Scooter Libby found guilty.

[alan]

SecDef writes: There are certain polling systems such as Gallup and Zogby that expose all of these things (specifically what questions are asked)

Better is to look at trends.. a one time poll can very easily be influenced by current events and skew wildly on a particular day.

Using the same wording every single time, and looking at the results of the poll over time can help to cancel out poorly worded or influencing questions. However, I am more likely to look for Gallup and Zogby rather than polls run by an interested party (dems or repubs own polls) precisely due to the issues you bring up.

Alan, if both #1 and #2 aren't easily available (such as in this great PDF) definitely maintain a caveat emptor mentality.

----------------

Re your last, I believe that I do maintain such an attitude, at least I hope that I do.

As for the legitimacy of Gallup, seems to me that I recall them trumpheting something to the effect that 85%, possibly it was 75% of Americans favored "gun control". To the best of my recollection, I could be wrong here, the exact wording of the questions they asked was not made available, "gun control" was not defined, it could well mean different things to different people, nor was the number of people polled noted.

Also, and this is a purely subjective conclusion, re polls and the results thereof, it would be a whole lot more honest to say that some percentage, whatever it might be, OF THE PEOPLE INTERVIEWED OR QUESTIONED, OPINED AS FOLLOWS. Of course, such description of results might not go down all that well with whomever it was that commissioned the particular poll. I suppose, after all, that someone or some group pays for polling and possibly supplies the questions to be asked.

 

[jimpeel]

SecDef

so, spend some time reading your links..

and realized you are full of it.

Spend some time reading my posts ...

Actually, it is the least you could do given the amount of effort I put into them on your behalf.

MY POST #113: The Toricelli Principle disallows the U.S. government from hiring as assets anyone who has a criminal background taking fully into effect that only boy scouts and their cronies are of interest to the CIA. This was the first instance of the now famous “wall” -- not mentioning FISA because I don't want to muddy this discussion.

What you, and the quoted section, (which, by the way, is the Wikipedia link I gave as an overview link and is WRITTEN BY CONTRIBUTORS WHO GAVE NO ATTRIBUTION FOR THE CONTENTION. See my next post for what the Commission actually said in this matter.) referred to is FISA (1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) which was, indeed, from the "eighties" if one counts 1978 as the "eighties". The Toricelli Principle built on FISA as did the Gorelick memo.

Her "interpretation" of FISA admits that it goes beyond the scope of FISA. I included a link to a .pdf copy of her original memo HERE

THIS LINK explains the effect that the Gorelick memo had on the ability of the law enforcement and intelligence communities to communicate.

What's more, Mr. Ashcroft noted, the wall did not mysteriously arise: "Someone built this wall." That someone was largely the Democrats, who enshrined Vietnam-era paranoia about alleged FBI domestic spying abuses by enacting the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Mr. Ashcroft pointed out that the wall was raised even higher in the mid-1990s, in the midst of what was then one of the most important antiterror investigations in American history--into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. On Tuesday the Attorney General declassified and read from a March 4, 1995, memo in which Jamie Gorelick--then Deputy Attorney General and now 9/11 Commissioner--instructed then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and United States Attorney Mary Jo White that for the sake of "appearances" they would be required to adhere to an interpretation of the wall far stricter than the law required.

Ms. White was then the lead prosecutor in cases related to the Trade Center bombing. Ms. Gorelick explicitly references United States v. Yousef and United States v. Rahman--cases that might have greatly expanded our pre-9/11 understanding of al Qaeda had investigators been given a freer hand. The memo is a clear indication that there was pressure then for more intelligence sharing. Ms. Gorelick's response is an unequivocal "no":

"We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation" (emphases added).

In case anyone was in doubt, Janet Reno herself affirmed the policy several months later in a July 19, 1995, memo that we have unearthed. In it, the then-Attorney General instructs all U.S. Attorneys about avoiding "the appearance" of overlap between intelligence-related activities and law-enforcement operations. (Italics in original. All other emphasis mine.)

You would not only have to be a fool, but a damned fool, to believe that her raising the so-called "wall" had no effect whatsoever with our ability to have prevented or mitigated the attacks of 9-11-2001!

