Meet John Rendon

**Adrian II** · 11-20-2005, 00:31

James Bamford is back. Of course the author of the ground-breaking book on the NSA, The Puzzle Palace (1983), and various other spectacular books on intelligence matters has never really been away. But he has an excellent story in Rolling Stone right now, the first of a promising series. I have come across Mr John Rendon in various episodes and it is good to see this detailed analysis of his involvement with the Iraq war. A good read for a quiet Saturday night.

Finally, in early 2004, more than two years after he made the dramatic allegations to Miller and Moran about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, al-Haideri was taken back to Iraq by the CIA's Iraq Survey Group. On a wide-ranging trip through Baghdad and other key locations, al-Haideri was given the opportunity to point out exactly where Saddam's stockpiles were hidden, confirming the charges that had helped to start a war.

In the end, he could not identify a single site where illegal weapons were buried.

**Adrian II** · 11-20-2005, 00:36

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Isn't it sort of redundant at this point to be crying falsity of evidence? I thought it had been made perfectly clear by this point that everybody in congress had the same intelligence as the president. Just because they went along with the idiot doesn't mean that he lied about it.

Please read the article first.

**Red Harvest** · 11-20-2005, 01:25

Yep, pretty much what I suspected about Miller. Hadn't followed her career but I understood that one of the reasons she had gotten into trouble with her paper was because her info was erroneous for WMD. No wonder Libby had thought he could count on her.

GC, if you think congress had access to even a fraction of what the Pres, VP, etc. had access to, then you are swallowing an implausible cover story.

**Red Harvest** · 11-20-2005, 04:59

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

It seems plausable to me. I'd be happy to change my mind if someone would offer some non-BS factoids about the situation.

Use any level of reason and it quickly becomes implausible. The Prez's central focus was Iraq. The whole system was set up to feed him/his staff info, at a security clearance level that nobody in congress would have had. He could not only direct it, but select what info to emphasize or where to search more. Daily briefings that others weren't privy to. It is completely ridiculous to believe congress had the same level of information or even close to it.

"BS-factoids?" I'll tell you where those are coming from. They are coming from the regime currently in the Whitehouse. You can't believe a damned thing they say. Take the whole torture story for instance. I'll believe what those involved say, but not the Whitehouse.

**Red Harvest** · 11-20-2005, 06:12

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Trust me, there's nothing I'd like better than to hear solid proof that Bush has done something heinous. I loathe his administration on just about every level. But those two paragraphs you just gave me were nothing but rhetoric and opinion.

No, it's simple logic. Is it that hard to comprehend? My God, man, what do you think your intelligence services do? Hunt down every Tom, Dick and Harriet in congress daily to give them in depth personlalized briefings on matters of the highest sensitivity and cater to their individual (and staffer) requests for more info?

**Red Harvest** · 11-20-2005, 06:40

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

So says you.

Logic, by it's very nature, does nothing better than make itself evident. Find me irrefutable proof.

Go find it yourself. What a worthless conversation.

**PanzerJaeger** · 11-20-2005, 08:12

Go find it yourself. What a worthless conversation.

Hahaa.. pwned.

**ichi** · 11-20-2005, 08:41

Thread with the most potential that degenerated the quickest

**Tribesman** · 11-20-2005, 14:11

Just because they went along with the idiot doesn't mean that he lied about it.
But does it mean Rummy lied ?
When he said "we know he has these weapons , we know where they are and thats a ...a....a....um....fact" was he using "facts" from the source that had already been shown to be unreliable ? Or was he claiming something as a fact that he had not checked on for factual content , either way he was lying .
Powell lied , or he put forward information that he hadn't checked for accuracy as truth . a quick look at the dates on the photographic "evidence" he put forward would have been enough for him to see that what he was saying was untrue , so either he was saying something was true when he knew it wasn't or he was saying something was true when he didn't know if it was , either way it was lying .

I thought it had been made perfectly clear by this point that everybody in congress had the same intelligence as the president.
Nope , not everybody in congress was party to the same intelligence briefings were they . They were party to the intelligence that was passed on from the briefings not to the full intelligence that was available .

**Red Harvest** · 11-20-2005, 17:58

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Quite wrong. What's worthless is when someone makes an argument based on rhetoric alone.

Like yours. You have plain cold logic staring you in the face and you can't be bothered to use your brain for a few seconds. Do you just swallow what you are fed without chewing or thinking? Use your head. Think about it. It doesn't add up. Instead you ask to be spoon fed. Dismiss logic as rhetoric?

The facts are already staring you in the face but you are ignoring them.

**Red Harvest** · 11-20-2005, 18:01

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Hahaa.. pwned.

Yes, he was owned. The whole assertion that congress had the same intelligence available as the President is an obvious lie. But hey, you guys want to be deceived. That is what makes it a worthless conversation.