Capital Offense
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Sunday, November 16, 2025 04:49
VIEWED: 11738
PAGE 13 of 22
The one place where I was pretty sure Bush didn't have a clue ahead of time was when he was informed about 9/11 during reading The Pet Goat. This is earlier where he's pretending to read an upside down book.
Now here he puts on his scholarly face. You can almost hear him sounding out the words.
And here he is doing his best to look historic. This is Bush 'dealing with' the greatest US attack since Pearl Harbor by putting on his solemn 'presidential' face. But seriously, he looks as blank as a deer in the headlights, as he sits, and sits, and sits, waiting for someone to tell him what to do, while he holds his faux 'presidential' pose.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes. Such as cherry-picking two phrases out of the conclusion, and ignoring the rest.
Originally posted by rue:
"One doesn’t have to be an expert to cherry-pick two phrases and take them out of context either."
Not cherry picked - THOSE WERE THE CONCLUSIONS.
DUH !
One would have to be an idiot to not read the conclusions ... don't you agree ?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think my job gives me a different perspective then most of you. I’ve seen first hand how difficult and unreliable this kind of evidence is. I don’t think for one minute that any president has ever had to distort the evidence when it comes to Intel, because this stuff is already so convoluted that in many cases you can see whatever you want to see in it. This is the reason why I’m always talking about the distinction between what you can know and what you cannot know or between conclusive and inconclusive data. But I do realize that this is not the way most people perceive information. In a world in which you can google just about anything you could ever wan to know – the idea that anything could be unknowable is completely alien. But there is reason why in most cases, when we talk about Intel, we rarely talk in terms of conclusions, but rather we use the term “assessment.”
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
This conclusion of mine seems so apparent now that I've come to it, that I wonder why I didn't see it sooner. I assume other people have come to conclusions similar to my own.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, and you made the wrong one concerning WMD, whereas Signy and I made the correct one, but your assessment was somehow acceptable even thought it turned out to be incorrect or 'questionable' at best, while our assessment was flawed even though it turns out to be on the mark- see, this is what I mean by ideological illogic.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But there is reason why in most cases, when we talk about Intel, we rarely talk in terms of conclusions, but rather we use the term “assessment.”
So, your assessment was made cooly and objectively, while ours were supposedly made based on ideology almost exclusively...based on that, if believed, that would mean our ideology works better than your objectivity.
But that's not the case.
I believe your job LIMITS your perspective, this is the only explanation for the laughable logic you spew concerning this particular matter.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Aluminum tubes can be tested. Forgeries can be uncovered. Facilities can be aggressively inspected. Countries can be monitored via satellite. That evidence is cold, hard fact.
I think my job gives me a different perspective then most of you. I’ve seen first hand how difficult and unreliable this kind of evidence is.
Quote:In which case it is up to the viewer to get to the truth; find the reality of the thing. And Bush- according to you- didn't do that. He "saw what he wanted to see" and launched a war based on a disinterest in finding the truth because it conflicted with his views.
I don’t think for one minute that any president has ever had to distort the evidence when it comes to Intel, because this stuff is already so convoluted that in many cases you can see whatever you want to see in it.
Actually I think it's a whole lot simpler you paint it: All of those allusions to nuclear clouds, and Rummy saying that WMD were deployed east, west, north, south somewhat of Baghdad and Tikrit was so just so much LIES. There was not a shred of evidence ANYWHERE that Saddam possessed a WMD program, much less "massive stockpiles" or "deployed WMD". There was no evidence whatsoever that Saddam posed an imminent threat, as he had neither the weapons nor the delivery systems.
When UNMOVIC is looking for evidence... and looking hard wherever the CIA is pointing... and not finding anything... how do you get from "We're not finding anything" to "Massive stockpiles"? If those stockpiles were so massive, why couldn't anyone find them? It was all bullshit, Finn.
---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is Bullshit Sig, we still had the receipts.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually I think it's a whole lot simpler you paint it: All of those allusions to nuclear clouds, and Rummy saying that WMD were deployed east, west, north, south somewhat of Baghdad and Tikrit was so just so much LIES. There was not a shred of evidence ANYWHERE that Saddam possessed a WMD program, much less "massive stockpiles" or "deployed WMD". There was no evidence whatsoever that Saddam posed an imminent threat, as he had neither the weapons nor the delivery systems.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, uh, we DID have them, then they disappeared, but they DID exist, I swear.
Originally posted by citizen:
This is Bullshit Sig, we still had the receipts.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
70 years from now, somewhere in the Heavens:
Finn:
So, you can tell me now, did Saddam have WMD down there before the Iraq War?
God:
No.
Finn:
But there HAD to be the possibility!!! If only-
God:
What? Am I talkin' to myself here? I said NO.
Finn:
But, how can you be certain? Maybe you weren't looking at him that decade...
God:
Finn, are you trying to vex me?
Finn:
No sir, it's just...I mean, how-
God:
You asked me a question and I answered.
Finn:
But logically, the evidence-
God:
Look, you wanna talk to Saddam? Here, take a little trip to where he is, ask him yourself & don't hurry back, y'hear? *mumbles inaudibly*
5 hours later
Finn:
...but how could you NOT have had WMD?...Are you just saying that to get on Satan's good side?
Saddam:
There is no need to lie here; it provides no perks. I have told you the truth. Can you go now, I am really hot and sweaty...are YOU not hot? I bet it is cooler up there...
Finn:
I just want to go over it again...you didn't have even a LITTLE WMD-?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because some CIA peeps heard from some MI6 peeps that know some Taliban peeps that said they saw them.
Originally posted by SignyM:
how do you get from "We're not finding anything" to "Massive stockpiles"?
In Niska's language, "eh, not so solid."
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There was a 50/50 shot no matter which way you went on it. I based my opinion on the assumption that he had these weapons in the past (as a matter of fact) and that there was no evidence that he destroyed them – therefore logic would suggest they still exist. Until evidence surfaced otherwise, that wast the assessment I made and the assessment that the IC made. You made your assumption based on the ideological premise that you don’t agree with going into Iraq. So cold objectivity would likely lead one to the assumption that the weapon’s did exist.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yes, and you made the wrong one concerning WMD, whereas Signy and I made the correct one, but your assessment was somehow acceptable even thought it turned out to be incorrect or 'questionable' at best, while our assessment was flawed even though it turns out to be on the mark- see, this is what I mean by ideological illogic.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME