quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Tell me, Charles, did that 96 page report have any of the information and reports that cast doubt or refuted bush's claims? Did that 96 page report include any of the reports of authors who were told to "do it again"?

There are two questions above. Both can be answered with "Yes", "No", or "I don't know." If either of the answers is "Yes", please provide some sort or generally acceptable proof. Failing to do so indicates you don't want to acknowledge the truth of the matter.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Most people will see your answer as "I don't know." I should have knoiwn that you would refuse to answer a simple question when it might prove to be embarrassing to you.

So what we have is that the Congressmen may not have seen all that was necessary to make an informed decision.

By the way, who controlled the writing of that report? Could it have been part of the administration? No need to evade this one. You don't have to answer. We all know who controlled the report.

quote:

The report was classified.

quote:

The report was classified. Now that you know it was classified, answer you own questions. If either of the your answers is no, please provide some sort of facts to prove how you were able to read this classified document. Failing to do so indicates you don't want to acknowledge the truth of the matter in that you really don't know what was in the report, and it is all guess work on your part, or the guess work of some news media group that didn't read the CLASSIFIED report either.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:

quote:

The report was classified. Now that you know it was classified, answer you own questions. If either of the your answers is no, please provide some sort of facts to prove how you were able to read this classified document. Failing to do so indicates you don't want to acknowledge the truth of the matter in that you really don't know what was in the report, and it is all guess work on your part, or the guess work of some news media group that didn't read the CLASSIFIED report either.

Oh, dearie me. Yes, the report had been classified.

'In a classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared before the Iraq war, the CIA hedged its judgments about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction, pointing up the limits of its knowledge.

But in the unclassified version of the NIE — the so-called white paper cited by the Bush administration in making its case for war — those carefully qualified conclusions were turned into blunt assertions of fact, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence....

...the Senate committee's sharpest criticism of the unclassified document focused not on changes made in haste but on the systematic alteration of the classified version.

For example, the panel cited changes made in the section of the NIE dealing with chemical weapons:

"Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile," the classified NIE read, "Saddam Hussein probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons" of such poisons.

In the unclassified version of the report, the phrase "although we have little specific information" was deleted. Instead, the public report said, "Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents."

The Senate report also noted one instance in which a dissenting view was left out of the unclassified version.

In that example, the classified NIE stated that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, "probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents."

But in a footnote, the U.S. Air Force's director for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance said he did not agree.

By eliminating that footnote from the unclassified version, the panel said, the public NIE "is missing the fact that [the] … agency with primary responsibility for technological analysis on UAV programs did not agree with the assessment." www.pipeline.com

And so on.

Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq

We know about the administration's jiggery-pokery with intelligence because a senate committee (with a Republican majority) has told us about it.

Having said that, I still think those who voted to give Bush the power to decide on an invasion were not just innocents being misled. The classified version was available to Congress. They maybe believed it would be a short and easy invasion, and didn't want to be left out of the victory parades. As has been said, they should have known - they could have checked the history books under "short and easy invasions".

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
June 15, 1997
Web posted at: 12:00 p.m. EDT

(CNN) -- Nearly 50 years since an alleged UFO was sighted at Roswell, New Mexico, a new CNN/Time poll released Sunday shows that 80 percent of Americans think the government is hiding knowledge of the existence of extraterrestrial life forms.

While nearly three-quarters of the 1,024 adults questioned for the poll said they had never seen or known anyone who saw a UFO, 54 percent believe intelligent life exists outside Earth.

Sixty-four percent of the respondents said that aliens have contacted humans, half said they've abducted humans, and 37 percent said they have contacted the U.S. government. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. - http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/index.html

A new national poll found that 72 percent of Americans believe the government is not telling the public everything it knows about UFO activity, and 68 percent think the government knows more about extraterrestrial life than it is letting on, the SCI FI Channel reported. The poll—sponsored by SCI FI as part of its promotion for Steven Spielberg's 20-hour SF miniseries Taken—also revealed that men more than women think such information should be shared with the public. RoperASW conducted the poll of 1,021 adults aged 18 and over from Aug. 23-25. The margin of error is 3 percent. - http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc969.htm (This Roper poll was taken in 2002. - DG)

December 15, 2006
Two in Three Americans Favor Re-Establishing Ties With Cuba
A recent Gallup Poll finds two in three Americans endorse the United States re-establishing diplomatic ties with Cuba. Americans' support for diplomacy with the island nation is higher than it has been in recent years. A majority of both Democrats and Republicans support the idea, although support is somewhat stronger among Democrats. - http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=25912

Tuesday, February 27, 2007; Page A01

With Congress preparing for renewed debate over President Bush's Iraq policies, a majority of Americans now support setting a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces from the war-torn nation and support putting new conditions on the military that could limit the number of personnel available for duty there, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Opposition to Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq remained strong. Two in three Americans registered their disapproval, with 56 percent saying they strongly object. - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2007022600313.html

March 05, 2007
Many adults in the United States express no confidence in their federal government on the topic of intelligence, according to a poll by TNS released by the Washington Post and ABC News. 63 per cent of respondents say they cannot trust the Bush administration to honestly and accurately report on possible threats from other countries. - http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14948

But according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Thursday, 53 percent of people polled said they don't trust the military assessment of the situation without trying to make it sound better than it actually is. 43 percent said they do trust the general's report. - http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/16/poll-am...t-trust-iraq-report/

"While forty-nine percent of reserve and 43 percent of National Guard troops said the US should pull out immediately,only 9% of the Marines felt that way." - quoted by Scotty, http://answerpool.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/245604891/m/10...781033662#7781033662

November 21st, 2006

Two weeks ago when I posted the AOL Poll, the numbers were changing rapidly. Well, at least the total number of votes was changing. The percentage of people voting one way or the other remained constant.

When I initially posted it, the percentage for Bigfoot existing was 59% yes to 41% no. It has since stayed constant at 58% yes to 42% no. - http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/update-aol-poll/

It seems that the polls indicate that more people believe in Big Foot, that UFOs have abducted humans, and think the US should set a deadline for pulling out of Iraq than trust bush on terrorist threats or trust the general to give an honest report. More people (a lot more) want to re-establish relations with Cuba (gasp!) than trust bush or the general.

Thanks for bringing up polls, Scotty. I found quite interesting to compare some of the various findings. bush loses to Big Foot, UFO abductions, and Castro's Cuba. (insert little laughing guy here)

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Charles, it really isn't necessary to quote the entire post in order to refer to it. Doing so takes up a great deal of space, muddies up the page, and ends up costing more in server fees.

quote:

So where is the proof? Like I said earlier, unless you have the complete classified version of the report, you have nothing and are just running around the internet grabbing lines from the Liberal Handbook.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
The button works fine. Please do as I requested. If you don't, you will force me to edit. I don't like editing, so I will only do it twice. Then, I will just prevent you from posting for a while. If and when you come back, you'll have to either follow the rules, or not post. Your choice.

quote:

Originally posted by Scotty:
[QUOTE] [LMAOBT, what's this, more proof the "surge" isn't working?/QUOTE]

Appearently! They use polls all of the time, when the polls agree with their position, but if it goes against their position, they always find a way to discredit them.Funny! Isn't it? Talk about double standards

Polls good for me!
Polls bad for you!

quote:

Let me see now. My choice is to just delete me from your site. You got a hand full of people posting, and your worried about the cost, give me a break, we know what it is all about, don't we.

quote:

So where is the proof? Like I said earlier, unless you have the complete classified version of the report, you have nothing and are just running around the internet grabbing lines from the Liberal Handbook.