This is topic Putin Jabs Bush: ‘We Certainly Would Not Want…The Same Kind of Democracy As Iraq in forum Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk at Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.allstocks.com/stockmessageboard/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/002257.html

Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
During a press conference today at the G8 summit in Russia, President Bush told President Vladimir Putin that Americans want Russia to develop a free press and free religion “like Iraq.” To laughter and applause, Putin responded: “We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.” CNN’s Ed Henry called it a “tough jab.”

WATCH THE VIDEO
 
Posted by Leo on :
 
I think Bush jabbed him back; Sorry pal, you don't get into the club yet, few more hoops to jump through.
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
He doesn't get into Iraq's club? In that case, he's a lucky sonofa*****!
 
Posted by Leo on :
 
I believe it's still called G8, not G9. US was the only dissenting vote to let the Russians in.
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
That's the rumor.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
huh?

The Group of Eight (G8) consists of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Together, these countries represent about 65% of the world economy


In 1991, following the end of the Cold War, the USSR (now Russia) began meeting with the G7 after the main summit. This group became known as the P8 (Political 8), or colloquially the "G7 plus 1", starting with the 1994 Naples summit. Russia was allowed to participate more fully beginning in the 1997 political summit, marking the creation of the Group of Eight or G8. Russia was not included in the meeting of financial officials as it is not a significant economic power; "G7" now refers specifically to the meeting of the respective Finance Ministers and Governors of the Central Banks.

At the initiative of then-U.S. President Bill Clinton, "Group of Seven" became the "Group of Eight," with Russia attending most sessions. This was a gesture of appreciation from President Clinton to then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin for pursuing economic reforms, and for their neutrality with respect to the eastward expansion of NATO.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
"I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world like Iraq, where there is a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our
country would hope Russia would do the same thing," said Bush.

this is embarassing .....
i can't believe he says stuff like this ...
maybe the quotes are wrong? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
 
lol.. that's what we hope about all the quotes from Bush.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
Upon hearing the translation of Putin’s remark, Bush interjected: “Just wait.”
 
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
 
How would you like to be the poor Ruskie translating Bush's speech?
"Hold on hold on... is stratageriumism even a word?"
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
at last Bush is consistent... he's telling US to wait too.....
 
Posted by Leo on :
 
Sorry, got G8 mixed up with WTO,lol...wrong club!
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
it's cool...

i wasn't, like postive, you were wrong, so i
looke di tup....
 
Posted by Johnwayne on :
 
Should of listened to Patton at the end of WW II.
How many of his own people did Stalin kill? Some ungodly number.
 
Posted by Dustoff 1 on :
 
JW, some historians claim 60 million as a result of Stalin, including WW2
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
yeah, and we shoulda gone on into Iran after we got our hostages back but we didn't....
 
Posted by Dustoff 1 on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Relentless Despot.:
How would you like to be the poor Ruskie translating Bush's speech?
"Hold on hold on... is stratageriumism even a word?"

-------------------------------------------------
Over the top, can it be glitch or sumpin...The Lion ate the mouse, me is dumbfouded, how stupid dubya is, just plain dumbfounded.
 
Posted by Johnwayne on :
 
Stuff like this ticks me off.
Some guy poppin his mouth off.
And it's not just political for me. It ticked me off when
that guy from France said President Clinton had no backbone. FRANCE! Can you believe it? They haven't had any backbone since Alexander kicked Napolien's butt.
Anyway how's things in Russia now days?
 
Posted by Dustoff 1 on :
 
'Stuff like this ticks me off.'

JW, the press seems to leaving it alone today.
Haven't noticed a peep so far..Fox is on but I've been organising the office [ which once was a living room] and posting so might of missed it, have Fox on mute when the Bose is on..

Did he really have that exchange with Putin?
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
the French retaliated when the marine barracks was bombed in Beirut.....'83
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
want a real eye opener? [Eek!]

WWW Turkishweekly
Türkçe
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=31942
ISRO Terrorism Perception Survey

http://www.turkishweekly.net/pdf/USAK_ORG_UK-TerrorismPerceptionSurvey.pdf



check out who the average Turk thinks is the leading actor in the expansion of global terrorism.....
 
Posted by Johnwayne on :
 
Glassman-
I can't download on my PDA-
let me guess what it says-USA is bad? Bush is bad? Which one or both?
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
yes,they say Bush is the leading actor in the expa...blah blah.

they hate osmbinalivtoolong and al-queda...

they think our policies suck....

basically? they agree with the democrats [Big Grin] LOL...

JW? PDA? how old are you? under 22? somehow i pictured you too old to be online with a PDA [Wink] ( i am)
 
Posted by Johnwayne on :
 
Glassman-
I can't download on my PDA-
let me guess what it says-USA is bad? Bush is bad? Which one or both?
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
USB is terorist 91%

does alqueda represent Muslims? NO 75% yes 1%
 
Posted by Johnwayne on :
 
Glassman-
That is a great idea, we should have steamrolled Iran after the hostages left.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
yep....

sooner or later? it is/was inevitable....
we should encourage Putin to do it now...
then we'll be "even" with Iraq...

the Ayatoluhs don't seem to mind encouraging feeble-minded young men to kill themselves by suicide bombings do they?
 
Posted by Johnwayne on :
 
BUMP
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
Video doesn't lie. I provided a link to it above. And yes, it is embarassing.

quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
"I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world like Iraq, where there is a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our
country would hope Russia would do the same thing," said Bush.

this is embarassing .....
i can't believe he says stuff like this ...
maybe the quotes are wrong? [Roll Eyes]


 
Posted by Leo on :
 
This is just me after reading "Leadership" (some obvious bragging??) but I think Giulianni has what it takes to get some chit done that both parties can agree with...namely, accountability from all sides.
 
Posted by Leo on :
 
My god JW, but you are on a roll...nice work!
 
Posted by bond006 on :
 
Giulianni theres a real press made bag of fluff.

We could start as to why he put police command center in the twin towers a known terrorist target. How do we know this after the first time they said they were coming back to finish the job.

This in itself caused wasted time and more deaths.
 
Posted by bond006 on :
 
Off corse Putin does not want Iraqs Democarcy .

He knows Bush wants that for America,witout National healthcare of course he made sure the Iraqies were getting that
 
Posted by Sasquatch on :
 
Easier to set up good programs in a place that you destroy utterly than it is at home where everybody has an opinion of you?