An then there's THIS:

Newly released Justice Department memos show that September 11 panel commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick was more intimately involved than previously thought with hampering communications between U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies fighting terrorism.

...

"It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required," U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White wrote Ms. Gorelick six years before the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.

"Our experience has been that the FBI labels of an investigation as intelligence or law enforcement can be quite arbitrary, depending upon the personnel involved and that the most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating," she wrote.

...

In a June 19, 1995, memo, Ms. White recommended a series of changes to a Gorelick policy that went beyond legal requirements in separating law- enforcement and intelligence agencies.

For instance, Ms. White said the local U.S. Attorney should be notified as soon as "criminal law enforcement concerns exist" while investigating terror suspects.

Deputy Director Michael Vatis rejected her recommendation.

"Notifying the [U.S. Attorney] as soon as law enforcement concerns exist — but before [the criminal division] thinks that the investigation should 'go criminal' — is simply too early," wrote Mr. Vatis, who was concerned that Ms. White's proposal could result in "prejudicing a possible criminal prosecution."

In a handwritten note to Attorney General Janet Reno, Ms. Gorelick wrote, "I have reviewed and concur in the Vatis/Garland recommendations for the reasons set forth in the Vatis memo."

The rest of the article is damning on Gorelick's involvement and documents lies told by her and the 9-11 Commission.

THIS LINK gives some insight into the "Toricelli Principle and how it affected our ability to gather good intel.

The policy, known by its critics as the "Torricelli principle," requires that a top CIA official -- not a field officer -- approve the hiring of such informants. The policy arose after Torricelli in 1995 harshly criticized the agency's hiring of an informant with links to the murders of two American citizens.

Critics have said the rules have had a chilling effect on the recruitment of informants inside terror cells, and since the 9/11 attacks, Congress has pushed for the policy's repeal.

...

The controversy began in 1995 with Torricelli's disclosure that Julio Roberto Alpirez, a Guatemalan colonel on the CIA payroll, (This was where Toricelli revealed a top secret classified document which should have landed him in prison; but it didn't contain Valerie Plame's name so who cares. -- jp) was linked to the murders of two Americans. Then a congressman, Torricelli castigated the CIA as out of control. The public furor prompted the CIA to impose the new policy.

A report issued this week by the House Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security found that the policy may hamper the CIA's ability to infiltrate terrorist groups by prompting "excessive caution" in recruiting informants -- "especially those who would provide insights into terrorist organizations."

The committee recommended a new policy with more "flexibility" that balances need for intelligence with concern for human rights.

Don't forget to read the next post for what the Commission actually said relating to the Gorelick memo.

 

[SecDef]

Hmmm, yeah, I get your point, don't rely on headlines.

Also, and this is a purely subjective conclusion, re polls and the results thereof, it would be a whole lot more honest to say that some percentage, whatever it might be, OF THE PEOPLE INTERVIEWED OR QUESTIONED, OPINED AS FOLLOWS. Of course, such description of results might not go down all that well with whomever it was that commissioned the particular poll. I suppose, after all, that someone or some group pays for polling and possibly supplies the questions to be asked.

Well, that's the cool thing about statistics, there is a heck of a lot of science involved to say that this poll reflects the society in question as a whole +/- 3 or 4 percent. Large numbers (greater than 1000) helps this level of specificity.

Of course, attention HAS to be paid as to how poll participants are selected, too... if they are asked outside of a grocery store, they should only represent people in that neighborhood, not even a whole town let alone the nation.

 

[jimpeel]

Notes To Chapter 8, Page 539, footnote 83; "Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States"

83.Attorney General Ashcroft testified to us that this and similar information-sharing issues arose from Attorney General Reno’s 1995 guidelines, discussed in chapter 3, and specifically from a March 1995 memorandum of then Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. John Ashcroft testimony, Apr. 13, 2004; DOJ memo, Gorelick to White, “Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations,” Mar. 4, 1995.

