Democrats Fear Positive Iraq Report

[billvon 2,991]

>I am watching you and the Dems lay the groundword to condem
>a report before it even comes out.

Nope, just stating what the report actually is. If identifying the author of a report is "laying the groundwork to condemn it" then so be it. Perhaps you would prefer such things remain a secret, so that congress (and the voters) are more easily manipulated? It worked in 2003 - not so sure it will work today.

Let's take a counterexample. Let's say that the report was actually written by Michael Moore instead of Petraeus or the administration. Would you want to know that? And if you did discover that, would you keep it to yourself? If you told anyone else, would that mean you were "laying the groundwork to condemn it" because you were afraid of it?

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

the jewish media is against anyone who...

Gimme a break. It has nothing to do with the "Jewish" media.

It has everything to do with multinational corporate elites and the military-industrialists behind the scenes who want to push their globalist agendas through the mainstream politicians that the mass media pimp to a nation of tv-junkies.

Whether it's democrat or republican, it is those I mentioned above who win out in the end when we elect the politicians who get the most media coverage. If people would be more diligent about informing themselves, perhaps we'd get better representation. Instead, we get what we deserve for being lazy and eating the shit that's spoon-fed to us by the mainstream media.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I am watching you and the Dems lay the groundword to condem
>a report before it even comes out.

Nope, just stating what the report actually is. If identifying the author of a report is "laying the groundwork to condemn it" then so be it. Perhaps you would prefer such things remain a secret, so that congress (and the voters) are more easily manipulated? It worked in 2003 - not so sure it will work today.

Let's take a counterexample. Let's say that the report was actually written by Michael Moore instead of Petraeus or the administration. Would you want to know that? And if you did discover that, would you keep it to yourself? If you told anyone else, would that mean you were "laying the groundwork to condemn it" because you were afraid of it?

No, the report would come out and it would be commented on depending on the content. I have not seen the R's start laying the groundwork for reports or elections like the Dems do. We will see if you can prove me wrong

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

>I am watching you and the Dems lay the groundword to condem
>a report before it even comes out.

Nope, just stating what the report actually is. If identifying the author of a report is "laying the groundwork to condemn it" then so be it. Perhaps you would prefer such things remain a secret, so that congress (and the voters) are more easily manipulated? It worked in 2003 - not so sure it will work today.

Let's take a counterexample. Let's say that the report was actually written by Michael Moore instead of Petraeus or the administration. Would you want to know that? And if you did discover that, would you keep it to yourself? If you told anyone else, would that mean you were "laying the groundwork to condemn it" because you were afraid of it?

No, the report would come out and it would be commented on depending on the content. I have not seen the R's start laying the groundwork for reports or elections like the Dems do. We will see if you can prove me wrong

So the Dems care about truth in advertizing, and the GOP doesn't care if the people are misled about the authorship. OK.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>I am watching you and the Dems lay the groundword to condem
>a report before it even comes out.

Nope, just stating what the report actually is. If identifying the author of a report is "laying the groundwork to condemn it" then so be it. Perhaps you would prefer such things remain a secret, so that congress (and the voters) are more easily manipulated? It worked in 2003 - not so sure it will work today.

Let's take a counterexample. Let's say that the report was actually written by Michael Moore instead of Petraeus or the administration. Would you want to know that? And if you did discover that, would you keep it to yourself? If you told anyone else, would that mean you were "laying the groundwork to condemn it" because you were afraid of it?

No, the report would come out and it would be commented on depending on the content. I have not seen the R's start laying the groundwork for reports or elections like the Dems do. We will see if you can prove me wrong

So the Dems care about truth in advertizing, and the GOP doesn't care if the people are misled about the authorship. OK.

More like since the Dems have been saying the war can not be one they have to cover thier butts just in case a report comes out saying they are incorrect.

You, just like it will be about 6 to 8 months from now the Dems will start raising stories about voting machines and voter irregularities (just in case they lose the election) If they win nothing will come of it, if they do lose the "see, there is a problem" shit will come out yet again.

Hope that clears up your umderstanding of things

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>I am watching you and the Dems lay the groundword to condem
>a report before it even comes out.

Nope, just stating what the report actually is. If identifying the author of a report is "laying the groundwork to condemn it" then so be it. Perhaps you would prefer such things remain a secret, so that congress (and the voters) are more easily manipulated? It worked in 2003 - not so sure it will work today.

Let's take a counterexample. Let's say that the report was actually written by Michael Moore instead of Petraeus or the administration. Would you want to know that? And if you did discover that, would you keep it to yourself? If you told anyone else, would that mean you were "laying the groundwork to condemn it" because you were afraid of it?

No, the report would come out and it would be commented on depending on the content. I have not seen the R's start laying the groundwork for reports or elections like the Dems do. We will see if you can prove me wrong

So the Dems care about truth in advertizing, and the GOP doesn't care if the people are misled about the authorship. OK.

