11-17-2016, 02:10 AM
(11-16-2016, 03:46 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LOL, no it's all just way above your pay grade.
Pro tip: there's rarely certainty in the intelligence game.
They're called intel analyst because they analyze intel. Two intel analysts could look at the same information and form to different conclusions. They're kinda like economists in that way. That's why the Bush administration could promulgate lies as fact.
One of the jobs I had in the military was gathering intel for the S2 to analyze. I'm so lucky to have a guy like you who has never been involved in any of this telling me how intel is analyzed. I didn't know a complete lack of experience, training, and education made you a "Pro."
Quote:They could have been 90-95% certain Iraq was hiding weapons and the decision to invade would have been correct.
We knew they had decrepit weapons. The claims weren't that they were simply hiding weapons, they were actively pursuing WMD programs to produce new WMDs and harboring al Qaeda in country in order to collaborate attacks against the US.
Ninety to ninety-five percent certainty? Those numbers you just picked out of thin air sure sound good, however Colin Powell and his Chief of Staff, Lawerence Wilkerson, knew the intel given to them to present to the U.N. was bullshit.
As Wilkerson himself said, "I participated in a hoax . . ."
In less than three weeks after the invasion and before we seized Baghdad, we knew they weren't going to use the decrepit weapons we knew they had.
At the same time Pakistan had WMDs and al Qaeda in country. What did we do to Pakistan? Sold them F-16s. What have we done to North Korea? Nothing.
Quote:This is what you can't grasp. They sold a war they felt was the correct course of action. That's what politicians do - they sell policy decisions.
You have defended pharmaceutical company's blatant lies with 'other pharmaceutical companies lie, what's the big deal' which would suggest you lack the necessary integrity to differentiate between "policy" and "hoax."
Anyone who thought invading Iraq based upon lies was the correct course of action, was either a complete moron or in desparate need of drug testing.
Quote:You're really, really out of touch if you think that singular yellow cake report changed No votes to Yes votes in Congress.
Well, let's review what I wrote earlier . . .
(11-15-2016, 03:43 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: why didn't the Bush administration have Colin Powell pitch the UN on regime change based upon the UN violations instead bullshit claims of al Qaeda in Iraq and actively pursuing WMD programs?
Yellow cake only pertains to nuclear weapons, not chemical or biological, and I clearly wrote programssssssssssssssssssssssssss. Plural. As in more than one program. In addition, I also listed the false claim of al Qaeda in Iraq. Addition is the process of adding something to something else. Adding means to join or put together one thing to another thing as to increase the number. You can tell I joined two ideas together by using the conjunction "and." It is obvious to anyone who can read above an 8th grade level I wasn't referring to a singular yellow cake report. You would have to be really, really out of touch to think otherwise.
