Dick Cheney should really stop playing the blame game.

[Oldandtired]

Curve don't you know by now that when you misquote stuff I am going to find it, post it, and you are going to look like an idiot?

From the 911 Report

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

?But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship"

Bent doesn't give a fuck what it ACTUALLY says. When he deliberately misquotes something, well, by golly, that's what they SHOULD have said!

There you go again whining about dumb shit. I said the CR said there was no relationship between alkida and iraq and he reinforced that was true. You guys are fucked up when you look at something that clearly proves you are wrong only to claim that same evidence says you are correct.

Bottom line......INTERNATIONAL intelligence agencies ALL agreed that something needed to be done in Iraq...and Congress voted for the action.

So whats the problem here?

 

[CurveLight]

Are you talking about collateral damages or are you talking about the Al Qaida terrorists we killed that had nothing to do with Al Qaida?

You are simply one stupid mother fucker. Even the 9/11 Commission pointed out there was no relationship between iraq and alkida. My guess is you will now reference the Bush admin invented term of "alkida in iraq." They made up that term just to fool dumbasses like you into believing alkida was in iraq. The groups was made up mostly of iraqis. What the fuck else you got? Oh yeah. Yo punk ass wants to hide behind the "collateral damage" phrase. Fuck your dishonesty. Fuck your punk pussy ass for pretending to care about the US. You don't give a fuck about america. The only difference between pussies like you and alkida terrorists is they follow up on their rhetoric. You're nothing but a self induced ignorant fuckwad and you don't have the first fucking clue about what is happening. You stupid ****. When you purposefully drop bombs you are purposefully killing everyone with the range.

Do you have any idea how fucking sick and stupid it is to try and defend our actions of killing civilians with a stupid fucking phrase? Do you? I don't think you do. You're just another ignorant **** that wants to justify all the sick shit we do. Fuck off you hypocrite. Let me know when you are capable of being honest.

That not at all what the 911 commission said.

They said they didn't have enough evidence to show that there was an "collaborative operational relationship".

In other words that Hussein helped plan specific attacks with Al Qaida.

They never said that there was no relationship at all.

Your guess should have been that I would post what they actually said, not what you wished that they would say.

You are way too fucking stupid. How the hell do you breathe on your own? You actually try to hide behind the word "operational?" I'm an idiot for even continuing to quote you pathetic ***** that dig for the silliest fucking bullshit. You pussy. If there was no operational relationship then there was no relationship. I've little doubt you will still cling to that enormously fucking stupid "operational" scapegoat because you are not capable of basic honesty. There's got to be a website that is similar to fstdt for idiotic nationalists like you.

 

[CurveLight]

Bent doesn't give a fuck what it ACTUALLY says. When he deliberately misquotes something, well, by golly, that's what they SHOULD have said!

There you go again whining about dumb shit. I said the CR said there was no relationship between alkida and iraq and he reinforced that was true. You guys are fucked up when you look at something that clearly proves you are wrong only to claim that same evidence says you are correct.

Bottom line......INTERNATIONAL intelligence agencies ALL agreed that something needed to be done in Iraq...and Congress voted for the action.

So whats the problem here?

The problem is people like you either being dishonest or not informed. There was no international consensus something had to be done. There wasn't even a National consensus. Even our top CIA covert director in Europe pointed out the Bush admin placed Policy above intelligence.


"Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago. He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didnt:


"The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller."


(speaking about the nigerian yellowcake)
But Drumheller says many CIA analysts were skeptical. "Most people came to the opinion that there was something questionable about it," he says.

Asked if that was his reaction, Drumheller says, "That was our reaction from the very beginning. The report didn't hold together."
A Spy Speaks Out - 60 Minutes - CBS News


Can't wait to see how you guys find a way to ignore a career CIA guy who knows what he is talking about. That's just one example of many that show the invasion was pre-planned. I don't even know how you guys find the audacity to stick to such ridiculous positions.

 

[Oldandtired]

There you go again whining about dumb shit. I said the CR said there was no relationship between alkida and iraq and he reinforced that was true. You guys are fucked up when you look at something that clearly proves you are wrong only to claim that same evidence says you are correct.

Bottom line......INTERNATIONAL intelligence agencies ALL agreed that something needed to be done in Iraq...and Congress voted for the action.

So whats the problem here?

The problem is people like you either being dishonest or not informed. There was no international consensus something had to be done. There wasn't even a National consensus. Even our top CIA covert director in Europe pointed out the Bush admin placed Policy above intelligence.


"Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago. He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didnt:


"The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller."


(speaking about the nigerian yellowcake)
But Drumheller says many CIA analysts were skeptical. "Most people came to the opinion that there was something questionable about it," he says.

Asked if that was his reaction, Drumheller says, "That was our reaction from the very beginning. The report didn't hold together."
A Spy Speaks Out - 60 Minutes - CBS News


Can't wait to see how you guys find a way to ignore a career CIA guy who knows what he is talking about. That's just one example of many that show the invasion was pre-planned. I don't even know how you guys find the audacity to stick to such ridiculous positions.

Hey...if that rhetoric works for you....and it appears it does.......then go for it.

 

[CurveLight]

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (washingtonpost.com)


Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com


BBC NEWS | Americas | Iraq war justifications laid bare


[prior to March 2003, Saddam Hussein] ''did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward [Abu Musab al Zarqawi] and his associates.'' Instead, he "attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al Zarqawi."

"No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al Qaeda or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom."
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

 

[CurveLight]

Bottom line......INTERNATIONAL intelligence agencies ALL agreed that something needed to be done in Iraq...and Congress voted for the action.

So whats the problem here?

The problem is people like you either being dishonest or not informed. There was no international consensus something had to be done. There wasn't even a National consensus. Even our top CIA covert director in Europe pointed out the Bush admin placed Policy above intelligence.


"Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago. He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didnt:


"The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller."


(speaking about the nigerian yellowcake)
But Drumheller says many CIA analysts were skeptical. "Most people came to the opinion that there was something questionable about it," he says.

Asked if that was his reaction, Drumheller says, "That was our reaction from the very beginning. The report didn't hold together."
A Spy Speaks Out - 60 Minutes - CBS News


Can't wait to see how you guys find a way to ignore a career CIA guy who knows what he is talking about. That's just one example of many that show the invasion was pre-planned. I don't even know how you guys find the audacity to stick to such ridiculous positions.

Hey...if that rhetoric works for you....and it appears it does.......then go for it.

When presented with evidence you do nothing but ignore it.

 

[Oldandtired]

The problem is people like you either being dishonest or not informed. There was no international consensus something had to be done. There wasn't even a National consensus. Even our top CIA covert director in Europe pointed out the Bush admin placed Policy above intelligence.


"Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago. He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didnt:


"The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller."


(speaking about the nigerian yellowcake)
But Drumheller says many CIA analysts were skeptical. "Most people came to the opinion that there was something questionable about it," he says.

Asked if that was his reaction, Drumheller says, "That was our reaction from the very beginning. The report didn't hold together."
A Spy Speaks Out - 60 Minutes - CBS News


Can't wait to see how you guys find a way to ignore a career CIA guy who knows what he is talking about. That's just one example of many that show the invasion was pre-planned. I don't even know how you guys find the audacity to stick to such ridiculous positions.

Hey...if that rhetoric works for you....and it appears it does.......then go for it.

When presented with evidence you do nothing but ignore it.

No sir...when presented an opinion of one man...Drumheller....I ignore it.

Congress voted for the action.....GB was for the action......a dozen fully developed nations was for the action.....but what is most important was the opoinion of one man.

THAT is why I ignored it.

 

[CMike]

Curve don't you know by now that when you misquote stuff I am going to find it, post it, and you are going to look like an idiot?

From the 911 Report

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship"

Are you that dumb you just proved there was no relationship between alkida and iraq and you don't realize it?

This is coming out in english isn't it?

Where exactly did the 911 report say that there was no relationship betwen Al Qaida and Iraq?

 

[CurveLight]

Hey...if that rhetoric works for you....and it appears it does.......then go for it.

When presented with evidence you do nothing but ignore it.

No sir...when presented an opinion of one man...Drumheller....I ignore it.

Congress voted for the action.....GB was for the action......a dozen fully developed nations was for the action.....but what is most important was the opoinion of one man.

THAT is why I ignored it.

Why are being such a pussy? It wasn't his opinion. It was his job for 26 years you dumbass. You claimed all intel agencies agreed something had to be done and I have proven that wrong yet you continue with your lying. It will be a blessed time for America when you Nationalistic fucks take a dirt nap. Why? Because hopefully generations coming up now will see the error of placing your emotions over information. There was so much damn opposition to the invasion the Bush admin purposefully circumvented our Treaty with the UN because it knew we could not get a UNSC vote to approve of the invasion. That is just another example of how your "ALL" intel agencies agreed something had to be done claim is pure bullshit.