We believe the Attorney General’s testimony does not fairly or accurately reflect the significance of the 1995 documents and their relevance to the 2001 discussions.Whatever the merits of the March 1995 Gorelick memorandum and the subsequent July 1995 Attorney General procedures on information sharing, they did not apply to the information the analyst decided she could not share with the criminal agent. As discussed earlier, the reason “Jane” decided she could not share information was because the initial information on Mihdhar had been analyzed by the NSA.This reason was unrelated to either of the 1995 documents.The Gorelick memorandum applied to two particular criminal cases, neither of which was involved in the summer 2001 information-sharing discussions. As the FBI agent observed in his email, Part A of the 1995 procedures applied only to information obtained pursuant to a FISA warrant. None of the Mihdhar material was FISA information.There was an exemption for the Southern District of New York from Part B of the 1995 procedures, so they did not apply. Also, the 1995 procedures did not govern whether information could be shared between intelligence and criminal agents within the FBI, a separation that the Bureau did not begin making formally until long after the procedures were in place.The 1995 procedures governed only the sharing of information with criminal prosecutors. Even in that situation, the restriction obliged running the information through the OIPR screen.

What had happened, as we discussed in chapter 3, was a growing battle within the Justice Department during the 1990s, and between parts of Justice and the FISA Court, over the scope of OIPR’s screening function and the propriety of using FISA-derived information in criminal matters.The FISA Court’s concern with FBI sloppiness in its FISA applications also began to take a toll: the court began designating itself as the gatekeeper for the sharing of intelligence information; the FBI was required to separately designate criminal and intelligence agents; and the court banned one supervisory FBI agent from appearing before it. By late 2000, these factors had culminated in a set of complex rules and a widening set of beliefs—a bureaucratic culture—that discouraged FBI agents from even seeking to share intelligence information. Neither Attorney General acted to resolve the conflicting views within the Justice Department. Nor did they challenge the strict interpretation of the FISA statute set forth by the FISA Court and OIPR.Indeed,this strict interpretation remained in effect until the USA PATRIOT Act was passed after 9/11.
Simply put, there was no legal reason why the information the analyst possessed could not have been shared with the criminal agent. On August 27,“Jane” requested the NSA’s permission to share the information with the criminal agents, but she intended for the information only to help the criminal agents in their ongoing Cole investigation. She still did not believe they could be involved in the intelligence investigation even if the NSA permitted the information to be shared. DOJ IG 9/11 Report, July 2, 2004, p. 339.The next day the NSA notified its representative at FBI headquarters that it had approved the passage of the information to the criminal agents. NSC email, Carlene C. to Richard K.,“Response to FBI Sanitization Request,”Aug. 28, 2001.Thus,“Jane” had permission to share the information with the criminal agent prior to their August 29 emails.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Both of you guys are utting way to much effort into your sides of this argument. You posts contain way too much information.

Can't you guys fight with simple catch phrases and partison one liners like the politicians do it...or at least just resort to name calling.

I am the MTV generation. My attention span is only a few seconds long and these posts are requiring a lot of reading.

 

[jimpeel]

Oops, I missed this ..

I apologize for taken so long to realize you were trolling.

Yep, a troll with 2,958 posts. Most trolls I know have closer to 320 posts.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Yep, a troll with 2,958 posts. Most trolls I know have closer to 320 posts.

There...that's more like. Bitchy, snide and to the point. Much better reading.

 

[jimpeel]

Hoped ta please ya. Glad I did.

 

[SecDef]

Jimmy jim jim jimmy james jim jim:

PLEASE note that I already said that for the sake of this argument that I accepted your point re: gorelick. It isn't something I am prepared to condone or condemn and I detest the WSJ editorial page as a source.

Of course, I had to point out that you linked to wikipedia which you then felt you needed to tell me was a terrible source. (EXACTLY! duh!! )

I still think you are trolling (actually moreso now) and I'll explain why. You are all over the place.
Your first argument about why bush didn't lie was because we couldn't hire people with records.
Your second argument was personal, that I was part of the "Blame America First" crowd.
Your third argument was that it was the Clinton administration that created the "wall" and invoked 9/11.

From my point of view, you are fishing around. You aren't even bothering responding to my point that the administration lied (about the information they DID have). In fact, you haven't really responded to any of MY points.

