Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Trump Continues to Rise in the Polls, as Carson
Date:	11/23/2015 11:48:05 AM

starts to fade.  It would appear that  Trump's tough talk about ISIS and Immigration, the tracking of Muslims and survellience on mosquesin the U.S.  is appealing to people.  He has a solid 30% in most polls out this morning.  Of course, Liberals are worried about picking out any member of society and is likening Trumps views to Hitler and the Jews.

51% of people polled feel that Obama is wrong about ISIS and we need to put boots on the ground.  Apparently a large percentage of people feel that another terrorist attack is coming very soon to the U.S.  And the level of anxiety is reaching panic levels in many parts of the U.S.  Guess a lot of people remember what 9/11 felt like and believe it could happen again. 

And according to a whistleblowers report, intelligence analysts have been told to make the intelligence more favorable about our progress with ISIS following the course we are on.  Of course, intelligence is highly subjective and can be viewed from a number of different perspectives to make a case, as we saw in the Bush Administration about Iraq. 

In the meantime, Brussels is on lock down, Paris President is traveling to the U.S. to meet with Obama and Leon Panetta says that if the U.S. doesn't lead, no one else will. 

The 24 hour news cycle is happy. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Trump Continues to Rise in the Polls, as Carson
Date:	11/23/2015 11:59:35 AM

I think the bigger news is the gradual rise of Rubio and Cruz.  I still think that when the field gets weeded down to the top four that most of the other, lower tier candidate support will not go to Trump.  But hey, I could be wrong.  I do not understand what the end game is for Bush, Fiorina, Kasich, et al.  They have no hope in getting the nomination.  

I would point out one aspect of your post that is wrong.  There was no massaging of intelligence during the Bush administration as determined by a bipartisan commission specifically focused on that issue.  They were unequivocal about that point.  And further, as we have belatedly learned, Iraq did have WMD...unless you subscribe to the latest fantasy that WMD somehow only means nuclear weapons.  Only really ideologically blind people still tell that lie.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Trump Continues to Rise in the Polls, as Carson
Date:	11/23/2015 5:26:45 PM

Hound, are you still in favor of Trump as President?  I just have not come to conclusion yet, although I do appreciate a person who will call a spade a spade, and Trump has found himself on the pragmatic right side of some issues (like he has been saying take the oil since day one)

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Trump Continues to Rise in the Polls, as Carson
Date:	11/23/2015 5:38:44 PM

Yes, I still like Trump.  I think he says things that a lot of people think.  I actually think his rhetoric is what is needed right now in this country. 

MM, You may choose to believe what you want about Iraq, but I know the truth.  I won't convince you and you won't convince me, so we'll just agree to disagree.  And I won't accuse you of being intellectually dishonest, just because you don't know the truth. 

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	I have no qualms at calling MM what he is
Date:	11/23/2015 7:25:33 PM (updated 11/23/2015 7:26:54 PM)

Hound, MM is absolutely intellectually dishonest on a regular basis.  I make no effort at politness.  He must have had his head very deep in the sand when that bi-partisan report came out.  As I remember it it in no way cleared Bush and his crowd of cooking the books on intellegence.  A promised follow-up committee that was going to specifically look into the Downing Street Memo conveniently never convened.  I would also love to have MM's source for his claim that in the final analysis Iraq did have WMD...I sure as he// never saw such a verifiable report.  I think MM is absolutely either intellectually dishonest or extremely forgetful or in in an advanced state of dementia!!

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	Trump Continues to Rise in the Polls, as Carson
Date:	11/23/2015 9:43:10 PM

What is the truth??  Who carried out the world's most deadly chemical attack?  Saddam Hussein in 1988 at Halajaba against his own Kurdish people.  During my 28 year military career, chemical weapons were in the WND category, like the "C" part of CBN.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	What is the truth...indeed
Date:	11/23/2015 10:29:28 PM (updated 11/23/2015 10:36:01 PM)

Everybody knows Saddam had chemical weapons in 1988...when he used them on the Kurds it became pretty obvious.  Everybody who believes in TRUTH and is willing to accept FACTS knows he did not have them in 2002!! 