 

[CurveLight]

Curve don't you know by now that when you misquote stuff I am going to find it, post it, and you are going to look like an idiot?

From the 911 Report

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship"

Are you that dumb you just proved there was no relationship between alkida and iraq and you don't realize it?

This is coming out in english isn't it?

Where exactly did the 911 report say that there was no relationship betwen Al Qaida and Iraq?

You already cited it. But please, don't stop closing your eyes there. I fully expect you to ignore the other links provided showing there was no relationship. How fucking desperately pathetic do you have to be to try and hang onto the "operational" scapegoat? You dumbfuck. Even fucking Cheney understood the CR was saying there was no relationship which is why he had to try and criticize the hell out of it. Let's have some fun and watch you embarrass yourself some more by trying to ignore the facts.

 

[CMike]

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (washingtonpost.com)


Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com


BBC NEWS | Americas | Iraq war justifications laid bare


[prior to March 2003, Saddam Hussein] ''did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward [Abu Musab al Zarqawi] and his associates.'' Instead, he "attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al Zarqawi."

"No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al Qaeda or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom."
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Your first link in the washington post misquoted the 911 commission report. Not suprising.

Your article said

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."


That's not what the report said. I quoted directly from the report and gave the link to it.

It said they didn't have evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship". Meaning that they didn't have evidence that they worked on specific attacks together.

This is from the military report quoted from CNN

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/14/saddam.terrorism.pentagon.pdf

Unfortunately, since it's PDF it wouldn't let me copy and paste it. But if you go to the above link on page 5 it says that Hussein's sponsorship and training of terrorist groups was routine, including giving certifications for car bombs and suicide vests
This is why if you want the truth you don't rely on far left sources like the Washington Post and CNN and you go directly to the source, which in this case is the actual published reports.


Thank you for backing up what I said Curvelight. I appreciate it.

 

[CMike]

You are simply one stupid mother fucker. Even the 9/11 Commission pointed out there was no relationship between iraq and alkida. My guess is you will now reference the Bush admin invented term of "alkida in iraq." They made up that term just to fool dumbasses like you into believing alkida was in iraq. The groups was made up mostly of iraqis. What the fuck else you got? Oh yeah. Yo punk ass wants to hide behind the "collateral damage" phrase. Fuck your dishonesty. Fuck your punk pussy ass for pretending to care about the US. You don't give a fuck about america. The only difference between pussies like you and alkida terrorists is they follow up on their rhetoric. You're nothing but a self induced ignorant fuckwad and you don't have the first fucking clue about what is happening. You stupid ****. When you purposefully drop bombs you are purposefully killing everyone with the range.

Do you have any idea how fucking sick and stupid it is to try and defend our actions of killing civilians with a stupid fucking phrase? Do you? I don't think you do. You're just another ignorant **** that wants to justify all the sick shit we do. Fuck off you hypocrite. Let me know when you are capable of being honest.

That not at all what the 911 commission said.

They said they didn't have enough evidence to show that there was an "collaborative operational relationship".

In other words that Hussein helped plan specific attacks with Al Qaida.

They never said that there was no relationship at all.

Your guess should have been that I would post what they actually said, not what you wished that they would say.

You are way too fucking stupid. How the hell do you breathe on your own? You actually try to hide behind the word "operational?" I'm an idiot for even continuing to quote you pathetic ***** that dig for the silliest fucking bullshit. You pussy. If there was no operational relationship then there was no relationship. I've little doubt you will still cling to that enormously fucking stupid "operational" scapegoat because you are not capable of basic honesty. There's got to be a website that is similar to fstdt for idiotic nationalists like you.

Oh oh Curve is having another melt down

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7GJcKuVGm8[/ame]

 

[CurveLight]

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (washingtonpost.com)


Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com


BBC NEWS | Americas | Iraq war justifications laid bare


[prior to March 2003, Saddam Hussein] ''did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward [Abu Musab al Zarqawi] and his associates.'' Instead, he "attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al Zarqawi."

"No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al Qaeda or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom."
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Your first link in the washington post misquoted the 911 commission report. Not suprising.

Your article said

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."


That's not what the report said. I quoted directly from the report and gave the link to it.

It said they didn't have evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship". Meaning that they didn't have evidence that they worked on specific attacks together.

