Why We Did It[W:684]

[Jack Hays]

Not so. It is common practice even then to recuse. That is what exemplary behavior is in this situation. There is too much possibility of hidden corruption, or just being unfair in liking your former company. That's why the practice us to recuse.

There is no such practice so long as ties have been severed. eace

 

[Boo Radley]

There is no such practice so long as ties have been severed. eace

Not true. One example:

“The board member must first disclose the conflict as a potential conflict of interest and then recuse themselves for consideration and any voting with respect to that negotiation,” says Wagner.
http://cooperator.com/articles/1618/1/Avoiding-Conflicts-of-Interest/Page1.html

 

[Jack Hays]

Not true. One example:

“The board member must first disclose the conflict as a potential conflict of interest and then recuse themselves for consideration and any voting with respect to that negotiation,” says Wagner.
Avoiding Conflicts of Interest

Not applicable.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Rachel Maddow was correct on this, those amounts for Actblue and the unions are sums of individual donors, the unions don't give the money, their members do. Actblue is a PAC

Even if we went with your unsupported opinion on the unions, the rest of the article still showed Maddow to be clearly in the wrong.

 

[Boo Radley]

Not applicable.

No applicable. He still had ties. Pension and future profits. Ties.

 

[iguanaman]

:roll: every intelligence community in the world thought Saddam had WMD, it turned out even Saddam thought he had WMD. You can definitely say that the administration had confirmation bias and you can definitely say that the decision-making process sucked, but you can't (well, not reasonably) say that they made it up.

When you start your book from a false premise, I'm betting, it doesn't get any better from there.

You are right, Bush didn't make it all up, he had help. There was this handsomely rewarded gentlemen that the CIA nicknamed "Curveball" for one. Strange name for an informant you base a 200,000 man invasion on, don't you think?

 

[Jack Hays]

No applicable. He still had ties. Pension and future profits. Ties.

Simply not true. I filled out a federal financial disclosure form for senior officials for thirteen years. Cheney's situation was no conflict and called for no special actions.

 

[Boo Radley]

Simply not true. I filled out a federal financial disclosure form for senior officials for thirteen years. Cheney's situation was no conflict and called for no special actions.

Not entirely true. Go back to my link earlier.


Theres rest also this:

Disqualification Required Due to Extraordinary Payment
Under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.503, an individual must be disqualified for two years, in certain circumstances, from any particular matter in which the individual’s former employer is a party or represents a party. The disqualification requirement applies if, prior to joining the Government, the individual received a special severance payment or other benefit in excess of $10,000 from the former employer (and provided certain other factors are present).

http://www.oge.gov/Topics/Financial...nd-Impartiality/Current-Government-Employees/

 

[cpwill]

You are right, Bush didn't make it all up, he had help. There was this handsomely rewarded gentlemen that the CIA nicknamed "Curveball" for one. Strange name for an informant you base a 200,000 man invasion on, don't you think?

I think you need to talk to the Germans about that one, given that they sold us a pack of lies about how he was virulently anti-American to keep us from having direct access to that material. However, Bush didn't make any of it up - he took what he was given by his IC, which truly believed (as did the French, as did everyone else) that Saddam had maintained an active WMD program.

 

[pbrauer]

Even if we went with your unsupported opinion on the unions, the rest of the article still showed Maddow to be clearly in the wrong.

What do you say she is wrong about?

 

[Boo Radley]

I think you need to talk to the Germans about that one, given that they sold us a pack of lies about how he was virulently anti-American to keep us from having direct access to that material. However, Bush didn't make any of it up - he took what he was given by his IC, which truly believed (as did the French, as did everyone else) that Saddam had maintained an active WMD program.

You mean the Germans who warned us he was unrealized? What is the reluctance to taking personal responsibility?


Curveball's German handlers of the past six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand, and impossible to confirm.

''This was not substantial evidence," a senior German intelligence official said. ''We made clear we could not verify the things he said."

http://www.boston.com/news/world/eu...s_used_to_justify_war_in_iraq_was_unreliable/

 

[cpwill]

You mean the Germans who warned us he was unrealized? What is the reluctance to taking personal responsibility?


Curveball's German handlers of the past six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand, and impossible to confirm.

''This was not substantial evidence," a senior German intelligence official said. ''We made clear we could not verify the things he said."

Germans say informant US used to justify war in Iraq was unreliable - The Boston Globe

:lol: yeah, later they were sure to mention that. Gosh that would have been nice to know oh, say, in 2001.


:shrug: he was their source, they wanted to keep him, they kept us from accessing him by lying to us, the Germans believed just as we did that Saddam had an active WMD capability and later seeking to escape culpability they muttered that they always had doubts... :roll:

 

[pbrauer]

:lol: yeah, later they were sure to mention that. Gosh that would have been nice to know oh, say, in 2001.

There was also the shyster Ahmed Chalabi from the INC that was feeding Bush crap.

