or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows. - Page 4

post #121 of 654
I don't like GWB or much of what he stands for. Unfortunately, baring a major economic collapse or an event that kills thousands of Americans, GWB will be reelected. If he produces OBL's head on a stick ,he will be reelected by a landslide.

I think his bumbling ways are a big part of what makes him attractive to so many Americans. People are not intimidated by him. He is like every other dolt in the bar.
post #122 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
THIS comes to mind right off hand . . . besides all of the other stuff that seems to force itself at the perirphery whish I am too tired, in my fevered ill state, to look for.

and as for that 'eletist' point and the rural vote . . . I said as much because I live in a rural environment and see what I see . . . but mainly because of the RED states and regions that voted for Bush are Rural . . . and if you followed my point that means ipso-facto- then they are refusing to be critical, insightful or intelligent
But seriously it is because he, who is NOT RURAL even though he comes from Texas, panders to the image of his folksy-goodness and that image is passed around out in these parts like it were-gospel . . .

all these rural folks who think that eurban people are pretentious while they are just 'dalt-of-the-earth' and the last thing in the world that they could be is superficial are in truly FOOLING themselves . . . . these people are as prone to falsity and self-delusion as anybody anywhere . . .
and a major means of their achieving that typical state of self-delusion (a problem that we are all prone to) is through propogating a FALSE image of "Honesty"

You're off base. Your analysis is predicated on the old Leftist line: "If only people were more informed, they would NEVER support Bush". It's a sort of self-reinforcing delusion for the Left. Those who disagree with you are stupid. How convenient.

People in the red states think differently...all 50 million of them. They don't think that Patriotism is stupid. They fly the American flag. They go to church. They support a strong military. They believe in right and wrong. They oppose gay marriage. They have valid viewpoints which you dismiss. Ironically, I'd argue it is the urban Left that is uninformed. Look at our inner cities. They've been voting Democratic for 40 years. What's changed? Why do they continue to support a party that takes their demographic for granted and produces no results?

On Bush, what is he? Is he a common fool, or elitist pretending to be one? You can't have it both ways.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #123 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Perhaps you mean "Lying" as opposed to "lieing". Either way, there is no...I repeat...NO evidence of that at all.

Prolonging a recession? How? What policies caused that? The recession lasted less than 18 months! As for "why" he cut taxes, can you again prove that? I'll give you the deficit....but I'll also remind you that Congress appropriates, not Bush.



Somehow I don't think you were saying the same thing when Bill Clinton raised taxes BIGTIME on the MIDDLE CLASS. Your statement is ludicrous.

Gilsch:



Wow. One word: Delusional. You read somehwhere? HAHAHAHHA. Stop...you're killing me.



We've been over this before SDW! Also when did you become the perfect typist or speller? I've always found that when people start using such things in their arguments they're are getting desparate. Also they leave themselves open to the same kind of comments.


About the " Lying ". Well when you've pretty well exausted all the other possibilities you have to go with the most likely conclusion. No there is no direct evidence that Bush lied. However most everybody here knows that's probably the case. That's 99.9999999999999% positive. Any other explaination is very hard to swallow.

Also the voters have these same facts and I'm sure they know also. It's just the ones that are in denial that......well you know.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #124 of 654
People being uninformed has never been equated with stupidity in my mind. A stupid person is one who has the facts, considers them, and goes against what those facts suggest.

Inner cities need money. Where does the money come from? Suburbanites who often vote republican. So who is preventing the inner cities from obtaining money needed to improve the quality of life? The republicans... QED.
post #125 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You're off base. Your analysis is predicated on the old Leftist line: "If only people were more informed, they would NEVER support Bush". It's a sort of self-reinforcing delusion for the Left. Those who disagree with you are stupid. How convenient.

People in the red states think differently...all 50 million of them. They don't think that Patriotism is stupid. They fly the American flag. They go to church. They support a strong military. They believe in right and wrong. They oppose gay marriage. They have valid viewpoints which you dismiss. Ironically, I'd argue it is the urban Left that is uninformed. Look at our inner cities. They've been voting Democratic for 40 years. What's changed? Why do they continue to support a party that takes their demographic for granted and produces no results?

On Bush, what is he? Is he a common fool, or elitist pretending to be one? You can't have it both ways.


Common fool who got to be president through a fluke of course. Look I'm all for patriotism but Bush is all for himself not america or the american people. That's clear from his actions.

Even the republicans are starting to realize he's a liability.

Information is important! Bush's policies just don't hold water. Let me say it again quite simply : Where's the WOMD? It's a simple question based on a decision Bush railroaded through the government, our allies, and the UN. It just wasn't true. And no they're not going to find them " just any day now " because they don't exist. We fought that war for NOTHING BUT BUSH'S AGENDA! And this is just one example.


From our local paper the Statesman Journal ( and yes this is the main headline ) I DO'S CONTINUE IN MULTNOMAH " Elizabeth Hepburn 72 and Susan Jones 57 have been together for 20 years without government approval "......well you get the idea. There have been a lot of gay marriages here in Oregon lately.

Republicans have always been for big government not interfering with the private sector. What the hell do you think Bush was proposing?

I think people don't like a president attempting to force his religious beliefs on them! Whether they are in line with their lifestyle choices or not.

I think it's you SDW that's rapidly becoming the dinosaur in american opinion.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #126 of 654
Quote:
1. We have been welcomed as liberators on the whole. The majority of the population is not lobbing grenades at us.

That's a pretty high bar you've set there. Where are the flowers? The parades? We were told that a grateful Iraqi population would welcome us with open arms. It hasn't happened yet. If you get the chance, take a look at the most recent Frontline documentary from last week on all of this. If anything, it made clear that the Iraqis don't quite know what to make of our presence there and are keeping a cautious distance.

Quote:
2. Supply Lines: That's a pretty specific issue. I've heard it as well....but isn't that more of a Pentagon management issue? It obviously didn't disrupt the invasion.

Sorry to bring up a specific issue. I could be more vague, if you'd like? How about charges that the troops are ill-equipped? Stories of families sending their children kevlar because the military isn't getting it for them? Stories of towns having fundraisers to raise army to equip their sons--and the admin's response that "that's a pretty good idea."? It was a widely reported story that Rumsfeld demanded a much leaner fighting force than the Pentagon wanted, and that when supply lines ran thin there was a scramble to get more troops there. "Rolling deployments," they called them. This was a fight between the ideologues in the admin and the folks in the Pentagon. So no, this wasn't a Pentagon management issue. Here. An IHT story from this week on the behind the scenes.

