Inspector general: Pentagon manipulated prewar intel

[juicedOUTbrain]

From CNN
Acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the office headed by former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith took "inappropriate" actions in advancing conclusions on al Qaeda connections not backed up by the nation's intelligence agencies.

Gimble said that while the actions of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy "were not illegal or unauthorized," they "did not provide the most accurate analysis of intelligence to senior decision makers" at a time when the White House was moving toward war with Iraq. (Read the unclassified portion of the report -- PDF)

"I can't think of a more devastating commentary," said Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan.

He cited Gimble's findings that Feith's office was, despite doubts expressed by the intelligence community, pushing conclusions that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague five months before the attack, and that there were "multiple areas of cooperation" between Iraq and al Qaeda, including shared pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

"That was the argument that was used to make the sale to the American people about the need to go to war," Levin said in an interview Thursday. He said the Pentagon's work, "which was wrong, which was distorted, which was inappropriate ... is something which is highly disturbing."

Source

[Tock]

That's pretty f----d up . . . in essence, the Pentagon lied when they said they knew Saddam & Bin Laden were working together. And now, we've got this totally needless war which ended up with thousands of people needlessly dead . . .

Whoever's responsible deserves a slow and painful death . . .

[DTBusta]

yup yup saw it. First Rupert in Switzerland and now the penti.

[Kärnfysikern]

That's pretty f----d up . . . in essence, the Pentagon lied when they said they knew Saddam & Bin Laden were working together. And now, we've got this totally needless war which ended up with thousands of people needlessly dead . . .

Whoever's responsible deserves a slow and painful death . . .

Not closely as bad as a president getting his dick sucked in office though, that realy deserved impeachment

Whoever said this sure was right.

"The greater the lie the easier the ignorant people believe it"

[Teabagger]

blah blah blah...

[juicedOUTbrain]

blah blah blah...

Gotta love denial....

[mcpeepants]

and pelosi says impeachment is "off the table"

[rafael]

everybody lies. nothing new there.

[DTBusta]

Its a big deal. Just another confirmation of what we all knew. This can't be disputed anymore. They straight up lied for such a wonderful war! Mission Accomplished!

[Snrf]

wait, GOVERNMENTS LIE?

[DecimaMAS]

That's pretty f----d up . . . in essence, the Pentagon lied when they said they knew Saddam & Bin Laden were working together. And now, we've got this totally needless war which ended up with thousands of people needlessly dead . . .

Whoever's responsible deserves a slow and painful death . . .

They already tried killing the culprit before. That was in Germany. World War II.

You cannot blame the war on the Republicans. If you remember correctly, Clinton was ready to invade Iraq back in 1999 over the "UN weapons inspectors" who were not allowed into Saddam's private chambers. This was going to happen regardless of September 11, weapons of mass destrution, etc.

Why? Because Israel was being threatened and a overwhelmingly disproportionate membership in our government is Jewish, a.k.a.: Israeli sympathizers. The media bosses like Sumner Redstone, Michael Eisner, Lew Wasserman, Stephen Ross, etc. all have their hands in the enterprise which makes/breaks elections. If you want to be in office, you'd better fall in line with their policies, especially those based on Israel, or else you'll be protrayed as an anti-Semite and bigot by the press.

While you personally may not feel inclined to be racially aware, Jews are and will support one-another simply based on the fact that they are the same race. To Israel, no one of use is dying in this war; just the goyim.

[Ufa]

I'm am shocked!

[DTBusta]

wait how is Clinton lying about a bj worse then lying us into a war with fake intelligence? People died in the latter of the two.

[DecimaMAS]

wait how is Clinton lying about a bj worse then lying us into a war with fake intelligence? People died in the latter of the two.

It isn't worse. Bill Clinton, as a figurehead, was beginning to appeal more toward the lower-class than big business. His womanizing, brother's drug dealing out of the governor's mansion, etc. were the incorrect image to curry the favor of economic moguls and financiers.

George Bush portrays more of the upper-class, Christian imagery popular with many "old money" business owners. The media bosses found that he would be a better fit to sway the country into an unpopular war for Jewish/Israeli rights.

Therefore, the impeachment of Clinton was a disassociation with him entirely by the media bosses and government as a whole. He was a scapegoat, since his usefulness as a warlord was limited, whereas most of white America will rally behind a (fake) Christian figurehead in a crusade to "free Iraq."

