Whoops! More Iraqi intel woes.

From Yahoo

Hmmm, people knowingly twisting the truth to suit their own agenda to launch a war in Iraq. Where have I heard that one before? And the Female Doggo of it is, US tax dollars was blown to pay off these weasels. Looks like Chalabi hasn't renounced his thieving ways.

It''s too bad we can''t impeach Bill Clinton again for falling for this snow job and passing it on to our great president.

"ralcydan" wrote:

It''s too bad we can''t impeach Bill Clinton again for falling for this snow job and passing it on to our great president.

Overlooking something?

The arrangement, paid for with taxpayer funds supplied to the exile group under the Iraq (news - web sites) Liberation Act of 1998, involved extensive debriefing of at least half a dozen defectors by defense intelligence agents in European capitals and at a base in the northern Iraqi city of Erbil in late 2002 and early 2003, the officials said. But a review early this year by the defense agency concluded that no more than one-third of the information was potentially useful, and efforts to explore those leads since have generally failed to pan out, the officials said.

And

The Defense Intelligence Agency then took the lead in debriefing the defectors, Defense Department officials said. The officials said they believed that the review of the defectors'' credibility [c]overed only the period in which the defense agency had run the program.

Unless Clinton was still the president last year...

Rat Boy, you obviously didn''t get the memo. Something bad happens during the current administration''s regime? Blame it on the previous administration. Something good happens? Take complete unqualified credit for it.

Remember that hurricane a couple weeks ago? Totally Clinton''s fault. Bob Hope died? Clinton again...

Of course since Bill Clinton claimed that Saddam had chemical, biological and nuclear programs in 1998, based largely on the intel from the exiled Iraqis - it might be good to get him to answer some of these questions too...

Why? Is he a decision maker in the current administration?

Clinton signed into law the policy of ""regime change"" in Iraq, put much of the infrastructure in place for the exiles, put together much of the intel about Iraqi WMD, claimed Iraq had them, and launched military attacks based on those premises. Funny how the Democrats never remember that when they want to attack Republicans...

Examples, please.

And of course, if all that is factual, doesn''t that mean you tacitly support Clinton''s Iraq policies?

From CNN

Bill Clinton:

Earlier today, I ordered America''s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq''snuclear, chemical and biological weapons programsand its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
"Jacob_Singer" wrote:

doesn''t that mean you tacitly support Clinton''s Iraq policies?

No.

So now ralcydan doesn''t support the destruction of WMDs? The picture becomes even clearer.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

So now ralcydan doesn''t support the destruction of WMDs? The picture becomes even clearer.

typical liberal answer - when someone doesn''t like a policy, say the way welfare is done, accuse them of hating the poor...

I also recall Republican pundits accusing Clinton of using those same strikes as a way to deflect attention away from his personal ""scandals"".

At any rate, a few air strikes is hardly the same thing as mobilizing the brunt of our armed forces and invading a country with the intentions of overthrowing it because it was deemed a ""threat to American freedom"".

At any rate, a few air strikes is hardly the same thing as mobilizing the brunt of our armed forces and invading a country with the intentions of overthrowing it because it was deemed a ""threat to American freedom"".

Boy is that a true statement. And you have just answered why I don''t support Clinton''s bomb and forget middle East policies.

Do you honestly think Iraq was a potent and severe threat to your freedom as an American?

Do you honestly think Iraq was a potent and severe threat to your freedom as an American?

Yes.

By his logic, every nation on Earth is a potential threat to his freedom outside of Micronesia.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

By his logic, every nation on Earth is a potential threat to his freedom outside of Micronesia.

What logic of mine is that?

What''s that giant metal chunk with a keyhole and metal loop coming right at this thread!?

If this is considered a controversial or antagonistic thread, I''d hate for you guys to see some of the posts on other message boards I frequent.

Ral, can you explain to me in what way Saddam Hussein''s regime threatened your freedom enough to warrant sacrificing hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi civilans to secure it?

"Jacob_Singer" wrote:

Ral, can you explain to me in what way Saddam Hussein''s regime threatened your freedom enough to warrant sacrificing hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi civilans to secure it?

Can I explain to you? In all honestly, probably not, based on your opinions so far...

If you want to retry the war, feel free to read my posts here made for the last 3 months - there you can find all the explanation you ever could want.

If you go back that far, Jake (can I call you Jake?), is that ral either believes all that the current Administration tells him without thought or he should in fact be really paranoid about other countries in the world, but in fact isn''t.