Quote:
3. Afghansistand: You'll have to elaborate. I'm not sure what, specifically, you;re talking about.

During the run-up to war, there were several interviews with soldiers in Afghanistan who complained about a) having been forgotten about (one soldier on interviewed on MSNBC said "We're still here, folks") and b) having been re-assigned for duty in Iraq. Now, certainly some of this is reasonable--special forces who were no longer needed in Afghanistan were sent to Iraq. But the fact remains that Bush invaded Afghanistan, toppled the Taliban, and then turned his attention to Iraq before the job in Afghanistan was finished. And so now we're in the unenviable position of attempting to install two governments in two different countries with not enough troops to do the job.

Quote:
4. Post war: Again, what are you talking about? The post war plan was put into effect even before the war ended. Massive supply convoys entered the country. Infastructure is being rebuilt. A Coalition Authority was established. A provisional government by the end of this year. Yes, there are security problems. The picture you're painting is not accurate.

The post-war has been an absolute, unmitigated disaster. We made a series of assumptions: that the Iraqi army could be repatriated and trained by us, that the police force would remain intact, that the infrastructure would be in better shape than it was, that we'd be able to install a government and constitution in time for Bush to attend a gala signing ceremony as an October surprise, that electricity and water would flow freely, and that the oil would be able to pay for it all. Are these getting better? Sure. We've been there for nearly a year now. I would hope they'd get better. But the misunderestimation of the role of the Iraqi army (which we allowed to simply walk off into the desert) and the police force (which vanished) has left US soldiers with the job of policing, which isn't what they're trained--or we're supposed--to do.

Quote:
5. I don't think Bush has said "it isn't my fault" on really anything. Overall the operation is going very well. We have some casualties, but even that number is extremely low. We took over an entire country and have lost 600 lives doing it. I don't mean to scoff at that loss of life, but in military terms, it's a very low number. Those that have visited Iraq say that the picture is very different from the one we see on the news every night. Your statements are predicated on the notion that the effort itself is going badly...and it's not

My statements aren't predicated on anything other than what I read, see, and hear. As for the "it's not my fault" argument, go read Josh Marshall's comments on the ads. I don't agree with every point, and nor does Atrios, who suggests that they also say "We'll get it right next time!"

The economy: "I inherited an economy at the beginning of a recession" = "It was Clinton's fault."

Iraq WMD: "We got bad intelligence" = "Tenet did it, not me."

9/11: "Evildoers who hate freedom did it" = "They're madmen! We couldn't possibly have seen it coming. How could it have been my fault?" = "Ignore the widely reported rumor that the exiting Clinton admin insisted that al Qaeda was on the verge of something, but our determination to focus on Iraq blinded us to it."

9/11 intelligence failures: "The FBI did it."

And on, and on.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #127 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
That's a pretty high bar you've set there. Where are the flowers? The parades? We were told that a grateful Iraqi population would welcome us with open arms. It hasn't happened yet. If you get the chance, take a look at the most recent Frontline documentary from last week on all of this. If anything, it made clear that the Iraqis don't quite know what to make of our presence there and are keeping a cautious distance.



Sorry to bring up a specific issue. I could be more vague, if you'd like? How about charges that the troops are ill-equipped? Stories of families sending their children kevlar because the military isn't getting it for them? Stories of towns having fundraisers to raise army to equip their sons--and the admin's response that "that's a pretty good idea."? It was a widely reported story that Rumsfeld demanded a much leaner fighting force than the Pentagon wanted, and that when supply lines ran thin there was a scramble to get more troops there. "Rolling deployments," they called them. This was a fight between the ideologues in the admin and the folks in the Pentagon. So no, this wasn't a Pentagon management issue. Here. An IHT story from this week on the behind the scenes.



During the run-up to war, there were several interviews with soldiers in Afghanistan who complained about a) having been forgotten about (one soldier on interviewed on MSNBC said "We're still here, folks") and b) having been re-assigned for duty in Iraq. Now, certainly some of this is reasonable--special forces who were no longer needed in Afghanistan were sent to Iraq. But the fact remains that Bush invaded Afghanistan, toppled the Taliban, and then turned his attention to Iraq before the job in Afghanistan was finished. And so now we're in the unenviable position of attempting to install two governments in two different countries with not enough troops to do the job.



The post-war has been an absolute, unmitigated disaster. We made a series of assumptions: that the Iraqi army could be repatriated and trained by us, that the police force would remain intact, that the infrastructure would be in better shape than it was, that we'd be able to install a government and constitution in time for Bush to attend a gala signing ceremony as an October surprise, that electricity and water would flow freely, and that the oil would be able to pay for it all. Are these getting better? Sure. We've been there for nearly a year now. I would hope they'd get better. But the misunderestimation of the role of the Iraqi army (which we allowed to simply walk off into the desert) and the police force (which vanished) has left US soldiers with the job of policing, which isn't what they're trained--or we're supposed--to do.



My statements aren't predicated on anything other than what I read, see, and hear. As for the "it's not my fault" argument, go read Josh Marshall's comments on the ads. I don't agree with every point, and nor does Atrios, who suggests that they also say "We'll get it right next time!"

The economy: "I inherited an economy at the beginning of a recession" = "It was Clinton's fault."

Iraq WMD: "We got bad intelligence" = "Tenet did it, not me."

9/11: "Evildoers who hate freedom did it" = "They're madmen! We couldn't possibly have seen it coming. How could it have been my fault?" = "Ignore the widely reported rumor that the exiting Clinton admin insisted that al Qaeda was on the verge of something, but our determination to focus on Iraq blinded us to it."

9/11 intelligence failures: "The FBI did it."

And on, and on.

You know it sounds like something a little kid would say if he got caught : " I didn't do anything wrong. Uh, it's timmy's fault! "

And this is our president? Pretty scary if you ask me.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #128 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
People in the red states think differently...all 50 million of them. They don't think that Patriotism is stupid. They fly the American flag. They go to church. They support a strong military. They believe in right and wrong. They oppose gay marriage.

