Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Bush admits Iraq-Uranium connection was a mistake

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Bush admits Iraq-Uranium connection was a mistake (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/15480-bush-admits-iraq-uranium-connection-mistake.html)

Bush admits Iraq-Uranium connection was a mistake

This is a pretty major retraction, i think. Just one more piece of evidence that Americans were led into the war with Iraq using questionable information. Remember, the rest of the world (other than Britain) was saying that Iraq wasn't that much of a threat and that we could remove Saddam slowly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hptop_tb

Quote:

White House Backs Off Claim on Iraqi Buy

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 8, 2003; Page A01

The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time yesterday that President Bush should not have alleged in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Africa to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

The statement was prompted by publication of a British parliamentary commission report, which raised serious questions about the reliability of British intelligence that was cited by Bush as part of his effort to convince Congress and the American people that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program were a threat to U.S. security.

The British panel said it was unclear why the British government asserted as a "bald claim" that there was intelligence that Iraq had sought to buy significant amounts of uranium in Africa. It noted that the CIA had already debunked this intelligence, and questioned why an official British government intelligence dossier published four months before Bush's speech included the allegation as part of an effort to make the case for going to war against Iraq.

The findings by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee undercut one of the Bush administration's main defenses for including the allegation in the president's speech -- namely that despite the CIA's questions about the assertion, British intelligence was still maintaining that Iraq had indeed sought to buy uranium in Africa.

Asked about the British report, the administration released a statement that, after weeks of questions about the president's uranium-purchase assertion, effectively conceded that intelligence underlying the president's statement was wrong.

"Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech," a senior Bush administration official said last night in a statement authorized by the White House.

The administration's statement capped months of turmoil over the uranium episode during which senior officials have been forced to defend the president's remarks in the face of growing reports that they were based on faulty intelligence.

As part of his case against Iraq, Bush said in his State of the Union speech on Jan. 28 that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The International Atomic Energy Agency told the U.N. Security Council in March that the uranium story -- which centered on documents alleging Iraqi efforts to buy the material from Niger -- was based on forged documents. Although the administration did not dispute the IAEA's conclusion, it launched the war against Iraq later that month.

It subsequently emerged that the CIA the previous year had dispatched a respected former senior diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson, to Niger to investigate the allegation and that Wilson had reported back that officials in Niger denied the story. The administration never made Wilson's mission public, and questions have been raised over the past month over how the CIA characterized his conclusion in its classified intelligence reports inside the administration.

The report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee followed weeks of hearings by the panel into two intelligence dossiers on Iraq's weapons programs -- one published in September and the other in January -- that the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair used to justify supporting the administration in going to war against Iraq.

Questions about the British government's handling of intelligence have mirrored many of the issues being raised in the United States. But they have created a far greater political uproar in London.

Parliament's response has been notably different than that of Congress. The House and Senate intelligence panels have moved cautiously, with Democrats and Republicans divided over the necessity of full-blown public hearings into the administration's use of pre-war intelligence. The House of Commons moved quickly to investigate the matter, with the Blair government battling accusations that it misled Parliament and members of the Labor Party in persuading them to support an unpopular war.

The commission's report issued yesterday found that Blair and his other key ministers "did not mislead" Parliament in describing the threat from Iraq's alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. But the panel did find that the Blair government mishandled intelligence material on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

The panel said it is too soon to determine whether the government's assertions about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs will be borne out, but added that the government's actions "were justified by the information available at the time."

In a major political issue within Britain, the panel found that Alastair Campbell, Blair's communications chief, "did not exert or seek to exert improper influence" in drafting the September intelligence report or a key statement in the document that "the Iraqi military are able to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes if ordered to do so."

The panel did find that this statement "did not warrant the prominence given to it" in the first pages of the dossier because it was based on "intelligence from a single, uncorroborated source." The panel asked the Blair government to explain why it was given such a prominent position in the report.

A senior administration official said yesterday that a classified version of a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons programs, completed last September, contains references to intelligence reports that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from three African countries, not just Niger. The other two countries are Namibia and Gabon, according to intelligence sources. The sources said the reports about other countries have not been confirmed and that some government analysts do not consider the information reliable.

A senior intelligence official said that there were reports of "possible attempts" by Iraqis or their agents to buy uranium, but that "they were all somewhat sketchy."

One Bush administration official said British and U.S. intelligence agencies got their Niger documents from the intelligence service of one country that he refused to name, but that others have identified as Italy.

