J
jamesrwright3
Guest
Yeah I heard George Lucas directed it...sort of a renactment of the death star scene in Star Wars except the craft crashes.
Upvote
0
Indisputable 911 coverup facts
- Thread starter Edx
- Start date
Yeah I heard George Lucas directed it...sort of a renactment of the death star scene in Star Wars except the craft crashes.
ChristianoNF
Active Member
Your not funny making jokes about a tragic event in which thousands lost their lives. Have some respect.
These people and their families deserve the truth, beyond that all of America and the world deserves the truth and the perpetrators of this crime need to be brought to justice. Not have it used by the people who perpetrated this crime to further their cause.
Upvote
0
Who are the perpetrators?
Are you fond enough of the truth to admit whom you are acusing of these crimes? Please include all indivduals that would have to be complicit in the scenarios you subscribe to. Or get off the high road.
Any response to:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction
Upvote
0
Let's Go to the Memo
the memo doesn't make as strong a case against Bush as some have claimed. Read in conjunction with the six other British documents, the case weakens further. The memos do not show, for instance, that Bush simply invented the notion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or that Saddam posed a threat to the region. In fact, the memos reveal quite clearly that the top leaders in the U.S. and British governments genuinely believed their claims.
For instance, at one point during the July 23 meeting, the British ministers are discussing some of the risks of going to war. Saddam might "use his WMD on Kuwait," one official cautions. "Or on Israel," adds the defense secretary.
...........................
These top officials genuinely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destructionand that they constituted a threat. They believed that the international community had to be sold on the matter. But not all sales pitches are consciously deceptive. The salesmen in this case turned out to be wrong; their goods were bunk. But they seemed to believe in their product at the time.
What of the second half of the key quote from the Downing Street Memo of July 23that Bush wanted war, justified by WMD and terrorism, but "the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy"? It's worth noting that "fixed around" is not synonymous with "fixed." To say that Bush and his aides "fixed" intelligenceas some Web sites claim the memo showswould mean that they distorted or falsified it. To say "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" means that they were viewing, sifting, and interpreting intelligence in a way that would strengthen the case for their policy, for going to war.
For instance, at one point during the July 23 meeting, the British ministers are discussing some of the risks of going to war. Saddam might "use his WMD on Kuwait," one official cautions. "Or on Israel," adds the defense secretary.
...........................
These top officials genuinely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destructionand that they constituted a threat. They believed that the international community had to be sold on the matter. But not all sales pitches are consciously deceptive. The salesmen in this case turned out to be wrong; their goods were bunk. But they seemed to believe in their product at the time.
What of the second half of the key quote from the Downing Street Memo of July 23that Bush wanted war, justified by WMD and terrorism, but "the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy"? It's worth noting that "fixed around" is not synonymous with "fixed." To say that Bush and his aides "fixed" intelligenceas some Web sites claim the memo showswould mean that they distorted or falsified it. To say "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" means that they were viewing, sifting, and interpreting intelligence in a way that would strengthen the case for their policy, for going to war.
They genuinely believed that Saddam definitely had WMDs. The intelligence reports said that he did.
The assessment were wrongs. That's true. Roberts and the Select Committee Report itself slam the failures of the Intelligence community. However, neither Roberts nor the Report claim that the Intelligence community deliberately included information in the 2002 NIE that they knew to be false.
Upvote
0
The damage it received was massive.
Shrouded in doubt? By who? A few fringe cases maybe , but certainly not by the vast population or by the bulk of professional engineers who have studied it at all.
That article reported that up to nine individuals were picked up at two different locations and detained. There is no mention of a white van or any claim that any of those detained were Israelis.
That report refers to five Israelis. You claimed that their were nine. So, what was it , five or nine? Also, I noticed that there was no mention of box cutters in the article.
Again, five Israelis, but no mention of box cutters.
Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."
Much ado about nothing.
Five Israelis. No box cutters.