Patriotism is not nationalism. Flying the american flag is not in and of itself patriotic. Nationalism is what you see in the hinterlands. People who believe that the US is right regardless of its actions. People who in no way shape or form believe intuitively that the freedoms granted in the constitution should be universally applicable. What this nation represents or represented is something I am proud about, that is patriotism. Supporting what this nation does is not necessarily patriotic but is nationalistic.
post #129 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Patriotism is not nationalism. Flying the american flag is not in and of itself patriotic. Nationalism is what you see in the hinterlands. People who believe that the US is right regardless of its actions. People who in no way shape or form believe intuitively that the freedoms granted in the constitution should be universally applicable. What this nation represents or represented is something I am proud about, that is patriotism. Supporting what this nation does is not necessarily patriotic but is nationalistic.

Yes I just love it when people question Bush's policies his supporters say " You're anti american ".

After all that's what this country is all about. The right to question.

Anything.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #130 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes I just love it when people question Bush's policies his supporters say " You're anti american ".

After all that's what this country is all about. The right to question.

Anything.

I know you are being facetious, but that still pains me to read.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #131 of 654
SDW2001, hey my man, hats off for standing your ground. Jubelum, this goes out to you also...

I just want to say this to you. Allow yourself to be open minded enough to examine thoughtfully what is to you an opposing philosophical or political argument. The same goes for values and beliefs you hold true.

I wasn't going to post in this thread but your red states comment pushed me a bit. I'm a long time Republican. Heh, probably longer than you guys have been alive, maybe. I don't go to church anymore as religious dogma has lost it's appeal to me. I also beleive the Gov should keep it's nose out of the marraige business. Just because 50 million of my (well intentioned and ignorant) fellow Americans think gays are going to hell doesn't make it so. I am a patriotic SOB and in 3 or 4 square blocks around me only a Chicano (Dad is a veteran) family on the corner of my block and I are the only folks around here presenting the flag when appropriate. 2 households in 3 or 4 square blocks. I consider that to be somewhat pathetic. On the other hand, just because you are not an overtly patriotic flag waver does not mean you are anti-American.

I want GWB and his merry band of chicken hawks OUT. Do you know what a chicken hawk is? Over all the arguments and reasons given to change administration next term, this is the one that really gets my goat and makes feel disrespect toward the whole bunch. The only one of them whom doesn't really qualify as a chicken hawk is C. Powell. Isn't it amazing that he was so moderate sounding compared to the rest in the beginning until he too had to step into line. Yeah C. Rice is a chicken hawk.

Afghanistan is NOT settled yet. Have Americans lost their interest in Afghanistan already. Probably, what with our short national attention span. We probably had Osama trapped at Tora Bora. Why weren't our ass-kickers allowed to go in and finish the job. That's only one aspect of this administration that I find very disturbing.

I'm glad Saddam Hussein is out of business. I'm glad he was found in a hole. You know what though, we were LIED to. We, the American public, are so stupid that we can't handle the truth?!? What arrogant bastards.

The Bush family has so much blood on it's hands, it's amazing when you stop and think about it. Starting with grandpa who may have (probably) collaborated with the Nazis, the first president Bush (whom I voted for...) going on TV and telling the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam. Well, they did and they got slaughtered while our military was forced to stand down and watch... Despicable in the extreme.

Clinton's (I have no love for him...) people warning GWB of Osama and Al Queda planning on using planes for acts of terror. I'm not a conspiracy theory nut, so I will say that someone did not take good advice very seriously. Why??? Why haven't heads rolled over this?

OK, I'll shut up now.
You know, what's interesting about our country is that for years we were isolated from the world by two great oceans, and for a while we got a false sense of security as a result of that. We...
Reply
You know, what's interesting about our country is that for years we were isolated from the world by two great oceans, and for a while we got a false sense of security as a result of that. We...
Reply
post #132 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You're off base. Your analysis is predicated on the old Leftist line: "If only people were more informed, they would NEVER support Bush". It's a sort of self-reinforcing delusion for the Left. Those who disagree with you are stupid. How convenient.

People in the red states think differently...all 50 million of them. They don't think that Patriotism is stupid. They fly the American flag. They go to church. They support a strong military. They believe in right and wrong. They oppose gay marriage. They have valid viewpoints which you dismiss. Ironically, I'd argue it is the urban Left that is uninformed. Look at our inner cities. They've been voting Democratic for 40 years. What's changed? Why do they continue to support a party that takes their demographic for granted and produces no results?

On Bush, what is he? Is he a common fool, or elitist pretending to be one? You can't have it both ways.

See, this is typical, you assume that I am not patriotic simply because I am not going to church or waving a flag and because I am critical of a President that has been a major major liability to the country that I hold dear.
It is upon this kind of image mongering that you then base your opinions . . . you are blinkered by your ideology . . .
. . . for you the idea of believing in 'right and wong' is better than actually knowing what is right and/or striving to look beyond the image to find out . . . you would prefer idiotic stubborness to reflective hesitation when faced with dire ambiguity
Why, because its in your little picture of what good-old-folksy people are all about . .. the 'common people'

and clearly Bush is an elitist pretending to be a common man . . . and pandering to an image that is far from the mark
real common people are more complex then his idiotic 'folk' . . . and I hope they are more complex then your notion of them as well
unfortunately Rove knows that that image SELLS . . . because it is, just as are the false images of the Urban Sophisticate in black, a lie that erases the reality

My point is that when the Democrats attack Bush for being stupid they play into the hands of that FALSE image: 'Right and Wrong knowing, Church going, golden light breakfast cereal eating, flag waving, good-ole-folksy folk'

That image is just as fake (even if you do all of those things it can still be a false image in the collective imaginary) as the 'Che-t-shirt wearing, gay academic Urban Liberal athiest' and Bush is blatantly using the appeal of that image to millions of people who eat it up . . . and in 'eating it up' they don't look beyond it to what Bush really is . . . . he is antithetical to the false image and to the lives that are superficially similar to that image . . . . they are being taken for a ride
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #133 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
the 'Che-t-shirt wearing, gay academic Urban Liberal athiest'

What?!?!? That's *not* accurate?!?!

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #134 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
We've been over this before SDW! Also when did you become the perfect typist or speller? I've always found that when people start using such things in their arguments they're are getting desparate. Also they leave themselves open to the same kind of comments.


