I would just add that the one claim you indicate was partially true is actually quite laughable in its silliness.

It shows that the wwnj’s were afraid that some of the suicide bombers would find their own destruction so profitable that they would keep blowing themselves up over and over again until their family got rich.

For comparison, Saddam provided less $ to the widows and dependents of suicide bombers than the Americans now give to Iraqi’s who can prove their relatives were wrongfully killed by American troops.

So let me compare your checklist with reality.

1. Nuclear weapons program (nothing)
2. Bio weapons (nothing)
3. Chemical weapons (nothing)
4. Chemical weapons production (nothing)
5. Possession of WMD (nothing)
6. Underground WMD facilities (nothing)
7. Ballistic missiles (nothing)
8. UAV’s (nothing)
9. Iraq considering using UAV against US (nothing)
10. Support for terrorist groups (Saddam paid off Palestinian trrrrst suicide bomber families – this one is true in part)
11. Safe haven for al Qa’ida (nothing – ludicrous)
12. Iraq and al Qa’ida had partnership (nothing)
13. Iraq’s contacts with al Qq’ida (nothing substantial)
14. IC did not confirm Atta met with Iraq intelligence in Prague (nothing)
15. Sadam would give WMD’s to terrorists (nothing – goes to intent, plus he had nothing to give [now Pakistan...])
16. Postwar (catastrophe – incompetence)

So we invaded because Saddam had all these terrible world threatening weapons (btw the USA has the world’s largest stockpiles of all these weapons), consorted with trrrrrsts and Bad Guys and was a dire, imminent threat.

And reality says how many of those things were, you know, true?
None (save one).

By the way, you forgot #17, that the intelligence agencies had confirmation from “credible sources” that he had Godzilla in a pen ready to let loose on the world. (s) (tli)

1. Nuclear weapons program (s) (tli)
2. Bio weapons (s)
3. Chemical weapons (s)
4. Chemical weapons production (tli)
5. Possession of WMD (s)
6. Underground WMD facilities (us)
7. Ballistic missiles (s)
8. UAV’s (s) (tli)
9. Iraq considering using UAV against US (s)
10. Support for terrorist groups (s)
11. Safe haven for al Qa’ida (s)
12. Iraq and al Qa’ida had partnership (us)
13. Iraq’s contacts with al Qq’ida (s) (tli)
14. IC did not confirm Atta met with Iraq intelligence in Prague
15. Sadam would give WMD’s to terrorists (us)
16. Postwar (tli)

So let’s recap, according to the intel, he had a nuclear program, bio and chemical weapons, ballistic missiles, was developing UAV’s to use the WMD’s on our soil, although Israel would probably be the first target (my opinion), and Al Qa’ida was in Iraq. So I’ll stand by my statement that this report says the intelligence supported the important stuff and the worst this report says administration did was not make their opponents case for them.

I agree wih your comment to Enk except that your assertion that “the claims match the intelligence..by and large” is total bullshit.

As Steve succinctly noted, they were lying to us almost as much as when they were telling the truth (9 vs 5) and when they were telling the truth a third of the time they were misrepresenting it to further a sales pitch for war. This is not a ball game where the highest score wins, and if it were a liberal who LIED that often you’d be all over him.

Let’s put it this way: Michael Moore has a 100% truth to lies record in his film Fahrenheit 911 and there were 10 times or 100 times more damning facts in that film about the Bush debacle of America than there has ever been in the Administration’s case against the Iraq regime.

You tried to ridicule us when you thought we had not read this (long boring) report and yet were criticising it, but in fact you are the stooge for maliciously blasting Michael Moore’s credibility and you have not even watched Moore’s entertaining ad informative (Academy Award “Best Documentary Film”) F911. shcb, you would do well to watch the film, you might learn something and as a plus you will gain in Karma because you will cease to be a raving hypocrite. At the worst it might make you think a little, that can’t be too bad now can it?