Upvote
0
I read this when you posted it to the other forum, what this guy says doesnt change anything. I really thought he'd offer some better arguments supporting his opinion. As you just want to cut and paste let me do so as well:
These facts remain:
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]1. By mid-July 2002, eight months before the war began, President Bush had decided to invade and occupy Iraq.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]2. Bush had decided to "justify" the war "by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD." [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]3. Already "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]4. Many at the top of the administration did not want to seek approval from the United Nations (going "the UN route").[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]5. Few in Washington seemed much interested in the aftermath of the war.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]2. Bush had decided to "justify" the war "by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD." [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]3. Already "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]4. Many at the top of the administration did not want to seek approval from the United Nations (going "the UN route").[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]5. Few in Washington seemed much interested in the aftermath of the war.[/FONT]
Even if that were true, they still lied. Take a look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z0gOgDuaEE
When Bush says they found the WMDs and the biological labratories he isnt lying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdujbyeh3as&feature=related
You telling me their comments to the media wasnt deceptive? Im not going to comment on every clip as should be pretty obvious.
Taking into accout all its problems why do you think it was so hopeless in drawing its conclusions about Saddam from the evidence? Its not like people have said it did a good job with the evidence it did have, but got it wrong. They say its conclusions were unreasonable and unsupported.
We know they wanted a war but were looking for enough of a reasons to take the country to war. We know they deceived the public about how they much they really knew regarding their intelligence. Saying they actually found the WMDs and the labratories and contradicting themselves at every turn, I mean come on.
And next I would like to talk about how the government lied about not having any idea planes might be used as weapons to be flown into buildings. Suppose you deny that as well despite them, again, being on public record doing it.
Upvote
0
Not if he believed that they found the WMDs and the biological labratories, no.
Right! The Intelligence community screwed up.
They had enough of a reason to take the country to war. WMDs and WMD programs.
Do we?
I don't see that as Rice having lied. The possibility of planes being used was mentioned but the likelihood of it was obviously too remote to be considered seriously. Call that incompetence if you like, but there was certainly no lying on her part.
Upvote
0
And who gave him that intelligence? Was it confirmed? No. So why did Bush and the Bush government go on TV with numerous unsupported rumours like this and tell the American people that these "facts" were confirmed and supported on solid data? Seriously, if you dont like the word lie, then use the word deceptive because thats the only way to describe it
Why didnt you watch those videos? I could have written down all of the quotes presented but that would be a waste of time as you'd have probably ignored them too. You apparently dont think its lying when they say they never said what they are on record saying.
Its conclusions were unreasonable and unsupportable. Are you saying they are that inept? Who was fired over this? With documents like The Downing Street memo we know they were looking for a reason to go to war and that they wanted to provoke Saddam, and [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy[/FONT]. No wonder their report distorted the evidence so heavily.
No, that conclusion was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. They didnt even listen to their weapons inspectors that have been there looking for the damn things, who were saying Saddam had none they could find and that his capability was actually weaking. The conclusion was unreasonable and unsupported yet the Bush made out they knew more than they did and the intellignce was absolutely solid. And btw Bush said he was only made aware of the NIE later, so you cant even use that as an excuse either.
Yes, I showed that in those video clips I provided. Perhaps you're going to try and claim that every single one of those has been totally ripped out of context, even though they arent.
Wow you know you really sound like an apologist.
They said over and over that no one even imagimed anyone might use planes as weapons, even though they had all this intelligence coming at them saying this could happen. They even knew it could happen because they planned drills and war games based on exactly that senario they say they had not even imagined happening! You're telling me what when people like Condi Rice stood up there and said no one imagined using planes as weapons flying into buildings she wasnt lying? That she wasnt being deceptive? The truth is she knew what she said wasnt true and would mislead people, but she and numerous others said it anyway.
Upvote
0
The Intelligence community.
It was considered reliable enough to go into the 2002 NIE.
Because the Intelligence community told them that the data was solid. It was a “slam dunk”. It was widely accepted.
I started to watch both videos but stopped because all I was hearing were short snippets of what most likely are much longer statements. Usually that type of editing is done to hide context or to obscure any subsequent clarification by the speaker.
