John H wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:21:32 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:24:35 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio..._thomas08.html

Extract

WASHINGTON -- White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan says President
Bush was "pleased" with the latest investigation that blames CIA
analysts for the false information that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction.

That's the reason Bush invaded Iraq, remember? Once again it's those
low-level bureaucrats who took us into war. And once again a panel of
"don't rock the boat" establishment figures has let the commander in
chief off the hook.

Any other president would have blown his stack. Instead, Bush honored
former CIA Director George Tenet with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.


Why? If the investigation was well conducted, why would 'any other president
have blown his stack'? Would any other president have wanted a *crappy*
investigation?

Being pleased with the performance of the investigators does not mean being
pleased with the providers of bad information.

If Tenet had just been fired, you'd be complaining that Bush did it because
Tenet was a Clinton hire. \

Get off it, Jimcomma.

Didja ever think he might have "blown his stack" with the results of the
investigation which told him he had a bunch of incompetents working for
him? Instead he was happy with the cover up.

Appears the article went over your head John


Would you have felt better if Kerry had won? Or if Kerry had led the
investigation?

Are you saying the investigation found fault in the wrong place? Do you know
*what* you're saying?
The commission found what they were supposed to find -- *anything* to
clear bush of being a war mongering dumbass

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:02:46 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:21:32 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:24:35 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio..._thomas08.html

Extract

WASHINGTON -- White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan says President
Bush was "pleased" with the latest investigation that blames CIA
analysts for the false information that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction.

That's the reason Bush invaded Iraq, remember? Once again it's those
low-level bureaucrats who took us into war. And once again a panel of
"don't rock the boat" establishment figures has let the commander in
chief off the hook.

Any other president would have blown his stack. Instead, Bush honored
former CIA Director George Tenet with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.


Why? If the investigation was well conducted, why would 'any other president
have blown his stack'? Would any other president have wanted a *crappy*
investigation?

Being pleased with the performance of the investigators does not mean being
pleased with the providers of bad information.

If Tenet had just been fired, you'd be complaining that Bush did it because
Tenet was a Clinton hire. \

Get off it, Jimcomma.

Didja ever think he might have "blown his stack" with the results of the
investigation which told him he had a bunch of incompetents working for
him? Instead he was happy with the cover up.

Appears the article went over your head John


Would you have felt better if Kerry had won? Or if Kerry had led the
investigation?

Are you saying the investigation found fault in the wrong place? Do you know
*what* you're saying?
The commission found what they were supposed to find -- *anything* to
clear bush of being a war mongering dumbass

So the commission was working for Bush? Is that your contention? Would you have
been happier if Bush had gotten on TV and lambasted everyone in the CIA, calling
them the most worthless scum that ever existed? Would *that* have done the
trick?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:29:03 -0400, John H wrote:


So the commission was working for Bush? Is that your contention?

Uh, John, the President appointed the members of the commission. The
President set the *limited* mandate of the commission. The commission was
a Presidential Commission, not a Congressional Commission.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:37:46 -0400, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:29:03 -0400, John H wrote:


So the commission was working for Bush? Is that your contention?

Uh, John, the President appointed the members of the commission. The
President set the *limited* mandate of the commission. The commission was
a Presidential Commission, not a Congressional Commission.

Well, gee. Why haven't I heard more than a few Bush-haters knocking down the
findings? Seems to me the commission tore a new asshole in the CIA. What part of
that was wrong?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:03:38 -0400, John H wrote:


Well, gee. Why haven't I heard more than a few Bush-haters knocking down
the findings? Seems to me the commission tore a new asshole in the CIA.
What part of that was wrong?

I never said the report was wrong. Our intelligence community has had
several colossal failures. It failed to predict the downfall of the
Soviet Union and it overstated Saddam's WMD capability. Those are two
very good reasons not to go to war on intelligence, but then, the CIA
didn't lead us to war, the President did.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:39:47 -0400, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:03:38 -0400, John H wrote:


Well, gee. Why haven't I heard more than a few Bush-haters knocking down
the findings? Seems to me the commission tore a new asshole in the CIA.
What part of that was wrong?

I never said the report was wrong. Our intelligence community has had
several colossal failures. It failed to predict the downfall of the
Soviet Union and it overstated Saddam's WMD capability. Those are two
very good reasons not to go to war on intelligence, but then, the CIA
didn't lead us to war, the President did.


Is it your contention that the President's decision was made exclusive of CIA
input?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:18:07 -0400, John H wrote:


Is it your contention that the President's decision was made exclusive of
CIA input?

No, it is my contention that President Bush led us to war. How do I know
what he based that decision on? Clearly, there are no WMD. Perhaps, as
Wolfowitz said, one of the reasons was to placate al Qaeda, by removing US
troops from Saudi Arabia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2945750.stm

John H wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:02:46 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:21:32 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:



On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:24:35 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio..._thomas08.html

Extract

WASHINGTON -- White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan says President
Bush was "pleased" with the latest investigation that blames CIA
analysts for the false information that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction.

That's the reason Bush invaded Iraq, remember? Once again it's those
low-level bureaucrats who took us into war. And once again a panel of
"don't rock the boat" establishment figures has let the commander in
chief off the hook.