"We both had one source reporting through some liaison service which said, 'Look what we found,' " this official said. "There were other [intelligence] reporting streams, but it may be that all streams are traced to the same source."

Ho-hum. This is the same as all the rest. The Bush opponents will say "He lied, impeach him!" and the Bush supporters will say "He implied, not lied under oath like that scumbag Clinton, and speaking of Clinton blah blah blah" and divert attention attention away from this latest bit of bad news for the administration. That's, incidentally, my favorite bit about this. The administration admitted, not Bush. I would fucking love to see Bush actually stand up and admit he made a mistake.

The neat thing is, even if they had bought uranium, the US probably sold it to them. Being anti-war is so easy nowadays, it makes me want to actually support the war in Iraq for more of a challenge.:p

i remember hearing about this. there's consensus on this among the intelligence community, that this is false.

i remember the guy that they sent to africa, he blased the intel so bad...and bush still reported it in his state of the union.

We already knew that this probably wasn't true. So what; This somehow proves that everything Bush said was false?

<b>dragonlich</b>

Just one more thing to throw on the pile, along with:

- evidence that wolfowitz has been trying to invade iraq since 1991
- the lack of finding any WMD
- the weapons factory that was a hospital
- the missile stash that wasn't
- the "orphan's prison" that was a legitimate orphanage
- the mobile weapons labs that were hydrogen balloon launchers
- the "nuclear components" that were aluminum tubes

I think the evidence is continuing to show that Bush may have inflated the risk from Iraq; that France and Germany and the UN were right, Iraq could have been disarmed slowly by more peaceful means; and that Bush caused American troops to be killed by misleading the american people into a war we didn't need to wage.

i'd call that more than a "so what?".

Harmless rabbit

Hydrogen ballon launchers your funny, or not. sounds like your promoting facts, that have a very weak base.
Its not to late to move to canada,

I hope the US media do the right thing and pick up on this. I hope Bush takes a major fall for this.

the dem candidates are going to have a field day over this

<b>sportrule101</b>

Well, the Los Angeles Times says that those trucks were used to make hydrogen for balloons:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...220546779.html

And there is evidence that those trucks were actually sold to iraq, for that purpose, by britain, in 1987:

http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=921&blz=1

What source are you using for the "facts"? Fox news?

Quote:

Originally posted by sportsrule101
Harmless rabbit

Hydrogen ballon launchers your funny, or not. sounds like your promoting facts, that have a very weak base.
Its not to late to move to canada,

And you can still move to a country where they use a language aside from English. If you're going to be a troll, I can be one too.

i think i'll post this article, found it on yahoo

Quote:

Dems Urge Probe of Iraqi Uranium Claim

WASHINGTON - Democrats pressed for deeper investigation of pre-war U.S. intelligence efforts Tuesday after the White House admitted President Bush (news - web sites) had erred in his State of the Union speech when he said Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had tried to buy uranium in Africa.

As weeks have passed with the American search turning up no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (news - web sites), criticism has been building concerning assertions the administration made as justification for the war.

"This is a very important admission," said Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. "It's a recognition that we were provided faulty information. And I think it's all the more reason why a full investigation of all of the facts surrounding this situation be undertaken."

Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, also said that the development underscored a need for more investigation.

"The reported White House statements only reinforce the importance of an inquiry into why the information about the bogus uranium sales didn't reach the policy-makers during 2002 and why, as late as the president's State of the Union address in January 2003, our policy-makers were still using information which the intelligence community knew was almost certainly false," Levin said.

Michael Anton, a spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, said in a statement, "We now know that documents alleging a transaction between Iraq and Niger had been forged."

Anton also said the documents were not the sole basis for Bush's contention is his speech that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The spokesman said that when Bush made the speech in January, there was other intelligence indicating that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from several countries in Africa. This other information, however, was not detailed or specific enough to prove such a contention, he said.

"Because of this lack of specificity, this reporting alone did not rise to the level of inclusion in a presidential speech," Anton said. "That said, the issue of Iraq's attempts to acquire uranium from abroad was not an element underpinning the judgment reached by most intelligence agencies that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

On June 8, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), too, had said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Bush was wrong when he said the British government had learned that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa to build weapons.

"No one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery," she said. "Of course, it was information that was mistaken."

The latest White House statement followed assertions by an envoy sent to Africa to investigate allegations about Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The envoy, Joseph Wilson, said Sunday that the Bush administration manipulated his findings, possibly to strengthen the rationale for war.

Several investigations are under way in Congress, but Democrats said much more was needed.

