Yeah....I told ya so....long ago

bravo said:
Now that you've made a fool of yourself for all to see, I can stop wasting my time with you....

16 DIFFERENT AGENCIES YOU NOTED WERE ALL OPERATING WITH THOSE FLAWED SOURCES.????....thats pretty funny....you must think that the 16 different intell. agencies take turns looking through the same keyhole, lol....
arguing with you is like picking on the retarded kid at recess....

The NIE is there, right in front of you, and you deny what it plainly says....
I sure hope this thread is getting read by everyone...it feels good to pwn you with such ease, and really, with your assistance

you are dismissed, fool :tongout:....
Click to expand...


And there you have it folks.....this willfully ignorant neocon parrot has latches onto ONE aspect of information and IGNORES everything else. The poor fool doesn't even UNDERSTAND what he is parroting.

Case in point: What are the names and designations of the "16 agencies" that this fool keeps braying about? He doesn't know......which is why when I point out how the IAEA and the DIA (no small change in the nuke intelligence field) were just SOME of the agencies that cast serious doubt on the NIE 2002 report....it just sails right over his head (or he desperately ignores it).

Also, here's a little zinger that the poor fool just covers his eyes from

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release.” (Washington Post, 11/13/05) See http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-...e=sr-109-1-129

Someone needs to wake up our intellectually impotent Bravo to the FACT that the 2002 NIE report was SLANTED, and PUBLICALLY ADMITTED THAT IT'S OWN SOURCE MATERIAL WAS QUESTIONABLE AT BEST.

But "Bravo" doesn't care....he's just a good little neocon soldier that never questions orders. So he calls people who can back up their statements with facts "liars"...dismisses facts and their logical conclusions with repetition coupled with his supposition and conjecture, and then just goes on the personal attack to puff up his woeful inadequate premises. "Bravo" indeed....because ALL OF THIS IS TO COVER THE FACT THAT THE FOOL COULDN'T LOGICALLY OR FACTUALLY SUPPORT HIS ORIGINAL ASSERTIONS BEYOND A CERTAIN POINT. :palm:
 
tinfoil said:
CRU verified the leak happened.
Steve McIntyre verified his emails that were leaked are authentic.

Now who are the deniers?
Click to expand...

Pay attention chuckles.....all the evidence points to a HACK, not a "leak"....so stop trying to rewrite recent history.

Yes, the article states people verified the hack is valid, but they DO NOT validate the edit job done by the blogger. See chuckles, the FOX News approach where excerpts are treated as the ALL the information doesn't wash with the rest of the world. So I'll wait for more to follow. You can ramble on, a satiated neocon parrot.
 
Taichiliberal said:
And there you have it folks.....this willfully ignorant neocon parrot has latches onto ONE aspect of information and IGNORES everything else. The poor fool doesn't even UNDERSTAND what he is parroting.

Case in point: What are the names and designations of the "16 agencies" that this fool keeps braying about? He doesn't know......which is why when I point out how the IAEA and the DIA (no small change in the nuke intelligence field) were just SOME of the agencies that cast serious doubt on the NIE 2002 report....it just sails right over his head (or he desperately ignores it).

Here they are Clarabell....you tried for 2 but managed to even get one of those wrong....

# Director of National Intelligence
# Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
# Air Force Intelligence
# Army Intelligence
# Central Intelligence Agency
# Coast Guard Intelligence
# Defense Intelligence Agency
# Department of Energy
# Department of Homeland Security
# Department of State
# Department of the Treasury
# Drug Enforcement Administration
# Federal Bureau of Investigation
# Marine Corps Intelligence
# National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
# National Reconnaissance Office
# National Security Agency
# Navy Intelligence

All 16 agencies lying, right Clarabell ?

Also, here's a little zinger that the poor fool just covers his eyes from

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release.” (Washington Post, 11/13/05) See http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-...e=sr-109-1-129

And you want us to believe that the entire Congress was kept in the dark to the "real" intell, is that right Clarabell?
The Director of the CIA never told the President, "Its a slam dunK"...that never happened in your world, Clarabell ?
You tell us that doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publically and then go on to tell us YOU and Washinton Post know all about it....
How can that be Clarabell ?

They all got together and faked the NIE report ? Is that what you want us to believe, Clarabell?
We all read the NIE...show us all those doubts, Clarabell....
Show us where the NIE says Iraq DID NOT have WMD, Clarabell?
Prove to us the intell agencies lied about what they believed to be true in Oct. of 2002.....
All 16 org. colluded to present a false report, is that right Clarabell?

You're even a bigger fuckin' moron that I thought...


Someone needs to wake up our intellectually impotent Bravo to the FACT that the 2002 NIE report was SLANTED, and PUBLICALLY ADMITTED THAT IT'S OWN SOURCE MATERIAL WAS QUESTIONABLE AT BEST.

Show me where those agencies admitted that its conclusions were slanted when they made the claims in Oct. 2002, Clarabell...

a year later they certainly knew the conclusions were wrong..we all know that...show me who admitted to deception in Oct of 2002, Clarabell...

