The Army and the CIA are 'unnamed sources'?


NOYB wrote:
You're being intentionally obtuse. Specifically, which members of the Army
and CIA?


Why do you want to know their names? Thinking of another Plame type
'outing'? Sorry.

The CIA and the Army (or, to be yet a little more specific, the Pentagon
and the DIA) have offices for disseminating information to the public.

One presumes that the info released is screened to as not to give away
important secrets, but then, sometimes mistakes are made (who *did*
release that Plame ID anyway?? Didn't President Bush vow to find &
punish them?). One also might assume that the info is often given some
political spin, but unless one assumes that all military, CIA, and State
Department counter-terrorist operatives are very strongly anti-Bush, why
would they contradict Bush & Cheney's rosy pronouncements?

And given the blatantly mendacious statements that Bush & Cheney have
both uttered in the past, who do you give more credibility to? Wait, I
already know...



Do you agree with his statement?


Yes. The "insurgency" was composed of the Saddam faithful who tried to get
the American forces out of there. The terrorists are a completely different
group.

Oh, I see... let's just make a new definition of 'terrorist.' That helps
a lot.



What about President Bush's statement... only last night... that the U.S.
military *will* withdraw from Iraq? Wanna revise your statement that we'll
be there forever?


Nope. We'll always have bases there. We just won't have a US troop
presence in the major cities.

In other words, you think President Bush is lying?



And how about President Bush linking Iraq with Sept 11th... again & again?
I was surprised to hear him mention Osama Bin Laden,


A lot of things surprise you. All along, Bush has spoken of Iraq's ties to
terrorists.

That's no surprise. But we're still waiting to see some proof of Iraq's
ties to anti-US terror, to Al-Queda, and to Sept 11th. So far, a couple
of years of intense investigation hasn't come up with any.


... I doubt there's a single American that doesn't believe we're
fighting al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq right now.

Are you saying that Al-Queda is the main terrorist organization
operating in Iraq?



why did Rumsfeld fire all those generals for saying we would need more
troops?


Which generals?


Got a short memory, eh?

There was a major falling out in the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs, most of
whom wanted a bigger invasion force and much bigger and better armored
occupation force. Of course, the FACT that they were right and Rumsfeld
was wrong would be embarassing if it had to be admitted, so let's just
pretend it never happened.



Why is the Army upset about missing recruiting goals if they don't need
more?



They don't need more in Iraq.


Really? Why have they been asking for more then? Why is the Army in such
a flap over recruiting shortfalls?


These little inconsistencies tend to make one believe that either Bush &
Cheney are seriously deluded, or else they are politically constrained
from admitting the truth. Maybe you can explain?


I already did.


Oh right... I meant in way that actually includes some facts. So far,
your delusions & fantasies don't seem to have much effect in the real world.


I wonder when it will occur to Bush & Cheney to announce that we never
invaded Iraq. Didn't happen, it's all a plot by those darn libby-rull
biased media types.

DSK