About the " Lying ". Well when you've pretty well exausted all the other possibilities you have to go with the most likely conclusion. No there is no direct evidence that Bush lied. However most everybody here knows that's probably the case. That's 99.9999999999999% positive. Any other explaination is very hard to swallow.

Also the voters have these same facts and I'm sure they know also. It's just the ones that are in denial that......well you know.

When I see that Bush lied...he loses my vote. I'm not about to just assume that he did because we haven't found WMD. There are so many other possibilites. Our government believed Saddam had WMD long before Bush. If Bush was lying, so was Clinton.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #135 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
People being uninformed has never been equated with stupidity in my mind. A stupid person is one who has the facts, considers them, and goes against what those facts suggest.

Inner cities need money. Where does the money come from? Suburbanites who often vote republican. So who is preventing the inner cities from obtaining money needed to improve the quality of life? The republicans... QED.

"Inner cities need money". Now let me ask, WTF does that mean? Money for what? Housing? Urban redevelopment? SUV's that throw cash into the crowds? Regardless, we SPEND BILLIONS on the inner cities and nothing gets better. Money from the government isn't the problem. Or actually...it's part of the problem. It doesn't make things better, it makes them worse. But as with liberals, the billions (actually, trillions) we spend isn't enough. 50% of my income isn't enough. I should feel guilty for only paying 50% of my income to a government agency every year. And let me ask...who's been the party of the War on Poverty? Which party supports greater social spending? Which party is the party of minority voters? Hmmmm..
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #136 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Look at our inner cities. They've been voting Democratic for 40 years. What's changed? Why do they continue to support a party that takes their demographic for granted and produces no results?

Are you saying we must improve inner-city conditions?

GOOD.

Then I hope you will support an agenda actually seeking to do that.

VOTE PROGRESSIVE (not conservative).
post #137 of 654
jimmac:

Quote:
Common fool who got to be president through a fluke of course. Look I'm all for patriotism but Bush is all for himself not america or the american people. That's clear from his actions.

Even the republicans are starting to realize he's a liability.

1. Bush stole the election! Stole! Stole! Thief! A fluke I say!

2. He's against America? How? How can you really believe that? I thought you said he was a unilateral cowboy who only considere the American viewpoint...and was ignorant of the "global community"?

3. Then explain why 90% of Republicans support him, even if they disagree with him on some issues.



Quote:
Information is important! Bush's policies just don't hold water. Let me say it again quite simply : Where's the WOMD? It's a simple question based on a decision Bush railroaded through the government, our allies, and the UN. It just wasn't true. And no they're not going to find them " just any day now " because they don't exist. We fought that war for NOTHING BUT BUSH'S AGENDA! And this is just one example.

Where are the WMD? Either they don't exist or they're somewhere like Syria. Again....why is that no one is asking Clinton the same question?



Quote:
I think it's you SDW that's rapidly becoming the dinosaur in american opinion.

Then explain the polls....which show 2/3 of the country opposes gay marriage and full 50% supporting a Constitutional Amendment banning it. And btw, the last time I checked, gay marriage was not the same as "the private sector".
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #138 of 654
midwinter:

Quote:
That's a pretty high bar you've set there. Where are the flowers? The parades? We were told that a grateful Iraqi population would welcome us with open arms. It hasn't happened yet. If you get the chance, take a look at the most recent Frontline documentary from last week on all of this. If anything, it made clear that the Iraqis don't quite know what to make of our presence there and are keeping a cautious distance.

I don't know that I was promised flowers and parades. There was quite a bit of celebrating when we removed Saddam, as with when we captured him. Overall, I think we've been welcomed. The attackers are not even thought to be Iraqis is many cases, btw.



Quote:
orry to bring up a specific issue. I could be more vague, if you'd like? How about charges that the troops are ill-equipped? Stories of families sending their children kevlar because the military isn't getting it for them? Stories of towns having fundraisers to raise army to equip their sons--and the admin's response that "that's a pretty good idea."? It was a widely reported story that Rumsfeld demanded a much leaner fighting force than the Pentagon wanted, and that when supply lines ran thin there was a scramble to get more troops there. "Rolling deployments," they called them. This was a fight between the ideologues in the admin and the folks in the Pentagon. So no, this wasn't a Pentagon management issue. Here. An IHT story from this week on the behind the scenes.

Even if this is all true...it's Bush's fault? The invasion was successful...not perfect. I've heard all of the stories about Rumsfeld and supply lines...but I'm not sure the point you are making. Do you honestly believe the military was not prepared to fight a war? I don't think you do.

Quote:
The post-war has been an absolute, unmitigated disaster. We made a series of assumptions: that the Iraqi army could be repatriated and trained by us, that the police force would remain intact, that the infrastructure would be in better shape than it was, that we'd be able to install a government and constitution in time for Bush to attend a gala signing ceremony as an October surprise, that electricity and water would flow freely, and that the oil would be able to pay for it all. Are these getting better? Sure. We've been there for nearly a year now. I would hope they'd get better. But the misunderestimation of the role of the Iraqi army (which we allowed to simply walk off into the desert) and the police force (which vanished) has left US soldiers with the job of policing, which isn't what they're trained--or we're supposed--to do.

It has not been a disaster. There have been mistakes and problems, which is to be expected. Disbanding the Iraqi army was probably a mistake. I don't see how the fact that Saddam devastated his own infastructure is our fault. We're the ones fixing it. Things are getting much better in Iraq, from the infastructure to the political situation.





Quote:
he economy: "I inherited an economy at the beginning of a recession" = "It was Clinton's fault."

Iraq WMD: "We got bad intelligence" = "Tenet did it, not me."

9/11: "Evildoers who hate freedom did it" = "They're madmen! We couldn't possibly have seen it coming. How could it have been my fault?" = "Ignore the widely reported rumor that the exiting Clinton admin insisted that al Qaeda was on the verge of something, but our determination to focus on Iraq blinded us to it."

9/11 intelligence failures: "The FBI did it."

And on, and on.

But those things are all undeniable facts. We WERE in the beginnings of recession when Bush took office. We DID get bad intelligence (and so did Blair, apparently). 9/11 WAS partially about FBI intelligence failures. There is no way Bush knew...the suggestion is absurd. These things cannot be blamed on Bush.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #139 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Patriotism is not nationalism. Flying the american flag is not in and of itself patriotic. Nationalism is what you see in the hinterlands. People who believe that the US is right regardless of its actions. People who in no way shape or form believe intuitively that the freedoms granted in the constitution should be universally applicable. What this nation represents or represented is something I am proud about, that is patriotism. Supporting what this nation does is not necessarily patriotic but is nationalistic.