Note how closely this impeachment came after the opinion polls on the Kosovo/Serbia conflict came in. Once it was found that Clinton no longer held the favor of the public, he was sacrificed like a lamb.

That's how it is with Zionism.

[DecimaMAS]

wait how is Clinton lying about a bj worse then lying us into a war with fake intelligence? People died in the latter of the two.

And as I said before, "people" aren't dying in this war. Just American "goyim". You're not important to Israeli's/Zionists; just a tool.

[juicedOUTbrain]

And as I said before, "people" aren't dying in this war. Just American "goyim". You're not important to Israeli's/Zionists; just a tool.

I agree 100%, the Iraq war was a policy written by Israel in the early 90's and bush and the neo-cons put in in place after 9-11...had Gore won and VP Liebermann been in office, its possible we would be in the same situation...

Its important to clarify most American Jews are not zionists or neo-cons, most are liberal and were against the war...

[DecimaMAS]

I agree 100%, the Iraq war was a policy written by Israel in the early 90's and bush and the neo-cons put in in place after 9-11...had Gore won and VP Liebermann been in office, its possible we would be in the same situation...

Its important to clarify most American Jews are not zionists or neo-cons, most are liberal and were against the war...

That's the big trick about it. While most Jews you talk to would say they are against the war up-front, try telling them you think we should pull our support from Israel and let it rot on the vine, sort of speak. You'll find a much more militant person emerging than the peace-loving liberal you thought they were.

It's not a theory I'm telling you, it's a practice: try it out next time you meet one. See the reaction you get.

[DTBusta]

Yes I used to work with doctors from Israel and they were anit-bush but as soon as you said well we are supporting Israel with militant power they get very defensive. I can see why,specially when I probed them about their media and what the governments agenda was. They describe a neocon agenda that is constantly on the offensive rather than the defensive.

[DTBusta]

Okay I know that Decimas I didn't need you to school me on zionism, I know how it works, however Bush's opinion polls are in the grave.

[DecimaMAS]

Okay I know that Decimas I didn't need you to school me on zionism, I know how it works, however Bush's opinion polls are in the grave.

Opinion polls mean nothing as far as the military juggernaut is concerned. The will of the media bosses will be played out regardless who is in power. It's a two-party shell game where we're given a choice between Democrats and Republicans. Both are the same at the top of the pecking order, the only difference being the types of people who're drawn to support each party. In reality, the politicians are interchangable.

[juicedOUTbrain]

That's the big trick about it. While most Jews you talk to would say they are against the war up-front, try telling them you think we should pull our support from Israel and let it rot on the vine, sort of speak. You'll find a much more militant person emerging than the peace-loving liberal you thought they were.

It's not a theory I'm telling you, it's a practice: try it out next time you meet one. See the reaction you get.

Well I am part jewish, and the jewish side of my family is extremely anti bush...They believe we should support israel, as do I, but not "unconditionally"...They also dont understand why Americans are dying and fitting the cost of a war for Israel...But you are right the conversation usually ends when someone outside the family brings up Israel...They get this glazed look in their eyes, and thats it

Its also important to note its not 100% Israel...Its an overlapping of interest. Wars fought for the security or interest of Israel, amount to huge contracts for the big defence and big oil companies...Ex: Exxon Mobile being the primary funder of the American Enterprise Institute...

The governments been run by buisness for a while, but shit is really starting to go to far these days, IMHO...

[DecimaMAS]

Well I am part jewish, and the jewish side of my family is extremely anti bush...They believe we should support israel, as do I, but not "unconditionally"...They also dont understand why Americans are dying and fitting the cost of a war for Israel...But you are right the conversation usually ends when someone outside the family brings up Israel...They get this glazed look in their eyes, and thats it

Its also important to note its not 100% Israel...Its an overlapping of interest. Wars fought for the security or interest of Israel, amount to huge contracts for the big defence and big oil companies...Ex: Exxon Mobile being the primary funder of the American Enterprise Institute...

The governments been run by buisness for a while, but shit is really starting to go to far these days, IMHO...

There are much easier ways to go about procuring oil in this world than invading and occupying nations with known radicals who would be willing to die themselves than allow a foreign power to rule.

Venezuela would have been once choice and was on the media's hit-list for quite some time.

Any way you put it, Israel should be cut off and left to wither of the vine.

[DTBusta]

Once again, you're preaching to the quire.



