[version]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=34930


Some things to note:

But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad:



had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,

was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,

and was not a terrorist threat to America

[villalobos]

Originally posted by version:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=34930


Some things to note:

But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad:



had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,

was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,

and was not a terrorist threat to America

Here come the Bush apologists to explain you ad nauseam how it does not really matter after all, that it depends what the meaning of lies really is, and that at least he did not get a BJ.

villa

[swrate]

Originally posted by villalobos:
Here come the Bush apologists to explain you ad nauseam how it does not really matter after all, that it depends what the meaning of lies really is, and that at least he did not get a BJ.

villa

BJ
and the decisions one has to make in between.
W
or fits of anger...

I read this on another board* and was blown.


X:
Threatening the Sunnis by telling them we'll break up the country into thirds, with the Sunni's not getting any areas with oil. That might get them to settle down.

Y:
I agree completely. I posted to another thread some days ago that we should consider up-arming the Kurdish Peshmergas and turning them loose. Let them carve out chunks of territory from the 'Sunni Triangle' to keep for themselves. I think the terrorists would soon get the message.


*....is one allowed to post quotes....
can someone clear me on this

lies...carefully planned ahead.
Land/resources fights

"out of hand"

[einmakom]

Originally posted by version:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=34930


Some things to note:

But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad:



had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,

was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,

and was not a terrorist threat to America

You still don't know what a good source is for news. WorldNetDaily is not a news source, it's commentary. In this case, it's good commentary, but a better source would have been linking straight to the report which the columnist cites.

More than that, how do you square this information with the report here:

http://www.revue-politique.com/7,art...x0000p0014.htm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/378fmxyz.asp

The DOD then minimised the report:
The DOD Nov. 15 statement noted that a "letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27, 2003 from Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony. One of the questions posed by the committee asked the Department to provide the reports from the Intelligence Community to which he referred in his testimony before the Committee. These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida."

Included in that letter was a "classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the Committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the Intelligence Community."

Those items, DOD insists, "were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA," and their transmittal to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence Community. "The selection of the documents was made by DOD to respond to the Committee�s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...6/193500.shtml

Now, Newsmax and the Weekly Standard are not sources I would like to cite- they are better for news than WorldNetDaily, but not fantastic news sources. Unfortunately, I cannot re-publish that memo here. So take it for what you will, but there is evidence to the contrary of your contention - there was a relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, however tenuous.

[version]

Originally posted by einmakom:
You still don't know what a good source is for news. WorldNetDaily is not a news source, it's commentary. In this case, it's good commentary, but a better source would have been linking straight to the report which the columnist cites.

I think what you're trying to say is, tht after the initial reports, they didn't somehow fir into the scheme of the Bush Admin. and other politicians; so obviously a redraft was needed to best suit there purpose. it's typical, and it's what the UK Gov. did as well, intelligence doesn't fit their political needs, so hey, let's try it again so it looks like it does.
Those guys who made the first report mustn't be very good, eh?

[einmakom]

No, that's not at all what I'm saying.

I said exactly what I meant, and not a word different from what I intended.

I'm saying that you have two different reports that don't square with each other. Common reasons for this are, intelligence spreading misinformation can be as valuable as holding correct information secret. The memo was intended to be held secret.

It's up to you to decide where you attribute the weight of truth, but using WorldNetDaily commentary to support an argument is a poor choice.

[MacGorilla]

As much as I dislike Bush, I have a hard time believing he intentionally lied. I think he heard only what he wanted to hear from his advisors. He believes that Iraq was a threat and thats the problem with people who believe.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
As much as I dislike Bush,

He didn't, But tell that to the people that
"Want to believe" regardless.

The Anti-Bush Zealots are amusing at times.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I think he heard only what he wanted to hear from his advisors.

or his advisors told him only one side of the story--what they thought he wanted to hear.

version, this topic isn't new. It was discussed some time ago. Thanks for the unoriginality.