🚀 go-pugleaf

nick cobb wrote:

> NY Times
>
> June 8, 2003
> Was the Intelligence Cooked?
>
> The latest vogue in Washington is the proposition that it really
> doesn't matter whether Saddam Hussein maintained an arsenal of
> unconventional weapons in recent years. American troops may not have
> uncovered any evidence of the weapons of mass destruction the Bush
> administration was warning about, the argument goes. But they have
> found plenty of proof that Iraq suffered under a brutal dictator who
> slaughtered thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of his
> own people, and that is reason enough to justify the invasion. We
> disagree. We are as pleased as anyone to see Saddam Hussein removed
> from power, but the United States cannot now simply erase from the
> record the Bush administration's dire warnings about the Iraqi weapons
> threat. The good word of the United States is too central to America's
> leadership abroad � and to President Bush's dubious doctrine of
> pre-emptive warfare � to be treated so cavalierly.
>
> Like most Americans, we believed the government's repeated warnings
> that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction threatened the security of the
> world. The urgent need to disarm Saddam Hussein was the primary reason
> invoked for going to war in March rather than waiting to see if
> weapons inspectors could bring Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear
> weapons programs under control.
>
> It would still be premature to conclude that Iraq abandoned its
> efforts to manufacture and stockpile unconventional arms after the
> first Persian Gulf war in 1991. But after weeks of futile searching by
> American teams, it seems clear that Iraq was not bristling with
> horrific arms and that chemical and biological weapons were not
> readily available to frontline Iraqi forces.
>
> America's intelligence agencies betrayed little doubt about the Iraqi
> threat last October when they produced a comprehensive assessment of
> Baghdad's weapons of mass destruction. A declassified version, while
> noting that Iraq was hiding large portions of its weapons programs,
> flatly stated: "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as
> missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left
> unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."
> The question today is whether that and other assessments were sound or
> were influenced by a desire to tailor intelligence findings to policy
> prescriptions.
>
> By their nature, intelligence reports, in the absence of a smoking
> gun, are subjective exercises based on ambiguous information that is
> open to differing interpretations. In the case of Iraq, Washington
> relied largely on circumstantial data rather than spy satellite
> photographs or intercepted phone calls that would have proved and
> pinpointed the existence of unconventional weapons. But given the
> failure so far to find a single weapon of mass destruction, it is fair
> to wonder if intelligence analysts might have misread the available
> data, played down ambiguities or even pushed their findings too far to
> stay square with Bush policy on Iraq. George Tenet, the director of
> central intelligence, has said that the C.I.A.'s work was not
> compromised by politics.
>
> These matters are properly being examined by Congressional committees
> and a White House advisory board on intelligence practices, as well as
> by the Central Intelligence Agency itself. It is also reasonable to
> ask if the administration's fixation on Iraq influenced the way
> intelligence reports were used by top officials intent on making the
> case for war. Careful attention should be given to examining the work
> of a separate Pentagon unit that was created after Sept. 11 to search
> for terrorist links with Iraq.
>
> The issue goes to the heart of American leadership. Mr. Bush's belief
> that the United States has the right to use force against nations that
> it believes may threaten American security is based on the assumption
> that Washington can make accurate judgments about how serious such a
> danger is. If the intelligence is wrong, or the government distorts
> it, the United States will squander its credibility. Even worse, it
> will lose the ability to rally the world, and the American people, to
> the defense of the country when real threats materialize.

Dan Quayle and Groucho Marx Quotes

     Dan Quayle quotes:

     �A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the
polls.�

     �I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and
democracy?but that could change.�

     �If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure.�

     �I love California; I practically grew up in Phoenix.�

     �I stand by all the misstatements that I�ve made.�

     �It isn�t pollution that�s harming the environment. It�s the
impurities in our air and water that are doing it.�

     �One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice-president,
and that one word is �to be prepared.�

     �People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions
and have a tremendous impact on history.�

     �The future will be better tomorrow.�

     �The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation�s history. I mean
in this century�s history. But we all lived in this
     century. I didn�t live in this century.�

     �The loss of life will be irreplaceable.�

     �We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.�

     �We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a
firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of
     Europe.�

     �We�re going to have the best-educated American people in the world.�

     �What a waste it is to lose one�s mind. Or not to have a mind is
being very wasteful. How true that is.�

     �When I have been asked during these last weeks who caused the riots
and the killing in L.A., my answer has been direct
     and simple: Who is to blame for the riots? The rioters are to blame.
Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are to
     blame.�

     �Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.�

NY Times

June 8, 2003
Was the Intelligence Cooked?

nick cobb wrote:

> NY Times
>
> June 8, 2003
> Was the Intelligence Cooked?
>
>
> The issue goes to the heart of American leadership.

"if we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure" Vice President Dan

Quale, 23-3-90.

nickk@cris.com (nick cobb) writes:

>NY Times

Vote Democratic?  What's your position on abortion, Nick???