Or Easier to ignore the moneybags in Iraq saying national healthcare wouldn't be good for business than it is to ignore the moneybags back home?

Bush set himself up. Putin took it. I probably would have too.
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
I always hoped that an American President would finally see the light and promote National Health Care. I just thought it would be in America.

[Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by bond006:
Off corse Putin does not want Iraqs Democarcy .

He knows Bush wants that for America,witout National healthcare of course he made sure the Iraqies were getting that


 
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
 
Of course you did...
All commies do.
Live in Canada for a while then tell me how great national healthcare is.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
it's coming sooner or later DQ...
too many people don't have insurance and the ones who do are being squeezed to pay for the ones who don't... the cost is just being hande to those of us who can pay...
 
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
 
Better get used to fifty or sixty percent income tax then.
The economy will collapse.
And no one will get health care.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
well? as long as we don't have Hillary writing the laws? it may not be too bad..

we MAY be able to get a basic system for all with private insurance add-ons LEGAL....
 
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
 
Glass, they can't buy a hammer for under a grand.. how are they going to effectively and cheaply provide health care for all of us?
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
I lived in the UK for two years. It was great to not have to worry that I wouldn't be treated (or treated as well) if I couldn't afford it.

quote:
Originally posted by Relentless Despot.:
Of course you did...
All commies do.
Live in Canada for a while then tell me how great national healthcare is.


 
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
 
People are treated here as well if they can't pay.
It does amaze me that guys like you on one side seem to despise the government..
At times it sure seems you think government can do nothing right..
Then in an instant you come back and say government should be running health care..
Seems conflicted.
I don't trust government to do anything correctly..
I sure as hell don't want them controlling health care.
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
Meanwhile the Iraq war has cost us $296,000,000,000 so far. A lot of it borrowed from the real commies.

That's enough to offer everyone in America free elective surgery. Just think, if Bush weren't such an idiot we could all have huge breasts and enormous d**ks by now!

[Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Relentless Despot.:
Better get used to fifty or sixty percent income tax then.
The economy will collapse.
And no one will get health care.


 
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
 
and if it were not for Bush taking us to Iraq, Saddam would be lobbing skuds at Israel and in return Israel would have nuked them by now..
I bet that would cost us nothing...
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
Saddam was contained. He was unable to do any such thing.

We, (and by "we" I mean "you") were simply duped.
 
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
 
Contained?
He had no skuds?
He had no weapons he was barred from having?
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
FACT: Despite the claim that Iraq's supposed WMD posed an imminent threat to the U.S., Secretary of State Colin Powell said on 2/24/01 that Saddam Hussein “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.”

FACT: Vice President Cheney said on 9/16/01 that Saddam Hussein was not a threat. He said, “Saddam Hussein is bottled up.”

FACT: Powell said on 2/23/01 that "Saddam does not threaten the United States.” “I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box.” He further said “[Saddam] is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”
 
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
 
Answer the question or leave.
Did saddam have skuds?
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
You mean the ones we sold him?
 
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
 
Answer the question.
Did saddam have skuds?
 
Posted by Leo on :
 
And why would we sell them a soviet missile?
 
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
 
He's not going to answer
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
Sc**w you. LOL

(It's "scuds" by the way.) Do you have some "slam-dunk" intelligence I haven't heard about?

Either way, he was under constant surveillance (until Bush pulled the inspectors, that is) and was hardly a threat to America; nor Israel for that matter.

If he did indeed have them, he had been unable to use them for eight years due to the successful containment.

Therefore they could hardly be perceived as an "imminent threat" to the USA.

You are still being duped.

Suggestion: Wake up?

“I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box.” -Colin Powell
 
Posted by T e x on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Relentless Despot.:
He's not going to answer

wiggle time?
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
Hmmm... how to respond to a close-minded idiot... hmmm....


LOL

quote:
Originally posted by T e x:
wiggle time?


 
Posted by Leo on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Bennett:
FACT: Despite the claim that Iraq's supposed WMD posed an imminent threat to the U.S., Secretary of State Colin Powell said on 2/24/01 that Saddam Hussein “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.”

FACT: Vice President Cheney said on 9/16/01 that Saddam Hussein was not a threat. He said, “Saddam Hussein is bottled up.”

FACT: Powell said on 2/23/01 that "Saddam does not threaten the United States.” “I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box.” He further said “[Saddam] is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”

How can you use these quotes as fact after calling this administration a bunch of liars...maybe they were lying about Saddam being contained.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
from the senate intell committe
C. Iraq Was in the Final Stages of Development of the Al Samoud Missile (2000), May Be Preparing to Deploy the Al Samoud (2001), and Was Deploying the Al Samoud and Ababil-100 Short Range Ballistic Missiles, Both Which Exceed the 150-km UN Range Limit (2002)

(U) The IC's assessments about Iraq's al Samoud and Ababil-100 missiles changed progressively in 2000, 2001, and 2002 as intelligence reporting showed that Iraq was continuing to advance in its development of these missile systems.

(U) Since at least 1998, the IC had assessed that the al Samoud had a range greater than the 150-km allowed by the UN. This assessment was based on information extrapolated from Iraq's UN declarations in which Iraq provided details of the missile and engine parameters. The system had been flight tested nine times, with five failures, at the time of the 2000 NIE, leading the IC to assess that the system was in the final stages of development.

( )Intelligence provided to the Committee showed that by 2001, Iraq was progressing with development of the al Samoud, but still had not deployed the missiles. By 2002, however, Iraq had extracted the engines for 30 to 50 al Samoud missiles between mid-2000 and late 2001. Intelligence also showed that Iraq had conducted at least 25 al Samoud flight tests since 2000, the majority of which had been successful. A report from provided to the Committee assessed that in August 2002 two al Samoud missiles flew to ranges above the UN permitted range. Additional an indication that the missile had been deployed. The deployment was confirmed by Iraq's declaration to the UN in December 2002 that it had fielded the al Samoud II.

( ) The NIE also judged that Iraq was developing an extended-range variant of the al Samoud missile with an assessed range of up to 300 km, and said that on DELETED 2002, the missile was flight tested beyond the 150-km range limit "perhaps as far as 300 km." SENTENCE DELETED The IC assessed that DELETED was probably the result of an Iraqi effort to enlarge the al Samoud airframe to accommodate more propellant, which could extend its range to 300 km.

( ) When Iraq provided its Currently Accurate, Full and Complete Disclosure to the UN in December 2002, Iraq admitted to developing an al Samoud II variant, but said the range of this variant was also 150 km. Iraq admitted that the missile had flown beyond 150 km during 13 of 23 flight tests, but only by at most 33 km. The data provided by Iraq in the declaration caused the IC to change its assessment of the possible range of the al Samoud II, which it corrected in a February 2003 NIE, Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015. The NIE said that Iraq's declaration indicated that the al Samoud II has a larger diameter, which was the cause of DELETED noted by the IC during the January 2002 flight test. The NIE said, "The al Samoud data provides an alternate explanation for the DELETED the DELETED flight test last year." Iraq reported that the missile flew 171 km, and the new NIE judged, based on modeling of the new al Samoud II data, that 171 km was near the expected range.

( ) DELETED provided to the Committee from 2002 also indicated that the Ababil-100 had been flight tested 18 to 20 times since 2000, and that in DELETED 2002 a probable Ababil-100 DELETED had arrived at a tactical surface to surface missile facility. In late May 2002, Ababil-100 launch boxes were DELETED at a tactical missile and support facility and Ababil-100 missile launchers were DELETED at a barracks and training facility, DELETED. The deployment was not assessed to be complete, however.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_c hapter6-c.htm

the short answer is NO...
 
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
 
He fired the ****ing things when we attacked.. so yeah that's a slam dunk case..
He would be firing them at Israel right now had we not attacked..
How much would that cost us?
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
scuds are a joke

Saddam fired 39 Scud missiles at Israel in the 1991 Gulf war, causing damage but few casualties.
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
I suppose he had a right to try to defend himself against the almighty onslaught. Wouldn't you?

You have no idea what he would be doing right now. That argument is just plain idiotic; stay the course, RD.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
Alan Baker, the Foreign Ministry's legal adviser, said Saddam's Scud barrages apparently violated international law, because during a war, parties are forbidden from firing missiles at civilian targets and population centers.

however?

this from the same article shows that hamas and hezbolah are both terror groups not in compliance with international law. right now
 
Posted by Leo on :
 
In desert storm scuds were responsible for one Isreali death, one Saudi death, and 28 American soldiers when one hit a barracks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scud
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
I find the "Saddam had WMDs because he had scuds" argument laughable.

quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
scuds are a joke

Saddam fired 39 Scud missiles at Israel in the 1991 Gulf war, causing damage but few casualties.


 
Posted by john wayne on :
 
Glass-
the link you rovided above... is that the one you wanted me to review?
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
just one page of it:

here's the whole thing:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_t oc.htm

Iraq was 22 kliks over-range as prescribed by the UN...

remeber Israel bombed Iraq in
1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor
The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.

It is the world's first air strike against a nuclear plant.
The Israeli Government explained its reasons for the attack in a statement saying: "The atomic bombs which that reactor was capable of producing whether from enriched uranium or from plutonium, would be of the Hiroshima size. Thus a mortal danger to the people of Israel progressively arose."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.s tm

Iran is next...
i hope
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
Israel and Hezbollah are now both in violation of this law, wouldn't you say?


quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
Alan Baker, the Foreign Ministry's legal adviser, said Saddam's Scud barrages apparently violated international law, because during a war, parties are forbidden from firing missiles at civilian targets and population centers.

however?

this from the same article shows that hamas and hezbolah are both terror groups not in compliance with international law. right now


 
Posted by glassman on :
 
i don't know GB..
it appears to me that Israel is striking rocket launch sites that hezbolah has placed in apartment buildings and othere civilian appearing sites...

it's not Israels fault that Lebanon has allowed them to do this... it is Lebanons fault


there is no way to fight these guys legally when they do this...

hezbolah is participating in a SMEAR campaign against US and Israel right now...Iran is orchestrating...
 
Posted by john wayne on :
 
Glassman - so these statements are part of the same report?

(U) Conclusion 11. Several of the allegations of pressure on Intelligence Community (IC) analysts involved repeated questioning. The Committee believes that IC analysts should expect difficult and repeated questions regarding threat information. Just as the post 9/11 environment lowered the Intelligence Community's reporting threshold, it has also affected the intensity with which policymakers will review and question threat information.


(U) In some cases, those interviewed stated that the questions had forced them to go back and review the intelligence reporting, and that during this exercise they came across information they had overlooked in initial readings. The Committee found that this process - the policymakers probing questions - actually improved the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) products. The review revealed that the CIA analysts who prepared Iraqi Support for Terrorism made careful, measured assessments which did not overstate or mischaracterize the intelligence reporting upon which it was based.
(U) A number of the individuals interviewed by the Committee in conducting its review stated that Administration officials questioned analysts repeatedly on the potential for cooperation between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaida. Though these allegations appeared repeatedly in the press and in other public reporting on the lead up to the war, no analyst questioned by the Committee stated that the questions were unreasonable, or that they were encouraged by the questioning to alter their conclusions regarding Iraq's links to al-Qaida.

U) The same Research Fellow commented on strategic warning stating, "Key to the warning challenge is that the substantive uncertainty surrounding threats to U.S. interests requires analysts, and policymakers, to make judgments that are inherently vulnerable to error."


U) Conclusion 2. The Intelligence Community did not accurately or adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties behind the judgments in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate

(U) Conclusion 3. The Intelligence Community (IC) suffered from a collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing weapons of mass destruction (WNW) program. This "group think" dynamic led Intelligence Community analysts, collectors and managers to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programs. This presumption was so strong that formalized IC mechanisms established to challenge assumptions and group think were not utilized

(U) The IC had long assessed that Iraq maintained its ambitions to obtain WMD, and would seek to resume full WMD efforts once UN sanctions and inspections ended. Accordingly, after UN inspectors left Iraq in 1998, IC analysts began to look for evidence that Iraq was expanding WMD programs. Analysts interpreted ambiguous data as indicative of the active and expanded WMD effort they expected to see. The presumption that Iraq would take advantage of the departure of inspectors to restart its WMD efforts essentially became a hypothesis in search of evidence.


