Tweet
>Now you are making up things in mid flight...
Don't see where. All the information AGAINST invasion was there in PLAIN sight. Some want to write history in the favour of the illegal invaders, USA, Britain, & Australia.
>All i was indicating that CIA material was presented as evidence that WMD may have still existed...
That's not what you implied. Nor was it what UNSCOM had discovered.
>everyone appears to have dismissed this evidence as incorrect or misleading or contorted.
>(some probably was to push their case, but much of it was real - not conclusive however)
"Everyone" that was not part of the coalition of the stupid & the "willing" dismissed this evidence as incorrect or misleading or contorted.
>Then along comes a CIA document that supports your case and magically this CIA document is worth every penny.
That's what the National Intelligence Estimate from the CIA said! It didn't say "attack Iraq". Rove et al decided they knew better based on what?. That it supports my case that the coalition of the stupid should not have gone to war is purely coincidental although fortuitous. This was ALL known BEFORE your invasion. Why try to rewrite history in favour of the illegal invaders?
>Sorry you cant have it both ways~~ thats all my point is!
Where are we having it both ways. You confuse CIA and other intelligence agencies with the government. One works on behalf of the other.
>Nothing to do with who voted to go to war
Who voted for war is relevant & very much to the point.
>Does anyone else here see the irony in using a CIA document as the basis of argument?
Powel knew he was talking out his arse at the UN. Do you think dead Iraqis see that as "ironic"?
>IF one bit of CIA info that related to Iraq was shite, then all must be considered shite.
You effectively said we either accept all the intel or none of it. Doesn't seem logical does it.
>You cant have an argument saying one minute CIA documents were used to mislead USA into
>a war and then the next use another set of CIA documents to prove that the US mislead the US people
It's a perfect fit, and exactly what happened. No confusion there. There is no inconsistency here. CIA (and other) documents & people WERE used (by US executive) to mislead both the parliament (and other coalition parties) and the US (& other) people! That's fact. You do know about the Downing Str memo. Further evidence of an orchestrated litany of lies on the part of a number of governments who wished to rain death on innocents. The "misleading" was absolutely deliberate. You also imply that the CIA took America and it's coalition of the stupid into an illegal and immoral war against the Sovereign country of Iraq. I wasn't aware the CIA had that power. Various governments including yours did that.
You continue to give your coalition one hell of a lot of wriggle room.
Don't see where. All the information AGAINST invasion was there in PLAIN sight. Some want to write history in the favour of the illegal invaders, USA, Britain, & Australia.
>All i was indicating that CIA material was presented as evidence that WMD may have still existed...
That's not what you implied. Nor was it what UNSCOM had discovered.
>everyone appears to have dismissed this evidence as incorrect or misleading or contorted.
>(some probably was to push their case, but much of it was real - not conclusive however)
"Everyone" that was not part of the coalition of the stupid & the "willing" dismissed this evidence as incorrect or misleading or contorted.
>Then along comes a CIA document that supports your case and magically this CIA document is worth every penny.
That's what the National Intelligence Estimate from the CIA said! It didn't say "attack Iraq". Rove et al decided they knew better based on what?. That it supports my case that the coalition of the stupid should not have gone to war is purely coincidental although fortuitous. This was ALL known BEFORE your invasion. Why try to rewrite history in favour of the illegal invaders?
>Sorry you cant have it both ways~~ thats all my point is!
Where are we having it both ways. You confuse CIA and other intelligence agencies with the government. One works on behalf of the other.
>Nothing to do with who voted to go to war
Who voted for war is relevant & very much to the point.
>Does anyone else here see the irony in using a CIA document as the basis of argument?
Powel knew he was talking out his arse at the UN. Do you think dead Iraqis see that as "ironic"?
>IF one bit of CIA info that related to Iraq was shite, then all must be considered shite.
You effectively said we either accept all the intel or none of it. Doesn't seem logical does it.
>You cant have an argument saying one minute CIA documents were used to mislead USA into
>a war and then the next use another set of CIA documents to prove that the US mislead the US people
It's a perfect fit, and exactly what happened. No confusion there. There is no inconsistency here. CIA (and other) documents & people WERE used (by US executive) to mislead both the parliament (and other coalition parties) and the US (& other) people! That's fact. You do know about the Downing Str memo. Further evidence of an orchestrated litany of lies on the part of a number of governments who wished to rain death on innocents. The "misleading" was absolutely deliberate. You also imply that the CIA took America and it's coalition of the stupid into an illegal and immoral war against the Sovereign country of Iraq. I wasn't aware the CIA had that power. Various governments including yours did that.
You continue to give your coalition one hell of a lot of wriggle room.
- he actually never lied on that front..
Every point Torurot made is something I agree with basically. 
Comment