Desserts a big place. Weapons can be hidden. ....mmmmmm dessert.....
Yeah.... mmmmm.... ?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Desserts a big place. Weapons can be hidden. ....mmmmmm dessert.....
Or mmmmm... apple pie. I lik pie!
Not a bullshit argument and not redundant.topal63 wrote:
Bullshit argument.. & a redundant statement.
PS: I see it very differently. Clearly bad information is bound pop-up; all the time. I don't think anyone in the intelligence community failed here. Quite the opposite. Those who hold a job - usually have x10 the amount of integrity for the truth - when compared to a politician with an agenda.
You're saying that the people who produce the intel have integrity. If that is truly the way you feel, then you have to agree with what I've posted. The intel is objective. It provided indicators of a WMD program, mostly from technical means which are generally held to be more objective than human intelligence (ie, Curveball). The reason it provided those indicators is because Hussein wanted indicators of an active WMD program to be seen by Iran...again, as posted before and covered in Cobra II.
It sucks, but it's a damn sight more plausible than all the conspiracy theories. I'm not saying politicians don't have agendas. It appears there was a "perfect storm" of agenda, intelligence, and perceived threat to justify the invasion. There's no nefarious intent...just bad timing.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
That's a qualification I wouldn't apply and don't see as necessary. This --> "nefarious."
Intent is intent is intent is agenda... etc... and whatever.
In addition I don't see this a necessary either --> "hatred," nausea is certainly not hatred.
They bullshitted so much so, at the top, the political top, that at the pinnacle of this stupidity they were offering-up/plagiarising "school papers" and passing them off as intel to the UN via Powell's seemingly trustworthy mouth.
Intent is intent is intent is agenda... etc... and whatever.
In addition I don't see this a necessary either --> "hatred," nausea is certainly not hatred.
They bullshitted so much so, at the top, the political top, that at the pinnacle of this stupidity they were offering-up/plagiarising "school papers" and passing them off as intel to the UN via Powell's seemingly trustworthy mouth.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-01-24 10:09:29)
We can agree on this one, and maybe I put more emphasis on the element of Bush & Co. having their agendas. I'm pointing out that the agenda was served well with the available intel, and other intel indicating different was never used. A cautious person would have said 'we are not sure about this, we'll have to look deeper into it' while the people in charge had their minds set on going in.FEOS wrote:
I'm not saying politicians don't have agendas. It appears there was a "perfect storm" of agenda, intelligence, and perceived threat to justify the invasion. There's no nefarious intent...just bad timing.
Bottom line is that it doesn't matter who is in office...Democrat or Republican....lies and twisting the truth are the way of life for our national government. Whatever the agenda is, they will tell us what we want to hear to get what they want. The Iraq war would have happened regardless of who was in office at that time. Democrats were just as eager.
I'm not sure what you're getting at WRT "school papers", but it's obvious that you won't let the historical record on this issue stand in the way of your "nausea" of the current administration. I'm no fan personally, but the arguments from people with zero background in intel that intel was falsified or the American people were lied to regarding it are just plain wrong. There's really no other way to characterize it.topal63 wrote:
That's a qualification I wouldn't apply and don't see as necessary. This --> "nefarious."
Intent is intent is intent is agenda... etc... and whatever.
In addition I don't see this a necessary either --> "hatred," nausea is certainly not hatred.
They bullshitted so much so, at the top, the political top, that at the pinnacle of this stupidity they were offering-up/plagiarising "school papers" and passing them off as intel to the UN via Powell's seemingly trustworthy mouth.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
That's the point!!!Pierre wrote:
We can agree on this one, and maybe I put more emphasis on the element of Bush & Co. having their agendas. I'm pointing out that the agenda was served well with the available intel, and other intel indicating different was never used. A cautious person would have said 'we are not sure about this, we'll have to look deeper into it' while the people in charge had their minds set on going in.FEOS wrote:
I'm not saying politicians don't have agendas. It appears there was a "perfect storm" of agenda, intelligence, and perceived threat to justify the invasion. There's no nefarious intent...just bad timing.
So what if there was "bad or very weak intelligence" available for an agenda? Tis still bullshitting - a misrepresentation of the truth = the most common form of deception floating about the political landscape.
That's a valid argument, but if one were to go with the mass of the evidence, it pointed to WMD. The objective indicators were that the program was active. The subjective indicators (ie, HUMINT) were the questionable ones.Pierre wrote:
We can agree on this one, and maybe I put more emphasis on the element of Bush & Co. having their agendas. I'm pointing out that the agenda was served well with the available intel, and other intel indicating different was never used. A cautious person would have said 'we are not sure about this, we'll have to look deeper into it' while the people in charge had their minds set on going in.FEOS wrote:
I'm not saying politicians don't have agendas. It appears there was a "perfect storm" of agenda, intelligence, and perceived threat to justify the invasion. There's no nefarious intent...just bad timing.
