G W BUSH "bad intelligence"

[revelarts]

"bad intelligence"











"I apologise," said Tony Blair in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, "for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong because, even though (Saddam) had used chemical weapons extensively against his own people, against others, the program in the form that we thought it was did not exist in the way that we thought."


Smoke Bush, Powell, Blair and Trump.

[NightTrain]

Deliberate stupidity V.1

[Elessar]

"bad intelligence"



"I apologise," said Tony Blair in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, "for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong because, even though (Saddam) had used chemical weapons extensively against his own people, against others, the program in the form that we thought it was did not exist in the way that we thought."

Are you just now figuring that out, REV?




Smoke Bush, Powell, Blair and Trump.

Too bad that the whole civilized world accepted it at the time, as well
as 87% of the U.S.Congress.
Essentially. GWB did NOT lie. much to the liberal whiners concern, and yours.

It stinks, yes. But what was believed as true was acted upon.

Care tell, how does this apply to this era?

[revelarts]

Too bad that the whole civilized world accepted it at the time, as wellas 87% of the U.S.Congress. Essentially. GWB did NOT lie. much to the liberal whiners concern, and yours. It stinks, yes. But what was believed as true was acted upon.
Care tell, how does this apply to this era?

Didn't want to derail the other thread.

but,
Bush "believed" and told the world that Iraq had and was making WMDs and the U.S. attacked on false premises.

Trump "believes" and told the world that Syria used Chemical Weapons and he attacked Syria. Is it worth questioning the presidents the assertions in this era. Is it worth getting firm confirmation BEFORE we attack another nation again?

[FakeNewsSux]

Don't forget, it wasn't just bad intel. The irresistible impulse of an establishment Republican to be "bi-partisan" just couldn't be overcome.

From she who would be Queen, the smartest, most qualified woman in the history of the world:


And after he voted against it:

[revelarts]

Hillary and Kerry were both wrong and love war as well as most Neo-cons. But Hillary wasn't the CiC, Bush was. He's got to own it and he has somewhat.

There were only a few people that stood against the invasion of Iraq in congress, the intel orgs and the media.
But they were mocked and shouted down. Called names, called unpatriotic, But somehow they had the FACTS correct.
To bad getting people to get off of their partisan or flag waving jingoistic hobby-horses to THINK OBJECTIVELY is a miracle that they couldn't pull off though.

Some on the right like Ron Paul, and some on the left like Dennis Kucinich, Plus various people in the CIA, DIA, NSA and the Pentagon not to mentioned the hated and mocked U.N. inspectors. Plus a few in the media.

even Blix said it would only take weeks to determine if there were WMDs to be concerned about. but ...noooo.
Bush, Hillary, Chenny Rummy all knew better.

I'm not sure why some people get so pissed and act like i'm an enemy when I simply says we need to quadruple check the Facts from all sources BEFORE we decide to attack/bomb/invade other countries.

and add that BTW our elected officials at all levels should FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, at all times...and let congress declare war....1st.

Is following the constitution and getting solid proof by checking with ALL sources before going to war considered America hatin' leftwing crazy talk for some folks on the right nowadays?

[NightTrain]

You've been educated about the War Powers Act at least a dozen times,

Your stupid charade pretending that you don't know what's up is embarrassing.

If you somehow don't remember the education provided by me and others, re-educate yourself and report back here to apologize.

Dismissed.

[Abbey Marie]

Didn't want to derail the other thread.

but,
Bush "believed" and told the world that Iraq had and was making WMDs and the U.S. attacked on false premises.

Trump "believes" and told the world that Syria used Chemical Weapons and he attacked Syria. Is it worth questioning the presidents the assertions in this era. Is it worth getting firm confirmation BEFORE we attack another nation again?

As did several other international intelligence agencies. Including Israel’s
Iraq did have Chemical and biological weapons. They used them repeatedly against Iran for years. The fact that we didn’t find them only means we didn’t find them.

[revelarts]

As did several other international intelligence agencies. Including Israel’s
Iraq did have Chemical and biological weapons. They used them repeatedly against Iran for years. The fact that we didn’t find them only means we didn’t find them.

"The fact that we didn’t find them only means we didn’t find them."
Bush said it was "FAILED intelligence", not just that we didn't find them.

the British had an inquiry and found that some of their intel had in fact been "fixed" and messaged to push for war.
several insiders confessed to it and testified to witnessing it. (not to mention the downing street memo)
So what they SAID was there some KNEW was not there.
many people From German intelligence the BND (and our own head of CIA in Germany) said they were SHOCKED to hear the president, the VP, and Colan Powel use intel they KNEW was BS.
a Pentagon insiders said they tried to correct the OLD, outdated and bad intel going out the door to the CiC but they were shut down, and told THIS is what "they" want, they apparently being the VP and Rumsfeld.
A lot of countries had various intel, the problem was much of it was Bad and some folks refused to be corrected and told that it was bad. Plus some people knowingly EMBRACED the bad intel to promote going to war.

so it's more than "we didn't find them"
Many people KNEW that some of the major points of intel about world trheatening WMDs and mushroom clouds presented was false. and they WOULD not find it becasue it wasn't there.

