or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Yet another ex-admin says they wanted Iraq right at 911
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Yet another ex-admin says they wanted Iraq right at 911 - Page 3  

post #81 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Man talk about tactics, the left has used some nasty tactics with regard to this president.

In the blame game no-one wins. I am not blaming anyone, just pointing out that there is plenty of responsibility to go around. But you and others seem to think that it is OK to pin it all on Bush. If all you say is true than that would go in the face of the whole "Bush is a big dummy" argument that a lot of the left uses. He is one guy, this is one country. There are so many other players in this thing yet, once again, it is all Bush's fault.

As far as the UN goes, it seems fine to turn to them as the ultimate authority, yet when it comes to their responsibility as said authority, they can't be held accountable. What gives?

I hear the left say stuff like; "Hey Saddam was not a nice guy, but Bush is a LIAR and he misled everyone." Does anyone else see anything wrong with that line?

Blame? I would say it is Bush who is getting the blame laid at his feet by you and the other ABB lovers.

As far as the disloyal thing, I asked a question, it was rhetorical. I question anyone that would choose loyalty to foreign countries like, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and the likes in place of their own country that has done so much good throughout the world. I question it even more because it is such a political issue. Am I wrong?

Don't attribute the disagreement to the war with the left or liberls. Centrists and conservatives are also against it.

Quote:
As far as the disloyal thing, I asked a question, it was rhetorical. I question anyone that would choose loyalty to foreign countries like, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and the likes in place of their own country that has done so much good throughout the world. I question it even more because it is such a political issue. Am I wrong?

The answer is yes. Look back to ohh, 1960 or so and you'll see the same line towed by the Kennedy administration about Vietnam. Later LBJ followed the same logic as did Tricky Dick. We are not aligning ourselves with foreign powers. We are questioning the justifications for a war involving so many US troops. We are questioning a war founded on halftruths. We are questioning the administration, NOT aligning with foreign powers. Questioning one's rulers is not disloyal; moreover, if you are not questioning this administration in the light of all of the revelations I feel sorry for you. Anybody who doesn't question an action such as invading a soverign nation on false pretenses to justify a prexisting plan needs to be a little introspective.

Please, I'm asking you, do some research. Read the writings of those within this administration. Contrast what was said by Tenet a couple of weeks ago to what the administration said. Read what Powell said before the war, to the UN, and to-date. Read what Rummy, and Dick have both said before the war and to-date. If you take the time to read these statements in context, if you take the time to read the views of those within the intelligence agencies, if you take the time to contrast what was said to what is being said you might actually be surprised.

Read articles like these:
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...0.html?cnn=yes
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/k...0.html?cnn=yes
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/k...0.html?cnn=yes

Three time articles I found in a 1.5 minutes. There are hundreds if not thousands of good articles out there as well as the words as spoken by those within the administratin

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

I'm sorry but I am not a Ditto-head. I don't question someone's patriotism, or their allegiance because they disapprove of the nations leadership. In fact, I'll hold my own allegiance up to anyones. I'll hold my military service up. I'll hold my volunteer service up. I'll hold be lack of blind acceptance of this conflict up as my patriotism. I'm actually offended that you could draw a line like that in the sand, but I guess that stems from the administrations "With us or against us" mentality.


Also, don't demogogue the debate with rape chambers and the like because SH is not the worst and is defenetly not (or at least was not) the only dictator out there. If that was the justification then so be it. That is a good reason in my mind, but if we go after SH for that reason then we need to go after all dictators.

The evil dictator reason wasn't the one presented to the nation as the major reason for invasion though was it. WMD was. Ties to Al Quaeda was. Not the liberation of an oppressed people. The last reason didn't evolve until it became apparent that the ties and WMD would never be found. Mull that over for a little while. Why did "they" have to change their song and dance? According to Powell before the UN, and statements made by Cheney, Rummy, and Perle before the conflict we "knew" where the stuff was. If we "knew" why haven't we found it yet?

My last question is was war in your opinion the only answer?

Please address the issues though. Don't get upset with me and simply dismiss me because I've asked a coupple of questions. I took the time to address your points in a logical laid out fashion can and will you do the same?
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #82 of 386
Great post Faust. You know, I see that video of Rumsfeld and from all the research that I've done, all the videos that I've seen, I can only say that it's quite representative of all the lies, distortions, exaggerations that consistently and continuosly have come out of the current administration.It just puzzles me how some people can be so oblivious to reality and so quick to dismiss anything that doesn't fit their partisan or ideological zealotry.