Now in fairness to Glass, I have not read this whole thing yet and I am sure many statments are made supporting his argument.
But I believe their are a few supporting those who believe it was an intelligence failure, not Bush overlooking information. At least that's what the statments above seem to imply.
I cannot provide a link, don't know how, but Glass has a link a few posts up. Can't say it's interesting reading, but it does provide insight.
 
Posted by john wayne on :
 
On Iraq's links to terrorism:
(U) Intelligence from the 1960s and 1970s first established the link between Iraq and terrorism, resulting in Iraq's inclusion in the State Department's 1979 list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. The State Department removed Iraq from the list in 1982.4 Iraq returned to the list in 1990 based upon intelligence information linking the regime to acts of terrorism conducted by the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and its support for Palestinian terrorists. The first intelligence reports suggesting links between Iraq and al Qaida emerged in the mid-1990s. The IC continues to receive reporting on these links from detainees and document exploitation.


Fairly vague
 
Posted by john wayne on :
 
Is this what Bush was told?

U) The NIE stated that "we assess that Iraq has some BW agent and maintains the capability to produce B. anthracis, botulinim toxin, aflatoxin, Clostridium perfringerns (gas gangrene) and ricin toxin." The NIE also noted that Iraq "may be able to produce a number of other incapacitating and lethal agents that it has researched over the years" and assessed that "Chances are even that smallpox is part of Baghdad's offensive BW program."

1. Smallpox
( ) The 2002 NIE stated in the key judgments that "Chances are even that smallpox is part of Iraq's offensive BW program." The body of the 2002 NIE expanded on this assessment:

"Various intelligence reports and DELETED indicate that Iraq probably has retained unauthorized stocks of Variola major virus, the causative agent of smallpox. Baghdad reportedly kept smallpox virus samples from its 1971-1972 outbreak, DELETED. We assess that the chances are even that smallpox is part of Baghdad's offensive BW program, although credible evidence is limited."
 
Posted by john wayne on :
 
Who to believe?

U) Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents9 on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence.

(U) Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
remeber that its a GOP Senate report JW...
The presumption that Iraq would take advantage of the departure of inspectors to restart its WMD efforts essentially became a hypothesis in search of evidence.
Analysts interpreted ambiguous data as indicative of the active and expanded WMD effort they expected to see.


this is a flat out admission that they effed up bad..


they were doing everything they could to to bury the facts..
A number of the individuals interviewed by the Committee in conducting its review stated that Administration officials questioned analysts repeatedly on the potential for cooperation between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaida.

this part here? this is called CYA in the military

Conclusion 2. The Intelligence Community did not accurately or adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties behind the judgments in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate


these are opinions stated by the committe, if you actually read thru the chapters? you will find that State Dept was arguing the CIA reports were wrong from the day the reports came to the CIA...
Tennet covered for Bush...

and you'll find Cheney was making alot of visits to hand-picked analysts..
 
Posted by john wayne on :
 
Does this mean they didn't?

(U) Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings.
 
Posted by john wayne on :
 
A BOMBSHELL.

(U) Conclusion 21. When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting. A CIA official's original testimony to the Committee that he told an NSC official to remove the words "Niger" and "500 tons" from the speech, is incorrect.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
JW if you are gonna re-post every opinion placed in that document? you just be perpatuationg the lies and hiding the truth like Rove...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by john wayne:
A BOMBSHELL.

(U) Conclusion 21. When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting. A CIA official's original testimony to the Committee that he told an NSC official to remove the words "Niger" and "500 tons" from the speech, is incorrect.

stop pulling little peices out till you have read it all.....

this is classic:

"a" agent told them, but that's not the only agent that was involved...
 
Posted by john wayne on :
 
How was the president supposed to know what the truth was?

Saddam Husayn and Usama Bin Ladin are far from being natural partners, yet intelligence reports during the last decade point to various Iraq-al-Qaida contacts through high-level and third-party intermediaries . . . .

We have reporting from reliable clandestine and press sources that DELETED direct meetings between senior Iraqi representatives and top al-Qaida operatives took place from the early 1990s to the present.
 
Posted by john wayne on :
 
And finally-
The Deputy Director of the CTC's Office of Terrorism Analysis noted that this is the most difficult issue he has encountered in his eighteen years of intelligence analysis. He also stated that:

On the other hand, I would also say that we've encouraged and developed a sense of trade craft specifically on terrorism that says push the envelope because the implications are so high and because we have to acknowledge up front that, unlike in some other cases, some other lines of analysis, that we have to accept that often our information is going to be fragmentary and, .......

IF WE WAIT TOO LONG TO REACH CONCLUSIONS, WE MIGHT MAKE A MISTAKE.

It's not always there in black and white fellas.
 
Posted by Sasquatch on :
 
Theres that pesky space. forget your password again john? [Smile]

If there were debates as to if the information was valid or not Georgie should have known that and taken everything with a grain of salt. That he didn't shows that he was hearing what he wanted to hear and hence didn't feel the need to look into it farther.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
JW? why don't you just go work for Fox and be done with it... if this is what you are gonna do..

those are GOP Senators writing that stuff...

look for the facts... then draw your own conclusions..

read who generated the intel... it was only three people...
and it all came thru Chalabi...

and Cheney was the one demanding the answers PERSONALLY...

you are buying stock after this kindof DD?? LOL
 
Posted by john wayne on :
 
Glassman-
So the stuff I reproduce from the same report you do is just Rove lies but the stuff you referr to from the same report is the truth?
You have used that source for posts correct?

Or is it just the stuff that makes Bush look bad is the truth and everything that makes intelligence look bad is a lie?

What is the deal here? If this is a soiled source, why do you use it, quote it and provide links to it?
No offense pal but I can't figure out your position here.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
how was the president supposed to know?

that's right he's just one step above retard isn't he?

LOL

pitiful....
gonna take a while to get over this one... about 5 more years and a trillion dollars


poor Bush how was he supposed to know?
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by john wayne:
Glassman-
So the stuff I reproduce from the same report you do is just Rove lies but the stuff you referr to from the same report is the truth?
You have used that source for posts correct?

Or is it just the stuff that makes Bush look bad is the truth and everything that makes intelligence look bad is a lie?