Rep. Janice Schakowsky (news, bio, voting record) of Illinois called for an independent, non-congressional inquiry.

"Did the Bush administration knowingly deceive us and manufacture intelligence in order to build public support for the invasion of Iraq?" she asked. "Did Iraq really pose an imminent threat to our nation?"

Democratic lawmakers hoping to replace Bush in the White House were vehement. Calls for more investigation came from Sens. Bob Graham of Florida and John Kerry of Massachusetts and Reps. Richard Gephardt of Missouri and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

"George Bush's credibility is increasingly in doubt," Graham said. Gephardt asserted, "This president has a pattern of using excessive language in his speeches and off-the-cuff remarks."

Said Kerry, "The Bush administration doesn't get honesty points for belatedly admitting what had been apparent to the world for some time — that emphatic statements made on Iraq were inaccurate."

A British parliamentary commission also has been questioning the reliability of intelligence about Iraq trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) insisted Tuesday that he was right to go to war and that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq.

but w/ republican majorities in both houses, i doubt anything will happen.

makes a person wonder what else is false????

Well folks I think we live in a said time. How can we go on when our leaders lie to us? when we can't trust the media? When we allow our freedoms to be taken? When everyone knows that they are right and you (I) am wrong? I love this country. I don't like where we are, have been, and are headed. I wish someone had some loving answers that would save us from ourselves.

here is a comic that i read, I thought it summed this whole thing up.

(my scanner is broken so ill type it)

Person 1: "the Presidents critics accuse him of lying about the threat posed by Iraq before the war-- but was it really a lie if he believed what he was saying at the time?"

Person 3: "good point"

Person 2: "or what if he didn't believe what he was saying was saying -- but he did not expect us to, either? I don’t know if that would technically constitute a lie"

Person 1: "no harm no foul-- that’s what I say"

Person 3 "or maybe he did exaggerate the evidence slightly-- but with the best of intentions! Wouldn’t that really be more like a little white lie? And who hasn't told one of those"

Person 2: "some times you have to stretch the truth A Little"

Person 1: "Or-- what if he deliberately deceived Americans because he knew they'd never support sending their sons and daughters to die in pursuit of some neocon wet dream or global hegemony? Would that truly be considered a lie?"

Person 2: "Cough"

Person 3: "Ahem"

Person 1: "I guess that would huh?"

Person 2: "moving right along to our next topic-- Hillary's new book! Is it full of lies or what"
person 3: " First these messages"

That was a tom tomorrow comic, you can see it here:

http://www.workingforchange.com/arti...m?ItemID=15239

Quote:

neocon wet dream

that really cracked me up.

neocon wet dream

Sounds like a Neil Stephenson novel.

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
That was a tom tomorrow comic, you can see it here:

http://www.workingforchange.com/arti...m?ItemID=15239

yep thats the one, thanks for the link

Another label can be added to the appointed pResident, Verifiable "Liar"

what president hasn't lied to us? Saddam was a tyrant, and I'm glad he's been removed from power. Granted we were led into the war with our eyes closed, what war has been based on complete truths? I'm not supporting Bush at all, just playing devil's advocate; but really, what're we going to do about it? impeach him? good fuckin luck.

Here's one of the latest articles on the Niger Uranium/CIA issue - it seems like Condoleeza Rice has been one of the main players in a lot of this deception.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason...ndi/index.html

Quote:

Joe Conason's Journal
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice's response to CIA leaks over the Niger deception still doesn't answer the public's question: Did Bush knowingly mislead us or not?

- - - - - - - - - - - -

July 11, 2003 | Rice fries steamed spies
On and off the record, the level of bureaucratic warfare between the CIA and the White House over the Niger deception is becoming intense, as public pressure grows for an independent investigation of the Bush administration's justifications for war in Iraq. As I suggested yesterday, the president's advisors are trying simultaneously to pillory the CIA while keeping director George Tenet safely inside the Bush tent.

National security advisor Condoleezza Rice delivered the latest salvo against the agency early Friday morning in a meeting with reporters on Air Force One, as the presidential entourage headed toward Uganda. Her message wasn't exactly subtle: "The CIA cleared the speech. The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety," she said, after suggesting minor changes to the sentence about the alleged Iraqi uranium deal. "With the changes in that sentence, the speech was cleared. The agency did not say they wanted that sentence out."

Of course, she added, "I'm not blaming anyone here." (Why would anyone think she is?) And the president "absolutely" retains confidence in the agency, she emphasized. They're just hanging the director out to dry until the media heat dissipates.

