"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns980FC9BE94801rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...

"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words

I haven't posted a Clinton quote recently. But any quotes I have posted
recently, I assure you I have posted a link to back it up.

The two Clinton quotes I saw did not have any links backing
them up. What kind of assurance is that ?

If you're referring to the "Atlantic" article that Steven posted this url
for : http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack here it is.

And here's another excerpt from the article written by Kenneth M. Pollack.
It's the second and the third paragraph.

"Democrats have typically accused the Bush Administration of exaggerating
the threat posed by Iraq in order to justify an unnecessary war. Republicans
have typically claimed that the fault lay with the CIA and the rest of the
U.S. intelligence community, which they say overestimated the threat from
Iraq-a claim that carries the unlikely implication that Bush's team might
not have opted for war if it had understood that Saddam was not as dangerous
as he seemed.
Both sides appear to be at least partly right. The intelligence community
did overestimate the scope and progress of Iraq's WMD programs, although not
to the extent that many people believe. The Administration stretched those
estimates to make a case not only for going to war but for doing so at once,
rather than taking the time to build regional and international support for
military action"

So what does "stretched" mean, Steven? This source you referenced is
telling us that the Bush Administration altered, manipulated,
"mischaracterized" what they'd gotten from the CIA to make a case for going
to war and going to war early. I'm speaking in the context of the first
paragraph that talks about "exaggerating the threat posed by Iraq". Mr.
Pollack tells us that the Democrats were at least partly right about that.

The source you referenced just shot you down.

Sounds like you do have a reading comprehension problem.

Any fears that Pollack had about Iraqi WMD prior to the 2000 election are
basically rendered moot by the Bush Administration's early position that
Iraq was contained and no threat. That would call Mr. Pollack's judgment
into question. It would also call Mr. Pollack's early sources into
question. I'm assuming that the Bush Administration had access to the same
information Mr. Pollack had if not more.

As it turned out the administration's early position was exactly right.

Also with this: "a claim that carries the unlikely implication that Bush's
team might not have opted for war if it had understood that Saddam was not
as dangerous as he seemed", Mr. Pollack tells me that Bush's team was
planning on going to war regardless of whether Saddam was really "dangerous"
or not. His team were biased in that direction.

Mr. Pollack's broadbrush use of the terms "the intelligence community
believed", "the intelligence community's conclusions" etc. implies
"consensus" within the intelligence community. This also undermines his
credibility. The fact of the matter is that there was widespread dissent
within the intelligence community about the intelligence the Bush
Administration used to make it's case for "going to war and going to war
early". All of that dissenting voice was sifted out by the time the case
was made to the public. Again, that case was made on "stretched" and
"exaggerated" information according to your own source.

No one in the government gave us the whole picture so we could make an
informed decision. They weren't interested in an informed decision. They
were interested in whipping us into an angry patriotic frenzy.

That may be fine with you, Steven. But if you're going to be sending my
kids to war then the President has to tell me the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth. If he doesn't he's a liar.

What about this, Steven?

More from Mr. Pollock.

"In October of 2002 the National Intelligence Council, the highest
analytical body in the U.S. intelligence community, issued a classified
National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMD, representing the consensus of
the intelligence community. Although after the war some complained that the
NIE had been a rush job, and that the NIC should have been more careful in
its choice of language, in fact the report accurately reflected what
intelligence analysts had been telling Clinton Administration officials like
me for years in verbal briefings."

Where was the NIC at the beginning of the Bush Administration when the Bush
Administration was telling us "Saddam was no threat, Saddam was contained."

Were they telling Clinton and not Mr. Bush about Saddam's grave threat?

This is all *****. So are you.