But "Bravo" doesn't care....he's just a good little neocon soldier that never questions orders. So he calls people who can back up their statements with facts "liars"...dismisses facts and their logical conclusions with repetition coupled with his supposition and conjecture, and then just goes on the personal attack to puff up his woeful inadequate premises. "Bravo" indeed....because ALL OF THIS IS TO COVER THE FACT THAT THE FOOL COULDN'T LOGICALLY OR FACTUALLY SUPPORT HIS ORIGINAL ASSERTIONS BEYOND A CERTAIN POINT. :palm:
Click to expand...

So, not only is the HuffingtonPost one of your authorities, the Washington Post is now and all knowing source of truth....
You might want to consider a full time job as a clown Clarabell...you're at least as entertaining as some of them....
 
bravo said:
Now that you've made a fool of yourself for all to see, I can stop wasting my time with you....

16 DIFFERENT AGENCIES YOU NOTED WERE ALL OPERATING WITH THOSE FLAWED SOURCES.????....thats pretty funny....you must think that the 16 different intell. agencies take turns looking through the same keyhole, lol....
arguing with you is like picking on the retarded kid at recess....

The NIE is there, right in front of you, and you deny what it plainly says....
I sure hope this thread is getting read by everyone...it feels good to pwn you with such ease, and really, with your assistance

you are dismissed, fool :tongout:....
Click to expand...


He's always been an idiot.
 
Isn't it quaint how the mindless liberal dronebots continually return to the "Bush was worse!" when ever it is pointed out that one of their pet issues is based on political scumduggery.

The topic is how the AGW "scientists" (and I use the term loosely) have evidence against them indicating collusion and, yes, outright conspiracy in advancing their issue of AGW. They have, according to recently released information, deliberately distorted the data upon which they based their AGW claims, and additionally actually colluded with each other to keep their stories straight and consistent. And then it is upon this bogus set of "scientific theories" (ie: politically motivated lies) that a lot of legislation has been passed and proposed.

If the democrats ignore this and continue with their plans for cap and trade, carbon footprint taxes, and all the other plans to "combat global warming", then it will be apparent they do not care one whit about truth, and their true aim is control of anything and everything they can gain control under any and all excuses they can find for the need for government control.
 
bravo said:
Ahhh...the poor lemmings ain't gonna buy it but it was only a matter of time before the truth about the GW hoax came to light....

It'll probably be some time yet for the assholes that bought into Gore's hallucinations to see the light..then again some like IB will believe it no matter what proof is offered...
Good thing its being exposed before the left wingers pass the cap and trade crap that would further destroy our economy

I hate to say it...but....I told you so....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails

Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world's leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.

The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

Climate change skeptics who have studied the emails allege they provide "smoking gun" evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind.
Click to expand...

The irony of a right wing ideologue using a left of centre broadsheet to substantiate his argument is just mind boggling.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And there you have it folks.....this willfully ignorant neocon parrot has latches onto ONE aspect of information and IGNORES everything else. The poor fool doesn't even UNDERSTAND what he is parroting.

Case in point: What are the names and designations of the "16 agencies" that this fool keeps braying about? He doesn't know......which is why when I point out how the IAEA and the DIA (no small change in the nuke intelligence field) were just SOME of the agencies that cast serious doubt on the NIE 2002 report....it just sails right over his head (or he desperately ignores it).
Click to expand...
Here they are Clarabell (best you could do besides "pinhead"? You need to update your references and colloquialisms, grandpa)....you tried for 2 but managed to even get one of those wrong....

# Director of National Intelligence
# Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
# Air Force Intelligence
# Army Intelligence
# Central Intelligence Agency - Really? Because they flip-flopped on this stuff several times on the official record...remember the Niger story? But I guess you only accept what you agree with.
# Coast Guard Intelligence - What the hell does the Coast Guard have to do with foreign intelligence gathering? Their jurisdiction ends at our domestic ocean borders...they RECEIVE international intel, they don't gather it...not their job.
# Defense Intelligence Agency - so they gave out two different stories....you believe only one part.# Department of Energy - They went on record questioning the "mushroom cloud" statements at one point, and they are NOT THE IAEA
# Department of Homeland Security
# Department of State - Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Office of Special Projects....nuff said
# Department of the Treasury - which has NOTHING to do with gathering foreign intel on WMD's outside of bank records# Drug Enforcement Administration - which has NOTHING to do with foreign intel on WMD's outside the drug trade
# Federal Bureau of Investigation
# Marine Corps Intelligence
# National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
# National Reconnaissance Office
# National Security Agency
# Navy Intelligence

All 16 agencies lying, right Clarabell ? Not quite, my intellectually impotent neocon stooge. See above. Note that the IAEA is not on that list, and here are some items regarding some that are http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007296.php


Also, here's a little zinger that the poor fool just covers his eyes from

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release.” (Washington Post, 11/13/05) See http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-...e=sr-109-1-129
Click to expand...

