dsgrue3 said:
A bit different between getting information post hoc as opposed to speculating on WMDs and rather ambiguous information about 9/11. You act like the intel was that there would be planes smashing into the twin towers on 9/11/2001 - that wasn't even remotely close to the case. Not relevant to this matter though. Stay on topic. Again, you're still posting articles about the emails FROM 3 DAYS LATER. The relevant emails from contemporary intel are not released and probably never will be. These emails aren't about discussing the attack, they are about talking points. Go read them - nothing but unclassified bullet points, i.e. sheltering the public from what actually happened. Educate yourself. |
You keep mentioning 3 DAYS LATER as if that changes what the content of the CIA emails is.
So 3 days later the CIA was lying about the protest for talking points? If the information they believed 3 days later included the idea that there was a violent protest, what makes you think the original intelligence didn't suggest the same thing? Once again, pointing out to you that the protest is being mentioned by the CIA. Do you have any proof that the administration made up the idea of the protest? (which, again, is mentioned by the CIA)
Biggest terrorist attack in history, warnings of Al Qaeda attacks and a history of them, but that is irrelevant for the CIA to figure out? WMD information that led to a war where 5000 americans died and how many Iraqis? That is irrelevant? Tell me out of these 3 CIA mistakes of intelligence which one cost more? Which is a bigger intelligence failure?
XBL Gamertag: ckmlb, PSN ID: ckmlb