And youre wrong, we can blame the republicans. This shi* storm has happened on their watch. We have created these extremists in most cases and our sitting lame ass duck president is responsible for the past 6 years, hes the president for god sake. Hes the "decider" If at all we can atleast blame these war lords for not even being able to execute a war the right way. If they're the "warhawks" then they should be good at it, there horrible and there isn't an excuse, they are responsible and everyone knows it.We are going based on what is happening in reality,not ohh well clinton was going to invade, cause at the end of the day I don't think they did...Fuc* this leadership, it is horrific and blunders left and right. The party with Morals is the party of hypocrytical liars. I'll take liberal lawyers, doctors,and professionals opinions any day over some brainwashed fake chistian evangelical in Kansas that thinks Walmart is going to be blown up.Evangelicals for the most part are exremists in their own religion.

[DecimaMAS]

Once again, you're preaching to the quire.



And youre wrong, we can blame the republicans. This shi* storm has happened on their watch. We have created these extremists in most cases and our sitting lame ass duck president is responsible for the past 6 years, hes the president for god sake. Hes the "decider" If at all we can atleast blame these war lords for not even being able to execute a war the right way. If they're the "warhawks" then they should be good at it, there horrible and there isn't an excuse, they are responsible and everyone knows it.We are going based on what is happening in reality,not ohh well clinton was going to invade, cause at the end of the day I don't think they did...Fuc* this leadership, it is horrific and blunders left and right. The party with Morals is the party of hypocrytical liars. I'll take liberal lawyers, doctors,and professionals opinions any day over some brainwashed fake chistian evangelical in Kansas that thinks Walmart is going to be blown up.Evangelicals for the most part are exremists in their own religion.

It's spelled "choir," and what Warhawks are you talking about? You mean the liberal Clinton administration that launched the war against Serbia? The missile launches against targets in Afghanistan? Installation of a puppet government in Mogadishu?

Do a little history research. Both parties are the same party. It's only their followers that are fanatically religious or hippie-like. Both push race mixing, egalitarianism, immigration and dysfunctional policies/government programs down our throats. Voting a Democrat into office won't do anything.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

That quote was from Bill Clinton, a Democrat and liberal, on his justification for the air strikes on Iraq way back in 1998. Now if Bush invaded Iraq on false pretenses, certainly Clinton did so as well, since no "weapons of mass destruction" were ever found. Read up on the subject.

[mcpeepants]

It's spelled "choir," and what Warhawks are you talking about? You mean the liberal Clinton administration that launched the war against Serbia? The missile launches against targets in Afghanistan? Installation of a puppet government in Mogadishu?

Do a little history research. Both parties are the same party. It's only their followers that are fanatically religious or hippie-like. Both push race mixing, egalitarianism, immigration and dysfunctional policies/government programs down our throats. Voting a Democrat into office won't do anything.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html



That quote was from Bill Clinton, a Democrat and liberal, on his justification for the air strikes on Iraq way back in 1998. Now if Bush invaded Iraq on false pretenses, certainly Clinton did so as well, since no "weapons of mass destruction" were ever found. Read up on the subject.

Do you not like the idea of race mixing, immigration and equal rights? You seem to be implying than dems and repubs are pushing forcing these concepts to the public. I agree with the rest of your post.

[DecimaMAS]

Do you not like the idea of race mixing, immigration and equal rights? You seem to be implying than dems and repubs are pushing forcing these concepts to the public. I agree with the rest of your post.

I don't agree that race mixing is positive in any way. It destroy's a nation's identity and ability to gel as a cohesive unit. If everyone in a country is of the same origins, it simply becomes easier for everyone to identify with, support and get along with one-another. No matter how much you try and jam people together, this will never change.

Immigration today is ruining the workers' wages and lowering labor standards, not to mention populating California, Arizona and Texas with people who are loyal to the Mexican government. Take a look at the "Mechistas," for a good example. They have groups that are sponsored by public schools and preach about re-unification with Mexico of "Aztlan territory." Their numbers are not small.

As for equal rights? That's a whole other forum, pal.

And yes, these issues are being forced on us. Even when schools are integrated, the students self-segregate. Colleges, while trying to become more "diverse," still have an OVERWHELMING majority of their asian and black students studying in ethnic-specific study groups and clubs. The majority of people in this country prefer to be with their own kind.

A good example? California's Proposition 187. We voted to end state-sponsored benefits for illegal workers. The supreme court overturned our vote. If that's not forcing your will on the people and negating the democratic process, I don't know what is!!