And you want us to believe that the entire Congress was kept in the dark to the "real" intell, is that right Clarabell? Not belief, mastermind....FACT...what you believe is irrelevent. That you can't logically disprove the evidence makes you squawk even louder. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5335753
The Director of the CIA never told the President, "Its a slam dunK"...that never happened in your world, Clarabell ? Well, in the real world we just don't take what we like to hear and then run away with it. Here stupid, learn something: http://www.wesupportthevets.com/youmans19.htm
You tell us that doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publically and then go on to tell us YOU and Washinton Post know all about it....
How can that be Clarabell ? That's not what I wrote, stupid....you should learn to comprehend what you read. I stated that the NIE did not release certain information it deemed classified....that means that only certain senators got it, NOT the entire Congress and senate. This doesn't mean that the WP knew the contents....you should be aware that agenices and such frequently withhold information and publically announce it's classified. Got that bunky?

They all got together and faked the NIE report ? Is that what you want us to believe, Clarabell? No stupid, I just reported WHAT THE NIE STATED, that the NIE itself ADMITTED that it's source material was NOT very reliable. Don't have a hissy fit with me....call up the NIE and squawk at them.
We all read the NIE...show us all those doubts, Clarabell....
Show us where the NIE says Iraq DID NOT have WMD, Clarabell?
Prove to us the intell agencies lied about what they believed to be true in Oct. of 2002.....
All 16 org. colluded to present a false report, is that right Clarabell?

No one said "lied", just pointed out it was flawed. Here stupid, learn something from someone you trust. Despite all their attempts to support the action, they couldn't get past the FACTS:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125188,00.html


You're even a bigger fuckin' moron that I thought... Projecting again?


Someone needs to wake up our intellectually impotent Bravo to the FACT that the 2002 NIE report was SLANTED, and PUBLICALLY ADMITTED THAT IT'S OWN SOURCE MATERIAL WAS QUESTIONABLE AT BEST.
Click to expand...

Show me where those agencies admitted that its conclusions were slanted when they made the claims in Oct. 2002, Clarabell... See above responses

a year later they certainly knew the conclusions were wrong..we all know that...show me who admitted to deception in Oct of 2002, Clarabell... See above responses
But "Bravo" doesn't care....he's just a good little neocon soldier that never questions orders. So he calls people who can back up their statements with facts "liars"...dismisses facts and their logical conclusions with repetition coupled with his supposition and conjecture, and then just goes on the personal attack to puff up his woeful inadequate premises. "Bravo" indeed....because ALL OF THIS IS TO COVER THE FACT THAT THE FOOL COULDN'T LOGICALLY OR FACTUALLY SUPPORT HIS ORIGINAL ASSERTIONS BEYOND A CERTAIN POINT.
Click to expand...
bravo said:
So, not only is the HuffingtonPost one of your authorities, the Washington Post is now and all knowing source of truth....
You might want to consider a full time job as a clown Clarabell...you're at least as entertaining as some of them....
Click to expand...



Typical neocon numbskull.....when they can't refute the evidence, they just attack the source. Poor Bravo...his head forever stuck up the assess the Shrub & company....the good little soldier that never questions orders, and parrots the party line. Pity the poor fool, for the cognitive reasoning skills that God gave us all cannot fit into his pin sized mind, and clarity of thought is a silent bell to him.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
Isn't it quaint how the mindless liberal dronebots continually return to the "Bush was worse!" when ever it is pointed out that one of their pet issues is based on political scumduggery.

The topic is how the AGW "scientists" (and I use the term loosely) have evidence against them indicating collusion and, yes, outright conspiracy in advancing their issue of AGW. They have, according to recently released information, deliberately distorted the data upon which they based their AGW claims, and additionally actually colluded with each other to keep their stories straight and consistent. And then it is upon this bogus set of "scientific theories" (ie: politically motivated lies) that a lot of legislation has been passed and proposed.

If the democrats ignore this and continue with their plans for cap and trade, carbon footprint taxes, and all the other plans to "combat global warming", then it will be apparent they do not care one whit about truth, and their true aim is control of anything and everything they can gain control under any and all excuses they can find for the need for government control.
Click to expand...

So essentially, it's about money and who dictates how it's made with you neocons.....because your myopic arguments regarding global warming is just a sham.

What you and folks like you don't get is that the industrial and corporate powerw that be will garner all the best resources and medicines for themselves, while you and your children suffer with the environmental effects of business as usual.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Here they are Clarabell (best you could do besides "pinhead"? You need to update your references and colloquialisms, grandpa)....you tried for 2 but managed to even get one of those wrong....

# Director of National Intelligence
# Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
# Air Force Intelligence
# Army Intelligence
# Central Intelligence Agency - Really? Because they flip-flopped on this stuff several times on the official record...remember the Niger story? But I guess you only accept what you agree with.
# Coast Guard Intelligence - What the hell does the Coast Guard have to do with foreign intelligence gathering? Their jurisdiction ends at our domestic ocean borders...they RECEIVE international intel, they don't gather it...not their job.
# Defense Intelligence Agency - so they gave out two different stories....you believe only one part.# Department of Energy - They went on record questioning the "mushroom cloud" statements at one point, and they are NOT THE IAEA
# Department of Homeland Security
# Department of State - Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Office of Special Projects....nuff said
# Department of the Treasury - which has NOTHING to do with gathering foreign intel on WMD's outside of bank records# Drug Enforcement Administration - which has NOTHING to do with foreign intel on WMD's outside the drug trade
# Federal Bureau of Investigation
# Marine Corps Intelligence
# National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
# National Reconnaissance Office
# National Security Agency
# Navy Intelligence

All 16 agencies lying, right Clarabell ? Not quite, my intellectually impotent neocon stooge. See above. Note that the IAEA is not on that list, and here are some items regarding some that are http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007296.php

I don't know what you're trying to prove ...These ARE the 16 agencies that
are responsible for the NIE 's that ALL PRESIDENTS rely on ....its quite irrelivant if what they conclude is shown to be incorrect in later years....whats relivant is what they believe to be the truth at the time they make their judgements....are you too stupid to grasp this simple fact....
and of course the IAEA is not the list...thats what I told you to begin with, Clarabell....


