In article <eqcmjg$f8p$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:wKcyh.548134$Fi1.522873@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
I think any blog is capable of quoting a source such as a newspaper as
popular as the WSJ. Is this you way of trying
to discredit it?

This is absurd, and no thinking person would fall for it. You should
be
intelligent enough to know that there is always the possibility of a
misquote, or the quote being taken out of context. Any secondary
source
is influenced by the author's own views and prejudices. For example,
why
did your blog quote the Silberman-Ross report as saying that they found
no
evidence of White House influence upon the intelligence report, when it
is
clear from the report itself that it was not commisioned to investigate
if
there was any such influence? Why didn't it tell you the the
commission
was not looking for such influence?

Look Mr Weatherwax, you were wrong and are trying change the subject.
The
quote I gave was correct ... it was further backed by fact check. The
Prez
didn't pressure the intell gathering agencies to slant the intell in any
way.

Untrue.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people,
shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.'
Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in
absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a
report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking
at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a
connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come
back with that answer. We wrote a report." - Richard Clarke
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml>

You and others in this thread said and implied that the President
lied and influnced Congress in a way that, if they knew the truth they
would
have voted differently.

łLied.˛ As in, the people he lied to didnąt know all the facts to
allow them to vote differently.

This was bogus as I've shown by my quotes from the
American Thinker, which you tried to discredit, and fact check which went
into further detail that the President didn't lie and try to
influence/slant
intell.

łAmerican Thinkerł is a Right Wing opinion site. Are you one of these
people who believes that if it is written down it must be true. Come
up with some sources that include first hand knowledge, not the opinion
of some Republican hack.

Fact check: "No hard evidence has surfaced to support claims that
Bush somehow manipulated the findings of intelligence analysts. In fact,
two
bipartisan investigations probed for such evidence and said they found
none.
So Dean's claim that intelligence was "corrupted" is unsupported." Now
you
do not have to believe it an can deny it but its fact.

You DO believe that if it is written down it is true! Your łquote˛ is
an opinion of others. Richard Clarke, someone who actually knows, says
otherwise. For example, the CIA:

łThere is tremendous pressure on [the CIA] to come up with information
to support policies that have already been adopted. What's unfolding is
a campaign by well-placed hawks to undermine the CIA's ability to
provide objective, unbiased intelligence to the White House.ł - Vincent
Cannistraro, a former senior CIA official and counterterrorism expert.
<http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V13/22/dreyfuss-r.html>

Also: " Senate Intelligence Committee: The Committee did not find any
evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result
of
political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform
with Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce,
influence or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were
pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments
conform with Administration policies on Iraq's WMD programs, not a single
analyst answered "yes." (p273) "

Well I am certain Mr. Clarke and Mr. Cannistraro would disagree.

łThe Pentagon is bringing relentless pressure to bear on the [CIA] to
produce intelligence reports more supportive of war with Iraq,
according to former CIA officials. Key officials of the Department of
Defense are also producing their own unverified intelligence reports to
justify war. Much of the questionable information comes from Iraqi
exiles long regarded with suspicion by CIA professionals. A parallel,
ad hoc intelligence operation, in the office of Undersecretary of
Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, collects the information from the
exiles and scours other raw intelligence for useful tidbits to make the
case for preemptive war. - Id.

Why can't you admit the obvious. According to the
Silberman-Robb report no evidence was found that the Prez tried to
influence
the gathering and pressenting of the report. I admit when I'm wrong,
why
cant you?

Apparently you are not. You are clearly wrong here.

You have the double problem of depending upon a blog which is using a
secondary source.

I have no problem with accuracy .. you have a problem of believing
overwhelming evidence that your belief that the Prez lied is incorrect.
You
try and move/shift the goal posts.

Then explain those quotes from people who actually know, as opposed to
those who just want to believe.

How about this, from fact check:
The President says Democrats in Congress "had access to
the same intelligence" he did before the Iraq war, but some
Democrats deny it."That was not true," says Democratic National
Committee
Chairman Howard Dean. "He withheld some intelligence. . . . The
intelligence was corrupted."

Neither side is giving the whole story in this continuing dispute.

The President's main point is correct: the CIA and most
other US intelligence agencies believed before the war that
Saddam had stocks of biological and chemical weapons,
was actively working on nuclear weapons and "probably"
would have a nuclear weapon before the end of this decade.
That faulty intelligence was shared with Congress - along
with multiple mentions of some doubts within the intelligence
community - in a formal National Intelligence Estimate just prior to
the
Senate and House votes to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

The Silberman-Ross report examined our intelligence evaluations in
Libya,
Afghanistan and Iraq. It chose those countries because it is in those
three countries that the accuaracy of our intelligence evaluations were
able to be verified.
According to the Silberman-Ross report, when the intelligence agencies
evaluated the information from Afghanistan, the commission found:

Spare me Mr Weatherwax you are wrong about you belief that the Prez
misled/lied/fixed intell.

Obviously not.

And by the way, how is it that, after you claimed the U.S. doesnąt
target civilians, you went silent when I produced those videos of
American troops murdering innocent civilians?

not just one of those Right Wing hacks that runs for the hills when
proof is presented. - See Osprey (Pictured at
http://chiefinstigator.us.tt/spud.php ) )

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

Whether you said we went going into Iraq because of weapons of mass
destruction or not is irrelevant. George W. Bush said that we were going
into Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction.

We didn't go on what Bush alone said. Congress looked at or was able to
look at the intelligence reports that Bush made his decision from.

Our
intelligence plus that of Great Britian and Russia all agreed that Saddam
had WMD's.

What decision would you make, remembering that Congress agreed,
and gave him permission. But that is beside the point, Saddam violated the
agreement that ended the Gulf war.

He played cat and mouse with the UN inspectors ... all
violations. What were we suppose to do ignore all those thing ... ignore
every instance of Saddam violation of the agreement?

... do you think that
would be a show of strength/seriousness in making Saddam live up to the
agreement that ended the Gulf war?