel and shouting fire in a crowded theater (creating a situation where safety is not afforded to anyone), the press will continue this way and the Congress can do nothing.
Sister Toldjah says:

November 9, 2005 at 6:48 pm

Must Read for people like Brian and Webmistress and Norah

Comment by Baklava @ 11/9/2005 – 6:33 pm

(Baklava oringinally posted this – I have moved it from the other thread to this one this one)
webmistress says:

November 9, 2005 at 11:05 pm

I’m not ignoring y’all. I’m a little swamped right now. Hopefully, I’ll catch up my reading tomorrow.

–Mistress
Brian says:

November 10, 2005 at 12:41 am

It seems Baklava is completely incapable of having even a simple discussion without lying and distorting what the other person said.

Regarding my statement about the CIA being pressured to provide intelligence that supports a policy, Baklava said, “If that’s your characterization there is something wrong with it. But that is your characterization and there has been something wrong with every one of your characterizations. They don’t match up with the facts.”

That’s not my characterization. According to the article I posted, that claim was attributed to a CIA agent. Baklava seems to think he is more informed about what goes on in the CIA than the actual CIA agents who work there.

Regarding my statement, “From 2001 on, its covert operatives and analysts were ignored, pressured, and forced to toe the administration’s line”

Baklava said: Yep. Those were opinions from a newspaper. Thanks for the quote to show you how you get your facts.

Once again this was from an article that attributed the claim to a CIA agent.

Baklava said, “You disagreed with those who wanted to go to war in Iraq. You had a differing opinion. As did some others.”

I never said that.

Baklava said, “You are using the fact that intelligence across the globe was incorrect (even before Bush was in office) to say, “see Bush didn’t want to see the truth, he lied, he manipulated, he pressured, etc to commit us to go to war in Iraq”

Once again Baklava is distorting what I said. I never said that.

Baklava said “All I can tell is that because he disagreed with going to war he thinks the President should be impeached for saying the information that the CIA gave him and everyone else including Democrats (who said the same things).”

Now Baklava is telling everyone what I think. This is a lie. I never said President Bush should be impeached.

Baklava said, “He’ll never say and/or be honest about the bloodbath that’d happen to innocent Iraqi’s if we pull out tomorrow”

I never said anything about pulling out of Iraq tomorrow.

Baklava said:

Unfortunately, contradicting someone’s incorrect claim that Bush misled the country into war earns you a label as “supporting the president blindly” even though all we are saying is that we agreed with the decision to go to war and/or we are saying “we are there now and can’t pull out now”.

I never said that President Bush misled the country into war. Once again Baklava is distorting what I said.

My position is that it is not known whether or not President Bush or anyone in his administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence in order to justify going to war. Just saying that other people also said there were weapons of mass destruction does not prove anything. Sister Toldjah, Baklava, Lonica, and PCD have not reviewed all of the intelligence that was presented to the president on Iraq. They are not in a position to determine whether or not the president was justified in his decision to go to war based on the information available to him.

I read the “must read” article that Baklava linked to and it does nothing to justify the president’s decision to go to war other than repeat the standard quotes that are being repeated all over the right wing media.
Brian says:

November 10, 2005 at 12:52 am

Lonica,

When I said “support the president without question”, I was referring to his decision to go to war.
PCD says:

November 10, 2005 at 8:53 am

Brian,

You have a problem, not the rest of the people here. You are a total waste of time. You can’t reason. You use quote and deny how you are using them. You make yourself more the fool with each and every post. Seek help, young man.
Lorica says:

November 10, 2005 at 10:24 am

Well that’s nice Brian. Sooooo You oppose the decision to take out a ruthless and insane dictator. I mean Yippee Skippy you found one reason not to go to war. There are dozens of broken UN resolutions, and illegal sales of high tech weapons, and ties to terrorists groups, and the UN oil scandal, and ….. this list grows longer with each passing day Brian. Hussein needed to go, I await his trial, and just like on the day the US military freed Baghdad, the MSM was silent on how the Iraqi people greeted our people with such joy. You too will fall silent when all the atrocities of Sadamn Hussein are exposed. I don’t follow this decision blindly, I am fully informed and am very concerned about the welfare and lives of the people of Iraq, and the middle east. Stop clinging to the 1 reason that was in error, and start to celebrate what is now a future of hope for the Iraqi people. – Lorica
Brian says:

November 10, 2005 at 7:31 pm

PCD,

Once again you show how weak your position is. You are completely incapable of refuting anything I say, so you resort to personally attacking me. On the other hand, most of your comments are very easily refuted. All you are capable of doing is repeating the lies and distortions you hear from Rush Limbaugh.
Brian says:

November 10, 2005 at 7:36 pm

Lonica,

I never said anything about opposing the decision to take out a dictator. The topic being discussed is whether or not intelligence was misrepresented in justifying the decision to go to war.
Brian says:

November 10, 2005 at 7:56 pm

PCD said:

I really think the MSM is going to face legislation where they will be forced into correcting or retracting incorrect or outright propagandistic stories, if not force them to have Ombudsmen with real power to correct things or fire the miscreant.

This is even more proof that PCD is completely incapable of debating the issues. He wants to ban from the media any views or facts that he is opposed to. He’s obviously not opposed to using the media to spread lies and inaccuracies since he listens to Rush Limbaugh.
Baklava says:

November 10, 2005 at 8:48 pm

Brian wrote, “incapable of refuting anything I say” We’ve refuted what you had to say over and over again. All you are capable of doing is repeating the arguments you’ve used over and over again and then denying you are making the argument.