Here's another fact for you...in 1988 Saddam was using weapons on his own people that were supplied to him by the Reagan administration in the early 80's to help him in his war with Iran.

TRUTH can be a real bummer sometime can't it?

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	What is the truth...indeed
Date:	11/24/2015 7:47:25 AM

The precursors for the chemical agents came out of Texas if memory serves me well.

What a morning......agreeing with Archie.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	What is the truth...indeed
Date:	11/24/2015 8:19:23 AM

Will wonders never cease?  Well Shorty, sometimes the truth makes for strange bedfellows.  Now, if only a few others on this forum would actually seek out the facts rather than spout the various talking points.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Speaking of Trump...
Date:	11/24/2015 8:25:31 AM (updated 11/24/2015 8:45:43 AM)

Does anybody remember the term "American jingoism"?  Way back in the 60's (well before the ''left winger apologists????'' took over our schools) when I was studing American history it was a term that was often used to describe the political forces behind certain foreign policy issues and participants...it is a term that perfectly describes the Donald!!  There have been some ''jingoists'' who did more good than harm...Teddy Roosevelt.  I have a very hard time believing Donald Trump would ever reach such stature!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	So the bipartisan commission was wrong?
Date:	11/24/2015 8:54:37 AM

Hound, you actually amaze me with your arrogance.  It's no wonder others deride you when you spout off about your government experience. You can agree to dsagree all you want but it isn't with me.  It's with a commission that consisted of members of both parties and they concluded exactly what I described.  

It's a shame they didn't interview some former retired bureaucrat living at a lake house in Alabama so they could get to the real truth.  Those hapless idiots.  All they needed was you to blow the lid off the whole thing.  I feel cheated not knowing the real truth from a multi-year investigation where they spent millions of dollars, interviewed hundreds of people actually involved in the collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence data related to Iraq and WMD.  They could have saved the taxpayers all that time and money if they had just thought to ask you.  What were they thinking?!?!?!?  All I can say is wow........oh, and in case it didn't come through my post is dripping with sarcasm.....<sarc off>

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Facts.....stubborn things
Date:	11/24/2015 8:58:46 AM

Don't confuse her with facts.  Don't confuse her with the multiple cases of exposure our military incurred post-invasion in Iraq from chemical weapons that they encountered.  Don't confuse her with all the other evidence (shell casings, equipment, etc.) that Iraq did indeed have WMD.  And don't confuse her with the actual definition of WMD as they love to fallaciously claim it only includes nuclear weapons.

The only mystery here is why Bush didn't allow his administration to respond to all the lies about the presence of WMD.  I still have not heard a reasonable explanation about that.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Facts.....stubborn things
Date:	11/24/2015 10:34:08 AM (updated 11/24/2015 10:39:29 AM)

There are things I know that I am unwilling to discuss on a public forum.  Sorry.

Suffice to say that there was so much frustration that the CIA/DIA intel did not support the intent with regard to Iraq, that Doug Freith, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, created his own intelligence cell so that would produce the intel reports that would support their intent.  I know this, because a former colleague of mine was the head of that cell.  And that is a FACT.  People talk and then there is the matter of how and why this particular person was chosen for that job.  Not willing to discuss it here, but the individual involved had an interesting background and had specific reasons for accepting the job.  How do I know this?  I knew the person, was quite familiar with his work and his personality and previous actions.  But I'm not getting into that in a public forum.

I'd like to remind MM that commission reports are often "adjusted" before they are released.  This is no different than his claim that the unemployment numbers are manipulated.  This is a FACT.  There are times when certain inconvenient facts are eliminated from a report before it is ever finalized. 