 -Stephen

Schneider mimicked:

"++" <archivolt@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3EE4CF20.AC5584D7@erols.com...
>
>
> nick cobb wrote:
>
> > NY Times
> >
> > June 8, 2003
> > Was the Intelligence Cooked?
> >
> > The latest vogue in Washington is the proposition that it really
> > doesn't matter whether Saddam Hussein maintained an arsenal of
> > unconventional weapons in recent years. American troops may not have
> > uncovered any evidence of the weapons of mass destruction the Bush
> > administration was warning about, the argument goes. But they have
> > found plenty of proof that Iraq suffered under a brutal dictator who
> > slaughtered thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of his
> > own people, and that is reason enough to justify the invasion. We
> > disagree. We are as pleased as anyone to see Saddam Hussein removed
> > from power, but the United States cannot now simply erase from the
> > record the Bush administration's dire warnings about the Iraqi weapons
> > threat. The good word of the United States is too central to America's
> > leadership abroad � and to President Bush's dubious doctrine of
> > pre-emptive warfare � to be treated so cavalierly.
> >
> > Like most Americans, we believed the government's repeated warnings
> > that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction threatened the security of the
> > world. The urgent need to disarm Saddam Hussein was the primary reason
> > invoked for going to war in March rather than waiting to see if
> > weapons inspectors could bring Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear
> > weapons programs under control.
> >
> > It would still be premature to conclude that Iraq abandoned its
> > efforts to manufacture and stockpile unconventional arms after the
> > first Persian Gulf war in 1991. But after weeks of futile searching by
> > American teams, it seems clear that Iraq was not bristling with
> > horrific arms and that chemical and biological weapons were not
> > readily available to frontline Iraqi forces.
> >
> > America's intelligence agencies betrayed little doubt about the Iraqi
> > threat last October when they produced a comprehensive assessment of
> > Baghdad's weapons of mass destruction. A declassified version, while
> > noting that Iraq was hiding large portions of its weapons programs,
> > flatly stated: "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as
> > missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left
> > unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."
> > The question today is whether that and other assessments were sound or
> > were influenced by a desire to tailor intelligence findings to policy
> > prescriptions.
> >
> > By their nature, intelligence reports, in the absence of a smoking
> > gun, are subjective exercises based on ambiguous information that is
> > open to differing interpretations. In the case of Iraq, Washington
> > relied largely on circumstantial data rather than spy satellite
> > photographs or intercepted phone calls that would have proved and
> > pinpointed the existence of unconventional weapons. But given the
> > failure so far to find a single weapon of mass destruction, it is fair
> > to wonder if intelligence analysts might have misread the available
> > data, played down ambiguities or even pushed their findings too far to
> > stay square with Bush policy on Iraq. George Tenet, the director of
> > central intelligence, has said that the C.I.A.'s work was not
> > compromised by politics.
> >
> > These matters are properly being examined by Congressional committees
> > and a White House advisory board on intelligence practices, as well as
> > by the Central Intelligence Agency itself. It is also reasonable to
> > ask if the administration's fixation on Iraq influenced the way
> > intelligence reports were used by top officials intent on making the
> > case for war. Careful attention should be given to examining the work
> > of a separate Pentagon unit that was created after Sept. 11 to search
> > for terrorist links with Iraq.
> >
> > The issue goes to the heart of American leadership. Mr. Bush's belief
> > that the United States has the right to use force against nations that
> > it believes may threaten American security is based on the assumption
> > that Washington can make accurate judgments about how serious such a
> > danger is. If the intelligence is wrong, or the government distorts
> > it, the United States will squander its credibility. Even worse, it
> > will lose the ability to rally the world, and the American people, to
> > the defense of the country when real threats materialize.
>

"I did not have sex with THAT woman," lied Bubba!





++ <archivolt@erols.com> wrote in message news:<3EE4CF40.DF7B9DEE@erols.com>...
> Dan Quayle and Groucho Marx Quotes
>
>      Dan Quayle quotes:
>
>      ?A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the
> polls.?
>
>      ?I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and
> democracy?but that could change.?
>
>      ?If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure.?
>
>      ?I love California; I practically grew up in Phoenix.?
>
>      ?I stand by all the misstatements that I?ve made.?
>
>      ?It isn?t pollution that?s harming the environment. It?s the
> impurities in our air and water that are doing it.?
>
>      ?One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice-president,
> and that one word is ?to be prepared.?
>
>      ?People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions
> and have a tremendous impact on history.?
>
>      ?The future will be better tomorrow.?
>
>      ?The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation?s history. I mean
> in this century?s history. But we all lived in this
>      century. I didn?t live in this century.?
>
>      ?The loss of life will be irreplaceable.?
>
>      ?We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.?
>
>      ?We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a
> firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of
>      Europe.?
>
>      ?We?re going to have the best-educated American people in the world.?
>
>      ?What a waste it is to lose one?s mind. Or not to have a mind is
> being very wasteful. How true that is.?
>
>      ?When I have been asked during these last weeks who caused the riots
> and the killing in L.A., my answer has been direct
>      and simple: Who is to blame for the riots? The rioters are to blame.
> Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are to
>      blame.?
>
>      ?Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.?
>
> NY Times
>
> June 8, 2003
> Was the Intelligence Cooked?

Alexander Arnakis wrote:

> On 10 Jun 2003 09:48:24 -0700, aggreen1@netscape.net (Al) wrote:
>
> >"I did not have sex with THAT woman," lied Bubba!
> >
> The full quote is, "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica
> Lewinsky." This statement may have been true, if the Prez was
> addressing Monica, and referring to not having sex with Hillary.
>
> Anyway, he should have resigned, dumped Hillary, and made an honest
> woman of Monica. That's what's called being a true "mensch."

And maybe now he would be hosting his own TV show.

On 10 Jun 2003 09:48:24 -0700, aggreen1@netscape.net (Al) wrote:

>"I did not have sex with THAT woman," lied Bubba!
>
The full quote is, "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica
Lewinsky." This statement may have been true, if the Prez was
addressing Monica, and referring to not having sex with Hillary.

Anyway, he should have resigned, dumped Hillary, and made an honest
woman of Monica. That's what's called being a true "mensch."

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:54:10 -0400, ++ <archivolt@erols.com> wrote:
>
>And maybe now he would be hosting his own TV show.

Wait a minute -- isn't he doing that anyway (with Bob Dole)? Or are
you just being ironic?