You've got 12 years and terabytes of objective data pointing to one conclusion...and a handful of questionable reports pointing to another. Which one does the reasonable man take?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Inspection.FEOS wrote:
That's a valid argument, but if one were to go with the mass of the evidence, it pointed to WMD. The objective indicators were that the program was active. The subjective indicators (ie, HUMINT) were the questionable ones.Pierre wrote:
We can agree on this one, and maybe I put more emphasis on the element of Bush & Co. having their agendas. I'm pointing out that the agenda was served well with the available intel, and other intel indicating different was never used. A cautious person would have said 'we are not sure about this, we'll have to look deeper into it' while the people in charge had their minds set on going in.FEOS wrote:
I'm not saying politicians don't have agendas. It appears there was a "perfect storm" of agenda, intelligence, and perceived threat to justify the invasion. There's no nefarious intent...just bad timing.
You've got 12 years and terabytes of objective data pointing to one conclusion...and a handful of questionable reports pointing to another. Which one does the reasonable man take?
Which they did. And were close to finishing.... but the push/rush to "intent" to "agenda" prevailed.
Go back and look at everything that happened around those inspections. Part of that was presented by Powell at the UN. Trucks associated with WMD sanitizing activity, voice cuts from those sites referring to nerve agents, etc. Again, all part of Hussein's deception op, made even more believable because his own people thought they had WMD. (Source: Cobra II)
I know it's frustrating because you want so bad to believe that there was some kind of malicious intent. But there just wasn't.
So they were acting exactly like they had an active program, and providing the indicators that things that shouldn't be happening were happening. Why? Because as far as they knew, they were dealing with WMD and acted accordingly.Wiki wrote:
A large part of the book is dedicated to describing the internal meetings and perspectives of Iraqi leadership, previously unknown to the public. Thus the book covers the war from multiple angles.
I know it's frustrating because you want so bad to believe that there was some kind of malicious intent. But there just wasn't.
Last edited by FEOS (2008-01-24 10:45:44)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Other insiders (who were in the Admin., unlike you), utterly disagree with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wilkerson
Did I claim to be in the administration at some point? My perspective is from the HQ level. Many of the things relayed in Cobra II were unknown to me while I was there...but they certainly put some decisions in perspective once I learned what was behind them.topal63 wrote:
Other insiders (who were in the Admin., unlike you), utterly disagree with you:
And your boy Wilkerson's denouncement of the intel only speaks to a single, human source (Curveball). Go back and read the posts again. Relying on human intelligence alone for anything is flawed. But that was a single piece of the overall picture. Regarding mobile bioweapons trucks. The more damning evidence was via imagery and signals intercepts provided.
Last edited by FEOS (2008-01-24 10:44:53)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Depends on his agenda... I'm pretty sure Republicans are reasonable too, but when he wants to go to war, he'll use the intel proving his point. If he doesn't want to wage war he'll ask quesions.FEOS wrote:
You've got 12 years and terabytes of objective data pointing to one conclusion...and a handful of questionable reports pointing to another. Which one does the reasonable man take?
The fact I don't like in these scenarios is that they are playing with other people's lifes, because these people are doing the bleeding.
No, nor was that the point...FEOS wrote:
Did I claim to be in the administration at some point? My perspective is from the HQ level. Many of the things relayed in Cobra II were unknown to me while I was there...but they certainly put some decisions in perspective once I learned what was behind them.topal63 wrote:
Other insiders (who were in the Admin., unlike you), utterly disagree with you:
I am easily and simply demonstrating your flawed logic (on this singular-point) - your appeal to authority is a simple common error of logic. Used in opposition to a real argument.
Clearly you've stated that in some way you are an insider (on some level). With special knowledge - else you would have not brought up the fact - that you work in the intelligence community; and you can therefore reason better than others on this issue (which we are "blinded" to, in one way or another). That my friend is either an accidental or deliberate "appeal to authority" rather than reason. And countering that opinion - I am offering up an insiders opinion, who is on a different insider-level than you (who also has access to tera-bytes of data), that see this as more than an intel debacle, goof, but rather like a lie; a misrepresentation of the facts; and in an utterly different way than you.
________
PS: Inspection... a very reasonable thing to do; and we were close to finishing it (which was demonstrating a reality contrary to the so-called intelligence).... but the push/rush to "intent" to "agenda" prevailed.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-01-24 10:58:11)
That is a completely reasonable and agreeable position. I think we can all agree that no one should put others' lives in danger without careful thought beforehand.Pierre wrote:
Depends on his agenda... I'm pretty sure Republicans are reasonable too, but when he wants to go to war, he'll use the intel proving his point. If he doesn't want to wage war he'll ask quesions.FEOS wrote:
You've got 12 years and terabytes of objective data pointing to one conclusion...and a handful of questionable reports pointing to another. Which one does the reasonable man take?
The fact I don't like in these scenarios is that they are playing with other people's lifes, because these people are doing the bleeding.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Allow me to unzip and piss into the fire.
