Remember the Senate Intelligence Report?

[alvarezadams]

You know - the one the GOP blocked so it wouldn't come out before the elections?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report

[liberal N proud]

1. The repukes are getting desperate

Anything could happen now!

[nicknameless]

2. Excerpt:

The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, said the report will confirm that "the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq was fundamentally misleading."

The report to be released by the committee Friday focuses on two much-studied issues: the influence of the anti-Saddam exile group Iraqi National Congress in shaping U.S. intelligence estimates, and a comparison of prewar estimates and postwar findings about Iraq's weapons programs and links to terrorism.

But its release comes at a time when President Bush is speaking out on the importance of victory in Iraq to the war on terrorism, and Democrats are trying to recapture control of Congress by emphasizing the failings of the president's Iraq policy.

<snip>

The 400-page report to be released Friday covers only two of the five topics outlined under Phase II. Much of the information — on the intelligence supplied by the INC and Chalabi and the overestimation of Saddam's WMD threat — has been documented in numerous studies.

But Rockefeller said the report would show how the "administration pursued a deceptive strategy, abusing intelligence reporting that the intelligence community had already warned was uncorroborated, unreliable and in some critical circumstances fabricated."

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mr Rabble]

4. Way to obfuscate!

Notice that none of the things you point to in your post have any relevance at all to the lies told by the administration?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mr Rabble]

7. Wrong.

I read all the non- .pdf stuff. The judicial watch filing is a joke and has since been thrown out.

For the cheap seats: Iraq had no connection to the OKC bombing.

I wont defend the Clinton administration. Don't need to. Best republican president of the last 50 years.

Does any of that change what Bush has done?

Clinton did allot of really bad shit, and the sanctions killed 500,000 innocent people. His complicity in allowing corporate america further into the halls of government has made things much worse then they should be.

Bush is still a liar, a thug and a killer. Iraq had only the remnants of WMD which we sold him, and no active program since the 1990's.

So the Val Plame was just a paper pusher, right? No innocent civilians were killed in Lebanon, right?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mr Rabble]

11. You are joking right?

Duelfer concluded that there was no program whatsoever. Watched his testimony on CSPAN.

Ive got a copy of the 9/11 report right here, Im just not going to download a bunch of .pdf's.

Colin Powell beloved by Democrats? Are you sure you are ok?

BTW, if you want to go ahead and Google "reagan + Iraq". But, we didnt give them anything, right?

Also, nowhere did I disparage Judicial Watch. I did however say that the lawsuit was a joke. See the difference.

No irony in accusing me of not reading before I speak...

Oh, and in case you missed it, Bush has essentially been in power since his father became VP in 1980. W is clearly just the latest stooge.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mr Rabble]

12. Just curious...

What exactly does D-Day have to do with civilians killed in Lebanon?

And what does any of this have to do with Bush lying?

Isnt this moral relativism here?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mr Rabble]

16. Sure.

Since Im not in Lebanon, and neither are you, exactly where should we get estimates of civilian deaths in Lebanon?

How about Human Rights Watch?
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/22/lebano14061.htm

Specifics about Bush's lies? Come on.

How about the 2003 SotU address?
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-23.html

How has that worked out? This constitutes a high crime, by lying in the Senate Chamber.

Unforunately for us and especially for you being an Iraq vet, this led to our illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Trying to put all of these "mistakes" off on the CIA/DIA etc is what this new report will debunk.

[BlueEyedSon]

19. Boy, did you stumble onto the wrong board! nt

[LostinVA]

15. I notice you are using "your people" again

Gosh, what a bald-faced admittance there, Chuckles. Subtlety -- and possibly intelligence -- ain't your middle name, eh?

[karynnj]

17. Did you take a wrong turn at Greenland?

Shouldn't you be at Free Republic?

- The Bush administration had no problems with exposing Valerie Plame's identity. Even if Armitage was the first toleak the name, other Bush officials went to great lengths to insure her exposure. Not to mention that they clearly lied to Fitzpatrick. I agreed in 1997 that Clinton made a grevious error in cavilearly lying under oath. Telling the truth under oath is essential to the American judicial system. (I also think that Clinton's first statement that he had had an inappropriate relationship with Monica made all those questions unnecessary and they were clearly intended to trap Clinton.) Now, Rove and Libby and maybe Cheney lied on matters FAR more important to the country than Clinton's sex life. Isn't lying on this worse?

- Bush definately lost flight status and didn't show up for a required phyisical. The CONTENT of the documents that Rather did not adeguately authenticated was verified by the author's immediate superior and by the typist, who said the document was not the one she typed - but it had similar content. Over a year's worth of dovcumentation is missing. I have no problem with someone avoiding VN, I have a problem with him lying about it.

The "enhanced" Lebanon photos were debunked here as quickly as anywhere else. You would have loved it if Democratic politicians rabidly attacked Israel - they didn't. Go to any of their web sites and read their statements. The strongest criticism on the problem was that there was a lack of sustained diplomacy. As to the Palestinean problem, Bush PUSHED the Palestinean election over the wishes of Abbas and of Israel and hailed the election - even though Hamas won. THe US should have earlier given more support to Abbas and not pushed for elections at a time of instability.

[alvarezadams]

21. Evidence?

I will only concentrate on one of your examples - that of the TWA crash.

I'm an airline professional and have been since 1982. I am also an historian (and I have an MBA/OR) and have followed closely the TWA accident's details. The TWA crash is remarkably similar to the DC7's fuel pump problem and it takes a tremendous leap of faith to see it as anything different. The FAA acted in accordance to its findings, 747's weren't grounded but they did have to undergo repairs/modifications.

--------

I am neither a conspiracy theorist nor a discounter of conspiracies. As an historian I am well aware of the fact that there are cabals willing to manipulate, distort and to conspire to achieve (usually) short-term aims. For the most part, however, conspiracies or suspected conspiracies are the victims of their age and of their values. True "conspiracies" come to fruition to achieve a stated or inarticulated goal, goals are met without the sanction of a conspiracy. Above all, accidents happen.

[Vickers]

6. Assphincter says what?

:shrug:

[flpoljunkie]

8. Note what is NOT being released and that there is NO set date to do so!

Rockefeller said a third segment, on the prewar intelligence assessment of postwar Iraq, could be issued later this month. But there was no set date for issuing the last two parts of Phase II, including a look at the politically divisive issue of whether policymakers manipulated intelligence reports to set the stage for war.

"We continue our work on the remaining part of our Phase II inquiry," said Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_re...

[karynnj]

18. It's blatanly clear that Roberts has never intended to do

the political piece. In spring 2005, Senator Kerry and 9 other Senators sent him a letter demanding the promised report on (political manipulation) by completed. The Downing Street Memos were referenced. Roberts replied with a curt letter saying that Phase I was all that was needed.

In fall 2005, Reid took the Senate behind closed doors - on this issue. Roberts told the press that they were nearly done with it - and the Democrats knew that.

It still hasn't been done - and is not included in the piece Rockefellow speaks of. Why are so few Senate Democrats concerned about this?

[BlueJac]

20. Your people....

I love that statement. You must of lost YOUR way ditto head!