50 million Nazis. Who would have thought.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #140 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Where are the WMD? Either they don't exist or they're somewhere like Syria. Again....why is that no one is asking Clinton the same question?

Clinton didn't invade Iraq using WMD intelligence as a justification. But that's not the point. The point here is that all indications are that Bush deliberately misrepresented/lied about the intelligence coming out of Iraq.

The issue for you isn't about Clinton. It's about what it's going to take for you to stop making excuses for Bush and admit that he misled the people.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #141 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't know that I was promised flowers and parades.

Then you weren't paying attention closely enough. A grateful Iraqi people would welcome their liberators with open arms and cut flowers, they told us.

Quote:
There was quite a bit of celebrating when we removed Saddam, as with when we captured him.

OK. Cut flowers would have been nice, too.

Quote:
Overall, I think we've been welcomed. The attackers are not even thought to be Iraqis is many cases, btw.

My understanding is that the attackers are thought to be predominately old members of the Ba'ath party, members of the various military forces, and thugs from elsewhere.

Quote:
Even if this is all true...it's Bush's fault? The invasion was successful...not perfect. I've heard all of the stories about Rumsfeld and supply lines...but I'm not sure the point you are making. Do you honestly believe the military was not prepared to fight a war? I don't think you do.

I think the military was prepared to fight a war on its own terms and wasn't allowed to by this administration. By the way, you sure you want to argue that "it's not Bush's fault"? He is the commander in chief. He wanted a war and he got one. The buck stops with him.

Quote:
It has not been a disaster. There have been mistakes and problems, which is to be expected. Disbanding the Iraqi army was probably a mistake. I don't see how the fact that Saddam devastated his own infastructure is our fault. We're the ones fixing it. Things are getting much better in Iraq, from the infastructure to the political situation.

Again, we're a YEAR IN. Of course things are "getting better." They'd better be, considering how much we're paying Halliburton and Bechtel (through NO BID CONTRACTS) to rebuild it all.

My point, which you seem to keep missing, is that once they got into Baghdad in what, April, this administration looked like a deer caught in the headlights. Major assumptions about how to run Iraq turned out to be as inaccurate as a plagiarized UK Iraq dossier.

Quote:
But those things are all undeniable facts. We WERE in the beginnings of recession when Bush took office. We DID get bad intelligence (and so did Blair, apparently). 9/11 WAS partially about FBI intelligence failures. There is no way Bush knew...the suggestion is absurd. These things cannot be blamed on Bush. [/B]

Bad intelligence...we did a hell of a lot of double-checking on all of that, didn't we? No. It turns out we didn't. 9/11 was about the admin ignoring the threat of al Qaeda for 18 months.

Sing that chorus, SDW, and sing it loudly: "It's not his fault! It's not his fault!"

They've got you trained well.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #142 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
See, this is typical, you assume that I am not patriotic simply because I am not going to church or waving a flag and because I am critical of a President that has been a major major liability to the country that I hold dear.
It is upon this kind of image mongering that you then base your opinions . . . you are blinkered by your ideology . . .
. . . for you the idea of believing in 'right and wong' is better than actually knowing what is right and/or striving to look beyond the image to find out . . . you would prefer idiotic stubborness to reflective hesitation when faced with dire ambiguity
Why, because its in your little picture of what good-old-folksy people are all about . .. the 'common people'

and clearly Bush is an elitist pretending to be a common man . . . and pandering to an image that is far from the mark
real common people are more complex then his idiotic 'folk' . . . and I hope they are more complex then your notion of them as well
unfortunately Rove knows that that image SELLS . . . because it is, just as are the false images of the Urban Sophisticate in black, a lie that erases the reality

My point is that when the Democrats attack Bush for being stupid they play into the hands of that FALSE image: 'Right and Wrong knowing, Church going, golden light breakfast cereal eating, flag waving, good-ole-folksy folk'

That image is just as fake (even if you do all of those things it can still be a false image in the collective imaginary) as the 'Che-t-shirt wearing, gay academic Urban Liberal athiest' and Bush is blatantly using the appeal of that image to millions of people who eat it up . . . and in 'eating it up' they don't look beyond it to what Bush really is . . . . he is antithetical to the false image and to the lives that are superficially similar to that image . . . . they are being taken for a ride

Let me translate: Bush is not who he appears to be. The problem with that is, he'd have to be smart enough to pull off that ruse. Oh, but wait....he's a moron. You see, it can't be both. Karl Rove may have written the script, but Bush has to put on the performance.

And while we're on the subject, will you support Kerry over Bush? If so, do you honestly believe he's any more authentic?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #143 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Then you weren't paying attention closely enough. A grateful Iraqi people would welcome their liberators with open arms and cut flowers, they told us.



OK. Cut flowers would have been nice, too.



My understanding is that the attackers are thought to be predominately old members of the Ba'ath party, members of the various military forces, and thugs from elsewhere.



I think the military was prepared to fight a war on its own terms and wasn't allowed to by this administration. By the way, you sure you want to argue that "it's not Bush's fault"? He is the commander in chief. He wanted a war and he got one. The buck stops with him.



Again, we're a YEAR IN. Of course things are "getting better." They'd better be, considering how much we're paying Halliburton and Bechtel (through NO BID CONTRACTS) to rebuild it all.

My point, which you seem to keep missing, is that once they got into Baghdad in what, April, this administration looked like a deer caught in the headlights. Major assumptions about how to run Iraq turned out to be as inaccurate as a plagiarized UK Iraq dossier.



Bad intelligence...we did a hell of a lot of double-checking on all of that, didn't we? No. It turns out we didn't. 9/11 was about the admin ignoring the threat of al Qaeda for 18 months.

Sing that chorus, SDW, and sing it loudly: "It's not his fault! It's not his fault!"

They've got you trained well.

Cheers
Scott

1. Attackers are now thought to be non-Iraqis in many cases.

2. Bush's approach, which he has trumpeted again and again is to "let the generals fight the war". Now hold on, isn't Bush always criticized for being uninvolved and hands off?