More like since the Dems have been saying the war can not be one they have to cover thier butts just in case a report comes out saying they are incorrect.

You, just like it will be about 6 to 8 months from now the Dems will start raising stories about voting machines and voter irregularities (just in case they lose the election) If they win nothing will come of it, if they do lose the "see, there is a problem" shit will come out yet again.

Hope that clears up your umderstanding of things

Ha ha, very droll.

Why do you have such a problem with having an ACCURATE statement of the authorship of the report?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>I am watching you and the Dems lay the groundword to condem
>a report before it even comes out.

Nope, just stating what the report actually is. If identifying the author of a report is "laying the groundwork to condemn it" then so be it. Perhaps you would prefer such things remain a secret, so that congress (and the voters) are more easily manipulated? It worked in 2003 - not so sure it will work today.

Let's take a counterexample. Let's say that the report was actually written by Michael Moore instead of Petraeus or the administration. Would you want to know that? And if you did discover that, would you keep it to yourself? If you told anyone else, would that mean you were "laying the groundwork to condemn it" because you were afraid of it?

No, the report would come out and it would be commented on depending on the content. I have not seen the R's start laying the groundwork for reports or elections like the Dems do. We will see if you can prove me wrong

So the Dems care about truth in advertizing, and the GOP doesn't care if the people are misled about the authorship. OK.

More like since the Dems have been saying the war can not be one they have to cover thier butts just in case a report comes out saying they are incorrect.

You, just like it will be about 6 to 8 months from now the Dems will start raising stories about voting machines and voter irregularities (just in case they lose the election) If they win nothing will come of it, if they do lose the "see, there is a problem" shit will come out yet again.

Hope that clears up your umderstanding of things

Ha ha, very droll.

Why do you have such a problem with having an ACCURATE statement of the authorship of the report?

How do you know it will not be accurate???

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

So the Dems care about truth in advertizing, and the GOP doesn't care if the people are misled about the authorship. OK.

More like since the Dems have been saying the war can not be one they have to cover thier butts just in case a report comes out saying they are incorrect.

You, just like it will be about 6 to 8 months from now the Dems will start raising stories about voting machines and voter irregularities (just in case they lose the election) If they win nothing will come of it, if they do lose the "see, there is a problem" shit will come out yet again.

Hope that clears up your umderstanding of things

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

So the Dems care about truth in advertizing, and the GOP doesn't care if the people are misled about the authorship. OK.

More like since the Dems have been saying the war can not be one they have to cover thier butts just in case a report comes out saying they are incorrect.

You, just like it will be about 6 to 8 months from now the Dems will start raising stories about voting machines and voter irregularities (just in case they lose the election) If they win nothing will come of it, if they do lose the "see, there is a problem" shit will come out yet again.

Hope that clears up your umderstanding of things

Ha ha, very droll.

Why do you have such a problem with having an ACCURATE statement of the authorship of the report?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

It's already being called "The Petraeus Report", when in fact it will be a White House report. QED.

What are you saying? That all reports coming out of the White House should be called "The White House Report"? Wouldn't that get a little confusing?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So the Dems care about truth in advertizing, and the GOP doesn't care if the people are misled about the authorship. OK.

More like since the Dems have been saying the war can not be one they have to cover thier butts just in case a report comes out saying they are incorrect.

You, just like it will be about 6 to 8 months from now the Dems will start raising stories about voting machines and voter irregularities (just in case they lose the election) If they win nothing will come of it, if they do lose the "see, there is a problem" shit will come out yet again.

Hope that clears up your umderstanding of things

Ha ha, very droll.

Why do you have such a problem with having an ACCURATE statement of the authorship of the report?

How do you know it will not be accurate???

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

How do you know it will not be accurate???

Honest question: Do you trust what this administration tells the American public? Do you take everything they say at face value?

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So the Dems care about truth in advertizing, and the GOP doesn't care if the people are misled about the authorship. OK.

More like since the Dems have been saying the war can not be one they have to cover thier butts just in case a report comes out saying they are incorrect.

You, just like it will be about 6 to 8 months from now the Dems will start raising stories about voting machines and voter irregularities (just in case they lose the election) If they win nothing will come of it, if they do lose the "see, there is a problem" shit will come out yet again.

Hope that clears up your umderstanding of things

Ha ha, very droll.

Why do you have such a problem with having an ACCURATE statement of the authorship of the report?

How do you know it will not be accurate???

It's already being called "The Petraeus Report", when in fact it will be a White House report. QED.

SO? Isn't that were the info will come from? And, who named it that? Did you?

As we all saw in 2002-3, the White House is quite capable of distorting and cherry picking intel for its own purposes. Bull shit. This is one lie you like to keep going

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

How do you know it will not be accurate???

Honest question: Do you trust what this administration tells the American public? Do you take everything they say at face value?