MM seems to believe that if he sticks to conservative publications, these only produce FACTS.  Not true.  Conservative publications are no more likely to produce facts than liberal ones.  Now if you told me you haaccess to a draft commission report, before it was circulated for comments and before it was approved for release, then we'd have something to talk about. 

Yes, at one time Saddam Hussein did use chemical weapons against his own people.  And there are articles around that suggest there were some trace elements of chemical weapsons found in Iraq... however, these were not in the quantity that would lead anyone to conclude that he was producing weapons of mass destruction for sale to terrorists as the Bush Administration claimed the intelligence indicated.  Don't you think that if there were significant quantities of chemical elements used to produce WMD, that the Bush Administration would have released that information to support their cause?  They did not find any stockpiles.  They did not find the facilities.  And that is a FACT.

Now MM is going to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty and no doubt someone will jump in with comments about my experience.  I'm sorry, I didn't ask to know these things, but I do.  And that is all I am willing to say on the subject. 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	So the bipartisan commission was wrong?
Date:	11/24/2015 10:53:34 AM (updated 11/24/2015 10:54:57 AM)

I really feel sorry for you MM.  I'm merely suggesting that the report that got published may have been adjusted or edited during its staffing process and final approval.  There may have been intelligence source reasons that they did not want certain information included, there may have been political negotiations to leave certain things out.  You are so cynical about all things government, you're willingness to accept this report as comprehensive astounds me.. or does your skepticism only apply when it is the Obama Administration. 

It's clear to me that you have no idea how government really works, except as it pertains to the EPA.  You are sadly uninformed.  And I am not the only person who knows this.  Sadly, I am the only one on the Lake Martin 'off topic" forum who was working for the USDP when all this was going on.  And yes, I actually do know some people who were likely interviewed by the Commission.  To what extent they opened up to all they knew, I don't know.  But people tend to be very, very careful about providing information to Commissions, Congressional Committees, etc., especially when they hope to keep their jobs, lest they end up like Valerie Plame, whose only sin was to be married to a former Ambassador who dared dispute the Administrations claims in a public forum.I

But I guess I ought to thank you for your compliment on my arrogance, since I think you wrote the book on arrogance and have set the bar pretty high for arrogance around here.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Speaking of Trump...
Date:	11/24/2015 10:59:15 AM

well, it seems to be working for Donald Trump.  I would suggest that Ronald Reagan also used this tactic.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	So the bipartisan commission was wrong?
Date:	11/24/2015 11:10:40 AM

Read what you wrote.  You impled you had some special knowledge but it turns out you are now telling me that the report by the commission was massaged to conclude the opposite of what the media and every Democrat wanted to prove.  And you call me cynical?  And yes, I know that you are the all knowing, all wise about how government really works and none of the rest of us have a clue.  And yes, I do know how EPA works based on my 30 years of experience and the 10 years my wife worked there.  And EPA is no different than any other federal agency, just a different focus area.

So help me understand why the Democrats on the commission would allow the very purpose and goal of the commission to be subverted to help a very unpopular president and his evil henchmen.  Do you even listen to yourself?  Maybe the better, cleaner explanation is that it was true.  So not only was the intelligence not massaged, it was in fact closer to correct than the years of lies that have been told about it have been.    

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Facts.....stubborn things
Date:	11/24/2015 11:20:21 AM

What a heavy burden for you to carry around such knowledge.  I still cannot imagine why the commission failed to ask you.  This hapless fools......you have all the answers but can't reveal them since we don't have double top secret clearance. What a conspiracy, the commision consisting of hundreds of people from both sides of the aisle conspired to claim that there was no massaging of the intelligence but not one has come forward to make such a claim.  Why don't you go public and prove them wrong.  You will be hailed as the whistlebolower of all time, bringing down nundreds of Democrats and Republicans that all conspired to cover for Bush and Cheney.  You will be a hero!!!  And to think, I can say I knew you when......