3. Looked like a deer to whom? You? Big surprise. I saw an agressive plan put into motion for security, infastructure rebuilding, political settlement and humanitarian aid. I also saw mistakes. We don't disagree on those for the most part.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #144 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Let me translate: Bush is not who he appears to be. The problem with that is, he'd have to be smart enough to pull off that ruse. Oh, but wait....he's a moron. You see, it can't be both. Karl Rove may have written the script, but Bush has to put on the performance.

And while we're on the subject, will you support Kerry over Bush? If so, do you honestly believe he's any more authentic?

wrong

I'm not calling him a moron . . .
I'm calling him deeply misguided and very dangerous to our great nation!

got it?!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #145 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Clinton didn't invade Iraq using WMD intelligence as a justification. But that's not the point. The point here is that all indications are that Bush deliberately misrepresented/lied about the intelligence coming out of Iraq.

The issue for you isn't about Clinton. It's about what it's going to take for you to stop making excuses for Bush and admit that he misled the people.

Yes, but Clinton DID make many statements about Saddam's WMD...and he also bombed the shit out of Iraq in 1998, without UN approval of any kind.
Speaking of WMD statements, perhaps you'd like to hear what Kerry said in March of 2003. No, on second thought, it would be more fun to watch your face when it comes out in a few months.

As for Bush, I don't believe he lied or misled anyone. Lack of WMD does not prove he did. When I see that he did, he loses my vote. Period. There are just too many other possible explanations. I don't believe Clinton misled us on Iraq either, btw. I think the intel was bad and/or there are weapons hidden in Syria.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #146 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
50 million Nazis. Who would have thought.

Hinterlands is a common (i think) expression referring to homelands or a heartland...

Edit: I completely missed the point of this line... Nationalist = nazi? well, if you want, sure...
post #147 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. Attackers are now thought to be non-Iraqis in many cases.



Please re-read my comments. I have neither implied nor stated that the terrorist attacks are indicative of the failure of the Iraqis to welcome their new overlords. I have only said that the picture that was painted for us (mostly by Rumsfeld) was not true, and has not come true.

Quote:
2. Bush's approach, which he has trumpeted again and again is to "let the generals fight the war". Now hold on, isn't Bush always criticized for being uninvolved and hands off?

Bush says that, and like most politicians, it means nothing. The State dept. had everything planned. Rumsfeld and the Admin didn't let them fight the war they wanted and pushed for this small force. It's a miracle it was even as large as it was, apparently. This is clearly an example of the generals NOT being allowed to fight the war they wanted. This has been well-documented.

Quote:
3. Looked like a deer to whom? You? Big surprise. I saw an agressive plan put into motion for security, infastructure rebuilding, political settlement and humanitarian aid. I also saw mistakes. We don't disagree on those for the most part.

Looked like a deer to damned near everyone, including the Iraqis and many soldiers fighting there. Why the hell do you think Rumsfeld went to Iraq to boost troop morale?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #148 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes, but Clinton DID make many statements about Saddam's WMD...and he also bombed the shit out of Iraq in 1998, without UN approval of any kind.

Are you really equating a series of targeted cruise missiile attacks (in response to intel on a Bush I assassination attempt) with a full scale invasion? Remember this: Clinton DID NOT INVADE Iraq. He did not try to make more out of their WMD intel than it was. He did not mislead the American people about it. Millions of people around the globe did not march in protest. Clinton did not attempt to bully the UN into going along with him.

Bush did this. Quit trying to change the subject to Clinton, who was a turd, too. But for different reasons.

Quote:
Speaking of WMD statements, perhaps you'd like to hear what Kerry said in March of 2003. No, on second thought, it would be more fun to watch your face when it comes out in a few months.

You mistakenly assume I like Kerry. I do not. Again, quit trying to change the subject.

Quote:
As for Bush, I don't believe he lied or misled anyone. Lack of WMD does not prove he did. When I see that he did, he loses my vote. Period. There are just too many other possible explanations. I don't believe Clinton misled us on Iraq either, btw. I think the intel was bad and/or there are weapons hidden in Syria. [/B]

And again..."It's not his fault! It was bad intel!"

He said there were WMD. There aren't, and soon there will be an investigation of what he knew beforehand. There will soon be an investigation into why the admin didn't push for more fact-checking. There will be an investigation into whether or not the admin retaliated against unfavorable intel by outing a CIA agent.

He lied. I doubt very seriously that there is anything that will make you see it.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #149 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. We have been welcomed as liberators on the whole. The majority of the population is not lobbing grenades at us.



We have not been welcomed as liberators. The huge majority or Iraqis want the US out of there, like yesterday. At best, the Iraqi attitude towards the US presence is sullen frustration.

Quote:
4. Post war: Again, what are you talking about? The post war plan was put into effect even before the war ended. Massive supply convoys entered the country. Infastructure is being rebuilt. A Coalition Authority was established. A provisional government by the end of this year. Yes, there are security problems. The picture you're painting is not accurate. I don't think Bush has said "it isn't my fault" on really anything. Overall the operation is going very well. We have some casualties, but even that number is extremely low. We took over an entire country and have lost 600 lives doing it. I don't mean to scoff at that loss of life, but in military terms, it's a very low number. Those that have visited Iraq say that the picture is very different from the one we see on the news every night. Your statements are predicated on the notion that the effort itself is going badly...and it's not.

Although the official casualty count is some 550 US troops, the way the figures are compiled by the Pentagon makes it wildly inaccurate (low). A soldier has to die on the battlefield to be officially counted as deceased. Soldiers who die in a field hospital, or en route to a field hospital, or en route to the US for treatmant, of after returning home, etc etc etc are often not counted by the Pentagon as among the dead. I shall look for the article....it was in a Veterans group publication.

And....dont forget...the number of US dead in Iraq so far is the same as the number of US dead in the first 3 years of the Vietnam war. And a US presence in Iraq is projected to last until 2008+....lets not count the cost until it's over, and the last of our soldiers have returned home. It is far from over.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #150 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Hinterlands is a common (i think) expression referring to homelands or a heartland...

Actually, it means the boonies.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #151 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Actually, it means the boonies.

well in any event, it fits...
post #152 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac:
Then explain the polls....which show 2/3 of the country opposes gay marriage and full 50% supporting a Constitutional Amendment banning it. And btw, the last time I checked, gay marriage was not the same as "the private sector".

I am glad that you brought the polls up. A little research I did about overall support for this president.

