Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It's clear that you don't understand the difference between opinion pieces and actual facts.Top Bush Era CIA Official Just Confirmed the Iraq War Was Based On Lies
Twelve years after George W Bush initiated the illegal invasion of Iraq, ostensibly under the premise of preemptive self-defense, a stark majority — as many as 75% in 2014 — feel the so-called war was a mistake. As evidence rapidly accumulates that Bush’s yearning to launch an aggressive attack was likelier due to a personal grudge than anything else, that number will surely swell. This past Tuesday, the former president’s intelligence briefer lent yet more plausibility to that theory in an interview on MSNBC’s Hardball, making an admission that the Bush White House misrepresented intelligence reports to the public on key issues.
Top Bush Era CIA Official Just Confirmed The Iraq War Was Based On Lies
George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD “intelligence” was a lie
Former CIA Deputy Director and intelligence briefer Michael Morell
George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD “intelligence” was a lie - Salon.com
It's clear that you don't understand the difference between opinion pieces and actual facts.
That you would quote MSNBC while condemning Fox News and Bob Woodward is quite funny.
Please use the quote in the interview where Morell said it was "a big fat, BIG FAT, BIG FAT ****ING LIE!!!!!"Nice try, we're quoting Michael Morell former CIA deputy director TELLING MSNBC that the intelligence was a big fat, BIG FAT, BIG FAT ****ING LIE!!!!!
Please use the quote in the interview where Morell said it was "a big fat, BIG FAT, BIG FAT ****ING LIE!!!!!"
Carter saying Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' sparks more criticism, concern about Obama plan | Fox News
Here we go again with our desperate attempts to train those who will shoot at our backs once they will be left alone.
They say you can take a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink. Bush Jr. invaded the wrong country (as if he could invade the right one). Iraqis understand they will die from ISIS attacks, but many of them got addicted to ISIS propaganda. So both facts are against US there - the fact Iraqis are muslims makes them sympathize isis and they never stopped treating us as invaders so I'm not surprised they don't want to fight.
It seems Pentagon's idea was to create non-US troops to fight ISIS and to oppose terrorists without getting involved to a direct confrontation.
So, does it mean we spend money on training future terrorists?
Then please quote where he said it was a lie.Morell said it was a lie, the bolded emphasis is mine.
So he didn't say it was a lie???In the Hardball interview, host Chris Matthews asked Morell about Cheney’s notorious statement in 2003: “We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” The following is the conversation that ensued:
MATTHEWS: Was that true?
MORELL: We were saying—
MATTHEWS: Can you answer that question? Was that true?
MORELL: That’s not true.
MATTHEWS: Well, why’d you let them get away with it?
MORELL: Look, my job Chris—
MATTHEWS: You’re the briefer for the president on intelligence, you’re the top person to go in and tell him what’s going on. You see Cheney make this charge he’s got a nuclear bomb and then they make subsequent charges he knew how to deliver it…and nobody raised their hand and said, “No that’s not what we told him.”
The thing is, the Iraq War was not the result of an intelligence goof — rather, the country’s top office systematically misled the public about Iraq’s nonexistent WMD program, as well as Saddam Hussein’s link to Al Qaeda.
On Tuesday night, former CIA Deputy Director and Bush’s intelligence briefer Michael Morell appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” where he, under an amount of good cable news duress, admitted that the administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence.
Sooooo... in trying to show that my numbers are off by a factor of 10 you post an "About News" article that does quantify many of the atrocities listed and appears to stop in 1991?
Yeah, not thick enough.
Even more telling is that the one quantifiable atrocity in that article credited Saddam with slaughtering 182,000 Kurds during the al-Anfal campaign which is, if my math is correct, more that the "factor of 10" you claim in your post. Talk about exaggeration to sell an argument! :lamo
What else is new? I remember stories during the first Iraq war in the 90s about how whenever the Iraqi troops would see a tank or a bunch of Americans, they would turn around and run away. Even if they outnumbered us.
Sheesh.
The Iraqi army is a joke. There is no way they defeat Isis without international help, bottom line.
So he didn't say it was a lie???
Why did you say he did?