[mcpeepants]

I don't agree that race mixing is positive in any way. It destroy's a nation's identity and ability to gel as a cohesive unit. If everyone in a country is of the same origins, it simply becomes easier for everyone to identify with, support and get along with one-another. No matter how much you try and jam people together, this will never change.

Immigration today is ruining the workers' wages and lowering labor standards, not to mention populating California, Arizona and Texas with people who are loyal to the Mexican government. Take a look at the "Mechistas," for a good example. They have groups that are sponsored by public schools and preach about re-unification with Mexico of "Aztlan territory." Their numbers are not small.

As for equal rights? That's a whole other forum, pal.

And yes, these issues are being forced on us. Even when schools are integrated, the students self-segregate. Colleges, while trying to become more "diverse," still have an OVERWHELMING majority of their asian and black students studying in ethnic-specific study groups and clubs. The majority of people in this country prefer to be with their own kind.

A good example? California's Proposition 187. We voted to end state-sponsored benefits for illegal workers. The supreme court overturned our vote. If that's not forcing your will on the people and negating the democratic process, I don't know what is!!

You really don't see any positive in different races mixing together. I disagree with you but I like your honesty. I see race mixing as beneficial especially if you consider what America was like back in the 50s compared to today. There is a difference between legal and illegal immigration and business will always look for cheap labor whether it's in the US, Mexico, Indonesia, etc.

Your never going to get a nation that acts cohesively. Remove race from the picture and people will disagree and fight over ethnicity, religion, resources, politics, class, gender, geography, you name it.

[DecimaMAS]

You really don't see any positive in different races mixing together. I disagree with you but I like your honesty. I see race mixing as beneficial especially if you consider what America was like back in the 50s compared to today. There is a difference between legal and illegal immigration and business will always look for cheap labor whether it's in the US, Mexico, Indonesia, etc.

Your never going to get a nation that acts cohesively. Remove race from the picture and people will disagree and fight over ethnicity, religion, resources, politics, class, gender, geography, you name it.

Consider what America was back in the 1950s? Unless you're not white yourself, it was pretty good. We didn't have school shootings, the standardized testing was more strict, the divorce rate was miniscule, women still watched our children and single-income families could still make it. Abortion wasn't rampant, neither was subversive music that glorified death, destruction and the mistreatment of women. People were patriotic about America, not bashing it constantly in the media and protesting.

I fail to see what positive changes have come about since those things were eliminated.

As for removing race from the picture, I hardly see any "hate crimes" being perpetrated in places like China, Japan or Argentina. They're very cohesive, smooth-flowing places where most get along and have a sense of nationalism that is completely alien to Americans.

We don't grasp why the Iraqis aid insurgents or why men are willing to go on pilgrimages for thousands of miles to fight against us there. The simple fact is, we're not Muslim and we're not Arabs, nor do we have their best interests at heart. Ethno-centric thinking is lost on modern-day Americans.

When you lose a centralized identity, the soul of your nation withers and dies. It happened to Rome, it happened to the Ottoman Turks, the British Empire and it will happen here. "A house divided cannot stand."

[DecimaMAS]

Alright. Before this turns into any larger of an off-topic debate than it is, I will post no more in this thread. Any commentary can be sent via PM or just laid to rest.

[mcpeepants]

Consider what America was back in the 1950s? Unless you're not white yourself, it was pretty good. We didn't have school shootings, the standardized testing was more strict, the divorce rate was miniscule, women still watched our children and single-income families could still make it. Abortion wasn't rampant, neither was subversive music that glorified death, destruction and the mistreatment of women. People were patriotic about America, not bashing it constantly in the media and protesting.

I fail to see what positive changes have come about since those things were eliminated.

As for removing race from the picture, I hardly see any "hate crimes" being perpetrated in places like China, Japan or Argentina. They're very cohesive, smooth-flowing places where most get along and have a sense of nationalism that is completely alien to Americans.

We don't grasp why the Iraqis aid insurgents or why men are willing to go on pilgrimages for thousands of miles to fight against us there. The simple fact is, we're not Muslim and we're not Arabs, nor do we have their best interests at heart. Ethno-centric thinking is lost on modern-day Americans.

When you lose a centralized identity, the soul of your nation withers and dies. It happened to Rome, it happened to the Ottoman Turks, the British Empire and it will happen here. "A house divided cannot stand."

Well I'm black so I don't see such a rosey picture of the 50s. Put your feet in the shoes of a colored man then. Blacks just wanted to be treated as human beings and what we got in return is hoses, attack dogs, cross burnings, lynchings. The 50s were a time of growing turmoil as blacks,other minorities, progressive whites tried to show Americans the hypocracy they were living under.