According to Rice's version of events, the CIA carefully vetted the president's speech, and nevertheless permitted him to say things that the agency's analysts knew to be false, or at best highly questionable. She told reporters to question Tenet himself if they're curious about that contradiction.

Rice was responding to leaks from the intelligence community that first appeared on CBS News yesterday under a startlingly ominous headline: "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False". CIA sources told CBS that when agency officials objected to the inclusion of the Niger uranium line in the Jan. 28 presidential address, the National Security Council staff -- led by Condi Rice -- decided that, true or false, they could get away with using the line if it was attributed to our British allies:

"CIA officials warned members of the President's National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa ... As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that's how it was delivered."

Perhaps that's how this fiasco occurred, but I doubt that's the whole story. According to the senior officials quoted by Walter Pincus in the Washington Post, the CIA actually tried to wave the Brits away from the Niger tale no later than last fall. If that's true, then why would the CIA have allowed the president to use false information based on an erroneous British source? Incidentally, the Post account notes that our intelligence services didn't receive the Niger information directly from their London counterparts, but from an unnamed third country.

The Post also knocks down Rice's assertion that the Niger story had gained credibility from its inclusion in a National Intelligence Estimate prepared by the CIA. Again, quoting Pincus:

"Although the CIA paper mentioned alleged Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from three African countries, it warned that State Department analysts were questioning its accuracy when it came to Niger and that CIA personnel considered reports on other African countries to be "sketchy" ... The CIA paper's summary conclusions about whether Iraq was restarting its nuclear weapons program did not include references to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa."

Anyone who understands how the State of the Union address is composed will understand why Rice is now pointing at Tenet. Vetting the intelligence information in that constitutionally mandated speech is her responsibility -- and if a false statement shows up in the presidential text, as it did last January, she must explain how that happened. Realizing what the White House obviously wanted, Tenet may have permitted his political instincts to overcome his normal probity. To attribute the Niger tale to the Brits wasn't a direct lie -- just a highly misleading statement whose meaning was known to be false.

But as national security advisor, Rice is supposed to assimilate all the information pertinent to the president's remarks, from all agencies. That would mean she had been given negative information about the Niger story not only by the CIA but also by the State Department, which had been warned against this fakery by former ambassador Joe Wilson and by the current ambassador in Niger. If there was any high official in the administration who should have known the story was false, that person was Rice.

This isn't the first time that Rice has wildly exaggerated intelligence information for political purposes. She persistently pushed the "aluminum tubes" story about Iraq, since discredited by the IAEA. She also promoted the dubious tale about the targeting of the White House and Air Force One by the 9/11 attackers. Rice clearly feels no compunction about exaggerating or distorting information when that serves the wishes of her boss. So her credibility compares poorly with that of Tenet -- the man who tried in vain to convince her and the other brilliant minds in the White House about the imminent threat from al-Qaida in 2001. (That may be the most important reason that the White House will disparage but hesitate to dismiss the CIA director, whose sudden unemployment could lead to discomfiting candor).

While the Bush appointees squabble, the public is starting to demand the truth. As this new CBS poll indicates -- with all due respect to Howard Kurtz -- liberals aren't alone in doubting that the White House told the truth about Iraq's arsenal, or in wondering whether this war was worth the cost.

At the vanguard, as usual, is MoveOn, whose powerful "Misleader" ad will debut next Monday on New York and Washington TV stations. Those ads inaugurate a national campaign for an independent investigation of the alleged government deceptions that led up to the war in Iraq.

Hey, is Kissinger still available?
[12:50 p.m. PDT, July 11, 2003
Salon.com

The administration seems to be continually undermining vast swathes of the CIA, State Department and any other parts of the national bureaucracy that don't fit with their agenda. If they keep vilifying and sniping at highly competent intelligence agents and professionals, national security will suffer and the US will be put at significant risk of another attack.

here's another story.

cia director seems to take the blame for the bad intel

Quote:

Tenet Takes Blame on Iraqi Uranium Claim

WASHINGTON - CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet gave Congress and the White House the accountability they demanded, declaring Friday that the blame for President Bush (news - web sites)'s false allegation about an Iraqi nuclear deal rested squarely with him and his agency.

The CIA should never have let Bush repeat a British report that Iraq (news - web sites) was seeking uranium from the African country of Niger when U.S. intelligence analysts could not corroborate it, Tenet said in a statement. [/b]Ultimately, the allegation proved false.