No need to. I’ve probably seen them all dozens of times in the same misrepresentative form.
Subtle word-twisting, and placing the claims in context.
Apparently they were.
Wrong! They already had a reason to go to war. The facts on WMDs and WMD programs were never falsified. By being “fixed around the policy”, they were examined and sorted in a way that would strengthen the presentation of the case for going to war.
Yeah, we know that now but at the time Tenet called it a slam dunk.
Their weapons inspectors hadn’t been in Iraq since 1998. However, the Chief UN inspector has stated that he believed as late as Dec 2002 that Iraq had WMDs and that Saddam continued to give the impression that he had WMDs.
It was a “slam dunk”.
Umm.....what?They most certainly were taken out of context or they were subsequently clarified.
Who are "they"? I only recollect hearing Condi saying she couldn't remember being briefed on the possibility of planes being used.
Here is what Rice said:
To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, this kind of analysis about the use of airplanes as weapons actually was never briefed to us. I cannot tell you that there might not have been a report here or a report there that reached somebody in our midst. Part of the problem is that you have thousands of pieces of information, car bombs and this method and that method, and you have to depend to a certain degree on the intelligence agencies to sort, to tell you what is actually... is actually relevant, what is actually based on sound sources, what is speculative. And I can only assume or believe that perhaps the intelligence agencies thought that the sourcing was speculative. All that I can tell you is that it was not in the august 6th memo, using planes as a weapon, and I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning that planes might be used as a weapon.
I’m saying that we can’t know for sure that she was lying.
Upvote
0
celticfan83
Regular Member
- Jan 16, 2008
- 479
- 19
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
you need plastic wrap and a good wine key tin/aluminum foil is sooo 1960/1970 conspiracy protection
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Yes other politicians wanted a war just as much as Bush did. So? Im not arguing for a political party here. You are suggesting that because the idea that Saddam had WMDs was used by other political partys as well that the intelligence was right and proper at the time. Thats not what the assessment that it was unreasonable and unsupported means.
The government didnt just "get it wrong", they claimed certainty that they "knew" Saddam had WMDs, that they actually knew where they were that they had intelligence that he aided Al Qaeda and that he was a very real threat to the US because of all this. They said what they were saying was based on hard supportable facts and not assertions. Yet eventually then they had to admit they didnt know Saddam had WMDs and they evidently didnt know where they were and that it turned out he didnt have any after all, and that there was no connection from Iraq to 911! These guys went on TV and tried to convince the public the war on Saddam was justified and right by making these statements.
Show me how they are out of context. They say they didnt say the things they are on record as saying. They said that the intelligence was based on hard facts, they said they found the WMDs, that they said Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda and connected it to 911 etc etc. They then turned around and denined they said what they said.
Apparently you only care that some people claim they were, not why.
Whats interesting is they make all these claims that they were taken out of context and then for all their waffle still fail to show how their explanations makes any difference. In fact in a couple of places at least it seems to make things even worse. These arguments reminds me of apologists trying to defend violence demanded by God in the Bible. Out of context! They cry, and then fail to show that in any way whatsoever how their explanation really makes things any better.
This video contains some more the same videos as before, but some new ones as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYmEFoN8UJ8&mode=related&search=
So who was fired for incompetence?
Yes they were falsified and you just told me it was wrong in the last post. The intelligences conclusions were unreasonable and the evidence didnt support it. Why are you flip flopping now?
See below and the truth of that statement makes things even more damndable. Why did all these high ups in the Bush government go around saying these things as if its all based on solid conclusive evidence, when its now known that it wasnt just wrong but its conclusions were unsupported by the evidence and unreasonable?
Where? [1] [2]
George Tenet is not a source you should be quoting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmH4LolvDrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41Fmz90cYpE
Well you said the NIE was the reason why Bush and co was so sure about the WMDs, but here he says he made the statements before he even knew it existed.
Apologists claim that as well. So show me one, because your link before didnt do that.