There is nothing wrong with testing the claims against the results, it’s just that that is a different issue, this report is about the claims against the intelligence. The previous report was the intelligence against the results. There is nothing malicious if the claims match the intelligence, which this report says they do by and large. The intelligence didn’t match the results but that doesn’t mean there was anything malicious either, it might, but not necessarily.

Lies!

And why is it nonsense to test the claims that brought us to war against the reality of what we found? We didn’t find any WMDs. None. This seems to make little difference to wwnj and curiously Steve seems unconcerned about reality as well. Reality matters. 4000+ dead Americans, tens of thousands of wounded, 3 trillion spent thus far, 100s of thousands of Iraqi dead (possibly as many as a million or more). All for an illegal, immoral invasion and occupation.

I ask – politely – again, why isn’t reality important?

The reality is the administration cooked the intel until they got whatever tall tales they wanted to get their war on. Oil is $135 a barrel, gas $4 a gallon. Now that is reality.

Thanks for that appraisal, that is probably as good as I’m going to get here. My assessment of the report is similar, the administration didn’t ignore information in the buildup to war, they used information as it was presented on the important issues correctly. They were not adequately prepared for post war (initial invasion) Iraq, I’m not sure why that is in this report which is supposedly about intelligence, but that is why party trumps person, the party in power gets to stack the deck in number of members and sets the agenda. But I would agree they were not prepared, I’m not sure if you could have been prepared. At the end of the day when a highly politicized report like this comes out of a partisan committee controlled by the other side and all they can find wrong with the administration’s actions is they didn’t make their opponents case strongly enough you call it a good day, turn out the light and go home.

Do you support your troops AND your veterans; or just the ones that have not yet been caught throwing puppies off cliffs?

You fail to understand, again, sigh.

The problem is that you, and America, do not support your troops.

Those marines do not need to be discharged and punished, that is not support. What does that accomplish except turn them into even bigger outcasts and pariahs than they were already after the world saw their puppy murder? (Also, what kind of a message does that send to the rest of the troops who have to stay in that hellhole they created: a USA occupied Iraq?)

It’s a little bizarre actually, it’s okay to shoot people who are in the way of your target, but if you throw a puppy into a ravine boy oh boy you are going to be sent home pronto?

Do you think those marines and their cavalier killing of defenseless animals (or people for that matter) will stop after they are punished and let loose amoung your society? Of course they won’t. They’ll just realize that next time they need to be more careful not to get caught.

Make sure you got a loaded rifle at the ready in case those marines, no wait I mean goons, show up on your front step some day. Except they are trained killers you wouldn’t stand much of a chance if they wanted to mess with you or your dogs. Those sicko’s need help, serious long term mental health help. Are they going to get it from your Veterans Affairs after a dishonorable (or even regular) discharge? Not in this lifetime.

You don’t have the cash to support your troops for their obvious injuries let alone long term psychological trauma and damage… too bad you don’t have a health and criminal system that can actually help people like those severely psychologically damaged marines who threw the puppy, some countries do you know, e.g. Norway.

But you do have the cash for the killing and for the boondoggles, corruption and outright fraud that is private contractors in Iraq.

Back to your reality of Iraq and America. The way I see it, a discharge just creating a bigger problem for innocent people to deal with back home when you shcb, or your daughters, have to deal with these former marines at the park or outside a restaurant or bar. There are two practical solutions for losers who like to murder puppies: 1. get six guys and heave the puppy thrower into the ravine to meet the same fate as the puppy (or puppies) that he threw in, or 2. SUPPORT YOUR TROOPS by giving them the help and assistance they need including extended psychological programs.

Hey I’m not making this up as I go along. This is what your own Iraq war veterans are demanding. I support them in their cause seeking dignity and humane treatment.

From its inception, IVAW has called for:
Immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces in Iraq;
Reparations for the human and structural damages Iraq has suffered, and stopping the corporate pillaging of Iraq so that their people can control their own lives and future; and
Full benefits, adequate healthcare (including mental health), and other supports for returning servicemen and women.