And you want us to believe that the entire Congress was kept in the dark to the "real" intell, is that right Clarabell? Not belief, mastermind....FACT...what you believe is irrelevent. That you can't logically disprove the evidence makes you squawk even louder.

This isn't about what I believe, Clarabell, its about what the writers of the NIE believed when they wrote the NIE in Oct. of 2002....
The relevance of that fact seems to be to difficult for you

And I don't have to 'prove' anything....the words of NIE speaks for itself....
I don't need to prove it says what it says...it right the fuck in front of you, Clarabell....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5335753
The Director of the CIA never told the President, "Its a slam dunK"...that never happened in your world, Clarabell ? Well, in the real world we just don't take what we like to hear and then run away with it. Here stupid, learn something: http://www.wesupportthevets.com/youmans19.htm
You tell us that doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publically and then go on to tell us YOU and Washinton Post know all about it....
How can that be Clarabell ? That's not what I wrote, stupid....you should learn to comprehend what you read. I stated that the NIE did not release certain information it deemed classified....that means that only certain senators got it, NOT the entire Congress and senate. This doesn't mean that the WP knew the contents....you should be aware that agenices and such frequently withhold information and publically announce it's classified. Got that bunky?

Information is NOT released to the public...yet you seen to think you know all about this secret information....isn't that just your stupidity showing itself...


They all got together and faked the NIE report ? Is that what you want us to believe, Clarabell? No stupid, I just reported WHAT THE NIE STATED, that the NIE itself ADMITTED that it's source material was NOT very reliable. Don't have a hissy fit with me....call up the NIE and squawk at them.
We all read the NIE...show us all those doubts, Clarabell....
Show us where the NIE says Iraq DID NOT have WMD, Clarabell?
Prove to us the intell agencies lied about what they believed to be true in Oct. of 2002.....
All 16 org. colluded to present a false report, is that right Clarabell?

No one said "lied", just pointed out it was flawed. Here stupid, learn something from someone you trust. Despite all their attempts to support the action, they couldn't get past the FACTS:

Of course the intell was wrong....we know that now....we didn't know that in Oct. of 2002...thats the whole fuckin' point, Clarabell....
I've been pointing that our for years...NOBODY lied....they believed the conclusions in the NIE at the time....
What we found out to be true in 2003 or 2004 or 2005 has nothing to do with what we believed to be true in 2002....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125188,00.html


You're even a bigger fuckin' moron that I thought... Projecting again?




Show me where those agencies admitted that its conclusions were slanted when they made the claims in Oct. 2002, Clarabell... See above responses

a year later they certainly knew the conclusions were wrong..we all know that...show me who admitted to deception in Oct of 2002, Clarabell... See above responses





Typical neocon numbskull.....when they can't refute the evidence, they just attack the source. Poor Bravo...his head forever stuck up the assess the Shrub & company....the good little soldier that never questions orders, and parrots the party line. Pity the poor fool, for the cognitive reasoning skills that God gave us all cannot fit into his pin sized mind, and clarity of thought is a silent bell to him.
Click to expand...

Refute WHAT evidence...WTF are you even talking about, Clarabell???
There is no evidence to refute...the NIE is what it is.....later findings are what they are....two completely seperate issues, Clarabell....
 
Taichiliberal said:
Pay attention chuckles.....all the evidence points to a HACK, not a "leak"....so stop trying to rewrite recent history.

Yes, the article states people verified the hack is valid, but they DO NOT validate the edit job done by the blogger. See chuckles, the FOX News approach where excerpts are treated as the ALL the information doesn't wash with the rest of the world. So I'll wait for more to follow. You can ramble on, a satiated neocon parrot.
Click to expand...

Bumpy bump!

Actually, you silly carbon hero, the pattern of this leak looks more like an insider (or as you liberals would call it if this were emails between exxon scientists A WHISTLEBLOWER)

The emails prove the "climate" of hostility towards minority views that pervaded CRU.

This is a classic whistleblower-type situation.

Can you make an argument that this implausible?

I can, and have already posted several examples, that make your assertions about a supposed exxon-funded right wing conspiracy to doctor these emails in an attempt to obfuscate the facts about anthropogenic global warming seem downright fricken silly.
You din't say that? Oh, I might have you confused with every other retarded global warmer who can't face the facts about having been misled.
LOL you makes me laugh
 
BTW, I'm working on porting the Briffa/Mann algorithm to my silly little graphing script.
It's hard to believe these cimate scientists use fortran 90
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortran#Fortran_90

I don't know anything about fortran of course, but I already made an accurate program in the fricken browser to graph or do whatever you want with datasets and I'm self taught with no formal training other than a few college physics and the usual calc/trig and statistics/econ stuff. I majored in finance, but I became a little bitch of the IRS for good decade and I never got back to finish my degree. Doesn't change what I learned and I hope I've demonstrated my understanding of the dendroclimatology and statistical interface represented by climate graphs.