What is the deal here? If this is a soiled source, why do you use it, quote it and provide links to it?
No offense pal but I can't figure out your position here.

no offense taken

you read from the reports OPINION page...

now go read the facts...
oh you already read that in five minuites...

sad.... i got some diamond stock you might like..
oops sorry i sold that when it was up...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
and? if you follow the Brit side of the reports? it gets worse... a lot worse...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
The Cincinnati Speech

Although the NSC had already removed the uranium reference from the speech, later on October 6, 2002 the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, "more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points (1) The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under the control of the French authorities. (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British."

 
Posted by glassman on :
 
The CIA's former Associate Deputy Director for Intelligence (ADDI) for Strategic Programs, told Committee staff he was tasked by the Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI) to handle coordination of the speech within the CIA. On October 5, 2002, the ADDI brought together representatives for each of the areas of Iraq that the speech covered and asked the analysts to bring forward any issues that they thought should be addressed with the NSC. The ADDI said an Iraq nuclear analyst - he could not remember who - raised concerns about the sourcing and some of the facts of the Niger reporting, specifically that the control of the mines in Niger would have made it very difficult to get yellowcake to Iraq.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
Both WINPAC Iraq nuclear analysts who had followed the Iraq-Niger uranium issue told Committee staff they were not involved in coordinating the Cincinnati speech and did not participate in the speech coordination session on October 5, 2002.


Later that day, the NSC staff prepared draft seven of the Cincinnati speech which contained the line, "and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide from sources in Africa." Draft seven was sent to CIA for coordination.

( ) The ADDI told Committee staff he received the new draft on October 6, 2002 and noticed that the uranium information had "not been addressed," so he alerted the DCI. The DCI called the Deputy National Security Advisor directly to outline the CIA's concerns. On July 16, 2003, the DCI testified before the SSCI that he told the Deputy National Security Advisor that the "President should not be a fact witness on this issue," because his analysts had told him the "reporting was weak." The NSC then removed the uranium reference from the draft of the speech.



yeah, i guess Bush was just mistaken, he wasn't trying to get the CIA to change their postion on their estimates?


actually? you were just being lazy right? you just didn't feel like taking responsibility to actually learn about what you are posting on?
 
Posted by john wayne on :
 
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
MIKE DEWINE, Ohio
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia CARL LEVIN, Michigan
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
EVAN BAYH, Indiana
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
BARBARA MIKULSKI, Maryland

Members of the committee?
John Edwards, Even Bayh, Diane Feinstein, Carl Levin, Tom Dascle et all democrats did Rove's dirty work?

Did the democrats hep craft this? Did they sign off on this?
I'll keep reading.
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
Are you sure it's a whole step?

quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
how was the president supposed to know?

that's right he's just one step above retard isn't he?

LOL

pitiful....
gonna take a while to get over this one... about 5 more years and a trillion dollars


poor Bush how was he supposed to know?


 
Posted by glassman on :
 
JW, do you know committees work?


you asked for some smartass replies...

read the factual parts for yourself...

Secretary Powell's UN Speech

(U) Beginning in late January the CIA, State Department, White House and NSC officials began to work together to draft, coordinate and clear language to be used in an upcoming U.S. policy speech to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). In the early stages of the process, it was unclear exactly who would be delivering the speech.

(U) At the White House's request, the initial input for the speech came from the CIA. The CIA sent the input to the White House which reworked it and added additional material. In the final days of January and during the weekend of February 2, 2003, the Secretary of State and officials from the State Department, White House and the CIA, met at CIA headquarters to work through the issues the Secretary would address and to provide substantive clearance for the text. Several CIA analysts told Committee staff, and Secretary Powell has said publicly, that the Secretary did not want to use any information in the speech which was not supported by IC analysts.

(U) According to the CIA's former ADDI for Intelligence for Strategic Programs, who was the point person for coordinating the speech, the CIA removed some of the information that the White House had added to the speech, gathered from finished and raw intelligence, because the information was single source and uncorroborated. All of the individuals interviewed by Committee staff who were involved in drafting and coordinating the speech, said that they never saw any drafts that referenced Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa. The ADDI told Committee staff that a White House staffer and the Secretary asked about the uranium information, but after discussing the issue with a WINPAC analyst, did not want to include the information in the speech. Committee staff spoke to the WINPAC analyst, but he remembered discussing the issue with a State Department staffer, not a White House staffer. Committee staff interviewed the State Department staffer who said that he did ask about the uranium reporting. He said he asked the analysts if they had any new information on the reporting and, when they said they did not, he dropped the issue.

 
Posted by john wayne on :
 
Ok but it also says this. I may have been lazy but I'm warming up....
D. The British White Paper
( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED On September 24, 2002 the British Government published a White Paper on Iraq's WMD stating, "there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

(U) In a response to questions from Committee staff, the White House said that on September 24, 2002, NSC staff contacted the CIA to clear another statement for use by the President. The statement said, "we also have intelligence that Iraq has sought large amounts of uranium and uranium oxide, known as yellowcake, from Africa. Yellowcake is an essential ingredient of the process to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." The CIA cleared the language, but suggested that "of the process" be changed to "in the process." The President did not use the cleared language publicly.

(U) Some time in September a member of the NSC staff discussed the Niger uranium issue with a CIA analyst. The CIA analyst told Committee staff that during coordination of a speech (he was not sure which one) with an NSC staff member, the CIA analyst suggested that the reference to Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa be removed. The CIA analyst said the NSC staff member said that would leave the British "flapping in the wind." In a written response to a question about this matter from the Committee, the NSC staff member said that the CIA did not suggest that he remove text regarding Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa. The NSC staff member said the analyst suggested that Saddam's meeting with his "nuclear mujahedin" was more compelling evidence of Iraq's effort to resurrect the Iraqi nuclear program than attempts to acquire yellowcake, but said the analyst never suggested that the yellowcake text be removed. He said he had no recollection of telling a CIA analyst that replacing the uranium reference would leave the British "flapping in the wind" and said such a statement would have been illogical since the President never presented in any one speech every detail of intelligence gathered on Iraq either by the U.S. or by the U.K.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
in case you missed it? the information was single source and uncorroborated. All of the individuals interviewed by Committee staff who were involved in drafting and coordinating the speech, said that they never saw any drafts that referenced Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa.
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
Man, Glassman. After six years of FOX News, you expect me to read the facts?