Well if Snopes says it’s true then it must be true, or is there another site that debunks what snopes says?

Hey, while you were on snopes, did it mention whether that was the first and only puppy those marines chucked into the ravine? Or does Snopes shy away from those kinds of questions?

It could have been a regular thing the guys did to blow off steam after their long shifts of, in your own words, “killing people and blowing things up” (and killing more people in the process of blowing things up)?

I mean seriously, did snopes mention if anyone followed up by going down into the ravine to determine how many puppies were dead down there, and if any were mortally injured and just left there to die in the hot sun?

Okay that’s enough mocking of shcb and black satire.

I’ll start over.

Well if Snopes says it’s true then it must be true, or is there another site that debunks what snopes says?

Hey, while you were on snopes, did it mention whether that was the first and only puppy those marines chucked into the ravine? Or does Snopes shy away from those kinds of questions?

It could have been a regular thing the guys did to blow off steam after their long shifts of, in your own words, “killing people and blowing things up” (and killing more people in the process of blowing things up)?

I mean seriously, did snopes mention if anyone followed up by going down into the ravine to determine how many puppies were dead down there, and if any were mortally injured and just left there to die in the hot sun?

Okay that’s enough mocking of shcb and black satire.

I’ll start over.

shcb,

You fail to understand, again, sigh.

The problem is that you, and America, do not support your troops.

Those marines do not need to be discharged and punished, that is not support. What does that accomplish except turn them into even bigger outcasts and pariahs than they were already after the world saw their puppy murder? (Also, what kind of a message does that send to the rest of the troops who have to stay in that hellhole they created: a USA occupied Iraq?)

It’s a little bizarre actually, it’s okay to shoot people who are in the way of your target, but if you throw a puppy into a ravine boy oh boy you are going to be sent home pronto?

Do you think those marines and their cavalier killing of defenseless animals (or people for that matter) will stop after they are punished and let loose amoung your society? Of course they won’t. They’ll just realize that next time they need to be more careful not to get caught.

Make sure you got a loaded rifle at the ready in case those marines, no wait I mean goons, show up on your front step some day. Except they are trained killers you wouldn’t stand much of a chance if they wanted to mess with you or your dogs. Those sicko’s need help, serious long term mental health help. Are they going to get it from your Veterans Affairs after a dishonorable (or even regular) discharge? Not in this lifetime.

You don’t have the cash to support your troops for their obvious injuries let alone long term psychological trauma and damage… too bad you don’t have a health and criminal system that can actually help people like those severely psychologically damaged marines who threw the puppy, some countries do you know, e.g. Norway.

But you do have the cash for the killing and for the boondoggles, corruption and outright fraud that is private contractors in Iraq.

Back to your reality of Iraq and America. The way I see it, a discharge just creating a bigger problem for innocent people to deal with back home when you shcb, or your daughters, have to deal with these former marines at the park or outside a restaurant or bar. There are two practical solutions for losers who like to murder puppies: 1. get six guys and heave the puppy thrower into the ravine to meet the same fate as the puppy (or puppies) that he threw in, or 2. SUPPORT YOUR TROOPS by giving them the help and assistance they need including extended psychological programs.

Hey I’m not making this up as I go along. This is what your own Iraq war veterans are demanding. I support them in their cause seeking dignity and humane treatment.

From its inception, IVAW has called for:
Immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces in Iraq;
Reparations for the human and structural damages Iraq has suffered, and stopping the corporate pillaging of Iraq so that their people can control their own lives and future; and
Full benefits, adequate healthcare (including mental health), and other supports for returning servicemen and women.

Why don’t you learn a little about the people you say you support, but in fact only support if they agree to continue to be used as pawns of Cheney and Halliburton? http://www.ivaw.org/faq

Do you support your troops AND your veterans; or just the ones that have not yet been caught throwing puppies off cliffs?