They try to apologise for Bush saying they found the WMDs and and the labratories, and how do they do that? Again say he was working off intelligence we now know was unsupported. My questions would be, why was noone fired for such incompetence? Why did Bush and Co keep hyping the intelligence that they had? Thats deceptive. And why did they contradict themselves later on claiming they never said what they said? Theres lies and deception there.
The Bush government spokes people. Bush, Condi Rice. Colin Powell, Rumsfeld etc.
Thats what she said while trying to backpeddle. What she said was:
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try and use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile" -Condoleezza Rice
But the president himself along with other spokes people also made repeated claims of total and complete ignorence:
"Nobody in our government at least, and I dont think the prior government could invision flying airplanes into buildings. "
- G.W Bush
"Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America -- did we ever think that the evildoers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious U.S. targets...Never.'"
-G.W Bush
"Never did we imagine what would take place on September 11 where people use those airplanes as missiles and weapons."
-Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer
"No specific threat involving, really, a domestic operation or involving what happened, obviously. The cities, an airliner and so forth"
- Dick Cheney
And much like the WMD comments that they made in the media, we know they knew a lot more than they made out. They made misleading and deceptive statements to justify a war they already wanted.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Im not suggesting that the intelligence was right and proper. I merely pointed out that it was what it was. The Intelligence Community produced a report (NIE ) that showed that Saddam had WMDs and WMD programs. They were wrong. It was an Intelligence failure. The Bush administration never knew that the intelligence they were getting was wrong.
The Intelligence community did get it wrong.
Perhaps they did. That intelligence was wrong as well.
That would have been speculative.
Intelligence community got it wrong.
They never claimed that there was an operational connection between Iraq and 9/11.
They believed that it was.
They believed that they had.
They never stressed that there was an operational connection between Al Qeada and Saddam.
Bush, Sept. 17, 2003:We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th . What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Sarawak, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam.There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.
As the Fact Check article put it:
Since the word "ties" can cover any connection, however weak, Bush was in fact stating the truth. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission later cited reports of several "friendly contacts" between Saddam and Osama bin Laden over the years, and cited one report that in 1999 Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a "safe haven," which bin Laden refused, preferring to remain in Afghanistan. But nothing substantial came of the contacts. The commission said: "The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."
Not sure.
Were they falsified? By who? Did the Senate Report conclude that they were falsified? No. Certainly not by the Intelligence Community.
How am I flip flopping? The Intelligence Community screwed up. Where have I stated the opposite?
What did the Senate Report say on the matter?;
Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Communitys October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraqs Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence.
"But yes, in December 2002 I thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction." - Hans Blix
Why Not? He says that the "Slam Dunk" was taken out of context but he doesn't say how. He also says that he believed that Iraq had WMDs.
Ed, the NIE that Bush is referring to in the video that you linked to is the one on Iran, not the 2002 NIE on Iraqs WMDs.
We found the weapons of Mass Destruction in the first video. That statement was made on May 29, 2003. Bush had just been informed by the CIA that mobile biological laboratories had just been located in Iraq. It turned out that they were wrong, but neither they nor Bush knew it at the time.
See above!
We now know that it was unsupported. We didnt know it then.
Who knows? Maybe some were fired or reprimanded..
They believed it.
Not if they believed it.
If they contradicted themselves later on then one could put it down as memory lapses. I know that I certainly cant remember every statement that Ive made in the past.
[FONT="]How is that backpeddling?
[/FONT]
[FONT="]And your point is???
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Again, what's the problem with that statement? There was no specific threat .
Prove it![/FONT]
Upvote
0
Even if they wanted to believe it, they hyped it deceptively because they wanted a war. You cant get out of this on semantics games with the word lie.
Yes they did get it wrong, Im not doubting that. Im saying they mislead and hyped the intelligence to the public they had because they wanted a war and wanted and needed public support.
But they made statements to the public that would strongly imply it, thats what im trying to get accross. And you didnt cover Cheneys statement that it has been "pretty well confirmed "that Atta went to Prague and met with senior Iraq officials. This information had only just came to light and might have seemed pretty well confirmed to Cheney but instead of really checking for confirmation first, or qualifiying that it was new intelligence and could show a link, he stated it as if it was "pretty well confirmed". He didnt make sure before he made out something as if it was solid evidence to the public, if it really was solid evidence.
