Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows. - Page 5

You keep missing the point. It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is what happened. And the record is quite clear: State wanted one war; the admin wanted another. The admin won, and the generals did NOT get to fight the war they wanted.


Huh? That must be why he's only been there ONCE, right? Right? I suppose the fact that the major news outlets were doing nothing but covering low troop morale had nothing to do with it, huh?


Bush didn't "try" to go to the UN. He did. And the UNSC rejected him. His father went to the UN and got support, on the other hand.

Clinton didn't need to go to the UN, since he wasn't invading a country and overthrowing its government.

Nonetheless, you're trying to change the subject again.


You're kidding, right? The scale doesn't matter? Go and tell that to some widows of this war. I'll keep a raw steak handy for you to put on your eye.

Nevertheless, to go along with your endless attempts to change the subject from this indefensible president, Clinton did NOT attack on the same intel. The Clinton attacks were in retaliation for an attempt to assassinate Bush I (who went to soldiers' funerals).


Wait a minute. You try to change the subject, I call you on it, and then you tell me I miss the point? No, sir. That is very much the point. Clinton had intel suggesting that Iraq had WMD. He did not invade. Bush did, and apparently had to mangle the intel in order to sell it to the public.

He lied.

Whatever you may think, all of you who are defending him are wearing the blue dress now.


They usually don't.


Good. Glad you're catching up.


Better tell that to the committee that's INVESTIGATING THIS VERY QUESTION. And remember, Bush can take a vacation for a month, or spend 4 hours at a NASCAR rally, but he only gives that commission ONE HOUR to question him.

You'd better cut your losses and quit making excuses for this guy.

midwinter:


What evidence exists on this point? State? I assume you mean the Pentagon. My understanding is that Bush instructed the Pentagon to develop a plan for accomplishing certain objectives. They then did so. If you're going to make the accusation that the politicians interefered with war planning (as they did in Vietnam), then you're going to have to back it up. What would even cause you to say that?


One, if you believe the major news outlets all the time, you're nuts (with all due respect). They had a few soldiers interviewed...and of course it comes off as if half the military is experiencing low morale. Three words: Criminal Liberal Media. Showing troops on TV ripping on Rumsfeld and Bush borders on treason. In any case, making the statement "Rumsfeld went to Iraq, therefore things are going badly" is a logical fallacy. He's the top Defense official in the country, other than Bush. Why is it a problem?




I haven't changed any subject. You're the one that said "Bush bullied the UN". Bush went to the UN and got resolution 1441 passed, which stated that "serious consequences" would follow without Iraq's FULL cooperation. There is no man, woman or child on this planet that can honestly say Iraq did that. Bush then circulated a second "authorization of force" resolution, which the UNSC refused to pass. Actually, it was primarily Germany and France that said they would veto. We had two nations, at least one of which was directly tied to Saddam, that were essentially blocking the security council from backing up its own resolutions.

Bush made very effort to involve the UN. The UN, being the spineless and toothless tiger that it is, refused to enforce its own resoltutions. Clinton did not even ATTEMPT to get a another resolution passed. He still attacked Iraq, whether or not he removed the "government". So, I have to laugh when I hear Bush criticized for being "unilateral" and at the same time "bullying" the UN. Which is it? If he had not gone at all...you'd be charging him with being a rogue cowboy. It doesn't matter what Bush does. The Left hates him either way.




The scale does not matter because it was the same intelligence. He attacked. It wouldn't matter if he launched one missile with a stink bomb attached to it. He based his decision on the SAME INTELLIGENCE Bush saw. So did John Kerry in voting for the war.

You then UNBELIEVABLY claim that Clinton's bombing had nothing to do with WMD. That statement you made above is patently false. Clinton was punishing Iraq due to the UN inspector debacle. When the inspectors left, he attacked, giving speeches along the way which sounded.....wait for it....one hell of a lot like Bush's did 6 years later. It had little to do with the assasinination attempt. And now all of a sudden, Bush lied. It doesn't add up. Even if Clinton had not attacked at all....even if he had only given publicc statements like he did, one would still have to call Clinton a liar if doing the same for Bush. That's the point.



Say it with me: "Clinton used the same intel to attack". You can't possibly be making the case that had the intel been stronger, Clinton would have invaded...can you? Same intel, Same intel, Same intel. We could make that into a loop in GarageBand.



This is where your leftist hypocrisy really shows. Clinton galavanted all around the world, spending taxpayer dollars like monopoly money. Clinton lied under oath, hooked up with an intern in the Oval Office, sold nuclear tech to N. Korea, raised taxes, lied on national television (the to the very children he always references), refused to deal with the terror threat, cut the military. was accused of sexual harrassment on multiple ocassions, and was impeached. And yet...Bush is criticized for taking a vacation and going to a NASCAR race?