If you go back that far, Jake (can I call you Jake?), is that ral either believes all that the current Administration tells him without thought or he should in fact be really paranoid about other countries in the world, but in fact isn''t.

Personal attacks exchanged lovingly between two liberals - you guys sound like a Democratic primary...

Hmmm, you''ve never spoken out against anything the Administration did or said before and what you''ve said about your causus belli for Iraq can also be applied to several other countries, but you''re silent on a few of them. I don''t see how stating any of that was out of line.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Personal attacks exchanged lovingly between two liberals - you guys sound like a Democratic primary...

Huh? Um, ok, whatever...

I just can''t fathom that anyone would actually want and allow American soldiers to die for them because they were terrified of Hussein''s puny ability to wage war or promote terror.

what you''ve said about your causus belli for Iraq can also be applied to several other countries

Really? Because one of the main points of my argument for invading Iraq has been that Saddam was in violation of the Gulf War cease fire. What other countries are you suggesting are in violation of that cease fire?

What was out of line was this statement:

"Rat Boy" wrote:

believes all that the current Administration tells him without thought

Care to try again?

"Jacob_Singer" wrote:

I just can''t fathom that anyone would actually want and allow American soldiers to die for them because they were terrified of Hussein''s puny ability to wage war or promote terror.

I have no doubt that you can''t. That''s why I am not wasting additional time trying to explain it to you

Of course, in August of 2001, this statement might have made sense to you:

I just can''t fathom that anyone would actually want and allow American soldiers to die for them because they were terrified of Al Qaeda''s puny ability to wage war or promote terror

Again, you haven''t ever spoken out or disagreed with the Administration and whenever someone has ever questioned the Administration, you go out of your way to attempt to tear apart the accuser. It is quite a natural conclusion to reach.

It is quite a natural conclusion to reach.

If your natural conclusion is to say that someone does things ""without thought"" (especially when they run rings around you), then maybe you are the one who is mindlessly parroting a position... Those of us who give thought to our positions, and to the position of others we disagree with, know better than to try and dismiss the other side as ""without thought"" - that kind of statement just means you don''t have an argument.

"ralcydan" wrote:

(especially when they run rings around you)

Debateable, highly debateable.

, then maybe you are the one who is mindlessly parroting a position...

Really? And what position is that? Is ""I know you are but what am I?"" the best retort you can come up with?

Those of us who give thought to our positions,

Which you haven''t shown. You merely agree with others'' opinions.

and to the position of others we disagree with,

Again, you haven''t show that either. You merely dismiss that you disagree with because they...*drumroll*...disagree with you. All you have to do is see the word ""Democrat"" before you immediately jump to the conclusion that they are lying or wrong.

know better than to try and dismiss the other side as ""without thought"" - that kind of statement just means you don''t have an argument.

Again, you have done nothing to show that you even consider for a second that the other side is right. That is true thought. And frankly, unless you offer something to disprove what I said, what we have here is a mere retort not an argument.

I just can''t fathom that anyone would actually want and allow American soldiers to die for them because they were terrified of Al Qaeda''s puny ability to wage war or promote terror.

Oh, we''ve defeated radical Islamic fundamentalism and there will never ever be another attack on U.S. soil? I guess I missed the press release.

Hussein was an evil despot, but he wasn''t a completely stupid one, and unless President Bush has some Pre-Cogs stashed away somewhere there''s absolutely no evidence he was planning on attacking the United States in any way whatsoever.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

And frankly, unless you offer something to disprove what I said, what we have here is a mere retort not an argument.

Ah, so you want me to disprove that I am ""without thought"" when it comes to my arguments...

I think I''ll chalk this one to you and throwing out personal attacks because you''re pissy. I would accuse you of acting your age, but I don''t want to insult the other people under 25 who manage to have a debate without resorting to insults.

"Jacob_Singer" wrote:

Oh, we''ve defeated radical Islamic fundamentalism and there will never ever be another attack on U.S. soil? I guess I missed the press release.

Huh? My point was that if you measure things based on assumptions (Saddam/Al Qaeda aren''t threats to America), you will get results like 9/11.

"Jacob_Singer" wrote:

Hussein was an evil despot, but he wasn''t a completely stupid one

Maybe we''re talking about two different Saddams. for evidence of Saddam''s stupidity, see Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War I, the attempted assassination of George Bush 41, Gulf War II...

By the way, what do you think would have been the result if Saddam had succeeded in assassinating George Bush 41? I think it would have meant us invading and killing him. Still think he wasn''t stupid?