Where supporters and detractors of Bush stand percentage-wise.

First Number is For President\t2nd is Detractors

Gay Marraige (Recent)\t\t51\t\t30
(CBS)
Avg. Iraq Approval since 2/03\t59\t\t35
(CBS)
Average Approval since 1/02\t59\t\t36
(AP)
Avg. Econemy Since 1/02\t\t54\t\t42
(AP)
Avg. Domestic Approval \t\t52\t\t44
since 1/02\t(AP)
Avg. Foreign Policy Approval\t67\t\t30
Since 1/02\t(AP)

Overall\t\t\t\t 57\t\t36

Just some quick observations.

I used only liberal leaning sources lest my observations be called right leaning.
post #153 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
When I see that Bush lied...he loses my vote. I'm not about to just assume that he did because we haven't found WMD. There are so many other possibilites. Our government believed Saddam had WMD long before Bush. If Bush was lying, so was Clinton.

The difference is that Clinton didn't lie like it was something urgent so we must go to war. A war that cost many lives and dollars.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #154 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes, but Clinton DID make many statements about Saddam's WMD...and he also bombed the shit out of Iraq in 1998, without UN approval of any kind.
Speaking of WMD statements, perhaps you'd like to hear what Kerry said in March of 2003. No, on second thought, it would be more fun to watch your face when it comes out in a few months.

As for Bush, I don't believe he lied or misled anyone. Lack of WMD does not prove he did. When I see that he did, he loses my vote. Period. There are just too many other possible explanations. I don't believe Clinton misled us on Iraq either, btw. I think the intel was bad and/or there are weapons hidden in Syria.

This little bombing mission was nothing compared to the war. As to the WOMD in Syria.....LOL! Besides how would they deploy them so they would be the threat to us that Bush was implying?

Let's face it. I think there's a lot of people out there asking themselves why they bought this in the first place.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #155 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am glad that you brought the polls up. A little research I did about overall support for this president.

Where supporters and detractors of Bush stand percentage-wise.

First Number is For President\t2nd is Detractors

Gay Marraige (Recent)\t\t51\t\t30
(CBS)
Avg. Iraq Approval since 2/03\t59\t\t35
(CBS)
Average Approval since 1/02\t59\t\t36
(AP)
Avg. Econemy Since 1/02\t\t54\t\t42
(AP)
Avg. Domestic Approval \t\t52\t\t44
since 1/02\t(AP)
Avg. Foreign Policy Approval\t67\t\t30
Since 1/02\t(AP)

Overall\t\t\t\t 57\t\t36

Just some quick observations.

I used only liberal leaning sources lest my observations be called right leaning.

So this is from many sources collated by youself?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #156 of 654
Try this instead:

approval:
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

favorables
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm

It looks like in the most recent polls (this week) it's averaging +4 over disapproval.

Looking for "shares values"...

Edit #4: Here it is: http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #157 of 654
" . . . The nation is engaged in a major ongoing debate about why America went to war in Iraq, when Iraq was not an imminent threat, had no nuclear weapons, no persuasive links to Al Qaeda, no connection to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, and no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Over two centuries ago, John Adams spoke eloquently about the need to let facts and evidence guide actions and policies. He said, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." Listen to those words again, and you can hear John Adams speaking to us now about Iraq. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Tragically, in making the decision to go to war in Iraq, the Bush administration allowed its wishes, its inclinations, and its passions to alter the state of facts and the evidence of the threat we faced from Iraq.

A month ago, in an address at Georgetown University, CIA Director George Tenet discussed the strengths and flaws in the intelligence on Iraq. Tenet testified to several Senate and House committees on these issues, and next Tuesday, he will come before our Senate Armed Services Committee. He will have an opportunity to explain why he waited until last month to publicly state the facts and evidence on these fundamental questions, and why he was so silent when it mattered most -- in the days and months leading up to the war.

If he feels that the White House altered the facts, or misused the intelligence, or ignored it and relied on dubious sources in the Iraqi exile community, Tenet should say so, and say it plainly.

It is not sufficient for Tenet to say only, as he did last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee, that we must be patient. When he was appointed Director of Central Intelligence in 1997, Tenet said to President Clinton, " ... I have believed that you ... and the vice president must be provided with ... complete and objective intelligence. ... We must always be straight and tell you the facts as we know them." The American people and our men and women serving in Iraq deserve the facts and they deserve answers now.

The rushed decision to invade Iraq cannot all be blamed on flawed intelligence. If we view these events simply as an intelligence failure -- rather than a larger failure of decision-making and leadership -- we will learn the wrong lessons.

The more we find out, the clearer it becomes that any failure in the intelligence itself is dwarfed by the administration's manipulation of the intelligence in making the case for war. Specific warnings from the intelligence community were consistently ignored as the administration rushed toward war.

We now know that from the moment President Bush took office, Iraq was given high priority as unfinished business from the first Bush administration.

According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's account in Ron Suskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty," Iraq was on the agenda at the very first meeting of the National Security Council, just 10 days after President Bush's inauguration in 2001. At that meeting, the president quickly -- and wrongly -- concluded that the U.S. could not do much about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said we should "pull out of that situation," and then turned to a discussion of "how Iraq is destabilizing the region."

Secretary O'Neill remembers, "Getting Hussein was now the administration's focus. From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country. And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of It -- the president saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"

By the end of February 2001, the talk on Iraq was mostly about how -- and how quickly -- to get rid of Saddam Hussein. President Bush was clearly frustrated with what the intelligence community was providing. According to Secretary O'Neill, on May 16, 2001, he and the other principals of the National Security Council met with the president to discuss the Middle East. Tenet presented his intelligence report, and told the president that it was still only speculation whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, or was even starting a program to build such weapons.

Secretary O'Neill says, "Everything Tenet sent up to Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney about Iraq was very judicious and precisely qualified. The president was clearly very interested in weapons or weapons programs -- and frustrated about our weak intelligence capability -- but Tenet was clearly being careful to say, here's the little that we know and the great deal that we don't. That wouldn't change, and I read those CIA reports for two years," said O'Neill.

Then came 9/11. In the months that followed, the war in Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden had obvious priority. Al Qaeda was clearly the most imminent threat to our national security. In fact, in his testimony to Congress in February 2001, one month after President Bush's inauguration and seven months before 9/11, Tenet had said, "Osama bin Laden and his global network of lieutenants and associates remain the most immediate and serious threat." That testimony emphasized the clear danger of bin Laden in light of the specific attacks in previous years on American citizens and American institutions.