[Abbey Marie]

"The fact that we didn’t find them only means we didn’t find them."
Bush said it was "FAILED intelligence", not just that we didn't find them.

the British had an inquiry and found that some of their intel had in fact been "fixed" and messaged to push for war.
several insiders confessed to it and testified to witnessing it. (not to mention the downing street memo)
So what they SAID was there some KNEW was not there.
many people From German intelligence the BND (and our own head of CIA in Germany) said they were SHOCKED to hear the president, the VP, and Colan Powel use intel they KNEW was BS.
a Pentagon insiders said they tried to correct the OLD, outdated and bad intel going out the door to the CiC but they were shut down, and told THIS is what "they" want, they apparently being the VP and Rumsfeld.
A lot of countries had various intel, the problem was much of it was Bad and some folks refused to be corrected and told that it was bad. Plus some people knowingly EMBRACED the bad intel to promote going to war.

so it's more than "we didn't find them"
Many people KNEW that some of the major points of intel about world trheatening WMDs and mushroom clouds presented was false. and they WOULD not find it becasue it wasn't there.

You have missed the genius of my quoted line, apparently.
If the intelligence “failed” it failed for several extremely talented covert agencies. You really believe that? That should tell you something about what failed really means. Information, like (WMDs) is fluid. You do the best you can with what you have at the time. And as Jim noted, we did find stuff.

I can understand feeling that we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq at all. But don’t blame it on multi-nation failed intelligence. It makes a handy scapegoat for President Bush’s (and your) Monday morning quarterbacking though, doesn’t it?

[jimnyc]

As did several other international intelligence agencies. Including Israel’s
Iraq did have Chemical and biological weapons. They used them repeatedly against Iran for years. The fact that we didn’t find them only means we didn’t find them.

As I wrote earlier, Abs, we did find more than enough though. We found what some want to ignore, because they claim it was outdated, but yet it wasn't weaponized - which allows for it to last MUCH longer. This has been posted many a time, but folks like to ignore what doesn't suit their agenda. Not to mention the TONS of chemical weapons that WERE found and WERE accounted for prior to the war, that everyone admits to knowing about, that admit to it later being missing and unaccounted for. This has ALWAYS been the case, and to date, has never been resolved. And again, they SAW them and bagged and tagged them IN Iraq. So this cannot be debated.

[jimnyc]

Didn't want to derail the other thread.

but,
Bush "believed" and told the world that Iraq had and was making WMDs and the U.S. attacked on false premises.

Trump "believes" and told the world that Syria used Chemical Weapons and he attacked Syria. Is it worth questioning the presidents the assertions in this era. Is it worth getting firm confirmation BEFORE we attack another nation again?

So you didn't want to derail the OTHER thread - and yet here is where the discussion HERE starts talking about Syria, and legalities. Then pages later, you start posting in the other thread again, with the SAME things we are discussing here onto the 4th page. So I move it back here instead of 'reverting' back to an older thread. Sorry, YOUR doing, and here we are. But there is NO NEED to be discussing the same thing in multiple threads.

[jimnyc]

This is your little thread, Rev. Keep it in here. Don't go to other threads with said experiments to disrupt them with your crap because I disagreed with you. Ruin your own threads, you ain't doing it to mine. Just like with Tailfins, we're not going to sit and tolerate members claiming to run "experiments" of some sort on other members. You don't like what other members state - then QUOTE them in the fucking threads where the shit is stated. Is this rocket science?

[aboutime]

An addage we all know, such as:


That you are practicing here, just like Democrats, and little kids who keep blaming others for their ignorance, and STUPID mistakes... So, you repeat the same old crap, years after it took place, and hope none of us will notice???

[aboutime]

REV....you sound more like OBAMA, every time you post here lately....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi.../#4c2c350f7667Opinion

DEC 23, 2013 @ 03:38 PM 409,474 2 Free Issues of Forbes
President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013




Capital Flows , CONTRIBUTOR
Guest commentary curated by Forbes Opinion. Avik Roy, Opinion Editor.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
English: President Barack Obama shakes hands w...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Ilya Shapiro

One of Barack Obama’s chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse.

Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up the constitutional aspects of his policy agenda, but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document. And he’s been most frustrated with the separation of powers, which doesn’t allow him to “fundamentally transform” the country without congressional acquiescence.

But that hasn’t stopped him. In its first term, the Administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, with senior aide Dan Pfeiffer explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And earlier this year, President Obama said in announcing his new economic plans that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”


And so, as we reach the end of another year of political strife that’s fundamentally based on clashing views on the role of government in society, I thought I’d update a list I made two years ago and hereby present President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations of 2013.

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.

Recommended by Forbes
2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

3. Delay of Obamacare’s insurance requirements. The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurance companies started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare’s requirements. President Obama called a press conference last month to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans in 2014—despite Obamacare’s explicit language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.

4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.

5. Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation. Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.”

6. Political profiling by the IRS. After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May of this year.

7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.

8. Recess appointments. Last year, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In January, the D.C. Circuit held the NLRB appointments to be unconstitutional, which ruling White House spokesman Jay Carney said only applied to “one court, one case, one company.”

9. Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses. Responding to complaints about the University of Montana’s handling of sexual assault claims, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urges a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

Page 1 / 2 Continue


Continued from page 1

10. Mini-DREAM Act. Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, President Obama, contradicting his own previous statements claiming to lack authority, directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits to the so-called Dreamers. The executive branch undoubtedly has discretion regarding enforcement priorities, but granting de facto green cards goes beyond a decision to defer deportation in certain cases.

It was hard to limit myself to 10 items, of course—Obamacare alone could’ve filled many such lists—but these, in my judgment, represent the chief executive’s biggest dereliction this year of his duty to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution, and to “take care that the law be faithfully executed.”

Alas, things may get worse before they get better. New presidential “counselor” John Podesta’s belief in governance by fiat is no secret; in a 2010 report, he wrote that focusing on executive power “presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage.”