And I know, you also have the inside proof that JFK was killed by the CIA in cahoots with the mafia and Castro, right?  Imagine our luck to get such a dominant insider immune from scrutiny to post on this lowly forum.  Hound, sorry but when you go down these rat holes I just crack up.  I'll stop with the sarcasm.....

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Facts.....stubborn things
Date:	11/24/2015 12:29:46 PM

I have to chime in on this one.  It is indeed plausible that Hound has relevant information that may run counter to what has been put out for public consumption.  While on active duty I spent four years on the Air Staff in the "five-sided funny farm" and three with the National Emergency Airborne Command Post, also known as the "Doomsday Jet", as well as HQ SAC.  The most important things we don't want our adversaries to know is how much we know, and even more important how we managed to get that information.  Thus, no matter how important a committe's job may be, there are certain facts that never see the light of day.

That being said, I have no clue whether Hound has knowledge of such information, but it is possible that she does.  She and I have met and talked at some length, and she doesn't impress me as someone who would claim to know something that isn't true just to win some argument on this forum.

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	Facts.....stubborn things
Date:	11/24/2015 1:10:23 PM (updated 11/24/2015 1:11:58 PM)

And the 9/11 commission never considered or discussed building 7.

How many pages of whitewash was that?

Powerful commissions always uncover and report the truth.

The Warren commission were sharp enough to find a reversing bullet............................

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	You would have to believe in a conspiracy
Date:	11/24/2015 1:53:39 PM

What she is claiming is that the commission doctored their results to say that there was no massaging of the intelligence and that she knows there was.  I am sorry but I find that not believable.  All the Democrats involved in that commission would have to be part of this grand conspiracy.  Why would they do that, especially at a time when they were going full gun to discredit the Bush administration.  I have no doubt she knows things I don't know and I know things she doesn't know.  But that doesn't mean anything vis-a-vis this particular issue and her claims of some special knowledge.  Sorry Mr. H, I am sure she is a nice person and I have exchanged pleasant personal emails with her but on this count she is blowing smoke.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	So the bipartisan commission was wrong?
Date:	11/24/2015 3:18:54 PM

MM, I am just not going to get into this discussion with you.  Hodja got it right when he spoke about why some things would never see the light of day.  And the fact that the commission was bipartisan doesn't make a bit of difference when it comes to national security and intelligence sources. 

So you can continue to call me names and be sarcastic with me, but it's not going to change anything.  And I can assure you that the  DoD is much different than any other government department - it's mission makes it very unique, the attitude is different than other govenrment deparments and people are very cognizant what is at stake.  I haven't worked with the EPA, but I'm pretty sure that no one there thinks someone might die if they don't do their job.  I've worked extensively with Commerce and State, and the intelligence agencies and I can tell you that in my limited knowledge, it is much, much different.  And another thing - people will talk and debate about decisions, but once a final decision is made, you fall in.  It's the military way and it's another part of the very unique culture. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	And yet you keep responding
Date:	11/24/2015 3:59:34 PM (updated 11/24/2015 4:00:55 PM)

How about this idea.  I am going to send an email to msnbc, huffington post, CNN and others and tell them you can prove that the intelligence was cooked by the Bush administration and that the bipartisan commission covered it up and you have the proof.  Because that is what you are saying and I think you are not telling the truth nor were you in the position to know.  

Let's see how interested they are in your story.......I think I already know.   The question was asked and answered and your fanciful stories are quite simply a joke, a farce, a rube, a fantasy.  So go ahead and prove me wrong...or is it too super top secret?  How convenient for you.  Just cause you're saying it doesn't make it so....without proof to me it is just another person with a tin foil hat on their heads.  You know, when you dig a hole sometimes the first step is to stop......