The "with us or against" BS is alive and well in this country.
Hook, line and sinker.
post #83 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Was it right that the UN passed resolution 1441 if they "knew" there were no WMD's?


This has to be answered as urgently as the lack of WMDs found in Iraq.



(The current admin has questions to answer as well.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #84 of 386
So, did anyone see the interview?

Very interesting stuff, especially coming from someone who was a political appointee under both reagan and bush 41.

With so many members of the admin speaking out and saying the same things about the inner workings of the admin, it's amazing that people still support it.
post #85 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
"Your country" is not the same thing as "your president."

Disapproval with your president is not the same as approval with despots.

America is not JUST, ALWAYS, a force for good.

Your point of view is nationalist, and this always leads to blood.

I agree, but what I am pointing out is that some seem to choose to take the side of, let's say, Iraq/SH before or even excluding US views. Assuming that Bush/US is automatically wrong, as if no matter what Bush/US does it is for wrong motives.

I would venture to say that overall the US has done more for so many in it's brief history than any nation in a long while. I think that is just facts.

I don't think that the US can do no wrong, but overall we as a people have made positive contributions to the world.
post #86 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
[B]I agree, but what I am pointing out is that some seem to choose to take the side of, let's say, Iraq/SH before or even excluding US views. Assuming that Bush/US is automatically wrong, as if no matter what Bush/US does it is for wrong motives.

This is such utter crap.

Criticizing administration actions and policies does not mean that I "choose to take the side of Iraq/SH". You sound like some stereotypical Bubba mouthing off about how much he hates "those damn commie hippie Saddam-loving liberals".

"For us or against us", huh?
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #87 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
This is such utter crap.

Criticizing administration actions and policies does not mean that I "choose to take the side of Iraq/SH". You sound like some stereotypical Bubba mouthing off about how much he hates "those damn commie hippie Saddam-loving liberals".

"For us or against us", huh?

Fill in Iraq/SH with the whatever you want.

Let me put it to you this way:

If you find yourself in the cross-hairs of a terrorist that hates the US for being the US (bathist, Al-Queda, hammas, former Iraqi holdout etc.), your trying to understand their reasons for hating you or even thinking that you understand, will not help you. I think it is them against you no matter what you do unless you join them. I am not sure how else you can look at it. It is a classic good vs. evil scenario.

Oh yeah, this whole thing has gone way past just criticizing Bush's policies. I really hate hearing people say "It is patriotic to criticize", while they feel it is only Bush that deserves criticism. I am not sure patriotic is the term I would use.
post #88 of 386
Please get the peanut butter out of your ears, and listen closely.

Go ahead, lean in a little closer and listen very, very carefully.

QUESTIONING THE ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT REGARDING TERRORISM DOES NOT MAKE ME A LOVER OR SUPPORTER OF ANY TERRORISTS.

edit - font size - sorry all!
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #89 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Please get the peanut butter out of your ears, and listen closely.

Go ahead, lean in a little closer and listen very, very carefully.

QUESTIONING THE ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT REGARDING TERRORISM DOES NOT MAKE ME A LOVER OR SUPPORTER OF ANY TERRORISTS.

I did not say you were anything so relax. I said some people seem to be that way, to me.

Deep cleansing breaths... in....out.

Sheesh
post #90 of 386
Let's take it easy with the discussions here. Have some restraint with accusations and choice of wording.

Font size too.

Thanks guys,

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #91 of 386
It would be really cool to hear an ex-administration offical saying these things---but not selling a book.


-Too bad Gary Aldrich couldn't get an interview on 60 minutes.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #92 of 386
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
It would be really cool to hear an ex-administration offical saying these things---but not selling a book.


-Too bad Gary Aldrich couldn't get an interview on 60 minutes.

I think that in both recent cases, O'Niel and Clarke, neither is actually the author of the books . . . and neither is actually getting ANY money for them . . . I know for a fact that that is the case with O'Niel . . . and I am pretty sure that Clarke did not write the book that has his account of the matter
"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...