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by john wayne on :
 
U) In December 2001, the IC produced an National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015. In the Iraq section of the NIE, the IC noted, "Recent Iraqi procurements, however, suggest possible preparation for a renewed uranium enrichment program." Possible preparations for a renewed uranium enrichment program represented a slight shift in the IC's assessment, but the assessment remained consistent with previous IC position that "Iraq did not appear to have reconstituted its nuclear weapons program." This judgment did not change until the 2002 NIE on Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, when, for the first time, the IC assessed that "Baghdad began reconstituting its nuclear program shortly after the departure of UNSCOM inspectors in December 1998." Viewing this as a possibly significant shift, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence staff focused their work on the analysis of Iraq's nuclear program in the 2002 NIE and the analysis from individual agencies leading up to that judgment in the period following the 2000 ICA.

What part of this did Rove write?
The 2002 NIE report that said that Iraq had began reconstituting it's nuclear program..... in 1998?

I don't get it Glassman... Where is the non opinion stuff you are referring to so I can read it and stop hogging up this thread. i am looking at the report right now. Can you direct me?
 
Posted by T e x on :
 
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
i posted a few paragraphs JW...

i like the part about the mines being FLOODED...

oh and BTW John? you might note that the Cinncinatti speech dates? they are in 2002....

the infamous state of the union? well that was in '03 pilgrim....

this paper has all the facts in it, you just have to give a damn...

it's way late to be quibbling over this...
we are in a faceoff with Iran right now...

the only thing this does for US tonight is make people more skeptical of fearless leaders abiltity to lead...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
and yep you did screw up a thread with all this crap....

you just managed to recapitualte the "party line" for the last three years....while burying a halfway decent thread in political manure...


and no i can't really direct you... you kinda need to read it thru with an open mind... like you are trying to decide whether to buy a big board stock or not...

look for names like curve ball....
 
Posted by john wayne on :
 
(U) On January 13, 2003, the INR Iraq nuclear analyst sent an e-mail to several IC analysts outlining his reasoning why, "the uranium purchase agreement probably is a hoax." He indicated that one of the documents that purported to be an agreement for a joint military campaign, including both Iraq and Iran, was so ridiculous that it was "clearly a forgery." Because this document had the same alleged stamps for the Nigerien Embassy in Rome as the uranium documents, the analyst concluded "that the uranium purchase agreement probably is a forgery." When the CIA analyst received the e-mail, he realized that WINPAC did not have copies of the documents and requested copies from INR. CIA received copies of the foreign language documents on January 16, 2003.

(U) Two CIA Iraq WINPAC analysts told Committee staff that after looking at the documents, they did notice some inconsistencies. One of the analysts told Committee staff, "it was not immediately apparent, it was not jumping out at us that the documents were forgeries." The CIA then sent the documents to the State Department for translation.

( )On January 15, 2003, thirteen days before the State of the Union address, WINPAC provided comments on a White House paper, A Grave and Gathering Danger, saying "better to generalize first bullet as follows: Sought uranium from Africa to feed the enrichment process." WINPAC had submitted identical language when it commented on the same paper in October. The paper was never published.

( )On January 17, 2003, eleven days before the State of the Union address, WINPAC published a current intelligence paper (Request for Evidence of Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Program Other Than the Aluminum Tube Procurement Effort, SPWRO11703-01) in response to a request from the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff for information, other than the aluminum tubes, that showed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. Regarding uranium acquisition, the paper said, "fragmentary reporting on Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from various countries in Africa in the past several years is another sign of reconstitution. Iraq has no legitimate use for uranium." The information on uranium acquisition attempts was one DELETED streams of intelligence provided to show Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.

(U) WINPAC analysts told Committee staff that, even though they were still in the process of analyzing the documents, their analytic position had not changed, so they believed it would have been premature to publish concerns about the documents without having investigated those concerns for themselves. One analyst said that if he were presenting CIA's best evidence on reconstitution he would not have included the uranium information, but when asked what else we had besides the tubes, he "ratcheted" down the threshold of what was appropriate to include. "fragmentary reporting on Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from various countries in Africa in the past several years is another sign of reconstitution. Iraq has no legitimate use for uranium." The information on uranium acquisition attempts was one DELETED streams of intelligence provided to show Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.
(U) Other WINPAC analysts told Committee staff that by January, they had come to believe that if Iraq was in fact attempting to acquire uranium from Africa, it would bolster their argument that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program because Iraq had no other use for uranium. Most of the other elements of the reconstitution case, the tubes, magnets, machine tools and balancing machines, were all dual use materials, while for Iraq, uranium had only one potential use - a nuclear weapons program.

(U) On January 20, 2003, the President submitted a report to Congress on Iraq's noncompliance with UNSC resolutions. The report stated that Iraq had failed to include in its declaration "attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it." The CIA and the White House have told Committee staff that the IC did not coordinate on this draft. In a written response to a question from Committee staff, the Department of State said that their usual role was to prepare the pre-decisional drafts of this periodic report. Their draft, which was provided to the NSC on December 9, 2002, did not include the language contained in the final draft on Iraq's failure to declare "attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it. The CIA Inspector General told Committee staff the text for the report had been drawn from WINPAC's assessment of Iraq's UNSC declaration.

(U) On January 24, 2003, in response to a request from the NSC for additional details regarding IC input to "the case for Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction," the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs faxed a packet of background information to the NSC. The fax contained the information from the October 2002 NIE on Iraq's vigorous attempts to procure uranium ore and yellowcake from Niger and other countries in Africa. The information was used to prepare for Secretary Powell's presentation of intelligence to the UN in February 2003.

( ) On January 24, 2003, in response to a question for the Office of the Secretary of Defense/International Security Affairs for information on Nigerien uranium sales to Iraq, the DIA provided a background paper which described the original CIA Niger reporting and the November 25 Navy report on alleged storage of uranium destined for Iraq. The paper concluded that "DIA cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore or yellowcake from Niger. However, sufficient time has elapsed since the commencement of the recent alleged uranium agreement, that we cannot discount that Iraq may have received an unknown quantity." The report made no mention of the foreign language documents on the alleged uranium deal and did not indicate that there were any concerns about the quality of those documents.

(U) On January 26, 2003, Secretary of State Powell addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He said, "why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?"

( ) On January 27, 2003, a CIA intelligence report DELETED indicated that foreign government service reported that the uranium sodium compound in storage at the warehouse in Cotonou, Benin was destined for France, not Iraq. The same report said that separate foreign government service had information on Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from Niger, dating from 1999, but had no further information. The foreign government service also indicated that Niger had been looking to sell an old stock of uranium for years to the highest bidder. According to the foreign government service, other countries had expressed interest.