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	You would have to believe in a conspiracy
Date:	11/24/2015 4:49:19 PM

You don't know that nor do I.  Only she knows for sure.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Really?
Date:	11/24/2015 5:03:34 PM

So you too believe that the bipartisan commission consisting of Democrats and Republicans hid the fact that the Bush administration cooked the books on the intelligence, the entire essence of the investigation that covered several years and millions of dollars and hundreds of people........but only she knows the truth.  That is what she is claiming and that she has special, inside information that this commission intentionally lied to the American people.  I simply find that inconceivable.  

I don't believe it is true and I don't believe she was in a position to know.  You are giving her way too much credit, esepecially given her hsitory of always knowing some super top secret information that she can't disclose to the rest of us.  It's always the same schtick and it strikes me as a little too convenient that she as one of almost half a million employees of DOD just happens to be at the center of pretty much everything that goes on.  If you believe that you will believe anything.  I don't and I won't, no matter how nice she is.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	And yet you keep responding
Date:	11/24/2015 5:09:03 PM

MM, that is a cheap shot.  Any ethical, law abiding person who swears to only divulge certain information to someone who has the appropriate clearance AND need to know will honor that commitment.  The Bradley Mannings and Edward Snowdens of the world, thank the Lord, are the rare exception.  You must know that Hound is among those whose word means something.

And Hound, it is also not very fair to argue a point, but say "it is that way because I know something but can't tell you".  That is, in a way, a kind of cheap shot on its own.  That being said, I do agree members of the Defense establishment respond to a higher calling than the bureaucrats in other agencies.  I have worked in Treasury, HHS, and TSA, and the environment and attitudes are completely different.  The things they fret over are trivial in comparison.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Really?
Date:	11/24/2015 5:19:26 PM

Go back and read my posts carefully.  I never said she had information she couldn't share.  I just sai that, based on My experience and personal knowledge it is possible she does know something  she can't divulge.

And I stand by my statement that only she knows for sure. 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Really?
Date:	11/24/2015 5:45:21 PM

And at the end of the day, we're just pole vaulting over mouse turds.  It doesn't change anything.  Saddam is dead and Iraq is a mess.  ISIS is holding ground there.  I'm more interested in what is going to happen now.

I am sorry I cannot make a full disclosure, but I signed a non-disclosure statement when I was read off my security clearance at the time of my retirement.  it's the very same document anyone with a clearance signs when they get read off.  It's not a matter if I am nice or not.  Perhaps some of my former colleagues will move to Lake Martin and participate in the forum and then you can call them names.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	And yet you keep responding
Date:	11/24/2015 5:52:59 PM

You know, Hodja, you are right. I would not feel comfortable naming names and giving specifics, so I should not say anything. 

  MM just can't take it if anyone disagrees with him and what he thinks are facts.  He doesn't subscribe to Rummy's old assessment:

There are things we know that we know, there are things we know we don't know, and then there are the things that we don't know we don't know. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Show me one fact you provided...hint, there none
Date:	11/24/2015 6:21:16 PM (updated 11/24/2015 6:26:39 PM)

At least I have a factual basis for my opinion, the bipartisan commission report. All you have is your opinions based on your super duper top secret clearance.  As I said, put your money where your mouth is and blow the lid off the whole scnadalous coverup. You of course won't because you can't because you are making it up.  Prove me wrong and I will publicly apologize. But it can't be one of your oh so convenient, " I can't share this blockbuster information, blah, blah, blah". C'mon Hound, you will do the country a great service by getting the truth out and exposing these hundreds of evil conspirators on the commission. You just can't help yourself and have to keep digging deeper...