This is from the military report quoted from CNN

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/14/saddam.terrorism.pentagon.pdf

Unfortunately, since it's PDF it wouldn't let me copy and paste it. But if you go to the above link on page 5 it says that Hussein's sponsorship and training of terrorist groups was routine, including giving certifications for car bombs and suicide vests
This is why if you want the truth you don't rely on far left sources like the Washington Post and CNN and you go directly to the source, which in this case is the actual published reports.


Thank you for backing up what I said Curvelight. I appreciate it.

Lol...so when proven you are fucking clueless you change claims and pretend everything is ok. You're fucking sad.

Eta: just saw "far left sources" bullshit. CNN is a far left source? Rotfl. Holy shit this is a waste of my time. You're truly fucking dumb.

 

[CMike]

Are you that dumb you just proved there was no relationship between alkida and iraq and you don't realize it?

This is coming out in english isn't it?

Where exactly did the 911 report say that there was no relationship betwen Al Qaida and Iraq?

You already cited it. But please, don't stop closing your eyes there. I fully expect you to ignore the other links provided showing there was no relationship. How fucking desperately pathetic do you have to be to try and hang onto the "operational" scapegoat? You dumbfuck. Even fucking Cheney understood the CR was saying there was no relationship which is why he had to try and criticize the hell out of it. Let's have some fun and watch you embarrass yourself some more by trying to ignore the facts.

It doesn't say no relationship. It says no "collorabative operational relationship".

Where do you see that it say "no relationship"?

 

[CMike]

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (washingtonpost.com)


Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com


BBC NEWS | Americas | Iraq war justifications laid bare


[prior to March 2003, Saddam Hussein] ''did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward [Abu Musab al Zarqawi] and his associates.'' Instead, he "attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al Zarqawi."

"No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al Qaeda or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom."
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Your first link in the washington post misquoted the 911 commission report. Not suprising.

Your article said

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."


That's not what the report said. I quoted directly from the report and gave the link to it.

It said they didn't have evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship". Meaning that they didn't have evidence that they worked on specific attacks together.

This is from the military report quoted from CNN

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/14/saddam.terrorism.pentagon.pdf

Unfortunately, since it's PDF it wouldn't let me copy and paste it. But if you go to the above link on page 5 it says that Hussein's sponsorship and training of terrorist groups was routine, including giving certifications for car bombs and suicide vests
This is why if you want the truth you don't rely on far left sources like the Washington Post and CNN and you go directly to the source, which in this case is the actual published reports.


Thank you for backing up what I said Curvelight. I appreciate it.

Lol...so when proven you are fucking clueless you change claims and pretend everything is ok. You're fucking sad.

What claim did I change Francis?

YOUR links proved that he was even more of a threat.

 

[CMike]

There you go again whining about dumb shit. I said the CR said there was no relationship between alkida and iraq and he reinforced that was true. You guys are fucked up when you look at something that clearly proves you are wrong only to claim that same evidence says you are correct.

Bottom line......INTERNATIONAL intelligence agencies ALL agreed that something needed to be done in Iraq...and Congress voted for the action.

So whats the problem here?

The problem is people like you either being dishonest or not informed. There was no international consensus something had to be done. There wasn't even a National consensus. Even our top CIA covert director in Europe pointed out the Bush admin placed Policy above intelligence.


"Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago. He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didnt:


"The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller."


(speaking about the nigerian yellowcake)
But Drumheller says many CIA analysts were skeptical. "Most people came to the opinion that there was something questionable about it," he says.

Asked if that was his reaction, Drumheller says, "That was our reaction from the very beginning. The report didn't hold together."
A Spy Speaks Out - 60 Minutes - CBS News


Can't wait to see how you guys find a way to ignore a career CIA guy who knows what he is talking about. That's just one example of many that show the invasion was pre-planned. I don't even know how you guys find the audacity to stick to such ridiculous positions.

I don't care what a disgruntled employee says to a far left show. He has no accountability. He is not responsible to anyone for what he says. I hope he enjoyed the fame he got from the far leftist tv program.

 

[CMike]

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (washingtonpost.com)


Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com


BBC NEWS | Americas | Iraq war justifications laid bare


[prior to March 2003, Saddam Hussein] ''did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward [Abu Musab al Zarqawi] and his associates.'' Instead, he "attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al Zarqawi."

"No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al Qaeda or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom."
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Your first link in the washington post misquoted the 911 commission report. Not suprising.