BTW, I agree he should give the commission more time. Just say that next time.

Just a note on this 'Clinton had the same intelligence' stuff.

The last US President used cruise missiles and bombs to enforce no-fly zones and protect allied aeroplanes.

He.
Did.
Not.
Invade.
Iraq.

Unless I missed it.

That doesn't matter. The accusation is that Bush lied about the intelligence. The point in response is that Clinton referenced the very same intlligence. The action (bombing) is secondary.

Trying to justify your point by saying "yeah guys, but Clinton didn't go as far as Bush did" is ridiculous and besides the point.

Clinton and Blair did not have the same intelligence as Bush. Don't take it from me. Take it from the horse's mouth, eh?


That's Colin Powell in 2001.


That's Tony Blair addressing the House of Commons. In November 2000.

I am not convinced that Bush is all that intelligent. The only smart thing he has done is to surrond himself with intelligent people.

Man I'm sorry but there's only one reply for the way you twist reality......"The Stupidity is Amazing"

Listen that's not just a small difference! And the reason he gave didn't exist! The circumstaces surrounding this seem very suspicious. Not in a good way for Dubbya. The more that gets dug up about this the mopre the finger points at him.

So what do you want? I'm sorry if your president looks extremely guilty if only in a round about way. However men in court have been convicted on such evidence because there was no other explaination.


Just like Sherlock Holmes says : " If you eliminate all other possibilities. What remains no matter how incredible must be the truth ".

And you know there just aren't that many plausible possibilities here.

Hmmm? I seem to recall during the STU address Bush sited evidence that they had recently gathered. So it wasn't the very same intel that Clinton had.

Of course this proved to be false but he based a war on this. Not a bombing raid. A war. And you know we really couldn't afford it life or dollar wise. We were in a recession. Just about the worst time to pull this stunt.

This very fact would go in the face of it just being a stunt or political move, being that most elections boil down to wallet issues.

I suspect that it was a wallet issue partly. Money for the military and a distraction from the lack of it ( Bush's lack of ability to deal with it ) at home.

And then of course there's all that oil to control.

Let's be careful about throwing words like "shitting" and "stupidity" around other members since we don't want this to degenerate into personal attacks. Thanks.

Wow, awesome rebuttal there. You're too fanatical to even try a Google aren't you? Here's one of MANY from different sources. Google is your friend
Go ahead and live in denial. lol

LMAO!! Ok, so they BOTH lied. However I doubt, as fanatical as you have proven to all in AO to be , that you would EVER vote for anyone else no matter what.
How's that "Church of Bush" project running by the way? Not having problems recruiting other delusional Bush fanatics? Good for you.

You might as well claim that fish have feet.

Clinton has a time machine that allowed him to go to the future?!?!

Maybe Bush should have gotten his hands on this tech.

Naaah, I think it went down like this......


BUSH (to intelligence bigwigs): So, how old is this intel on Iraqi WoMD?

INTEL: Um, well sir, it is the same intel gathered under Clinton. We haven't gathered anything new on Saddam in the last, oh, say, two or two and a half years...

BUSH: Oh.... Oh well, okee-dokee then, write it all up for Powell to present to the UN to we can get the troops rolling!

Give me a C! Give me an O! Give me an N! Give me a T! Give me an E! Give me an X! Give me an T! What's that spell?

ask george

That's the mark of a good leader.


jimmac:


Refute the facts or accept them.


Can you eliminate the Syria factor? Can you elminate the possibility that the intelligence was just wrong? Can you eliminate the possibilty that Saddam HIMSELF was lied to by his own scientists? No, No and No.



We were not in recession. The government believed Saddam had WMD for years. Not all the intent was "recent". Wow, keeping up with your false statements and twisted thinking is a full time job.

Gilsch:




Well, number one, your link is crap. highdesertskeptic.com? information clearing house? Please. You post the opinion of ONE man and present as fact. Typical.

As for your personal attack, you have no backing for that statement. I support Bush. I don't agree with him on everything. If I thought there was another serious candidate who would be a better President I'd vote for him. Bush has shown tremendous leadership throug 9/11. His approach is exactly what we need during this time. You don't have to agree.

My link is crap? Hmmm, I provided a link to a GOOGLE search so you could pick a source(from dozens)and I provided a couple different people(quotes)saying the same thing basically. In case you didn't know, McGovern(CIA), was in charge of briefing Bush Sr. for a couple years so his "opinion", nevermind what's well known in Republican circles, counts more than your baseless denials.
Go ahead and live in denial. Go ahead and keep telling yourself that Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feist are "moderate" Republicans I'm sure by your standards, McCain is a pinko liberal too so I'm not surprised.

Edit: by the way, what leadership? The mastermind of 9/11 has been at large for 2 years plus, the world has a highly unfavorable view of our leaders, our country is sooo united and the arab and muslim extremists hate us more. Yeah, "you're either with us or against us" is tremendous leadership.

Then, what is your alternative? Go ahead. I'm listening.

SDW2001,
You need a reality check. Not on this issue alone, but you seem to not be able to accept that the president could be wrong about anything related to Iraq. And while you may say that he is vulnurable on spending, I have never seen you outwardly criticize him for his excessive spending. I am not trying to attack you, but you seem overly zealous in your defense of Bush, who does have flaws. I see these arguments, and on both sides they look like parrots repeating the same things over and over. Both sides need to step back although in this case you are on the short end of the evidence stick.

bbs

Your "sources" (which speak of ONE man's opinion)

www.lifeinfo.de

www.informationclearinghouse.info

mailman.xmission.com/

edwardpig.typepad.com

www.democracynow.org

boston.indymedia.org

www.counterpunch.org



shall I go on? Crap, crap and more crap. No offense.

You post a link that leads to THIS and you seem to think that there is nothing questionable about Everything that points to, over and over, the fact that there is something wrong with the Bush-lust-for-War scenario?!?

SDW: I'm surprised you have not addressed the MAIN and only point. Who cares if the site is "Pinko Liberal Weekly" or "Coward Neo-con who Never served".....they are talking about an ex CIA analyst and personal friend of Bush Sr. who briefed him on intelligence for a couple of years

Is that the best you can do? Even if ALL members of the Bush Sr. Admin. came forward and said the exact same thing about Wolfowitz and Perle and Feist et al you'd probably just call them "their off-base opinions". You are fanatically in denial dude. Heck, even if Perle and W, etc came out and AGREED with McGovern and the others you'd be in denial.

Love the sig. at the bottom of your posts.

I don't.

And I seem to remember that long agonizing day . .. the length of which I heard nothing from the president of teh United States . . . seems he was chatting in a school even after he got the news . . . then started to fly West then back East then West again . . . . how long was it till he finnally made a public statement anyway?!?!

I seem to remember Guiliani and lots of speculations about where Bush was
. . . then there were rumours after he finally came out and after quite awhile there was an obviously much needed official explanation

But since everybody, and I mean everybody, was kissing Bush's ass after 911 because we needed to stand by our 'leader' the whole missing-in-action was forgotten . . .
. . . IIRC

Ray McGovern has been all over the media for the past year or so, so like you said, the source doesn't matter at this point.

The film Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War has a bunch more former CIA analysts in it (as well as McGovern).

And we know your statement is true since former members of the administration have already been speaking out against their former colleagues.

Anyway, this stuff has been hashed out to no end. Anyone can do a search and see that SDW has consistently been dead wrong in just about every statement about Iraq. It's actually pretty funny to go back and check out some of his old posts.

You've literally become a *\\o/* cheerleader *\\o/* for Bush.

Dismissing me as "in denial" and fanatical may be convenient, but it's not true. If there were many more qualified opinions on the topic I'd certainly listen. But we're talking about ONE person's opinion.

It amazes me that people can actually think the way some of you guy do. you truly, honestly beleive the Bush Administration is hell bent on world domination, and is run by a bunch of extremist nut jobs. It's just totally beyond the pale. It's not enough to disagree, you have to go completely and totally beyond all reasonable discourse.

pfflam:




Absolutely unreasonable. The President was evacuated and kept safe...as he SHOULD have been. The man's safety HAD to be ensured. How was he going to make a statement before he had the facts? Perhaps you don't remember that Bush overruled the Secret Service and returned to Washington over their objection. He was even criticized for his not being concerned with attacks on the White House.....he's on record as saying "if it happens, it happens".

This is exactly the kind of unreasonable criticism I'm talking about.

Another fine source presentedf on your part. And btw, what's this about me being wrong about Iraq? Because I believed there were WMD? Well...gee...I wonder why I thought that. Show me what else I've been wrong on. Go ahead.

Main Entry: fa·ce·tious
Pronunciation: f&-'sE-sh&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French facetieux, from facetie jest, from Latin facetia
1 : joking or jesting often inappropriately : WAGGISH <just being facetious>
2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious <a facetious remark>


Perhaps that clears it up.

SDW, I wanted to let you know that I have read this whole thread, and I stand with you here in this liberal haven. I haven't chimed in because you are doing a good job, and this recycled fodder.

I posted a breakdown of Bush support in percentages for the past couple of years. You liberals are in the minority on every major issue according to nationwide polls. The majority of the country loves this president. Calling him a liar and warmonger only solidifies that affection and hardens feeling toward the opposition that is no longer loyal.

Unlike most here I think that even if Kerry does win this next election, the office itself tends to force the occupant to lead and lead responsibly. I think one would have to fight hard or not even try to lead this country in a wrong direction.

I also don't have a problem if you don't agree with Bush's policies, but like SDW, I think, I have a problem when you take it over the line without anything more than some partisan's editorial opinion, or in the case of Giant and Jimmac and others based on some self appointed superior intellect or understanding.

AO seems to be the place to bash this president and any who does not agree with you at whim and without consideration for decency, fairness, common sense or even courtesy. The personal attacks and hatred on/for this president are so far beyond the pale, that I wonder if those making such statements are even Americans. This discourse could easily be found being spewed by Al-Qeada or Taliban or Hamas members on any given day. I have seen this type of discussion ratchet up for some time now and it is actually scary how quickly rhetoric and spin can turn into hatred and odium and only be separated from the sewage of this nation's enemies by only a couple of degrees. You guys need to take a deep breath and examine your actions and the consequences of said actions.

Utterly Sad.

NaplesX,
Did you ever criticize Clinton? Were you un-American when you did so? It is actually part and parcel of being american that we express our views (however insipid) whenever we want. There is nothing un-American in calling the president a moron, because from my perspective he is; just as calling him a genius is not un-American. The thing that is different between the criticisms of Bush in the US versus elsewhere is that more often than not the elsewhere critiques also call for some illegal actions.
It is most american to exercise your rights whenever and wherever you will. Without free exercise the rights mean nothing. So if you have evidence that suggests the president isn't an idiot, you might as well bring it out.
You need to allow yourself a broader opinion on what it means to be an American so you don't get labeled with the term nationalist. Also, if you honestly feel that polls that show in most cases barely 50% agreeing with "conservative" positions are a sign of strong support for these positions, then I am going to have to call you on your blunder. Polls can be spun in any way shape or form. The phrasing of the question gets different results. So putting your faith in one poll done with 1000 people in "rural" america, certainly isn't indicative of what the nation feels as a whole and may not be indicative of those people polled...
bbs

Oh, I see. Consitent criticism of Bush means we're with the terrorists? Consistent criticism of Bush can *only* be explained by the simple fact that the critics simply "hate Bush."

We're all treasonous bastards, is that it?

No, sir. I would suggest that you look at your own rhetoric before you go attending to that of others. We have been criticizing the president calmly, fairly, with documentation.

You are criticizing us and equating us with terrorists for doing so.

I swear, this kind of rhetoric isn't going to stop until some liberal pundit on O'Reilly or Hardball beats the crap out of someone for saying things like this.

You're like a cute little puppy.

*WHOOSH*

The irony of SDW making a cheerleading joke is indeed lost on him.

Yeah, I wonder why you would have thought that?!\

Seems to be the crux of the issue: perhaps you thought that because you were fed smoke straight out of the stovepipe?!

and perhaps you still believe it because the last thing that you would ever do is identify with anything remotely resembling our critical perspective on Bush?!

That's pretty funny.

Well " presented " doesn't have an f at the end of it.

Sorry, couldn't resist!

SDW you are wrong about Iraq. You are aloso foolish to try to rationalize the president's actions in this situation.

The facts are Bush tried to present a scenerio to the world that iraq was this big threat to the US when in fact his weapons couldn't have even reached us. Also it appears now that no such weapons existed. Was he even working on a delivery system that could reach us? It appears not.

So now they fall back on the idea that " Well Saddam needed to be taken out anyway ". Well that's nice and all but according to the original premise he was this big " threat ". If he just said " Well he needs to be taken out " everybody would have said " The sanctions seem to be working I don't think we need a war at this time ". That would have been the end of it. We would have saved ourselves many lives and many dollars. And a responsability that shows no sign of stopping for the foreseeable future.

America was told a giant falsehood, ( intentional or not ) on a very serious issue.

Any way you slice it this is bad.

This is the president of the united states we're talking about. If it was just bad intel and he forced us to to war over it that makes him incompetent at best.

But I remember him saying they were so positive that they had proof they just couldn't reveal their sources lest they endanger them. That sounds like new intel to me.

And no I don't even for one second think that they are going to find this magical cache of weapons " any day now ".

Many people at the time didn't buy this bunk but the president refused to listen.

I know I've said this before but just occasionally I have to take your smug, condescending, deanor, and spin it around and force it to look at the truth. Lest you forget what really happened.