No I dont not even close. . . . . . Have you ever been to Menlo Park, CA????KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yeah, but you live in the rainy shitty part of California...fadedsteve wrote:
And you live in rainy shitty England, and I live in California so. . . . . .
He is an OC boy, he cant see past kardashians big ass.fadedsteve wrote:
No I dont not even close. . . . . . Have you ever been to Menlo Park, CA????KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yeah, but you live in the rainy shitty part of California...fadedsteve wrote:
And you live in rainy shitty England, and I live in California so. . . . . .
If you want rainy parts of California go up north towards Oregon buddy
lol!usmarine2 wrote:
He is an OC boy, he cant see past kardashians big ass.fadedsteve wrote:
No I dont not even close. . . . . . Have you ever been to Menlo Park, CA????KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yeah, but you live in the rainy shitty part of California...
If you want rainy parts of California go up north towards Oregon buddy
Last edited by fadedsteve (2008-06-26 19:05:58)
Been to Menlo, and Palo Alto (East Palo Alto is a shithole). Still can't beat sunny OC.fadedsteve wrote:
lol!usmarine2 wrote:
He is an OC boy, he cant see past kardashians big ass.fadedsteve wrote:
No I dont not even close. . . . . . Have you ever been to Menlo Park, CA????
If you want rainy parts of California go up north towards Oregon buddy
Yea dude Menlo is super mild when it comes to rainfall. Its sunny all the fucking time here, I dont know what that guy is talking about.
for christs sake the dude should wiki Menlo Park, CA and see the pictures thats on their, ALL SUNNY and nice. . . . typical Menlo.
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Been to Menlo, and Palo Alto (East Palo Alto is a shithole). Still can't beat sunny OC.fadedsteve wrote:
lol!usmarine2 wrote:
He is an OC boy, he cant see past kardashians big ass.
Yea dude Menlo is super mild when it comes to rainfall. Its sunny all the fucking time here, I dont know what that guy is talking about.
for christs sake the dude should wiki Menlo Park, CA and see the pictures thats on their, ALL SUNNY and nice. . . . typical Menlo.
So you think OSD(P) does intel analysis? That's rich.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I've been down a few roads before too. This exact one in fact. Perhaps we passed by each other without knowing?FEOS wrote:
Wrong-o. The intel was supplied by the NSA, CIA, and others. Then it was collated and analyzed at CIA (primarily). The OSP didn't "supply" intel...it developed policy based on the intel it received. Piss poor policy, no doubt, but it didn't produce the intel.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Sure, bad intel. Bad intelligence supplied by the Office of Special Plans, created by Rummy and Wolfowitz to specifically supply the Bush Administration with bad intel on Iraq.
"Sorry, sir, analysts are rejecting intelligence that supports your claims to invade Iraq as unfounded."
"Well, then lets create our own intelligence gathering community to sidestep the intelligence analysts so we can get approval from Congress."
"Awesome. When we receive blowback, we'll just blame the 'bad intel'!"
But I've been down the "trying to explain how the intel system works to someone with no background in it" road before here. My head hurts from the brick wall impacts.http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 0#p1842060KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Intelligence and evidence was crafted to support Bush (PNAC) policy. That evidence (created by the OSP) was not scrutinized, fact-checked, and cross-referenced by the intelligence community. That is a fact.
DOD Office of Inspector General Review of Pre-Iraqi War Activities of the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for PolicyResults
The Office of the Under Secretaryof Defense for Policy developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and Al-Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the Intelligence Community, to senior decision makers. While such actions were not illegal or unauthorized, the actions were, in our opinion, inappropriate given that the intelligence assessments were intelligence products and did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community. This condition occured because of an expanded role and mission of The Office of the Under Secretaryof Defense for Policy from policy formation to alternative intelligence analysis and dissemination. As a result, The Office of the Under Secretaryof Defense for Policy did not provide "the most accurate analysis of intelligence" to senior decision makers.
I totally understand your anger for breaking the law. He shouldn't have done such thing. Nevertheless, like you said, he did a good job and you guys should give him a free pass on this one. Btw, you are a lawyer, aren't you? And I think Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld did lie about Iraq.FEOS wrote:
"Legal formalities"? Seriously? Since when is knowingly breaking the law--regardless of the context--a "legal formality"?sergeriver wrote:
I still think you are focussing on legal formalities, and you are missing the point. He lied about a stupid issue. Some people lied about much worse things, like wars.
I'm not missing the point at all--you are. Just because you think something shouldn't be illegal doesn't make it legal. Just because you don't like the question put to you while under oath doesn't mean you can lie about it.
I don't personally have anything against Clinton. He did a decent job as President...good in some, bad in others, but overall positive.
But I can't stomach people giving him a pass for knowingly breaking the law simply because they didn't agree with what led up to him getting the question. My wife is a die-hard liberal and was a total Clinton "fangirl" up until that point. Not because he cheated on his wife and then lied about it...but that he made the conscious choice to break an unambiguous federal law. She didn't agree with the investigation of his private life and she didn't agree with the media circus surrounding it. But once he took the oath and sat in the chair and lied...he lost all credibility with her.
Personally, that's as telling to me as anything else...it isn't just a conservative agenda thing.
And nobody lied about a war.
He probably was, since both of them had the same intel. The thing is Clarke advised Bush to take measures and he did nothing, coz he was too obsessed with Saddam. That's what Clarke said of course, maybe he lied to the Congress too. Regardless of who was obsessed with Saddam the most, Bush was the one who invaded the country over the same intel Clinton had.usmarine2 wrote:
How the fuck do any of us know if it truly was a lie? Remember the truth triangle?sergeriver wrote:
You didn't answer the question. Did Richard Clarke lie or he told Bush something was going to happen and the guy just ignored him? Is it a lie that on Sept. 12 2001 Bush asked Clarke to find (fake) a connection between 9/11 and Saddam? Is it a lie that Clarke sent him a document saying there was no connection and Bush replied "Rewrite pls"?usmarine2 wrote:
Interesting.
Now if you really think about it, clinton fucked around and basically gave laden a free pass for the most part. The peeps in the CIA and NSA were prolly so sick of having the chance to get him yet have it turned down, that they gave up hope.
And clinton made more quotes about saddam then bin laden in his later years.
Anyway, clinton was just as obsessed with saddam and iraq as bush was in early 2000.
I do not see anyone using that as an excuse.m3thod wrote:
A 10 minute blowjob wouldn't had any effect on 9/11 so stop using it an an excuse.
Why should he get a free pass? Nobody else would for perjury before a grand jury, why should he?sergeriver wrote:
I totally understand your anger for breaking the law. He shouldn't have done such thing. Nevertheless, like you said, he did a good job and you guys should give him a free pass on this one.
No, but I have quite a bit of practical experience and education with/on US laws.sergeriver wrote:
Btw, you are a lawyer, aren't you?
And you're free to think that. However, there is no proof that they did, only conjecture and circumstantial evidence...so it's debatable. It's not debatable that Clinton perjured himself...it's a stone-cold fact.sergeriver wrote:
And I think Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld did lie about Iraq.