 

[Boo Radley]

:lol: yeah, later they were sure to mention that. Gosh that would have been nice to know oh, say, in 2001.

No they mentioned it before. That was just the first article. And I think you know this. Lord knows it's been pointed out enough over the years. By your misinformation dies a slow death (when you keep propagating the lie, as Bush said). No sense of personal responsibility on your side for this.

 

[Boo Radley]

:shrug: he was their source, they wanted to keep him, they kept us from accessing him by lying to us, the Germans believed just as we did that Saddam had an active WMD capability and later seeking to escape culpability they muttered that they always had doubts... :roll:

Keep sticking to your story, but even you should no by now that it's nonsense.

 

[cpwill]

No they mentioned it before.

I would recommend you go back and read the article and then read the assessments that the Bush administration took from Curveball.

...At the CIA, senior officials embraced Curveball's claims, even though they could not verify them or interview him until a year after the invasion.

 

[iguanaman]

I think you need to talk to the Germans about that one, given that they sold us a pack of lies about how he was virulently anti-American to keep us from having direct access to that material. However, Bush didn't make any of it up - he took what he was given by his IC, which truly believed (as did the French, as did everyone else) that Saddam had maintained an active WMD program.

Yes, Bush was a master at the "stupidity defense". Just one look at him and you would believe he just screwed up and you felt sorry for him, the poor dumbass.

 

[cpwill]

Keep sticking to your story, but even you should no by now that it's nonsense.

:shrug: curveball is not virulently anti-America. The germans lied to us, kept us from being able to screen the guy, and so we took their reports at face value. I understand that you don't understand the intelligence process, but "being unable to confirm" is not the same as "not true", it means you can't get multi-source / multi-discipline confirmation of a claim.

 

[cpwill]

Yes, Bush was a master at the "stupidity defense".

:shrug: Again. Every IC in the world got it wrong. The French got it wrong, the Germans got it wrong, the Russians got it wrong, the Israelis got it wrong, the Brits got it wrong, the Russians got it wrong, hell, there is evidence that Saddam got it wrong. Being wrong is not an indication of stupidity, nor are the collective IC's of the First World generally made up of idiots.

 

[Boo Radley]

I would recommend you go back and read the article and then read the assessments that the Bush administration took from Curveball.

Which doesn't matter. Only makes your claims more silly. They were told he was unreliable.

lets see, he's unrealizable and we can't interview him, IT MUST BE TRUE!!:lamo:lamo:lamo

 

[Boo Radley]

:shrug: curveball is not virulently anti-America. The germans lied to us, kept us from being able to screen the guy, and so we took their reports at face value. I understand that you don't understand the intelligence process, but "being unable to confirm" is not the same as "not true", it means you can't get multi-source / multi-discipline confirmation of a claim.

We had no reason to believe any of it. We were told he was unrealizable. Instead, we simply want to throw something to convince the gullible and give cover. Unable to confirm, and God knows everyone should understand this by now, means "we don't have ****."

 

[Boo Radley]

:shrug: Again. Every IC in the world got it wrong. The French got it wrong, the Germans got it wrong, the Russians got it wrong, the Israelis got it wrong, the Brits got it wrong, the Russians got it wrong, hell, there is evidence that Saddam got it wrong. Being wrong is not an indication of stupidity, nor are the collective IC's of the First World generally made up of idiots.

Again, you are inaccurate. Many thought lefts overs, but few to none thought growing and gathering. It's time to be accurate.

 

[cpwill]

We had no reason to believe any of it. We were told he was unrealizable.

We were told he was unverifiable and we weren't given access which is how you can determine reliability in HUMINT collection when you cannot verify the veracity of the claims until a year after the invasion, and then later the Germans scoffed and pretended that they'd never really believed any of that, and studiously ignored that they lied to us about the nature of the source.

Unable to confirm, and God knows everyone should understand this by now, means "we don't have ****."

That is simply incorrect. Unable to confirm means simply that - single source reporting.

 

[APACHERAT]

Will this book be investigating the Clinton Administration as well? After all, Clinton spent 8 years going round and round with Saddam over WMD and used their existence to justify hundreds of cruise missiles into 'suspected WMD sites.' Clearly Clinton was in on the Bush lie as well, no?

President Clinton's:
Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
October 31, 1998

President G.W. Bush was just enforcing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that President Clinton signed into law.


William J. Clinton: Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

 

[Boo Radley]

,

We were told he was unverifiable and we weren't given access which is how you can determine reliability in HUMINT collection when you cannot verify the veracity of the claims until a year after the invasion, and then later the Germans scoffed and pretended that they'd never really believed any of that, and studiously ignored that they lied to us about the nature of the source.



That is simply incorrect. Unable to confirm means simply that - single source reporting.

Can't verify can't claim. And no, it means you don't have ****. How did it turn out? Nothing. That's what it means. You don't have ****. As I keep saying, you should know that by now.