Well there many reasons those empires failed. Towards the end, Rome had poor leadership, corruption, decline in revenue, disease, attacks for other European tribes, invasion by the Ottoman turks,etc. The Ottoman empire was crippled by many wars with its neighbors, poor leadership, nationalism, and WW1. Similarly with Britain, the effects of WW1, WW2, and nationalism.

Well there is racism in those countries. Just look at what the Japanese did to the Chinese and Koreans during WW2. There is still tension between those countries today and racist feelings. Having a homogeneous society can lead to harmony but it can also lead to extreme nationalism, racism, and a sense of superiority (WW2 Germany and Japan). Of course looking a like doesn't mean there won't be problems. Look at all the wars fought over religion, class, power etc between people who are the same race and ethnicity.

Well Iraqis are attacking us because we invaded their country. I don't see how it that hard to grasp. It's similar to WW1 where countries joined the war because there ally was attacked. In this case, there are no states involved, just individuals who have a common religion, an interest in fighting western occupiers, and their own goals.

[mcpeepants]

Alright. Before this turns into any larger of an off-topic debate than it is, I will post no more in this thread. Any commentary can be sent via PM or just laid to rest.

didn't see your post until after i posted

[juicedOUTbrain]

Consider what America was back in the 1950s? Unless you're not white yourself, it was pretty good. We didn't have school shootings, the standardized testing was more strict, the divorce rate was miniscule, women still watched our children and single-income families could still make it. Abortion wasn't rampant, neither was subversive music that glorified death, destruction and the mistreatment of women. People were patriotic about America, not bashing it constantly in the media and protesting.

I fail to see what positive changes have come about since those things were eliminated.

As for removing race from the picture, I hardly see any "hate crimes" being perpetrated in places like China, Japan or Argentina. They're very cohesive, smooth-flowing places where most get along and have a sense of nationalism that is completely alien to Americans.

We don't grasp why the Iraqis aid insurgents or why men are willing to go on pilgrimages for thousands of miles to fight against us there. The simple fact is, we're not Muslim and we're not Arabs, nor do we have their best interests at heart. Ethno-centric thinking is lost on modern-day Americans.

When you lose a centralized identity, the soul of your nation withers and dies. It happened to Rome, it happened to the Ottoman Turks, the British Empire and it will happen here. "A house divided cannot stand."

America is the great country it is, becuase we are so multi-cultural, we may have a long way to go before there is TRUE equality, but weve come a long way. The dissent against the govt is healthy, IMO, in a democracy...Hardcore nationalism can lead to some scary things, which historically reslut in the downfall of empires...

I agree that society has withered since the 50's but i think it has very little to do with race mixing...Instead of school schootings there were hate crimes commited against blacks, and women were often abused...Certain aspects of society have withered, but many others have gotten better. The things that have gotten worse are more easily blamed on the media, and government policy than "race mixing"...

Morals have left the music, and entertainment industry because money has overpowered the most basic morals in this country in every aspect. Foreign policy, drug policy, media regulation, etc...

This love of money is responsible for the war in Iraq, people believe all kinds of crazy things. Its only natural that these Israeli/ Americans want to protect Israel, but without big Oil and big defense behind them with tons of money, these imperialistic ideas would go nowhere, IMO...

Democracy used to thrive of free market, and morals...And now that money is overpowering morals, free market capitalism, can no longer work...Unless big buisness can straighten out their priorities and realize there responsibility to help the culture we live, some serious regulation is going to have to happen, to prevent the disaterous rise of misplaced power that has occured, IMO...

[DTBusta]

Decimas...I was implying, both dems and reps are and can be warhawks. What benefits come from war and so do profits. Its when that war becomes exremely un satisfying to the public will they change to another party, clean things up and get rid of national debt to an extent, this is where the dems most of the time come in. They can't allow an ultra liberal to come in now and leave Iraq like some want. No Hillary is on her way and she is hawkish. Also a good friend of AIPAC.

Thats pretty wrong what you said about the 1950's/Its disgusting actually if you were implying what I thought you were...you were talking about not race mixing ,so basically thats just wrong...The main shootings in school...colorado...2x's and others were white men. On the other hand if youre going to try and say gangs and other groups like this have caused shootings then I agree. However what happened after MLK and JFK, in my opinion put all that thought and hope, fear, anxiety in the future and crushed it , mixed it up and was lost since then..