I posted my graph script in one thread before so I'll wait until I figure this "trick" script out to post the updated script.
 
tinfoil said:
BTW, I'm working on porting the Briffa/Mann algorithm to my silly little graphing script.
It's hard to believe these cimate scientists use fortran 90
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortran#Fortran_90

I don't know anything about fortran of course, but I already made an accurate program in the fricken browser to graph or do whatever you want with datasets and I'm self taught with no formal training other than a few college physics and the usual calc/trig and statistics/econ stuff. I majored in finance, but I became a little bitch of the IRS for good decade and I never got back to finish my degree. Doesn't change what I learned and I hope I've demonstrated my understanding of the dendroclimatology and statistical interface represented by climate graphs.

I posted my graph script in one thread before so I'll wait until I figure this "trick" script out to post the updated script.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with Fortran? It is still probably the best language to use for scientific calculations.

http://www.spy-hill.com/~myers/fortran/
 
adding a chemical to a closed environment in the quantities and future quantities will have an effect

global climate change is happening - the questions are why and what can be or should be dome about it - we may have dodged and ice age or be bringing on the opposite

we do not know enough, but we need to

ps this is not yet proven and until it is or if it is perhaps the source should be noted
 
DonQuixote said:
adding a chemical to a closed environment in the quantities and future quantities will have an effect

global climate change is happening - the questions are why and what can be or should be dome about it - we may have dodged and ice age or be bringing on the opposite

we do not know enough, but we need to

ps this is not yet proven and until it is or if it is perhaps the source should be noted
Click to expand...

You are correct, there are many things we don't know...obviously, climate change has been happening since the earth came into existence....

But what we do know is that the so called consensus about GW caused by man is bullshit and a certain portion of the scientific community "cooked the books" when presenting evidence....THEY LIED.... for the most part.....its a hoax
 
Last edited:
DonQuixote said:
adding a chemical to a closed environment in the quantities and future quantities will have an effect

global climate change is happening - the questions are why and what can be or should be dome about it - we may have dodged and ice age or be bringing on the opposite

we do not know enough, but we need to

ps this is not yet proven and until it is or if it is perhaps the source should be noted
Click to expand...

Here's the human contribution to global warming

The human contribution to global warming:

—

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)

densall=densall+yearlyadj
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Here they are Clarabell (best you could do besides "pinhead"? You need to update your references and colloquialisms, grandpa)....you tried for 2 but managed to even get one of those wrong....

# Director of National Intelligence
# Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
# Air Force Intelligence
# Army Intelligence
# Central Intelligence Agency - Really? Because they flip-flopped on this stuff several times on the official record...remember the Niger story? But I guess you only accept what you agree with.
# Coast Guard Intelligence - What the hell does the Coast Guard have to do with foreign intelligence gathering? Their jurisdiction ends at our domestic ocean borders...they RECEIVE international intel, they don't gather it...not their job.
# Defense Intelligence Agency - so they gave out two different stories....you believe only one part.# Department of Energy - They went on record questioning the "mushroom cloud" statements at one point, and they are NOT THE IAEA
# Department of Homeland Security
# Department of State - Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Office of Special Projects....nuff said
# Department of the Treasury - which has NOTHING to do with gathering foreign intel on WMD's outside of bank records# Drug Enforcement Administration - which has NOTHING to do with foreign intel on WMD's outside the drug trade
# Federal Bureau of Investigation
# Marine Corps Intelligence
# National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
# National Reconnaissance Office
# National Security Agency
# Navy Intelligence

All 16 agencies lying, right Clarabell ? Not quite, my intellectually impotent neocon stooge. See above. Note that the IAEA is not on that list, and here are some items regarding some that are http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007296.php

I don't know what you're trying to prove ...These ARE the 16 agencies that
are responsible for the NIE 's that ALL PRESIDENTS rely on ....its quite irrelivant if what they conclude is shown to be incorrect in later years....whats relivant is what they believe to be the truth at the time they make their judgements....are you too stupid to grasp this simple fact....
and of course the IAEA is not the list...thats what I told you to begin with, Clarabell....


And you want us to believe that the entire Congress was kept in the dark to the "real" intell, is that right Clarabell? Not belief, mastermind....FACT...what you believe is irrelevent. That you can't logically disprove the evidence makes you squawk even louder.

This isn't about what I believe, Clarabell, its about what the writers of the NIE believed when they wrote the NIE in Oct. of 2002....
The relevance of that fact seems to be to difficult for you

And I don't have to 'prove' anything....the words of NIE speaks for itself....
I don't need to prove it says what it says...it right the fuck in front of you, Clarabell....

