Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Gene Cottrell wrote:
Well, I'm just pointing out that all those idiots that had the same
information as GW came to the same conclusion. ...
That right there is precisely why you're wrong. Shrub and
his neocon rat-*******s manipulated, hid, obfuscated, and
flat out lied about the information and passed along only
what was twisted to support a regime change in Iraq.
You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
Well, of course, he *did* have them, emphasis on the past
tense.

Don't try to twist words. The eve of the invasion is in
the past, hence the use of "had WMD." The world's
intelligence communities thought he had WMD on the
eve of the invasion.

Only because our intelligence community lied through their
teeth at the behest of their neocon masters in the Bush
administration and many of them subsequently resigned in
disgust.

You conveniently clipped the list of people NOT under
the control of the "neocon masters" who believed it.
Also clipped was the fact that Clinton believed it
as did plenty of democrats with intelligence information
from before Bush came into office.

You can paint Bush as the big bad guy, but people
believed it well before he came to office.
- Ken

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Gene Cottrell wrote:
Well, I'm just pointing out that all those idiots that had the same
information as GW came to the same conclusion. ...
That right there is precisely why you're wrong. Shrub and
his neocon rat-*******s manipulated, hid, obfuscated, and
flat out lied about the information and passed along only
what was twisted to support a regime change in Iraq.
You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
Well, of course, he *did* have them, emphasis on the past
tense.
Don't try to twist words. The eve of the invasion is in
the past, hence the use of "had WMD." The world's
intelligence communities thought he had WMD on the
eve of the invasion.
Only because our intelligence community lied through their
teeth at the behest of their neocon masters in the Bush
administration and many of them subsequently resigned in
disgust.

You conveniently clipped the list of people NOT under
the control of the "neocon masters" who believed it.

And how many of them believed it because they were spoon-fed
misinformation by US intelligence ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
Well, of course, he *did* have them, emphasis on the past
tense.
Don't try to twist words. The eve of the invasion is in
the past, hence the use of "had WMD." The world's
intelligence communities thought he had WMD on the
eve of the invasion.
Only because our intelligence community lied through their
teeth at the behest of their neocon masters in the Bush
administration and many of them subsequently resigned in
disgust.

You conveniently clipped the list of people NOT under
the control of the "neocon masters" who believed it.

And how many of them believed it because they were spoon-fed
misinformation by US intelligence ?

Ah ah, you're trying to redefine your statement again...
what's with you liberals and your definitions. ;-)

You said "[US Intelligence] with neocon masters in the
Bush administration". The British and Russians might be
influenced, but they're not dummies they would have noticed a
significant change in intelligence information between 2000 and
2001. I also assume that all the statements by Clinton era
officials were influenced by the following administration?
That's pretty talented.
- Ken

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
Well, of course, he *did* have them, emphasis on the past
tense.
Don't try to twist words. The eve of the invasion is in
the past, hence the use of "had WMD." The world's
intelligence communities thought he had WMD on the
eve of the invasion.
Only because our intelligence community lied through their
teeth at the behest of their neocon masters in the Bush
administration and many of them subsequently resigned in
disgust.

You conveniently clipped the list of people NOT under
the control of the "neocon masters" who believed it.

And how many of them believed it because they were spoon-fed
misinformation by US intelligence ?

Ah ah, you're trying to redefine your statement again...
what's with you liberals and your definitions. ;-)

You said "[US Intelligence] with neocon masters in the
Bush administration". The British and Russians might be
influenced, but they're not dummies they would have noticed a
significant change in intelligence information between 2000 and
2001. I also assume that all the statements by Clinton era
officials were influenced by the following administration?
That's pretty talented.

O.k., I realize that under the circumstances it may not be wise to
ask.......but, what the hell.......did either of you boys graduate from
high school?

Wolfgang
who, after due consideration, puts the odds at about one in three.

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
Well, of course, he *did* have them, emphasis on the past
tense.
Don't try to twist words. The eve of the invasion is in
the past, hence the use of "had WMD." The world's
intelligence communities thought he had WMD on the
eve of the invasion.
Only because our intelligence community lied through their
teeth at the behest of their neocon masters in the Bush
administration and many of them subsequently resigned in
disgust.
You conveniently clipped the list of people NOT under
the control of the "neocon masters" who believed it.
And how many of them believed it because they were spoon-fed
misinformation by US intelligence ?

Ah ah, you're trying to redefine your statement again...
what's with you liberals and your definitions. ;-)

You said "[US Intelligence] with neocon masters in the
Bush administration". The British and Russians might be
influenced, but they're not dummies they would have noticed a
significant change in intelligence information between 2000 and
2001. I also assume that all the statements by Clinton era
officials were influenced by the following administration?
That's pretty talented.

Who was the President on the eve of the invasion ? You're trying
to blame Clinton again but what you're stubbornly trying to avoid
is that what Clinton believed in 2000 doesn't have diddly-squat
to do with the misinformation US intelligence spread in 2003.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
You said "[US Intelligence] with neocon masters in the
Bush administration". The British and Russians might be
influenced, but they're not dummies they would have noticed a
significant change in intelligence information between 2000 and
2001. I also assume that all the statements by Clinton era
officials were influenced by the following administration?
That's pretty talented.

You're trying
to blame Clinton again but what you're stubbornly trying to avoid
is that what Clinton believed in 2000 doesn't have diddly-squat
to do with the misinformation US intelligence spread in 2003.

For once I'm not blaming anyone. ;-) The point is
your revisionist history.

If what was believed in 2000 was the same as what
was believed in 2002-2003 then that pretty much
undercuts your assertion. If other countries' believed
what our intelligence community believed, that does
as well.
- Ken

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You're trying
to blame Clinton again but what you're stubbornly trying to avoid
is that what Clinton believed in 2000 doesn't have diddly-squat
to do with the misinformation US intelligence spread in 2003.

For once I'm not blaming anyone. ;-) The point is
your revisionist history.

If what was believed in 2000 was the same as what
was believed in 2002-2003 then that pretty much
undercuts your assertion.

Have you considered the possibility that what may have
been true in 2000 was no longer true in 2003 ? And that
US intelligence knew it was no longer true but spread
misinformation anyway ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You're trying
to blame Clinton again but what you're stubbornly trying to avoid
is that what Clinton believed in 2000 doesn't have diddly-squat
to do with the misinformation US intelligence spread in 2003.

For once I'm not blaming anyone. ;-) The point is
your revisionist history.

If what was believed in 2000 was the same as what
was believed in 2002-2003 then that pretty much
undercuts your assertion.

Have you considered the possibility that what may have
been true in 2000 was no longer true in 2003 ? And that
US intelligence knew it was no longer true but spread
misinformation anyway ?

Do you have any reason to believe so? Other than
party of the President switching to one you dislike,
is there some other reason?
- Ken

Having a mistaken belief that Saddam had WMDs is one thing. Going to war
over that mistaken belief is quite another. Waging the war with stunning
incompetence is yet another.

In any case, the fictitious WMDs were just a pretext for war. If WMDs
were the real reason we should have invaded Pakistan and North Korea.
The real reasons were a political calculation that an endless "war on
terrorism" would keep the neocons in power, a lust for oil, and an
Oedipal challenge to GWB's father, who didn't "finish the job."

Bush owns this war. Trying to pin the blame on Clinton is so ridiculous
that only the nuttiest of wing nuts would buy it.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:
Bush owns this war. Trying to pin the blame on Clinton is so ridiculous
that only the nuttiest of wing nuts would buy it.

I haven't seen anyone say that, who are you replying to?
- Ken