The point is that you seem to have a disagreement but instead of stating that you “feel” differently you attack a president who said the same things as your mentors.

Brian wrote, “The topic being discussed is whether or not intelligence was misrepresented in justifying the decision to go to war. It wasn’t misrepresented. You just lied and refused to hear any truth. ! (How’s that for a Brianlike comeback) Please. I’ve asked over 10 times I’m sure. Which intelligence was misrepresented? You keep offering differing opinions and opinions that Clinton, Albright, Kerry and all of the intelligence agencies were contradicting. Giving us a link to a story about someone “feeling” that they were pressured at the CIA to lie doesn’t help anyone here. What was the lie? What misinformation did CIA give as a result?

Brian wrote, “wants to ban from the media any views or facts that he is opposed to. It’s a wish that the media would report the fact instead of whipping up people like you who can’t put two logical things together. I’m not sure why your fixation on Rush. Rush never said he was objective. Rush is about commentary. Others in the media make claims for objectivity but are far from it. I listened to NPR today give their view of what Alito wrote in 1990 concerning recusing himself. It was pure opinion about what they think he wrote and not what he actually wrote. Will you bash NPR for that problem?
Lorica says:

November 10, 2005 at 9:23 pm

LOL I can’t continue this discussion. I am literally laughing my *ss off at Brian’s responses. He has made dozens of responses and not a one of them is clear or objective. Yet he accuses others of that very thing. You can’t get a direct answer out of him, and it is just time to sit back and laugh. This discussion has come to the ridiculous. I think it would be easier to nail jello to a wall than for Brian to actually give an objective answer. 😆
Brian says:

November 10, 2005 at 10:14 pm

Baklava,

Do you even bother reading what I write or do you just put words in my mouth? If you go to my post from 11/10/2005 – 12:41 am and look at the second to last paragraph, I specifically said, ” My position is that it is not known whether or not President Bush or anyone in his administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence in order to justify going to war.”. I never said intelligence was definitely misrespresented. You continue to insist that nobody in the administration misrepresented any intelligence. How could you possibly know this? Many claims made by the administration to support their case, such as the aluminum rods mentioned earlier, were disputed. The administration said on many occasions there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. According to the article I presented, the CIA reviewed more than 70,000 documents and did not find any ties between them. Also according to the article, the CIA concluded that Iraq was not even close to developing nuclear weapons. And, long before the war, the CIA told the White House that if the United States invaded Iraq and carried out a prolonged occupation, it would spark an insurgency like the one now tearing Iraq apart. “We did predict this in papers that we wrote” says a former CIA official.

If President Bush or others in his administration disregarded intelligence that did not support their position, or they based their decision to go to war on intelligence that was very questionable, I would consider this to be a very serious matter. Whether this is the case or not, I don’t know. Since the President was wrong about so many things, there should be an investigation to determine what went wrong. If intelligence was disregarded or misrepresented, those who were responsible for this should be held accountable.

Just quoting different people doesn’t prove anything. The issue is not whether or not Iraq was considered a threat. The issue is whether or not there was intelligence misrepresented in justifying the case for war.

I keep mentioning Rush, because your views and the views of others are based on what he says. I even see the exact same things he says repeated in this blog. Much of his commentary is based on lies and inaccuracies. The following site documents just a few of his lies and inaccuracies in his book and from listening to him over a few weeks period:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
Please take a look and read it if you haven’t done so before. This is a “must read” for anyone who is strongly influenced by what Rush says.
Baklava says:

November 10, 2005 at 11:27 pm

Brian wrote, “My position is that it is not known whether or not President Bush or anyone in his administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence in order to justify going to war.”.

It is known. He didn’t.

Brian asked, “How could you possibly know this? Reading Comprehension. The intelligence was given to him. He didn’t manufacture it. The intelligence was consistent with before Bush, after Bush, and other country’s intelligence.

Brian wrote, “Many claims made by the administration to support their case, such as the aluminum rods mentioned earlier, were disputed. Some people disagreed with others. The preponderance of evidence and opinion sided with what Bush stated and Colin Powell stated. Your obsessiveness can’t yield to that information.

Brian wrote, “The administration said on many occasions there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Yep. There were and many reports and articles written by plenty of institutions and people agree with that. You simply disagree. You can end it at that or call the person you disagree with a liar.

Brian wrote, “The issue is whether or not there was intelligence misrepresented

Nope. None. There was no intelligence misrepresented. Please look up misrepresented and tell us what it means.

Brian wrote, “I keep mentioning Rush, because your views and the views of others are based on what he says.

Cool! I haven’t listened to him for more than 10 minutes in over 2 years. That must mean we think alike!

And, I’ll pass on the site you linked. All I need to know is that a) he talks for 3 hours every day for over 2 decades and b) he was one who said 7% increase for 7 years (over 49% compounded) while the mainstream press called it a 270 Billion dollar cut for over 5 months (when talking about Medicare reform). Yes. Accuracy is good. Brian is dead on WRONG when he called it a cut himself. If I add 7 gallons to my gas tank that is an increase no matter if I was going to add 10 or not. You either report truthfully or not. I don’t care how you feel about issues if you can’t report truthfully on the facts.
PCD says:

November 11, 2005 at 8:04 am

Brian,

You don’t listen to anyone but your Anti-American hatemongers. You have been refuted so many times here that you are a virtual verbal punching bag.

As to what I said about the MSM, subconsciously you understand if the law I talked about came to pass, lies like you spread would be retracted just a forcefully as they were published by the MSM, and you can’t have people see the truth, can you?

Comments are closed.