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=104x5335753
The Director of the CIA never told the President, "Its a slam dunK"...that never happened in your world, Clarabell ? Well, in the real world we just don't take what we like to hear and then run away with it. Here stupid, learn something: http://www.wesupportthevets.com/youmans19.htm
You tell us that doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publically and then go on to tell us YOU and Washinton Post know all about it....
How can that be Clarabell ? That's not what I wrote, stupid....you should learn to comprehend what you read. I stated that the NIE did not release certain information it deemed classified....that means that only certain senators got it, NOT the entire Congress and senate. This doesn't mean that the WP knew the contents....you should be aware that agenices and such frequently withhold information and publically announce it's classified. Got that bunky?

Information is NOT released to the public...yet you seen to think you know all about this secret information....isn't that just your stupidity showing itself...


They all got together and faked the NIE report ? Is that what you want us to believe, Clarabell? No stupid, I just reported WHAT THE NIE STATED, that the NIE itself ADMITTED that it's source material was NOT very reliable. Don't have a hissy fit with me....call up the NIE and squawk at them.
We all read the NIE...show us all those doubts, Clarabell....
Show us where the NIE says Iraq DID NOT have WMD, Clarabell?
Prove to us the intell agencies lied about what they believed to be true in Oct. of 2002.....
All 16 org. colluded to present a false report, is that right Clarabell?

No one said "lied", just pointed out it was flawed. Here stupid, learn something from someone you trust. Despite all their attempts to support the action, they couldn't get past the FACTS:

Of course the intell was wrong....we know that now....we didn't know that in Oct. of 2002...thats the whole fuckin' point, Clarabell....
I've been pointing that our for years...NOBODY lied....they believed the conclusions in the NIE at the time....
What we found out to be true in 2003 or 2004 or 2005 has nothing to do with what we believed to be true in 2002....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125188,00.html


You're even a bigger fuckin' moron that I thought... Projecting again?




Show me where those agencies admitted that its conclusions were slanted when they made the claims in Oct. 2002, Clarabell... See above responses

a year later they certainly knew the conclusions were wrong..we all know that...show me who admitted to deception in Oct of 2002, Clarabell... See above responses





Typical neocon numbskull.....when they can't refute the evidence, they just attack the source. Poor Bravo...his head forever stuck up the assess the Shrub & company....the good little soldier that never questions orders, and parrots the party line. Pity the poor fool, for the cognitive reasoning skills that God gave us all cannot fit into his pin sized mind, and clarity of thought is a silent bell to him.
Click to expand...

bravo said:
Refute WHAT evidence...WTF are you even talking about, Clarabell???
There is no evidence to refute...the NIE is what it is.....later findings are what they are....two completely seperate issues, Clarabell....
Click to expand...



Okay, folks.....let me wrap it up in dealing with this dumbass:

Note his first red bold response: All he does is just repeat what he said earlier...he doesn't even address the points I made regarding a few of those sources of the vaunted 16 agencies. More evidence to his dishonesty and willful stupidity, he tries to dismiss the IAEA, which is a CRUCIAL agency in determining nuke capabilities of developing countries....which coincides with the FACTS that the NIE report OMITTED information and agencies that did not fit it's contention. Bravo also lies...he didn't even know about the IAEA's report in relation to the NIE 2002 report until I told him...check the chronology of the posts, which backs me up.


Bravo ignores the link that shows a Senate Report as one reference of how the NIE had several agencies disagree with it's conclusions, and how members of the Shrub's staff tried to falsely misled the Congress and the country that the NIE report had little to no legitimate criticism/contradictions from official sources. Like a petulant child, he just keeps wailing that the NIE report is sacrosanct...while he just IGNORES any and all contrary facts. He even ignores that the NIE itself admits that it's sources are questionable at best. Bravo just refuses to use his head.

Bravo is the perfect neocon stooge. He swallows the party line and ignores any contrary facts, then pretends that there was NO contention at the time of the release of the NIE 2002 report, when the evidence clearly shows that valid, official offices contradicted many of the NIE's claims....some of the sources who were of the vaunted "16 agencies". Now his false excuse is, "well, we know they were wrong LATER." This is the lie and distortion that the Shrub & company keep repeating....but the FACTS tell another story.

Bravo just ignores what he doesn't like, and tries to ridicule those who would put forth what he can't deconstruct or ignore. In short, as the posts shows...Bravo is just an intellectually impotent neocon parrot...the good little soldier that never questions orders and defends that mindset to the bitter end.

Fortunately, the rest of the world is not as gullible. So I leave Bravo to mimic the clown he references, to display the brain pan size he loves to allude to others, and to repeat himself in various ways. He may have the last word, because it's sadly just more of the same false bravado.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Pay attention chuckles.....all the evidence points to a HACK, not a "leak"....so stop trying to rewrite recent history.

Yes, the article states people verified the hack is valid, but they DO NOT validate the edit job done by the blogger. See chuckles, the FOX News approach where excerpts are treated as the ALL the information doesn't wash with the rest of the world. So I'll wait for more to follow. You can ramble on, a satiated neocon parrot.
Click to expand...

tinfoil said:
Bumpy bump! Describes your IQ to a fault!

Actually, you silly carbon hero, the pattern of this leak looks more like an insider (or as you liberals would call it if this were emails between exxon scientists A WHISTLEBLOWER)

Your suppostition and conjecture mean NOTHING. As I said, I'll wait for the official investigation to pan out

The emails prove the "climate" of hostility towards minority views that pervaded CRU.