Yes and no

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

How do you know it will not be accurate???

Honest question: Do you trust what this administration tells the American public? Do you take everything they say at face value?

Nope - but a lot of people seem to trust what their favorite Congresscritter tells them...hook, line and sinker.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

As we all saw in 2002-3, the White House is quite capable of distorting and cherry picking intel for its own purposes.

Bull shit. This is one lie you like to keep going


I guess you really don't want anyone to take you seriously.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

As we all saw in 2002-3, the White House is quite capable of distorting and cherry picking intel for its own purposes.

Bull shit. This is one lie you like to keep going

I guess you really don't want anyone to take you seriously.

When you have brought this shit up before I have replyed with many point to which you have never replyed to. So be. When you puke this crap line I sure as hell do not take you seriously anymore

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>>As we all saw in 2002-3, the White House is quite capable of distorting
>>and cherry picking intel for its own purposes.

>Bull shit. This is one lie you like to keep going

------------------------------------
Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq
Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says

Friday, February 10, 2006; Page A01

The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
---------------------------------------

Hmm. Does RushMC or the CIA official in charge of Middle Eastern intelligence know more about this issue? I'll let people make their own calls on that.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>>As we all saw in 2002-3, the White House is quite capable of distorting
>>and cherry picking intel for its own purposes.

>Bull shit. This is one lie you like to keep going

------------------------------------
Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq
Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says

Friday, February 10, 2006; Page A01

The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
---------------------------------------

Hmm. Does RushMC or the CIA official in charge of Middle Eastern intelligence know more about this issue? I'll let people make their own calls on that.

Ya, well one pissed off ex CIA person does not the truth make. But, you can pick and choose the comments that agreee with your world view template. After all, that is what you have been doing for years now

(this does not mean i think no mistakes were made but, no case of INTENTIONAL mis leading has ever been made, just the normal accusations. You know, the accusations that mean more than fact? Ya those, the ones you like)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Ya, well one pissed off ex CIA person does not the truth make. But, you can pick and choose the comments that agreee with your world view template. After all, that is what you have been doing for years now

Oh yeah its MUCH better to take the word of the YES men who continue to follow along in fear of their jobs if they DARE to tell the truth

[billvon 2,991]

>Ya, well one pissed off ex CIA person does not the truth make.
-----------------
Kwiatkowski, 43, a now-retired Air Force officer who served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia (NESA) unit in the year before the invasion of Iraq, observed how the Pentagon's Iraq war-planning unit manufactured scare stories about Iraq's weapons and ties to terrorists. "It wasn't intelligence‚ -- it was propaganda," she says. "They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together." It was by turning such bogus intelligence into talking points for U.S. officials‚ -- including ominous lines in speeches by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell's testimony at the U.N. Security Council last February‚ -- that the administration pushed American public opinion into supporting an unnecessary war.
-----------------
The revelations made by retired CIA officer Paul Pillar in an article published in the March-April issue of the journal Foreign Affairs should come as a surprise to no one who has been following the disturbing case of Iraq and the missing weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Mr. Pillar is a career intelligence officer with the CIA who served as the deputy chief of the Counterterrorist Center and, most recently, as the national intelligence officer for Near East/Middle East affairs from 2000 to 2005. His essay offers sound analysis to back up his claim that the Bush administration had made the decision to invade Iraq independent of any viable intelligence analysis to sustain the allegation that Iraq possessed undeclared and hidden WMD capability. This capability allegedly not only violated international law but also constituted a threat to the United States and the international community that justified the use of force.
. . .
"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote.
-------------------

How about one ex-CIA leader, one Air Force officer and one career counterintelligence officer? How many people involved coming forward will it take to convince a staunch Bush supporter?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No, the report would come out and it would be commented on depending on the content. I have not seen the R's start laying the groundwork for reports or elections like the Dems do. We will see if you can prove me wrong

You really believe this, don't you?

How you think the GOP could ever win the White House without laying the groundwork for the elections years in advance...beats me. They're at least as crafty as the Democrats in this matter, and I'd say more so.

The 2008 election started around Spring of 2006. If you didn't see that, I could suggest some reading for you.

[Amazon 7]

Name of thread

Democrats Fear Positive Iraq Report

REALITY CHECK

Republicans Fear ANY Negativity from Iraq in ANY report.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

How do you know it will not be accurate???

Honest question: Do you trust what this administration tells the American public? Do you take everything they say at face value?

Ummm ...yes, he does.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Ya, well one pissed off ex CIA person does not the truth make. But, you can pick and choose the comments that agreee with your world view template. After all, that is what you have been doing for years now

(this does not mean i think no mistakes were made but, no case of INTENTIONAL mis leading has ever been made, just the normal accusations. You know, the accusations that mean more than fact? Ya those, the ones you like)

Defending your president to this level of absurdity is not patriotic, it's just sad.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".