They did this kind of thing over and over again. Its deceptive, and thats what Im arguing against. Oh, and then of course he went on another show later on and said he "absolutely" never said it was pretty well confirmed and that he also "never suggested there was a connection between Iraq and 911". Sorry Dick, saying it has been pretty well confirmed that Atta, the lead hijacker, met with senior Iraq officials is specifically suggesting a connection between Iraq and 911. I mean really which dishonest statement do you want to pick here.
After making the public know that Al Qaeda was in no uncertain terms definitely behind the 911 and they were a global terror threat to all our freedoms, Bush next tried blurring the publics perception on Iraqs relationship to Al Qaeda, and therefore to 911. Saying several times in different ways that "you cant distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when talking about the war on terror". And that Saddam trained Al Qaeda members, "we have learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gasses". In the publics mind these were all statements that suggested they had the solid intelligence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda and that they were just as bad maybe even worse.
Why not? Isnt that the whole point Im making? Why isnt anyone being held accountable for anything?
I find it funny how you are able to say the intelligence was wrong so many times in one post and at the same time say it wasnt falsified. How can it be wrong and not falsified at the same time?
Just now. You cant say the intelligence was wrong and at the same time wasnt false at the same time.
So? Im proposing a coverup arent willing to hold anyone accountable, of course they're going to put it like this. So many whistle blowers have came forward inregards in the WMDs but you're saying we can disount all of them, I suppose. I gave the example of George Tenet and now you're suggesting he isnt really telling the truth.
Ok fine, but that was his personal opinion because he also acknowledged he couldnt find any and certianly didnt believe in the US governments evidence saying they dramatised it and accused them of being insincere, he also said "[SIZE=-1]It is sort of fascinating that you can have 100 percent certainty about weapons of mass destruction and zero certainty about where they are.[/SIZE]." While he said he wasnt a pacifist, he believed it was the Security Councils responsibility to uphold its own resolutions. He believed the US started an illegal war and that they had "no lawful justification" to invade Iraq. So Bliq doesnt really agree with your implication or help your argument all that much.
It doesnt matter what he "believed". And are you implying he's lying or something? So you are allowed to use him as a way to say the intelligence was a "slam dunk" to validate the claim that the war was justified by the intelligence at the time, but its irrelevant when I point out that he says that was not what he meant, and it was completely dishonest how they twisted his words?
Ok retracted, you're right on this.
Yes they were all so eager to report uncomfirmed intelligence as certianty to the public, werent they?
And for what reason do you believe that happened?
So? They believe a lot of things, but if they come on national TV and discuss the intelligence they have received and use it as a reason why they must pursue a war they should be damn carefull about how they put it. You dont go around stating things with certain confidence about things when its based on unconfirmed intelligence. Chenys Atta and Iraq connection being pretty well confirmed, and Bushes claim that they found the WMDs even if they themselves believed it, it was misleading for them to go out there and pretend it was confirmed intelligence. And dont tell me it was confirmed, because thats not what the word means in the same way as something cant be wrong and yet not falsified at the same time.
Maybe, but thats a weak argument. The reason their memory happen to conviently "fail" is becuase they'd have had to address and defend their previous statements.
What you quoted was her backpeddeling, the above is what she originally said on May 16 2002.
[FONT="]
Uh, I told you already. That they did in fact do far more than "imagine" someone might use a plane as a weapon to fly into buildings. [/FONT]
God you're picky, incredulity wins, but lets see you try and explain the others. They said no one ever imagined someone might fly a plane into a building. And this wasnt misleading?
Well you pretty much ignored the Dowing Street Memo.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
If they believed it, and we have no reason to believe that they didn't, then they were right to inform the public about it.
Speculative on your part.
Czechoslovakian Intelligence officials claimed that Atta went to Prague and met with an Iraqi diplomat. As you said, to Cheney that was pretty solid evidence. I don't see the big deal about him claiming it as such.