We're not discussing your other claims regarding ever more lies. Just point out the one lie you claim Morrel made. Just one lie!Wow, you should take your meds, see the doc, or something if you missed that, I even helped by holding it for you, lol.
In fact, according to an interactive database released by the Center for Public Integrity, Bush lied 232 times about weapons of mass destruction and 28 times about Iraq’s ties to Al Qaeda. He’s the winner by the way with those 260 lies. Colin Powell is runner up with a total of 254 lies.
NOT JUST ONE LIE
We're not discussing your other claims regarding ever more lies. Just point out the one lie you claim Morrel made. Just one lie!
I'll save you more dancing around. He did not say it was a lie. In fact it was you who lied about that. Do you appreciate the irony?
You said, "Nice try, we're quoting Michael Morell former CIA deputy director TELLING MSNBC that the intelligence was a big fat, BIG FAT, BIG FAT ****ING LIE!!!!!"You've never saved yourself in a debate that I've seen as yet, I wouldn't be attempting any heroics. Your tripping over one lie, and I gave you over two hundred of them with a link, which you no doubt ignored. It's been a bitter pill to swallow, and though many have conceded the lies, hard liners hang, if by their fingernails, clinging in such desperation, perhaps to avoid the humiliation of having defended for so long, the lies that produced Americas largest foreign policy disaster in a century, maybe ever. What a position to be in. :sinking:
You said, "Nice try, we're quoting Michael Morell former CIA deputy director TELLING MSNBC that the intelligence was a big fat, BIG FAT, BIG FAT ****ING LIE!!!!!"
Now, when asked to quote where Morell said anyone lied, you cannot do it. I know you just made it up and so do you. Why not just admit it and let it go rather than dancing on to other areas?
That's cool, I wouldn't hold it against you for not being up to speed on American history and politics.
Thank you for that.
From the cited source.
"Both said that Iraq had no active WMD. Both were ignored or dismissed."
An analogy.
Why did (do) Liberal Americans ignore or dismiss the advice of Conservatives about Barack Obama?
It's clear (in retrospect) that they were (are) right.
I'd say it's because they had no way of verifying the validity of the advice at the time.
And that right there is the crux of the matter of Saddam's WMD's.
There was no way the reports could be confirmed as true or dismissed as B.S.
And in the absence of believable intel the assumption HAD to be that he DID have them and that Israel WAS possibly at existential risk.
And please remember that Saddam was given two or three weeks to either open up to COMPLETELY UNFETTERED weapons inspections OR to find exile in a welcoming country and with him could go all of his family, wives, mistresses and his ill gotten loot from government coffers.
He refused.
Game on.
Interesting! Rather than defend your number of 1 million killed by Saddam, you chose instead to challenge me on the magnitude of the exaggeration. So, thank you for conceding the point that you did grossly exaggerate the number.....
....leaving us to simply argue over the degree of your gross overstatement.
Note that one major atrocity that was cited in the previous posted article, that is the ONE really big atrocity of Hussein's rule, was 1988 Al-Anfal Campaign. The article I posted cited up to 182,000 slaughtered. That number, however, is the number reported by the Kurds (upon whom the atrocity was committed). Historically, those on the receiving end of such things tend to overstate. The number that Human Rights Watch reports is 50-100,000. No question that is a major atrocity, but its back to my point that your 1 million number grossly overstated Hussein's killings by 10 fold.
Again, we appreciate you conceding that you did grossly overstate and now we are just arguing about the magnitude of it.... which is rather pointless.
There is no doubt that Saddam could have prevented the invasion. This simple fact is lost on those that want to criticize the engagement. This is a pity, as it loses the important questions of how it came that we found ourselves in a situation in which war was a correct response, although, it was expensive and should have been avoided.
We'll then, I don't know where you found your list at but by points two and four, the US has no sovereignty. Along with quite a few other countries you likely still consider sovereign, lol.
Well, if any country feels they can make that case, then they have the right to invade us.
Let them try.
If I were to try and invade the US, I would probably come thru Canada, and I would come thru with the backing of the entire world. Because that is the only way you could defeat the US on its own soil.
If I were to try and invade the US, I would probably come thru Canada, and I would come thru with the backing of the entire world. Because that is the only way you could defeat the US on its own soil.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?