* Trolls have a long honored position on the Internet. Some of the best trolls are the smartest people. I was just noting (and applauding, hey sometimes it is really hard!) that you had successfully derailed the conversation from "Bush lied" to "our intel is for crap" all the way to "9/11 is Clinton's fault" (via Reno's use of the Gorelick memo)

 

[SecDef]

Oh, and to please PlayboyPenguin: "Chimpy McFlightSuit"

I always wanted to say that.

 

[jimpeel]

You really needs to keep track of the order of events if you are going to use them as a contention.

I still think you are trolling (actually moreso now) and I'll explain why. You are all over the place.

Actually, the discussion started down this path with POST #79. I didn't get into it until POST #93 addressing the failure of the UN and how, without the U.S. the UN would not have any teeth at all.

Your first argument about why bush didn't lie was because we couldn't hire people with records.

Actually, that was my fourth argument. My first argument was that the Iraqi people deserved to be liberated regardless of the presence of WMD and that the UN had hoisted 17 resolutions over 12 years to no avail.

You stated that they didn't have WMD so we shouldn't have gone in there and they should have waited their turn anyway because other people are more needy.

Are you saying that the people of Iraq where the most in need people in the world? That there are no other places where people are worse off than the people or Iraq were?

Because if that is not the case why did we chose Iraq?

Your second argument was personal, that I was part of the "Blame America First" crowd.

Actually, my second argument was that your "STILL can't have more than 4 hours of electricity" contention was patently false and proved it unequivocally.

Additionally, I stated that your contention that the insurgency is the direct result of our troops being there was "right out of the "Blame America First" playbook". I never said you were part of the crowd. Are you?

Additionally, this was also where you said my post "smacks of misdirected anger, son."; and, by the way, you called me "son" and implied I was a racist -- a racist who, by the way, seems to be the only one on this board defending Iraqi liberty and freedom.

Additionally, this is also where you refused to answer my question which I shall repost now:

Here's a multi-part question that I would truly like to see an answer to:

Do you believe that the people of Iraq are in any way deserving of liberty and freedom; that the UN was eventually going to free them; and that any of the resolutions hoisted by the UN were ever going to be enforced; and, if so, which one -- #18; #225; #578 -- which one?

Your third argument was that it was the Clinton administration that created the "wall" and invoked 9/11.

Actually, my third argument was that you are no different than the naysayers after WWII.

Additionally, as an aside, I gave links showing that commerce is growing in Iraq and the surge is working.

Finally, we get to what you mistakenly stated was my first argument. What I actually stated was that Bush didn't lie because the intel he was allowed to have was flawed by the "Toricelli Principle" and the Gorelick memo which added to the wall that began its construction with the 1978 FISA Act.

I even mentioned the FISA Act but you missed that part. The Clinton administration did not "creat(ed) the wall" as you so glibly state. What they did was to bolster what already existed beyond it original scope and intent and Jamie Gorelick even admitted that in her memo when she stated

"We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation"

 

[jimpeel]

Oops, I forgot ...

Neener, neener.

 

[SecDef]

You stated that they didn't have WMD so we shouldn't have gone in there and they should have waited their turn anyway because other people are more needy.

Nope, that was not me. But if you think I did, I can understand your anger and frustration. But that's not my position (see below in bold)

Additionally, I stated that your contention that the insurgency is the direct result of our troops being there was "right out of the "Blame America First" playbook". I never said you were part of the crowd. Are you?

Weasel words from you now . Forgive me for inferring that was your implication when your next thought began with "You also" and tried to put me in some weird box I don't belong in.

Additionally, this was also where you said my post "smacks of misdirected anger, son."; and, by the way, you called me "son" and implied I was a racist -- a racist who, by the way, seems to be the only one on this board defending Iraqi liberty and freedom.

Well, since it seems now you were confusing my statements and position with someone else's, I guess it WAS misdirected anger. I wasn't trying to imply you were racist, merely throwing out that it was bad logic. It was such an "out there" proposition I couldn't leave it alone, though.