You are blowing the whole thing way out of proportion over and over again.
Could you provide links to where those quoted statements originated so that I can view them in their entirety?
How should I know?
Because to be falsified means that information that was known to be false was included in the NIE. The Senate Intelligence Report did not accuse the Intelligence community of deliberately inputing data in the NIE that they knew was false.
See above!
Who are these whistleblowers and what have they had to say? Give me some names.
What exactly has Tenet said? And when did I accuse him of not telling the truth?
I don't much care about Blix's opinion on whether the invasion was legal or not. His opinion is no more valid than yours or mine on that matter. But the fact remains that he believed that Iraq was not completely forthcoming about its Wmds, or lack of them, and that they still had them very late in the game.
How could I accuse him of lying if I don't even know what he said?
So then tell me, what exactly did he mean by "Slam dunk"? How was it taken out of context?
Hey, the CIA said that mobiles laboritories were found. If you've got a problem with that ,take it up with them.
Why would some be fired or reprimanded? Strange that you would ask me that. Weren't you just complaining about the possibility that no one has been held accountable?
Again, you're making a big deal out of nothing. They both were within their rights to inform the public of what they knew or believed in order to sell them on a potential invasion of Iraq.
Speculative!
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try and use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile" -Condoleezza Rice
To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, this kind of analysis about the use of airplanes as weapons actually was never briefed to us. I cannot tell you that there might not have been a report here or a report there that reached somebody in our midst. Part of the problem is that you have thousands of pieces of information, car bombs and this method and that method, and you have to depend to a certain degree on the intelligence agencies to sort, to tell you what is actually... is actually relevant, what is actually based on sound sources, what is speculative. And I can only assume or believe that perhaps the intelligence agencies thought that the sourcing was speculative. All that I can tell you is that it was not in the august 6th memo, using planes as a weapon, and I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning that planes might be used as a weapon. - Condoleezza Rice
I don't see that as backpeddling. I'm sorry but I just don't.
Like what? They said that they couldn't imagine it. So what did George Bush and Ari Fleischer do that was more than just imagining planes being used to fly into buildings?
No, not at all. I know that I could have never imagined it. And if I was given 250 possible scenarios of terror attacks, that would have been one that I wouldn't have paid much heed or probably even remembered seeing it.
Nope! Already dealt with the memo. There's nothing in it that demonstrates that misleading and deceptive statements were made to justify a war.
Upvote
0
Revelation1217
Regular Member
I am glad that the truth about the 911 inside job is being told on this forum.
http://christianforums.com/t6757915...en-it-comes-to-christianity.html#post42856773
http://christianforums.com/t6757915...en-it-comes-to-christianity.html#post42856773
Upvote
0
Edx,
Due to the other thread being locked. I would like to address your comments on the Popular Mechanics here.
Note that I do not think the article is flawless nor the most up to date debunking available.
You claim the source is biased because it is owned by Hearst.
You have referenced Loose Change and Alex Jones.
Obviously arguing bias gets us nowhere. Address the evidence.
You seem to complain about debunkers addressing outlandish 911 theories. People still believe many of the things you find to be crazy or "strawmen". And many more would continue to believe them if the debunking were not done. You can still find new "no plane" videos on youtube. Complaining about this does not address the evidence.
Could you point me to the information about NORAD and domestic flight interception.
Your comment about the representative dodging a question. Are you implying that Popular Mechanics lied about the DNA evidence?
DNA can be gathered from hotel rooms, personal objects, homes, etc. The first process of identification in this case involved separating known ( other passengers for example) from unknown DNA.
Did you really think because this person was not able to answer the question on the spot that the question had no answer?
Sorry, but thats a real creationist style "gotcha".
Due to the other thread being locked. I would like to address your comments on the Popular Mechanics here.
Note that I do not think the article is flawless nor the most up to date debunking available.
You claim the source is biased because it is owned by Hearst.
You have referenced Loose Change and Alex Jones.