Your article said

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."


That's not what the report said. I quoted directly from the report and gave the link to it.

It said they didn't have evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship". Meaning that they didn't have evidence that they worked on specific attacks together.

This is from the military report quoted from CNN

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/14/saddam.terrorism.pentagon.pdf

Unfortunately, since it's PDF it wouldn't let me copy and paste it. But if you go to the above link on page 5 it says that Hussein's sponsorship and training of terrorist groups was routine, including giving certifications for car bombs and suicide vests
This is why if you want the truth you don't rely on far left sources like the Washington Post and CNN and you go directly to the source, which in this case is the actual published reports.


Thank you for backing up what I said Curvelight. I appreciate it.

Lol...so when proven you are fucking clueless you change claims and pretend everything is ok. You're fucking sad.

Eta: just saw "far left sources" bullshit. CNN is a far left source? Rotfl. Holy shit this is a waste of my time. You're truly fucking dumb.

CNN is a far left source, as well, as the washington post. You proved it yourself by showing how they misquoted the reports in their headlines.

 

[CurveLight]

Bottom line......INTERNATIONAL intelligence agencies ALL agreed that something needed to be done in Iraq...and Congress voted for the action.

So whats the problem here?

The problem is people like you either being dishonest or not informed. There was no international consensus something had to be done. There wasn't even a National consensus. Even our top CIA covert director in Europe pointed out the Bush admin placed Policy above intelligence.


"Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago. He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didnt:


"The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller."


(speaking about the nigerian yellowcake)
But Drumheller says many CIA analysts were skeptical. "Most people came to the opinion that there was something questionable about it," he says.

Asked if that was his reaction, Drumheller says, "That was our reaction from the very beginning. The report didn't hold together."
A Spy Speaks Out - 60 Minutes - CBS News


Can't wait to see how you guys find a way to ignore a career CIA guy who knows what he is talking about. That's just one example of many that show the invasion was pre-planned. I don't even know how you guys find the audacity to stick to such ridiculous positions.

I don't care what a disgruntled employee says to a far left show. He has no accountability. He is not responsible to anyone for what he says. I hope he enjoyed the fame he got from the far leftist tv program.

More evidence you will ignore all information that doesn't support your bullshit. I don't know why ***** like you hate America but you are definitely bin laden's strongest allies.

 

[CMike]

The problem is people like you either being dishonest or not informed. There was no international consensus something had to be done. There wasn't even a National consensus. Even our top CIA covert director in Europe pointed out the Bush admin placed Policy above intelligence.


"Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago. He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didnt:


"The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller."


(speaking about the nigerian yellowcake)
But Drumheller says many CIA analysts were skeptical. "Most people came to the opinion that there was something questionable about it," he says.

Asked if that was his reaction, Drumheller says, "That was our reaction from the very beginning. The report didn't hold together."
A Spy Speaks Out - 60 Minutes - CBS News


Can't wait to see how you guys find a way to ignore a career CIA guy who knows what he is talking about. That's just one example of many that show the invasion was pre-planned. I don't even know how you guys find the audacity to stick to such ridiculous positions.

I don't care what a disgruntled employee says to a far left show. He has no accountability. He is not responsible to anyone for what he says. I hope he enjoyed the fame he got from the far leftist tv program.

More evidence you will ignore all information that doesn't support your bullshit. I don't know why ***** like you hate America but you are definitely bin laden's strongest allies.

lighten up Francis

 

[CMike]

The intelligence failure not to investigate him further, when his father turned him in. He probably should have been detained and interrogated.

And said intelligence failure was not due to any of the supposed factors you listed, so....?

What is so difficult to understand?

Obama has made it crystal clear that he will prosecute CIA agents who are aggresive.

Obama has made it crystal clear that he cares more about the rights of terrorists than getting information from them to stop terrorist attacks

Obama has made it crystal clear that he doesn't want an aggresive CIA.

Guess what? We need an aggresive CIA to stop terrorist attacks.

What should have happened is when the boy's father turned him in, he should have been under surveillane (of course without the right evidence first that could get them fired under Obama)

Then him and his terrorist buddies should have been detained (of course violating his miranda rights under Obama)

And then information should have been coerced out of them that would stop further terrorist attacks (of course that could get CIA operatives in jail under Obama).

Obama made it crysal clear what he wanted the CIA not to do. He got what he asked for. As a result we got a bomb, that almost went off on a NWA flight.