This is a classic whistleblower-type situation.

Can you make an argument that this implausible?

See the above answer. You're trying to make your opinion, suppostion and conjecture pass as viable fact and logic. Major fail.

I can, and have already posted several examples, that make your assertions about a supposed exxon-funded right wing conspiracy to doctor these emails in an attempt to obfuscate the facts about anthropogenic global warming seem downright fricken silly.

All you've done is just copy a whole lot of one sided, mypoic studies that DO NOT address the FACTS that I sourced, as the chronological posts show. BFD...more dishonest crap from you.
You din't say that? Oh, I might have you confused with every other retarded global warmer who can't face the facts about having been misled.
LOL you makes me laugh
Click to expand...

Your last sentence once again verifies your screen name claim that you are nothing more than a crank...carry on.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Okay, folks.....let me wrap it up in dealing with this dumbass:

Note his first red bold response: All he does is just repeat what he said earlier...he doesn't even address the points I made regarding a few of those sources of the vaunted 16 agencies. More evidence to his dishonesty and willful stupidity, he tries to dismiss the IAEA, which is a CRUCIAL agency in determining nuke capabilities of developing countries....which coincides with the FACTS that the NIE report OMITTED information and agencies that did not fit it's contention. Bravo also lies...he didn't even know about the IAEA's report in relation to the NIE 2002 report until I told him...check the chronology of the posts, which backs me up.

You got one thing right...I do dismiss the IAEA..it's role as a CRUCIAL agency in determining nuke capabilities of developing countries is laughable at best....
Its NOT AN INTELLIGENCE AGENCY and never has been....it plays no roll in the Presidents NIE reports...none at all....

Bravo ignores the link that shows a Senate Report as one reference of how the NIE had several agencies disagree with it's conclusions, and how members of the Shrub's staff tried to falsely misled the Congress and the country that the NIE report had little to no legitimate criticism/contradictions from official sources. Like a petulant child, he just keeps wailing that the NIE report is sacrosanct...while he just IGNORES any and all contrary facts. He even ignores that the NIE itself admits that it's sources are questionable at best. Bravo just refuses to use his head.

Your link....http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007296.php speaks totally to the issue of Iraq getting nuclear material from Africa...an issue not even covered in the NIE or 2002...WTF can I say about the link...its irrelevant and I gave it all the consideration it was due...in other words, I ignored it...

The NIE admits nothing about its sources being questionable except for this....
Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents--much of it added in the last year.

So again you're PWNED with ease....

Bravo is the perfect neocon stooge. He swallows the party line and ignores any contrary facts,.....Show me Clarabell...
then pretends that there was NO contention at the time of the release of the NIE 2002 report, when the evidence clearly shows that valid, official offices contradicted many of the NIE's claims....some of the sources who were of the vaunted "16 agencies". .....Show me Clarabell...
Now his false excuse is, "well, we know they were wrong LATER." This is the lie and distortion that the Shrub & company keep repeating....but the FACTS tell another story.

"we know the NIE was proven wrong later...thats just a simple truth, Clarabell, hardly an excuse....

Bravo just ignores what he doesn't like, and tries to ridicule those who would put forth what he can't deconstruct or ignore. In short, as the posts shows...Bravo is just an intellectually impotent neocon parrot...the good little soldier that never questions orders and defends that mindset to the bitter end.

Fortunately, the rest of the world is not as gullible. So I leave Bravo to mimic the clown he references, to display the brain pan size he loves to allude to others, and to repeat himself in various ways. He may have the last word, because it's sadly just more of the same false bravado.
Click to expand...


Its pinhead Clarabell....you're a "pinhead"

Its fun showing the board what an asshole you are time after time, but there are other threads with posters that actually have good points to make, so I can't keep pwning you over and over....not that I don't find you amusing
....just boring....
 
Last edited:
bravo said:


Its pinhead Clarabell....you're a "pinhead"

Its fun showing the board what an asshole you are time after time, but there are other threads with posters that actually have good points to make, so I can't keep pwning you over and over....not that I don't find you amusing
....just boring....
Click to expand...

And here folks, is why I considtently call out this intellectually impotent neocon parrot for the lying little shit he is...either that or the incredibly fucking dumb man he is:

Bravo wrote: Your link....http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007296.php speaks totally to the issue of Iraq getting nuclear material from Africa...an issue not even covered in the NIE or 2002...WTF can I say about the link...its irrelevant and I gave it all the consideration it was due...in other words, I ignored it...
Click to expand...

Obviously, the little dummy either missed or didn't read or is LYING about the following excerpt from this site:

On September 12, 2002, the DCI officially directed the National Intelligence Officer (NIO) for Strategic and Nuclear Programs to begin to draft an NIE. The National Intelligence Council (NIC) staff drew the discussion of nuclear reconstitution for the draft NIE largely from an August 2002 CIA assessment and a September 2002 DIA assessment, Iraq's Reemerging Nuclear Weapons Programs. [page 52]

...
Isn't that fascinating? The August 2002 CIA assessment (drafted by NESA) did not actually mention the uranium from Africa claim at all (as I also discussed in Sec. 2.1.1); only the September 2002 DIA report did (how's that for irony, considering that the CIA was blamed for the uranium claim by the Bush administration).

The question, then, is: how did the uranium claim get into the NIE?

Here's the relevant Senate Report discussion on this (emphasis mine):

(U) At the NIE coordination meeting, the only analyst who voiced disagreement with the uranium section was an INR analyst. Several analysts from other agencies told Committee staff that they did not recall even discussing the uranium reporting at the meeting. All of the analysts said that the bulk of the time at the meeting was spent debating other issues such as the aluminum tubes, time lines for weapons designs, and procurement of magnets and other dual use items. CIA, DIA and DOE analysts all said that at the time the NIE was written, they agreed with the NIE assessment that Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa. Some analysts said, in retrospect, the language should have been more qualified than it was, but they generally agreed with the text.

(U) The uranium text was included only in the body of the NIE, not in the key judgments section because the interagency consensus was that Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium were not key to the argument that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. According to the NIO, the key judgments were drawn from a CIA paper which only highlighted the acquisition of aluminum tubes as the reason Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. The NIO said that at the NIE coordination meeting, analysts added other reasons they believed Iraq was reconstituting, such as acquiring magnets, machine tools, and balancing machines, and reestablishing Iraq's nuclear scientists cadre. When someone, the NIO was not sure who [7 - eRiposte note: this may have been a DOE analyst per the footnote] suggested that the uranium information be included as another sign of reconstitution, the INR Iraq nuclear analyst spoke up and said that he did not agree with the uranium reporting and that INR would be including text indicating their disagreement in their footnote on nuclear reconstitution. The NIO said he did not recall anyone else at the coordination meeting who disagreed with the uranium text, but also did not recall anyone really supporting including the uranium issue as part of the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, so he suggested that the uranium information did not need to part of the key judgments. He told Committee staff he suggested that "We'll leave it in the paper for completeness. Nobody can say we didn't connect the dots. But we don't have to put that dot in the key judgments."

(U) Because INR disagreed with much of the nuclear section of the NIE, it decided to convey its alternative views in text boxes, rather than object to every point throughout the NIE. INR prepared two separate boxes, one for the key judgments section and a two page box for the body of the nuclear section, which included a sentence which stated that "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious." [page 52-53]

This is just ONE example of Bravo's level of denial and inability to properly research and assess information.

Someone should have clued in "Bravo" that the uranium/Iraq connection was CRUCIAL in the scenario of Iraq bulking up it's WMD's. So ONCE AGAIN, Bravo tries to foster a distorted view of history to suit his assisine beliefs and contentions.. As I said before, he just ignores what he doesn't like. Worst yet, the little dummy just doesn't get that proper research of history will always trump neocon propaganda, half-truths and just plain BS.


As Like I did yesterday, I leave the little dummy to mimic the buffoon he consistently references, while demonstrating how small his intellectual brain power actually is when compared to a pin....squawking the same disproven BS over and Over and OVER.

"Bravo" indeed. :palm:
 
lol....I see you don't even understand your own links....
Its no mystery what the intell was....

anyway...the 2002 NIE contained this...

State/INR Alternative View of Iraq's Nuclear Program

The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon-related capabilities. The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result, INR is unable to predict when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.

In INR's view Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to concluded that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapon program.
---------------------------------------------------
See anything definite in that assessment? No, of course not....some just admitted the uncertainty of the Nuclear Program.....and I say so what....

You do understand that CHEM and BIO weapons are considered WMD also, don't you..?
Your obviously obsessed with Nuclear side of WMD...
-------------------------------------------------------------
So from you post...

(U) The uranium text was included only in the body of the NIE(as I just showed you), not in the key judgments section because the interagency consensus was that Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium were not key to the argument that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.(do you understand that sentence? I think not) According to the NIO, the key judgments were drawn from a CIA paper which only highlighted the acquisition of aluminum tubes as the reason Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. The NIO said that at the NIE coordination meeting, analysts added other reasons they believed Iraq was reconstituting, such as acquiring magnets, machine tools, and balancing machines, and reestablishing Iraq's nuclear scientists cadre.( how about this part, understand what is being said?) When someone, the NIO was not sure who [7 - eRiposte note: this may have been a DOE analyst per the footnote] suggested that the uranium information be included as another sign of reconstitution, the INR Iraq nuclear analyst spoke up and said that he did not agree with the uranium reporting and that INR would be including text indicating their disagreement in their footnote on nuclear reconstitution. The NIO said he did not recall anyone else at the coordination meeting who disagreed with the uranium text, but also did not recall anyone really supporting including the uranium issue as part of the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, so he suggested that the uranium information did not need to part of the key judgments. He told Committee staff he suggested that "We'll leave it in the paper for completeness. Nobody can say we didn't connect the dots. But we don't have to put that dot in the key judgments."
'''''----------------------------------------

Ahhhh...the KEY JUDGEMENTS

Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate

High Confidence:

* Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

* We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.

* Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.

* Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.

Moderate Confidence:

* Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009. (see INR alternative view, page 84).

Low Confidence:

* When Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction

* Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the US Homeland.

* Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida.


You oughta just crawl away and lick your wounds, Clarabell....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top