Obviously arguing bias gets us nowhere. Address the evidence.
You seem to complain about debunkers addressing outlandish 911 theories. People still believe many of the things you find to be crazy or "strawmen". And many more would continue to believe them if the debunking were not done. You can still find new "no plane" videos on youtube. Complaining about this does not address the evidence.
Could you point me to the information about NORAD and domestic flight interception.
Your comment about the representative dodging a question. Are you implying that Popular Mechanics lied about the DNA evidence?
DNA can be gathered from hotel rooms, personal objects, homes, etc. The first process of identification in this case involved separating known ( other passengers for example) from unknown DNA.
Did you really think because this person was not able to answer the question on the spot that the question had no answer?
Sorry, but thats a real creationist style "gotcha".
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
No its not speculative, many people have come out saying they hyped it even the US Senate report says the intelligence of the NIE was both overstated and unsupported. Even George Tenet and Hans Blix both people you used to suport your contention that the US was justified going to war and that the intelligence was valid both turned out to say the opposite to what you presented them as.
It doesnt matter if HE believed it, it doesnt give him the right to use his position to go on National TV and tell people his "beliefs" as if they were had more solid evidence that it actually did. He abused his position.
So its okay that he pretends he never said what he said, its okay he presented intelligence as if it were confirmed without making sure it was first. Okay, you might not care but I call their behavior deceptive and misleading and thats what Ive been arguing.
Just copy and paste them into google, its not that difficult. In fact it supports my argument even more in context. The bolded the parts are the quotes I used in my previous post.
"Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive."
G.W. Bush
" We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We have learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. "
G.W. Bush
And it wasnt just these two quotes, I could give more examples of the administration trying to connect Iraq to Al Qaeda as well.
Point is you dont know, neither does anyone else. My issue is that no one has been held accountable for any incompetence and deception that has gone on since 911.
Thats not what falsified means. The word confirmed or validated is the opposite to falsified. Was the intelligence confirmed or validated? No. I can find all these sources that say it was wrong, false, unreasonable and unsupported and even your own favourite source the US senate report says the NIE was unsupported and overstated. You yourself have said over and over that the intelligence was wrong. Intelligence cant be wrong, false, unreasonable and unsupported and still be unfalsified. Intent doesnt have anything to do with something being falsified. And where does the US Senate report say that the NIE was valid? Nowhere as far as I can see, becauce if they had they would be saying the information was correct, and not wrong. But not even that, the report even states it wasnt supported by the evidence.
Already given you some that said the intelligence was wrong and unspported, but I'll go through several more here. I'll also give some relevant people that have come out and said the intelligence was not valid.
First, you have George Tenet and Hans Blix. Ive already recently discussed them so I wont cover old ground except to give more new quotes from Blix:
"I think it's clear that in March when the invasion took place the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart. And we had called attention to a number of the points. One was that there was a tendency on the U.S. administration to say that anything that was unaccounted for existed, whether it was sarin, or mustard gas or anthrax. Another one related to the case that Colin Powell presented to the Security Council about a site in which they held that there had been chemical weapons and that they had seen decontamination trucks. Our inspectors had been there and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things. And the trucks that we had seen were water trucks. ... I called attention to the fact that the evidence was shaky. We had - I told that to Condoleezza Rice, as well, so I think they were aware of it, but I think they chose to ignore us. ... It meant they could either exist or not exist. So we could not affirm that they weren't there, but we - at least we didn't fall into the trap that the U.S. and the U.K. did in asserting that they existed."
-Hans Blix - U.N.'s former Chief Weapons Inspector in an Interview with CNN
"I was thinking that he was not really seeing what I see on the ground. I haven't seen anything on the ground at that time that support Mr. Cheney's conclusion or statement" - [commenting on Cheneys statement that the Bush administration believed Saddam had reconstituted Nucular weapons and that Elbaradei was wrong]. With regard to the nuclear file, we were pretty convinced that we haven't seen really any evidence that Iraq resumed its nuclear weapon program, because we knew we dismantled that program in 1997, and our focus was to see whether anything has been resuscitated between '98 and 2002. We didn't see that.