In February 2002, five months after 9/11, Tenet testified, "Last year, I told you that Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network were the most immediate and serious threat this country faced. This remains true despite the progress we have made in Afghanistan and in disrupting the network elsewhere."

Even during the buildup to the war in Iraq, in February 2003, Tenet again testified, "The threat from al Qaeda remains. ... We place no limitations on our expectations on what al Qaeda might do to survive. ... Al Qaeda is living in the expectation of resuming the offensive."

In his testimony last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Tenet repeated his earlier warnings. He said again that Al Qaeda is not defeated and that "We are still at war. ... This is a learning organization that remains committed to attacking the United States, its friends and allies."

Tenet never used that kind of strong language to describe the threat from Iraq. Yet despite all the clear and consistent warnings about Al Qaeda, by the summer of 2002, President Bush was ready for war with Iraq. The war in Afghanistan was no longer in the headlines or at the center of attention. Bin Laden was hard to find, the economy was in trouble, and so was the president's approval rating in the polls.

[White House political adviser] Karl Rove had tipped his hand earlier by stating that the war on terrorism could bring political benefits as well. The president's undeniable goal was to convince the American people that war was necessary -- and necessary soon, because soon-to-be-acquired nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein could easily be handed off to terrorists.

This conclusion was not supported by the facts, but the intelligence could be retrofitted to support it. Greg Thielmann, former director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, put it bluntly last July. He said, "Some of the fault lies with the performance of the intelligence community, but most of it lies with the way senior officials misused the information they were provided." He said, "They surveyed the data, and picked out what they liked. The whole thing was bizarre. The secretary of defense had this huge Defense Intelligence Agency, and he went around it." Thielmann also said, "This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude, its top-down use of intelligence: we know the answers; give us the intelligence to support those answers. ... Going down the list of administration deficiencies, or distortions, one has to talk about, first and foremost, the nuclear threat being hyped," he said."

it goes on for three more pages and is worth every word Here just go through the day-pass it takes a split second and gets none of your info
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #158 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Please re-read my comments. I have neither implied nor stated that the terrorist attacks are indicative of the failure of the Iraqis to welcome their new overlords. I have only said that the picture that was painted for us (mostly by Rumsfeld) was not true, and has not come true.



Bush says that, and like most politicians, it means nothing. The State dept. had everything planned. Rumsfeld and the Admin didn't let them fight the war they wanted and pushed for this small force. It's a miracle it was even as large as it was, apparently. This is clearly an example of the generals NOT being allowed to fight the war they wanted. This has been well-documented.



Looked like a deer to damned near everyone, including the Iraqis and many soldiers fighting there. Why the hell do you think Rumsfeld went to Iraq to boost troop morale?

1. I think they fought the war they wanted. There may have been conflict between Rumsfeld and the "old Pentagon", but the generals ran the war.

2. Rumsfeld might have gone to Iraq because he's THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.


Quote:
Clinton did not attempt to bully the UN into going along with him.

Quote of the year! Really...that's the funniest thing I've every heard. Bush tries to go to the UN, gets a resolution which it then refuses to enforce, then finally goes to war with 17 resoltutions behind him. Clinton doesn't even attempt to go to the UN...and Bush is "bullying" the UN? HAHAHAHAHA.

Clinton attacked on the same intel. He bombed. He used cruise missles. He hit them pretty hard. The scale of it doesn't matter...he attacked based on the SAME intelligence...and all you can up with is that he didn't use ground troops? Please.


Quote:
You mistakenly assume I like Kerry. I do not. Again, quit trying to change the subject.

That's not the point. He made statements supporting war based on the same info. And yet...he's not called a liar. He's a war hero. It's complete bullshit.



Quote:
And again..."It's not his fault! It was bad intel!"

He said there were WMD. There aren't, and soon there will be an investigation of what he knew beforehand. There will soon be an investigation into why the admin didn't push for more fact-checking. There will be an investigation into whether or not the admin retaliated against unfavorable intel by outing a CIA agent.

He lied. I doubt very seriously that there is anything that will make you see it.

Of course not, because how could any intelligent person disagree with you? And further, we all know I'm a blind Bush supporter with no critical thinking skills. There's no evidence anything was distorted or manipulated or even exaggerated. None. Zero. When I see it....Bush loses my vote.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #159 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
We have not been welcomed as liberators. The huge majority or Iraqis want the US out of there, like yesterday. At best, the Iraqi attitude towards the US presence is sullen frustration.



Although the official casualty count is some 550 US troops, the way the figures are compiled by the Pentagon makes it wildly inaccurate (low). A soldier has to die on the battlefield to be officially counted as deceased. Soldiers who die in a field hospital, or en route to a field hospital, or en route to the US for treatmant, of after returning home, etc etc etc are often not counted by the Pentagon as among the dead. I shall look for the article....it was in a Veterans group publication.

And....dont forget...the number of US dead in Iraq so far is the same as the number of US dead in the first 3 years of the Vietnam war. And a US presence in Iraq is projected to last until 2008+....lets not count the cost until it's over, and the last of our soldiers have returned home. It is far from over.

That's deceptive. We didn't have 250,000 men in Vietnam then. The conflict was totally different. And, I'm not about to take someone seriously who claims we killed 100,000 civilians (or whatever your number was) in Gulf War #1.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #160 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
The difference is that Clinton didn't lie like it was something urgent so we must go to war. A war that cost many lives and dollars.

Right...what he did was put the problem off for the next Administration. We should have invaded Iraq the SECOND they violated the terms of the 1991 ceae fire. Clinton put off the terror threat. He sold nuke technology to N. Korea. He ignored the bombings of the USS Cole and embassies.

As for lying, Bush never, ever used the term "imminent". Not once.

pfflam: Nice balanced article there. No agenda at all. Why do you bother bombing the thread with this? Post a link....not 10,000 words.

From the article:

Quote:
Bush's "needless war"
Accusing the president of "pure, unadulterated fear-mongering," Sen. Edward Kennedy delivers a scathing indictment of the administration's case for invading Iraq.


Editor's note: Following are prepared remarks for a speech by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., delivered at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington on March 5.

Who are you shitting here, pfflam?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.