So you have sources (INR)saying no uranium and you also have sources, WINPAC, saying they had tried to get uranium and DIA saying it could not discount the possibility...
On January 27th the CIA said the Uranium was being sent to France, not Iraq. End of story right? But in the same report they also say a seperate foreign government service reported on Iraqi attempts to buy Uranium from Nigeria in 1999 and the fact that Nigeria was looking to sell uranium to the highest bidder.

Since this information was part of a section called "fact sheet"I assume these are facts.
Glassman- sorry Bro for getting a little carried away with my attitude, wasn't me bud!!
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
Did anyone miss this video? [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Bennett:
During a press conference [yes]today at the G8 summit in Russia, President Bush told President Vladimir Putin that Americans want Russia to develop a free press and free religion “like Iraq.” To laughter and applause, Putin responded: “We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.” CNN’s Ed Henry called it a “tough jab.”

WATCH THE VIDEO


 
Posted by john wayne on :
 
Glassman-
Curveball raises serious doubts about sources and talks about how unreliable some of the sources were, including one drunk. But it ends with this:

. Intelligence Community Mind Set Concerning Mobile BW Programs
( ) An INR BW analyst told Committee staff that ". . . as a community the U.S. BW analysts generally think that BW programs historically have shifted from large-scale fixed facilities producing large quantities of BW agents being stockpiled to smaller dual-use facilities that can be mobilized. SENTENCE DELETED So it's very appealing to the analysts to learn about a mobile BW program. It fits with what we think the state of the B W program worldwide are heading toward. It's kind of like a built-in bias."

( ) A CIA Directorate of Operations (CIAlDO) officer told the Committee that when he began serving as the Deputy Chief of the CIA Iraq WMD Task Force in the summer of 2002, the Iraqi BW program was not the focus of the Iraq WMD Task Force's efforts because, while many questions existed about other issues such as Iraq's nuclear weapons program, analysts felt fairly certain that they knew what the BW program looked like and believed the issue was largely "wrapped up." He noted that although there was always a lot of ambiguity with these sources, the CIA's lead analyst on Iraq's BW program was adamant about the existence of the Iraqi mobile BW platforms. He noted that was "a bull dog with these sources." The CIA/DO officer told Committee staff that the CIA BW analyst and the Department of Defense detailee who was assigned to CIA/DO had "locked horns" over the reliability of the mobile BW HUMINT sources. The CIAlDO officer noted that he had several conversations with the CIA BW analyst about the detailee's concerns over the reliability of the mobile BW HUMINT sources. In one of these conversations, the CIA BW analyst discounted the detailee's concerns by stating that the Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) had multiple sources reporting on the program, and that the detailee was not aware of all of this reporting.

Now that does not speak to Uranium but mobile WMD sites.

I just don't see a concensus in this report. Unless there is another facts section.
 
Posted by Griffon on :
 
Actually, Putin's government is about on par with Iraq given the human rights situation in Chechnya and the interference with other sovereign nations within what was once the USSR. I thought Israel's ambassador to the UN put it well when France and Russia condemned Israel's aggression. He simply told the truth about the French and Russian track records. In refering to Israel's invasion going over-board (which it has been, both of those "great" powers have gone into colonial situations and had wholesale massacres involving thousands of people when they responded to terrorism. Israel still hasn't done in a week's fighting what Putin managed to do in a few hours in Chechnya.
 
Posted by Griffon on :
 
As a person pursuing a PhD in Peace Studies, I would suggest that the argument about who is a terrorist is unnecessary. The enemy is a terrorist which ever side you are on. Thus in Lebanon, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization to Israel and Israel is the same to Hezbollah. Because Syria and Iran support Hezbollah, and because the rockets being used by that organization came from Iraq and Iran via Syria, those countries are for Israel terrorist organizations. Because the US unambiguously supports Israel, we are terrorists in the eyes of Hezbollah, Hamas, and etc.

My Arab-Israeli friends who attend school just south of Haifa in Ibillin at the Mar Elias Educational Institute are growing up in a multi-ethnic, inter-religious environment and they have a firmer grasp on what comprises a terrorist than all of us: anyone who kills or oppresses another person for political, economic, ethnic, or religious purposes.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
I just don't see a concensus in this report. Unless there is another facts section.

don't see a consensus?

you also don't see anybody with ANY real evidence for anything cuz nothing exsited...
you'll see that the intel community was in turmoil becuse they were being tweaked by Cheney or somebody for PR material..

you think these guys came in front of a Senate committe run by the party in power and didn't try their best to give the committe what they wanted to hear?

they have families to feed to yaknow....
this committee's goal was to divert the blame from Bush to the CIA, and it only does that if you WANT it to....study facts, forget these opinion statements...you'll find plenty of facts in there...

i will not respond to any more of your posts where you finish up by saying

see here what they conclude with?

they are telling you what to think...and you are trying to tell me to think what they told you to think... i can get enough of that on TV...

if this was a 10Q? it would be a penny stock...

is that what you expect from your country?
 
Posted by Johnwayne on :
 
That's fine Glassman-let's let everybody reclaim this thread. If we see things differently sometimes, while I still respect you and the service of your country.

Also made a filet mignon on my grill the other night, blah, should stick with my beloved rib-eyes!
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
what's that supposed to mean? you found a rational explanation to go to war in there? LOL...


Bush got caught cussing on an open mike this morning [Wink]
MSNBC was playing it...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
now Fox "NEWS" has picked it up too...

LOL..
the chit word isn't the part that is disturbing about this...

it's the talking with his mouth full that bothers me...

my kids never do that...
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
Real classy for a world leader, huh? We should be so proud.
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
The president was caught on tape using an expletive as he described the actions of Hezbollah in attacking Israel.

Here is the complete transcript:

Bush: And thanks for the sweaters - I know you picked em out yourself...

Blair: Oh yes absolutely - in fact I knitted it!!!

(laughter)

Bush: What about Kofi Annan - he seems alright. I don't like his ceasefire plan. His attitude is basically ceasefire and everything sorts out.... But I think...

Blair: Yeah the only thing I think is really difficult is that we can't stop this without getting international presence agreed. I think what you guys have talked about which is the criticism of the [inaudible word). I am perfectly happy to try and see what the lie of the land is, but you need that done quickly because otherwise it will spiral.