- Mohamed Elbaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency which monitors the world's nuclear weapons, in an Interview with CNN.
"It was an agonised experience because I knew that the evidence they were presenting for WMD was totally implausible. I'd read the intelligence on WMD for four and a half years, and there's no way that it could sustain the case that the government was presenting. All of my colleagues knew that, too. We all believed the Iraqis had something, but that is very different from saying they had that much. The intelligence indicated that they'd failed to account for what they had in the past. They hadn't given us a complete account of the disposal of their past stocks, so we thought there was something, but there was no way that the claim of an imminent threat was sustainable. The 45-minute stuff was ridiculous"
Carne Ross - Foreign Office diplomat responsible for liaising with UN inspectors - (in an interview with The Guardian)
" Today we know these assessments were wrong. And, as our inquiry will show, they were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available evidence."
- The Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) commenting on the 511-page report.
" ...These issues, in my opinion, warrant further inquiry, before we use the information as the backbone of one of our major findings of the existence of a continuing Iraqi BW program!"
- Part of an unnamed CIA "detailee" in an email to the Deputy Chief of the CIA's Iraqi Task Force on February 4, 2003, one day before Secretary Powell delivered his speech, to express his concerns about the use of the four HUMINT sources cited in the speech after reading a draft copy. It was ignored and even said they were already were aware of his concerns that the source for the intelligence was a "fabricator". Powell allegedly was not made aware of this, but someone decided to ignore it. - U.S Intelligence Communitys PreWar Intelligence Assessments.
"Most of the major key judgments in the Oct. 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for WMD, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting"
- Senate Intelligence Comittee Report
“ Tony was far too clever to allege that there was a real link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. But he deliberately crafted a suggestive phrasing which in the minds of many viewers must have created an impression, and was designed to create the impression, that British troops were going to Iraq to fight a threat from Al-Qaeda.”
- Robin Cook former British Foreign Secretary 1997 - 2003 - Within diaries published in The Sunday Times.
" The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war" "Including me. The difference is after I began to learn about some of that intelligence I went down to the Senate floor and I said 'my vote was wrong.'"
Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, The lead Democrat on the Intelligence Commitee, who voted for the Iraq War talking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attikisson.
" Completely unrealistic assumptions about a post-Saddam Iraq permeate these war plans. First, they assumed that a provisional government would be in place by 'D-Day', then that the Iraqis would stay in their garrisons and be reliable partners, and finally that the post-hostilities phase would be a matter of mere 'months'. All of these were delusions"
- Thomas Blanton, National Security Archive Executive Director commenting on U.S. Central Command's war plan for invading Iraq.
"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.. ... It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
- Downing Street Memo
Oh come on, you said my point as wrong without bothering watching the video interview with him?! Go watch the video, please. I dont see why I should have to transcribe everything or look every quote up just so I can get it down in writing
Everyone knew Iraq and Saddam was not helpfull, but you're fixating on that one quote by him where he raised his personel opinion. The facts he and others stated was they they couldnt find any weapons, that they couldnt find evidence for their existence, that the government didnt listen to them, that the government should have been more sincere, that they dramatised the intelligence and that they had no lawfull jurisdiction to invade Iraq. How on earth does he agree with your positon?!
And in case you missed it in the quotes I gave above, many of them "believed" he had weapons:
"It was an agonised experience because I knew that the evidence they were presenting for WMD was totally implausible. I'd read the intelligence on WMD for four and a half years, and there's no way that it could sustain the case that the government was presenting. All of my colleagues knew that, too. We all believed the Iraqis had something, but that is very different from saying they had that much. The intelligence indicated that they'd failed to account for what they had in the past. They hadn't given us a complete account of the disposal of their past stocks, so we thought there was something, but there was no way that the claim of an imminent threat was sustainable. The 45-minute stuff was ridiculous"
Carne Ross - Foreign Office diplomat responsible for liaising with UN inspectors - (in an interview with The Guardian)
Upvote
0
Similar threads