Here's a multi-part question that I would truly like to see an answer to:

Do you believe that the people of Iraq are in any way deserving of liberty and freedom; that the UN was eventually going to free them; and that any of the resolutions hoisted by the UN were ever going to be enforced; and, if so, which one -- #18; #225; #578 -- which one?

Well, let's see.. ooh, I did answer it and I even set it off in its own paragraph.. I'll go ahead and repost it here for your convenience, and BOLD it because its fun:

We damn well should have gone in there to get Saddam out, but for what he was doing to his own people, NOT for his supposed role in 9/11.

I guess you aren't the only one that cares about the Iraqi people.


ok, so we are back up to speed, yes? I think we are both reasonable people.

And, coincidentally, we are back on topic, namely obstruction of justice in the investigation of the plame outing (which extends to Bush lying about the yellowcake yada yada)

What I actually stated was that Bush didn't lie because the intel he was allowed to have was flawed by the "Toricelli Principle" and the Gorelick memo which added to the wall that began its construction with the 1978 FISA Act.

I don't quite follow your logic here. Yes, there was lots of holes in the intel, for a heck of a lot of reasons (I think you've had a chance to grind your axe on WHY that is.. it really doesn't belong in this thread, and besides, I already agreed with you twice.) However, the particular piece of non-evidence that started the dominos falling culminating in the Libby verdict, was the connection between Iraq and Niger for the purpose of obtaining yellowcake uranium.

There were lots of sources saying almost a year earlier there was no connection, yet it was kept in the SOTU as justification for going to war.

 

[SecDef]

Neener, neener.

Seriously, sometimes I wish it were so easy.

To celebrate the 4 year anniversary, here are some fun quotes!

From USA Today in 2003

Changing rhetoric of war

* Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

* March 4, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.

* March 11, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."

* March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."

The war begins

* March 20, President Bush, in an Oval Office speech to the nation: "A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict."

* March 21, Rumsfeld, at a Pentagon news briefing: "The confusion of Iraqi officials is growing. Their ability to see what is happening on the battlefield, to communicate with their forces and to control their country is slipping away. . . . The regime is starting to lose control of their country."

* March 27, Bush, at a news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, when asked how long the war would take: "However long it takes. That's the answer to your question and that's what you've got to know. It isn't a matter of timetable, it's a matter of victory."

* March 30, Myers, on Meet the Press: "Nobody should have any illusions that this is going to be a quick and easy victory. This is going to be a tough war, a tough slog yet, and no responsible official I know has ever said anything different once this war has started."

* March 30, Rumsfeld, on Fox News Sunday, when asked whether Iraqis would "celebrate in the streets" when victory is won: "We'll see."

To sum it all up with this quote:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
--Robert J. Hanlon

or

"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

-- Robert A. Heinlein in Logic of Empire (1941)

 

[jimpeel]

We damn well should have gone in there to get Saddam out, but for what he was doing to his own people, NOT for his supposed role in 9/11.

Well I do give you credit for answering part one of the question which, by the way is the most important part.

Forgive me for inferring that was your implication when your next thought began with "You also" and tried to put me in some weird box I don't belong in.

What I wrote in response to your contention "I understand that the insurgency is a direct result of our troops being there" in all of its context was this:

Ah, yes, right out of the "Blame America First" playbook. So if we left the attacks on the infrastructure would magically disappear. Yeah. Right. Got it.

The "insurgency" would merely become the "separatists" and full-scale civil war would break out. I suppose you are one of those, along with the mainstream press, who call the current attacks on the populace "civil war". Trust me. You haven't yet seen civil war.

So, let's clear the air. Do you believe that the current level of violence in Iraq rises to the level of "civil war"; and do you refer to it as such?

You also likely were one of those who believed, prior to the war, that the people of Iraq should have risen up against Saddam and overthrown him and his regime. If so, you were then a great believer in civil war. What's changed?

Again, let's clear the air. Did you believe prior to the war that the people of Iraq should rise up against Saddam and if so do you believe they could have done so in the absence of civil war?

In answer to both of those on my part -- No, I do not believe that the level of violence rises to the level of civil war; and yes I believe, and still believe, that the people of Iraq should have risen against Saddam and there is no way they would have done so in the absence of civil war. Even at such I also believe the result would have had a positive outcome.