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Show me one fact you provided...hint, there none
Date:	11/24/2015 6:31:55 PM

Whatever.  Just let it go.  If it makes you feel better to think the Commission Report is the final word, then so be it. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Really?
Date:	11/24/2015 6:34:13 PM

So you don't find her statement credible?  She is the one representing that you agree that she has info that the entire commission didn't or covered up.  I find that preposterous and her standard operating procedure when backed against the wall on something she posted to resort to her time at DOD. She must have been everywhere and involved in pretty much every aspect of DOD to be believed. Pfind that ludicrous and unsubstantiated just like I find it incredible to believe on every one of her statements like she it always devolves into the nonsense that it is too secret to share with us mere peons. If she in fact does know the truth and can substantiate she is doing the country  a great disservice by not revealing it.  Or maybe the simpler explanation, she is making it up.  I go with the latter explanation. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	And yet you keep responding
Date:	11/24/2015 6:37:38 PM

No it's not even close to a cheap shot.  If she has evidence that the bipartisan commission lied to the American people and covered up baked intelligence by the Bush administration she has a moral obligation to expose this evil act by the hundreds of Democrats and Republicans that conspired to over this up.  I simply do not believe she can because I do not believe she has any such information.  

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Officially let go
Date:	11/24/2015 6:44:51 PM

But I do honestly believe that if you have information that it was a lie you should expose the truth. It would make me sick to think that they covered this up. 

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Really?
Date:	11/24/2015 7:00:05 PM

You really need to filter out what you would like for me to have said from what I really wrote.  Try to put your apparently insatiable need to win an argument aside and understand what I am saying.  I frankly at this point don't shive a git whether information was suppressed from some report or not.  Even Democrats are capable of understanding that some things are best left unsaid in the interest of national security.  I AM NOT SAYING HOUND IS RIGHT - got that?  I am saying she could be right and unless you traveled in her shoes and saw and heard the things she saw and heard, you are not qualified to decide whether she is blowing smoke.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	And yet you keep responding
Date:	11/24/2015 7:06:34 PM

You are showing your ignorance by confusing the protection of national security information with your perception of what is morally right.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	And yet you keep responding
Date:	11/24/2015 9:06:32 PM

I did not say that the Commission covered anything up.  I said that some things may have been left out that might expose intelligence sources.  Do you understand that these things are staffed around in draft and people have the right to request edits because something might be taken out of context, or misunderstood or just not be factually correct or if there is a concern that there is information that is classified and not releasable to the public.  It would not surprise me to know that there is a classified version of the report that has never been publicly released.  I don't know that is the case, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Intelligence is referred to as an art;  it is highly subjective.  It is possible to certain information that supports your case and ignore that which does not. 

  It is not usual for the Undersecretary of Policy to decide to not use the information provided by the intelligence services because he doesn't agree with it, and create his own intelligence cell, which is what Doug Feith did.  I've heard this is in his book, although I did not read his book, because I have no respect for him.   This is why you are having such a problem, MM.  Because you don't understand how these things work.  If the Commission was satisfied with all that they found and wrote their report without any edits or omissions, well more power to them.  But that is not how those things usually go. 

I have no reason to lie about anything. I voted for Bush twice. I'm not in the media, I don't plan to write a book, and as time goes on, I care less and less about these things.  It's ancient history and just about all of the principles that were involved at the time have left and gone on to justify their decisions in their books.  It's ancient history and future historians will decide the rightness or the wrongness of these things. 

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	And yet you keep responding
Date:	11/24/2015 11:11:49 PM

I will assume your post wasn't aimed at me.  And to my post, maybe I should say doing what is right for national security CAN BE mutually exclusive with what is morally right.  George HW Bush did what was morally right in the first Iraq war when he declined to go on to Baghdad after achieving his stated objectives.  I am not sure his moral decision was in the best interest of national security.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Hodja
Date:	11/25/2015 7:32:48 AM

No, it wasn't aimed at you.  I have no idea if it is true or not, but I have read that the reason they didn't go onto Baghdad in the first Gulf War was because Bush 41 was hung up on a "100 day war". 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Really?
Date:	11/25/2015 8:25:26 AM

Fair enough.  I just don't believe her and choose not to give her the benefit of the doubt as you do.  But she finally admitted the report was accurate so I am happy.  I don't like getting into these kind of spats with her but when she made a baseless statement contrary to the public record I called her out.  Gratefully, she stopped digging the hole and it's over.  As the saying goes....nuff said.