"These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," Tenet said, referring to Bush's State of the Union speech in January.

Tenet's extraordinary statement was released after Bush and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), blamed the error on the CIA and members of Congress called for someone to be held accountable.

"This was a mistake," the director said.

CIA and administration officials said that despite the mea culpa, they did not expect Tenet to resign. The Democrat is the long holdover from the Clinton administration and, while distrusted by some conservatives, has enjoyed Bush's confidence.

"I've heard no discussion along those lines," CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said Friday night when asked whether Tenet would consider resigning. Other administration officials noted that Rice and Bush, while placing blame on Tenet's agency, also expressed confidence in the CIA director.

Tenet said the responsibility for vetting the allegations included in Bush's speech rested with CIA.

"Let me be clear about several things right up front," he said. "First, CIA approved the president's State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my agency. And third, the president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound."

Tenet said CIA officials reviewed portions of the draft speech and raised some concerns with national security aides at the White House that prompted changes in the language. But he said the CIA officials failed to stop the remark from being uttered despite the doubts about its validity.

"Officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues," Tenet said. "Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa."

"This should not have been the test for clearing a presidential address," the statement continued. "This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed."

Tenet's two-page statement came at the end of a tumultuous 24 hours in which reports surfaced suggesting the CIA had raised concerns about the nature of the African allegations before the president made his speech.

That prompted Bush and Rice to take issue. On a trip in Africa, they said Tenet's agency approved the language in the speech and never raised objections to them.

Members of Congress called on the CIA to be held accountable. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, said Tenet was ultimately responsible for the mistake.

"The director of central intelligence is the principal adviser to the president on intelligence matters," Roberts said. "He should have told the president. He failed. He failed to do so," Roberts said.

Tenet said there were "legitimate questions" about the CIA's conduct and he sought in his statement to explain his agency's role.

Although the CIA did not learn until well after the president's speech in January that some documents obtained by British intelligence that formed the basis of the Iraq-Niger uranium allegations were forged, CIA officials recognized at the beginning that the allegation was based on "fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002," the director said.

A former diplomat was sent by the CIA to the region to check on the allegations and reported back that one of the Nigerian officials he met "stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office," Tenet said.

"The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss 'expanding commercial relations' between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales," Tenet said.

The diplomat sent to the region has alleged he believed Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s office was apprised of the findings of his trip. But Tenet stated that the CIA "did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials."

Tenet said when British officials in fall 2002 discussed making the Niger information public, his agency expressed their reservations to the British about the quality of the intelligence.

A CIA report that came out in October 2002 mentioned the allegations but did not give them full credence, stating "we cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore." In addition, the report noted that State Department intelligence analysts found the allegations "highly dubious."

Because of the doubts, Tenet said he never included the allegations in his own congressional testimonies or public statements about Iraqi efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction.

omfg, what a poor scapegoat!

i heard somewhere that the bush admin didnt even consult w/ them till the day before the speech, and that consultation was over the phone.

Way to stand up and take it Tenet.
He is a LONG HOLDOVER from the slick willie admin.

He could have saved ass really easily, I am a democrat and I told them it was false information, but they went ahead anyhow.

The liberal press would have had a field day.

"poor poor Slick willie holdout" we know the repubs had everything to do with it, we knew all along it was false info and you just wanted to keep your job."

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
Way to stand up and take it Tenet.
He is a LONG HOLDOVER from the slick willie admin.

He could have saved ass really easily, I am a democrat and I told them it was false information, but they went ahead anyhow.

The liberal press would have had a field day.

"poor poor Slick willie holdout" we know the repubs had everything to do with it, we knew all along it was false info and you just wanted to keep your job."

I knew someone would link the name of Clinton to this...I just knew it.:p

Quote:

Originally posted by splck
I knew someone would link the name of Clinton to this...I just knew it.:p

It was too easy, clinton nominee being a scapegoat, lets be real.

Quote:

Originally posted by bermuDa
what president hasn't lied to us? ... but really, what're we going to do about it? impeach him? good fuckin luck.

I think the appropriate thing would be to not vote for him in the 2004 election. Like someone else said, it's just another thing that's added to the stack to make us wonder just why the hell we went into Iraq.

And what I said about Tenet taking the blame was sincere, the way politics is he wasnt concerned about the backlash upon himself.

I love how everyone is an intelligence expert. When they would have a hard time watching their sister shower, let alone be able to infiltrate a countries weapons purchase system.

Armchair quaterbacks win every monday.