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

"thunder" wrote in message
...
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?

Exactly. So what is your point?

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:38:14 -0400, thunder wrote:

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

Well, you are correct. He led us to war.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."