Any other president would have blown his stack. Instead, Bush honored
former CIA Director George Tenet with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.


Why? If the investigation was well conducted, why would 'any other president
have blown his stack'? Would any other president have wanted a *crappy*
investigation?

Being pleased with the performance of the investigators does not mean being
pleased with the providers of bad information.

If Tenet had just been fired, you'd be complaining that Bush did it because
Tenet was a Clinton hire. \

Get off it, Jimcomma.

Didja ever think he might have "blown his stack" with the results of the
investigation which told him he had a bunch of incompetents working for
him? Instead he was happy with the cover up.

Appears the article went over your head John


Would you have felt better if Kerry had won? Or if Kerry had led the
investigation?

Are you saying the investigation found fault in the wrong place? Do you know
*what* you're saying?

The commission found what they were supposed to find -- *anything* to
clear bush of being a war mongering dumbass


So the commission was working for Bush? Is that your contention? Would you have
been happier if Bush had gotten on TV and lambasted everyone in the CIA, calling
them the most worthless scum that ever existed? Would *that* have done the
trick?
You tend to be over dramatic, but awarding tennant the medal of freedom
was over the top the other way -- maybe he should award Tennent the
"award for covering my ass"

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:29:55 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:02:46 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:21:32 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:



On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:24:35 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio..._thomas08.html

Extract

WASHINGTON -- White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan says President
Bush was "pleased" with the latest investigation that blames CIA
analysts for the false information that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction.

That's the reason Bush invaded Iraq, remember? Once again it's those
low-level bureaucrats who took us into war. And once again a panel of
"don't rock the boat" establishment figures has let the commander in
chief off the hook.

Any other president would have blown his stack. Instead, Bush honored
former CIA Director George Tenet with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.


Why? If the investigation was well conducted, why would 'any other president
have blown his stack'? Would any other president have wanted a *crappy*
investigation?

Being pleased with the performance of the investigators does not mean being
pleased with the providers of bad information.

If Tenet had just been fired, you'd be complaining that Bush did it because
Tenet was a Clinton hire. \

Get off it, Jimcomma.

Didja ever think he might have "blown his stack" with the results of the
investigation which told him he had a bunch of incompetents working for
him? Instead he was happy with the cover up.

Appears the article went over your head John


Would you have felt better if Kerry had won? Or if Kerry had led the
investigation?

Are you saying the investigation found fault in the wrong place? Do you know
*what* you're saying?

The commission found what they were supposed to find -- *anything* to
clear bush of being a war mongering dumbass


So the commission was working for Bush? Is that your contention? Would you have
been happier if Bush had gotten on TV and lambasted everyone in the CIA, calling
them the most worthless scum that ever existed? Would *that* have done the
trick?
You tend to be over dramatic, but awarding tennant the medal of freedom
was over the top the other way -- maybe he should award Tennent the
"award for covering my ass"

Well, let's see...

He awarded a medal to an individual who'd served many years for the government.
You find that bad.

He could have just fired Tenet. You'd have found that bad and blamed Bush for
taking it out on a Clinton appointee.

Do you see how absurd some of your anti-Bush rhetoric sounds?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:29:55 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:02:46 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:



On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:21:32 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




John H wrote:




On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:24:35 GMT, "Jim," wrote:





http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio..._thomas08.html

Extract

WASHINGTON -- White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan says President
Bush was "pleased" with the latest investigation that blames CIA
analysts for the false information that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction.

That's the reason Bush invaded Iraq, remember? Once again it's those
low-level bureaucrats who took us into war. And once again a panel of
"don't rock the boat" establishment figures has let the commander in
chief off the hook.

Any other president would have blown his stack. Instead, Bush honored
former CIA Director George Tenet with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.


Why? If the investigation was well conducted, why would 'any other president
have blown his stack'? Would any other president have wanted a *crappy*
investigation?

Being pleased with the performance of the investigators does not mean being
pleased with the providers of bad information.

If Tenet had just been fired, you'd be complaining that Bush did it because
Tenet was a Clinton hire. \

Get off it, Jimcomma.

Didja ever think he might have "blown his stack" with the results of the
investigation which told him he had a bunch of incompetents working for
him? Instead he was happy with the cover up.

Appears the article went over your head John


Would you have felt better if Kerry had won? Or if Kerry had led the
investigation?

Are you saying the investigation found fault in the wrong place? Do you know
*what* you're saying?

The commission found what they were supposed to find -- *anything* to
clear bush of being a war mongering dumbass


So the commission was working for Bush? Is that your contention? Would you have
been happier if Bush had gotten on TV and lambasted everyone in the CIA, calling
them the most worthless scum that ever existed? Would *that* have done the
trick?

You tend to be over dramatic, but awarding tennant the medal of freedom
was over the top the other way -- maybe he should award Tennent the
"award for covering my ass"


Well, let's see...

He awarded a medal to an individual who'd served many years for the government.
You find that bad.

The "serving" in Bushes mind was covering his ass and taking the fall

He could have just fired Tenet. You'd have found that bad and blamed Bush for
taking it out on a Clinton appointee.

Do you see how absurd some of your anti-Bush rhetoric sounds?