Bush: Yeah I think Condi's [US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) gonna go soon.

Blair: Well that's all that matters but if you... You see at least it gets it going.

Bush: I agree it's a process...I told her your offer too.

Blair: Well it's only if she needs the ground prepared as it were. If she goes out she HAS to succeed whereas I can just go and...

Bush: You see the irony is what they need to is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this **** and it's all over...

Blair: Dunno... Syria....

Bush: Why?

Blair: Because I think this is all part of the same thing...

Bush: (with mouth full of bread) Yeah

Blair: Look - what does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine. If you get a solution in Israel and Palestine. Iraq goes in the right way

Bush: Yeah - he's [indistinct]

Blair: Yeah.... He's had it. That's what all this is about - it's the same with Iran

Bush: I felt like telling Kofi to call, to get on the phone to Assad and make something happen.

Blair: Yeah

BUSH: [indistinct] blaming Israel and [indistinct] blaming the Lebanese government....

(At this point, Blair noticed the mic was left on and switched it off)
 
Posted by Johnwayne on :
 
What in the blazs is the problem with this guys?
 
Posted by Johnwayne on :
 
That he said S***?
That he talked with a mouth full of food?
Does anybody disagree with what he and Blair were discussing?
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
ah, NO...

problem?

well, i don't eat at restaurants too often these days, but the last time i went? i don't recall hearing people cussing and chewing with their mouth open...

or talking while they chew...

if you guys live like that? fine with me...

really? i have never seen the Prez at the table before, maybe all world leaders do this cuz they don't need to be polite....


Bush: You see the irony is what they need to is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this **** and it's all over...


actually? if this is as far as Bush sees here? we are in a lot worse trouble than i thought...
fortunately? i think we have people working for him that see beyond Syria....
 
Posted by Johnwayne on :
 
Hey Glassman-
It sure beats what his dad did at the table in Japan right LOL?
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
Sr had the Flu....

(or maybe it was the live octopuss crawling back up [Wink] )
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
seriously?

Iran is trying to figure out if we are gonna let them have their nukular toys...

Israel is saying NO... not just NO! but HELL NO! and this bush blair exchange may very well have been planned...
who knows... as long as Iran gives up it's nukes...
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
You had to be there, (or watch the video). LOL

quote:
Originally posted by Johnwayne:
What in the blazs is the problem with this guys?


 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
His "I'm eating at McDonalds with my frat buddies" demeanor is just plain disgusting and embarrassing. If I ever doubted that he's merely a puppet, those doubts are now long gone. What a clueless jerk.

quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
ah, NO...

problem?

well, i don't eat at restaurants too often these days, but the last time i went? i don't recall hearing people cussing and chewing with their mouth open...

or talking while they chew...

if you guys live like that? fine with me...

really? i have never seen the Prez at the table before, maybe all world leaders do this cuz they don't need to be polite....


Bush: You see the irony is what they need to is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this **** and it's all over...


actually? if this is as far as Bush sees here? we are in a lot worse trouble than i thought...
fortunately? i think we have people working for him that see beyond Syria....


 
Posted by Johnwayne on :
 
Gordon-
Wow you are a tough crowd. Where are you from? Northeastern US?

But I wonder, how did you feel when President Clinton was caught on tape laughing at.... was it former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown's? funeral?
 
Posted by rimasco on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:


actually? if this is as far as Bush sees here? we are in a lot worse trouble than i thought...
fortunately? i think we have people working for him that see beyond Syria....

I agree!...was Rove there? Did it look like he had a hand up his ass pulling the strings? Maybe G.W is just trying to play Reagan and scare the chit out of people that way....its working LOL

As for him talking with a mouth full.... i was raised by a pack of wild greaze-balls and even i know better...somtimes lol. I could understand if he was dinning with the prime minister of Mongolia....but Tony Blair? Those Lyme's invented etiquette! Blair musta been ready to take cover
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
Indifferent, actually. I have no idea what they were talking about. Perhaps Brown was a great practical joker and they were reminiscing about a good one. Who the hell knows?

It's certainly not in the same league as talking with your mouth open, spouting an expletive, and proving once again that you, as leader of the free world, are all but clueless on foreign policy.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnwayne:
Gordon-
Wow you are a tough crowd. Where are you from? Northeastern US?

But I wonder, how did you feel when President Clinton was caught on tape laughing at.... was it former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown's? funeral?


 
Posted by Johnwayne on :
 
Of course some of us crass, low brow neanderthals also didn't worry too much when one former president went jogging in shorts so short his nuts were hanging out.
Now that was a site!!! Come on you gotta laugh at that one.
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
I imagine that many feel the need to shower after meeting with Bush. [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by rimasco:
I could understand if he was dinning with the prime minister of Mongolia....but Tony Blair? Those Lyme's invented etiquette! Blair musta been ready to take cover


 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
Oh believe me, I laugh every day at our so-called "leaders."

quote:
Originally posted by Johnwayne:
Of course some of us crass, low brow neanderthals also didn't worry too much when one former president went jogging in shorts so short his nuts were hanging out.
Now that was a site!!! Come on you gotta laugh at that one.


 
Posted by Johnwayne on :
 
Ronald Reagan and Gorbachev were in a meeting at Camp David once about intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Reagan absolutely flubbed up some of the information he was relaying to Gorbachev.
When Reagan began apoligizing Gorby stopped him in mid stream and said "It's ok, I don't know what any of this stuff is either." They both laughed and it was an ice breaker.

Now I would assume neither one of them had a mouth full of food, and neither used profanity, but they seemed to do some good.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
JW? i don't hold back just cuz somebody is GOP or a Dem...
i could care less what party they are... i just want them respect US after they've raped and pillaged US for four or eight years [Wink]

i vote for Bush Sr twice... never voted for Clinton or Gore...
but i also didn't agree with the whitewater investigation fiasco either... it set too many low precedents in US politics..

the internet was young then, and it was harder to do the DD on journalists and politicians back then... we are in a whole new age as far as DD goes...

if we were in real war? i would hold back on Bush. but we aren't...

yes, we have terorists to "eliminate" but we always will, so it's not a real war in the sense that we should give up our rights to free speech...
 
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
I wouldn't.

quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
if we were in real war? i would hold back on Bush. but we aren't..


 


© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2