 

[SecDef]

Well I do give you credit for answering part one of the question which, by the way is the most important part.

I'm taking my gold star and putting it on the fridge!

Do you believe that the current level of violence in Iraq rises to the level of "civil war"; and do you refer to it as such?

I don't refer to the current level of violence as civil war. Clearly that is impossible with a foreign army in the equation.

However, I have no bone to pick with your assessment that the term "civil war" is too far. Let's face it, we both have limited knowledge of the NUMBER of attacks let alone on targets and intentions.

Did you believe prior to the war that the people of Iraq should rise up against Saddam and if so do you believe they could have done so in the absence of civil war?

Prior to the war, there was a people that lived under a dictator (Who was very good at what he did). Part of being a very good (efficient? long-term?) dictator is that 90% of the time things are peachy. And 10% where people are killed for speaking against the leader, or your business being ransacked simply because it is Tuesday is not a situation that I, as an American, can quite get my head around.

It's not that I take what I have for granted, it is just that it is difficult to walk in shoes you have never seen. I am not in a position to say whether or not the people under Saddam should have resorted to civil war. It may or may not be that the 90% was good enough and the 10% wasn't bad enough. I can only say that I don't know. It may have been done without a civil war. There was a clear head that a coup could target. I don't know enough about how these things work to really have an opinion on that.

Care to address the yellowcake statements?

 

[jimpeel]

The equation is easy:

This

can only be solved by this

if you ever want to see this

 

[cje1980]

Yeah right, sure it would have happened without a Civil War. What maybe in 200 years? Only liberals like you have that much patience. The route of diplomacy is not an infinite one. At some point you have to realize that something isn't working. Bush realized that the current war plan wasn't working so he made modifications to it. I admire when someone can admit that they are making mistakes but wants to make changes to learn upon those mistakes. Just keep in mind that both Republicans and Democrats voted to grant authorization to use military force in Iraq. This was based on intelligence provided from the CIA not the Bush Administration. The CIA already acknowledged that it screwed up and Tenet resigned. The UN is an absolutely worthless organization that never resolves conflicts. Firing at U.S. military targets is an act of war and the Iraqis were doing this routinely prior to 2003. There are many reasons for the U.S. to go to war with Iraq. Basically to finish what didn't get finished in 1991. Hussein was the same piece of trash in 2003 that he was in 1991.

It's not that I take what I have for granted, it is just that it is difficult to walk in shoes you have never seen. I am not in a position to say whether or not the people under Saddam should have resorted to civil war. It may or may not be that the 90% was good enough and the 10% wasn't bad enough. I can only say that I don't know. It may have been done without a civil war. There was a clear head that a coup could target. I don't know enough about how these things work to really have an opinion on that.

 

[Playboypenguin]

This was based on intelligence provided from the CIA not the Bush Administration

You really need to check out your own information. The Bush administration not only put forth false evidence that had been discredited by the intel community, they also cherry picked other information that supported their case. When they edited and released intel documents they would classify certain parts of the document (which is blacked out on the released form) so as to completely change the meaning of the statements. Also, If they received ten pieces of information and only ywo were favorable to their agenda they would disregard the other eight. As Jay Rockefeller has attested, Cheney also spent alot of time intimidating anyone on the hill that was willing to ask why they were doing this.

The Bush administration went to the intel community and said "this is our conclussion...find us some information to back it up." That is not at all how it is supposed to work. A conclussion id supposed to follow the gathering and analyzing of data (can you tell I was a 96B) not the other way around. When Bush went to Tenet and said "Find me a link between Saddam and 9/11" he was showing how little he cared for fact. He just wanted whatever someone could find that could be twisted to fit his needs.

 

[SecDef]

Yeah right, sure it would have happened without a Civil War. What maybe in 200 years? Only liberals like you have that much patience. The route of diplomacy is not an infinite one.

I see. Are you a military and political mastermind?

Did my response of "I don't know" really get your hackles up to participate (albeit poorly) in this conversation? That's hilarious!