Michael Moore is known to use false information in his documentaries.
Al Gore didn't quite display fact in his pro agenda/farce of a film documentary
The US Government acts on information collected by various world intelligence sources.
Results:
Moore wins Oscars
Gore wins Nobel Prize
Bush is a liar
Human perspective wins.
Michael Moore is known to use false information in his documentaries.
Al Gore didn't quite display fact in his pro agenda/farce of a film documentary
The US Government acts on information collected by various world intelligence sources.
Results:
Moore wins Oscars
Gore wins Nobel Prize
Bush is a liar
Human perspective wins.
I never claimed to be able to reason better than anyone else. I do have a perspective on this that appears to be unique on this forum. I was not "appealing to authority" as you put it...merely framing the context of my argument. What do you expect when people rant on about "intel this" and "intel that" and they know exactly the square root of fuck all about how intel actually works? So my trying to educate some on how the system works so that they may put their own thoughts in the context of reality is somehow not associated with reason?topal63 wrote:
No, nor was that the point...FEOS wrote:
Did I claim to be in the administration at some point? My perspective is from the HQ level. Many of the things relayed in Cobra II were unknown to me while I was there...but they certainly put some decisions in perspective once I learned what was behind them.topal63 wrote:
Other insiders (who were in the Admin., unlike you), utterly disagree with you:
I am easily and simply demonstrating your flawed logic (on this singular-point) - your appeal to authority is a simple common error of logic. Used in opposition to a real argument.
Clearly you've stated that in some way you are an insider (on some level). With special knowledge - else you would have not brought up the fact - that you work in the intelligence community; and you can therefore reason better than others on this issue (which we are "blinded" to, in one way or another). That my friend is either an accidental or deliberate "appeal to authority" rather than reason. And countering that opinion - I am offering up an insiders opinion, who is on a different insider-level than you (who also has access to tera-bytes of data), that see this as an intel debacle, goof, lie, misrepresentation of the facts; and in an utterly different way than you.
Your "insider" had a split with Powell over this. He was being interviewed because of his critical views by someone who clearly agreed with him...who has the agenda there?
So...one guy with an axe to grind after the fact. Versus 12 years of objective data. By the way, folks at his level don't access the terabytes of data. They read summaries written by analysts. And the only thing he points to (according to Wiki, anyway) was a single, disproven, HUMINT source (see previous posts).Wiki wrote:
Wilkerson also agreed with the interviewer that Vice President Cheney's frequent trips to the CIA would inevitably have brought "undue influence" on the agency.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
You're being comical.
"Nefarious," "conspiracy theory," "blinded, "axe-to grind," your gross-characterizations are comical (IMO).
_______
PS: I lay a majority of the blame for the failure to act in a reasonable way upon the media, who let an administration and an agenda simply run them over.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html (Buying the War, the failure of the media).
"Nefarious," "conspiracy theory," "blinded, "axe-to grind," your gross-characterizations are comical (IMO).
_______
PS: I lay a majority of the blame for the failure to act in a reasonable way upon the media, who let an administration and an agenda simply run them over.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html (Buying the War, the failure of the media).
Last edited by topal63 (2008-01-24 11:14:01)
So you've resorted to this now? It's called vocabulary.topal63 wrote:
You're comical.
"Nefarious," "conspiracy theory," "blinded, "axe-to grind," your gross-characterizations are comical.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
It is what it is. Gross-characterizations that seem comical to me.FEOS wrote:
So you've resorted to this now? It's called vocabulary.topal63 wrote:
You're comical.
"Nefarious," "conspiracy theory," "blinded, "axe-to grind," your gross-characterizations are comical.
_________
... in contrast to the feverish preparations for war with Iraq taking place in 2002 at the Pentagon and the United States Central Command under Gen. Tommy R. Franks with the misleading statements emanating from senior officials (the authors note).
An excert from ""Cobra II",
"I have no war plans on my desk," President Bush told a May 23, 2002, news conference. Given that planning for the war had been under way for six months, "the president's statement was true in only the most literal and trivial sense," the authors write. General Franks, the authors note, went even further. When a radio reporter asked him that same month how many troops he would need to invade Iraq, he replied that Secretary Rumsfeld "has not yet asked me to put together a plan to do that." If even half of what Mr. Gordon and General Trainor report about the state of planning by late May 2002 is true, this was a lie.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-01-24 11:33:04)
What some people call descriptive words and phrases, you call "gross-characterizations".
Would these also be examples of "gross-characterizations"?
Would these also be examples of "gross-characterizations"?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Bush lied?
"On bullshit" - it's a book about the prevalence of bullshit in our society; a description; and its' abhorrent function.FEOS wrote:
What some people call descriptive words and phrases, you call "gross-characterizations".
Would these also be examples of "gross-characterizations"?
Last edited by topal63 (2008-01-24 12:49:21)
I see we've devolved from D&ST to something else entirely. GG.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular