The Great Police Work Thread

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,933
Don't give a shit. If you have done something bad enough to get yourself put on the watchlist, your basic rights are revoked. Most importantly the right to own a gun.
Disagree. A watchlist is nothing more than suspicion. As in, not guilty. If they were actually known to be guilty, they would then be arrested.

As soon as we start revoking constitutional rights on nothing more than suspicion, then we've opened a can of worms that we'll never get shut again.
 

Carp

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
15,127
Disagree. A watchlist is nothing more than suspicion. As in, not guilty. If they were actually known to be guilty, they would then be arrested.

As soon as we start revoking constitutional rights on nothing more than suspicion, then we've opened a can of worms that we'll never get shut again.
~ adds NoDak to DCC watch list~
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
That was in retrospect after it was determined it was false. The administration at the time as well as Congress was relying on it. The CIA was the chief culprit in all this at the onset.
Nope it was the Administration pressuring the CIA to give them intelligence that fit there narrative.

This is from a highly ranked CIA officilal who was there at the time.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/themes/nie.html

You have said that Tenet didn't really want to [put together the NIE]. ...

The exact timing was September of 2002. Sen. Bob Graham -- to his credit -- wondered why no National Intelligence Estimate had been prepared. He was on the Senate [Select Committee on Intelligence], and he was told that no one asked for a National Intelligence Estimate. So Graham said, "Well, I will."

The fact of the matter is, the CIA didn't want to produce one. The White House didn't want one because they didn't want to allow any venting of whatever opposition there was to what they wanted to be the conventional wisdom on weapons of mass destruction. But Graham got his way, and the CIA produced this estimate in three or four weeks. They didn't produce it very well, but basically they produced the case that the administration wanted.


This was comparable to sort of judge shopping in the courthouse: If you want a certain verdict on a decision, you usually know which judge you can go to. ... George Tenet and John McLaughlin picked the very people in the National Intelligence Council ... who had a very hard line on all of these issues.

So three or four key people were picked to write this estimate that was a fraud; I don't know how else to describe that National Intelligence Estimate. It should be fully released. I don't know why they're protecting sources and methods because the sources were obviously specious or flawed in one way or another. The methodology, obviously, was a disgrace. And it should be studied; it should be part of the national understanding of how we went to war. ...
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Really?

There is ample evidence all across the internet.
There is also a Senate intelligence report and it points to the CIA as the perpetrators of the erroneous information given to the administration. Are you saying the Bush administration created this information and intentionally deceived congress? I have not run across that proof. I have heard the rants of some who would like to believe it is true.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Can you tell the difference in a media opinion and an official investigative report? They are talking about Graham.
The real question is why wasn't there an impeachment and removal movement if the President perpetrated this massive deception?
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Can you tell the difference in a media opinion and an official investigative report? They are talking about Graham.
Come on man.

That is an interview with the 2nd in command of the CIA at the time nothing about that is media opinion.

Did you even try and read it or do you not understand what a media opinion piece is?

I get it you don't want to know the fact unless they fit what you believe.

And it's funny that you take as gospel a Senate report like there is no opinion involved with that.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
The real question is why wasn't there an impeachment and removal movement if the President perpetrated this massive deception?
That is a question many are asking and it was a hot topic of discussion leading up to the election of 2008.

And for the record I don't think it was so much Bush pushing the deception as much as his cabinet feeding him knowingly false intel.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
That is a question many are asking and it was a hot topic of discussion leading up to the election of 2008.

And for the record I don't think it was so much Bush pushing the deception as much as his cabinet feeding him knowingly false intel.
Well that's my whole point.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
The real question is why wasn't there an impeachment and removal movement if the President perpetrated this massive deception?
Come on man.

That is an interview with the 2nd in command of the CIA at the time nothing about that is media opinion.

Did you even try and read it or do you not understand what a media opinion piece is?

I get it you don't want to know the fact unless they fit what you believe.

And it's funny that you take as gospel a Senate report like there is no opinion involved with that.
I do know this. I know what an official report is. I was a Federal Investigator for part of my working career and some reports are official and some are not
If it is an official report it must be completely documented. I cannot say whether the media report is documented or this CIA individual is just talking. I am pretty certain the Senate report's conclusions and opinions are based on documentation because I know how it is done.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
I do know this. I know what an official report is. I was a Federal Investigator for part of my working career and some reports are official and some are not
If it is an official report it must be completely documented. I cannot say whether the media report is documented or this CIA individual is just talking. I am pretty certain the Senate report's conclusions and opinions are based on documentation because I know how it is done.
It is not a media report it is a face to face interview with somebody who was a part of the process.

And his account is backed up by research from many other people who have emails and have interviewed others.

To try and wipe this away as some media opinion piece is disingenuous and shows you have no appetite to find out what really happened or don't really care.

I think the latter so I will just stop here.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
It is not a media report it is a face to face interview with somebody who was a part of the process.

And his account is backed up by research from many other people who have emails and have interviewed others.

To try and wipe this away as some media opinion piece is disingenuous and shows you have no appetite to find out what really happened or don't really care.

I think the latter so I will just stop here.
It was a media report from PBS.org. Read the stuff you submit. They do not have to document all they have to say is they have a source and then will not disclose the source and this is why I have more stock in official reports.
 
Last edited:

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
It was a media report from PBS.org. Read the stuff you submit. They do not have to document all they have to say is they have a source and then will not disclose the source and this is why I have more stock in official reports.
Are you serious?

So let me get this straight, PBS interviews the guy who is the current head of the CIA who testified on the very panel you are touting, yet since it's "media" you can't be bothered to pay it any attention.

PBS does have to document what was said it's standard journalistic practice.

What source needs to be disclosed? This was a one on one interview.

You are making no sense whatsoever especially if you don't realize nothing in the post needed a source or documentation.

It was an interview.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Are you serious?

So let me get this straight, PBS interviews the guy who is the current head of the CIA who testified on the very panel you are touting, yet since it's "media" you can't be bothered to pay it any attention.

PBS does have to document what was said it's standard journalistic practice.

What source needs to be disclosed? This was a one on one interview.

You are making no sense whatsoever especially if you don't realize nothing in the post needed a source or documentation.
It was an interview.
I pay less attention to the CIA being interviewed on a scandal that they were the source of the problem. It doesn't' resonate as well for me as an official investigate report. Sources for journalist reporting aren't always documented. They will take interviews prima faca with out verification.
 
Last edited:

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
Senate reports are the CNNSI of history.

If I see anything other than Senate reports quoted after this timestamp, you WILL get a vacation.
 
Top Bottom