"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...

post #93 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
I think that in both recent cases, O'Niel and Clarke, neither is actually the author of the books . . . and neither is actually getting ANY money for them . . . I know for a fact that that is the case with O'Niel . . . and I am pretty sure that Clarke did not write the book that has his account of the matter

Richard Clarke definitely wrote his own book.
post #94 of 386
Thread Starter 
oh well . .. so much for that arguement . . .

but somehow I don't think that he would cut off half his arm (meaning his whole relationship to the Conservative political machine) just to make a few bucks. Authors don't make that much . . . and he's a Harvard Prof .. . makes decent dough . . he's not a desperate check-out clerk eyeballing the automation machines . . .
"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...

"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...

post #95 of 386
I actually thought O'Neil was pretty cool---there was this one pissing contest with a congressman/senator in a congressional hearing over "who grew up poorer". He cleaned house.


On the his firing---I hated to see him go. But ---Paybacks are hell.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #96 of 386
Thread Starter 
I still think that he's cool . . . and I also think that in both cases they are saying what needs to be said . . . . your refusing to accept any possibility that this administration is anything other than hunky-dory, despite all of the incredible evidence is . . . .how do I say it without getting banned . . . sad

I mean, even conservatives are second guessing . . .
Hell, even Mel Gibson expressed his doubts about this admin's ideas about Iraq

I mean its starting to get just plain silly to pretend that everyting was on the up-and-up . . . .
"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...

"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...

post #97 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
If you find yourself in the cross-hairs of a terrorist that hates the US for being the US (bathist, Al-Queda, hammas, former Iraqi holdout etc.), your trying to understand their reasons for hating you or even thinking that you understand, will not help you.

But what if you're in the cross-hairs of a terrorist who hates the US for its long-standing foreign policy in the middle east (Baathist [which is actually a political party], al Qaeda, Hamas, etc.)? Would understanding why they hate us help then?

Quote:
I think it is them against you no matter what you do unless you join them. I am not sure how else you can look at it. It is a classic good vs. evil scenario.

The reason so many of us refuse to reduce the situation to "good versus evil" is that so little in the world breaks down that way. It's reductive, and is usually a means by which people try to make sense of an increasingly complicated world.

Quote:
Oh yeah, this whole thing has gone way past just criticizing Bush's policies.

No. It hasn't. If Bush had policies I liked, I wouldn't criticize him beyond his public speaking and his smirk.

Quote:
I really hate hearing people say "It is patriotic to criticize", while they feel it is only Bush that deserves criticism.

1) They only say that because people like you call them unpatriotic when then do it.

2) Bush is in power.

You're trying to use a line of argument that the right used for many moons: the rhetoric of oppression. Liberal media. Liberal news. Liberal this. Liberal that...the true conservative voice of America isn't being heard! Well, look. The right now controls ALL THREE branches of government. Most mainstream news media is centrist if not conservative. There is a VAST NETWORK of VERY POPULAR conservative radio programs.

You cannot keep a straight face and play the oppression card anymore. The new line of argument is "Democrats are stupid and hate America."

Quote:
I am not sure patriotic is the term I would use.

I'm sure it's not. And if you use it on me, I'll accuse you of enjoying watching our brave young boys get shot at and blown up. Or of taking pleasure in the bombing of Iraqi civilians.

Take your pick.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #98 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
It would be really cool to hear an ex-administration offical saying these things---but not selling a book.


-Too bad Gary Aldrich couldn't get an interview on 60 minutes.

So are you saying we should not believe a guy who had a 30 year career in the Reagan, Bush I, Bush II Republican admins. because he wrote a book????
Just admit it dude. Nothing could ever keep you from not voting for Bush ,nothing.

post #99 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam

I mean, even conservatives are second guessing . . .


hmmmmmm


The Bush administration is a political machine just like any other. I just have trouble taking their spanking from the "usual suspects" (sans Aldridge). (in an election year)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #100 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch

Just admit it dude. Nothing could ever keep you from not voting for Bush ,nothing.



First and formost I am not, a "dude".

Second, you are assuming that I voted, and will vote for, Bush.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #101 of 386
Quote:
Originally written by Condi in the Washingtion Post

The al Qaeda terrorist network posed a threat to the United States for almost a decade before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Throughout that period -- during the eight years of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration prior to Sept. 11 -- the U.S. government worked hard to counter the al Qaeda threat.

During the transition, President-elect Bush's national security team was briefed on the Clinton administration's efforts to deal with al Qaeda. The seriousness of the threat was well understood by the president and his national security principals. In response to my request for a presidential initiative, the counterterrorism team, which we had held over from the Clinton administration, suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted. No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration.


This is from (according to Clarke) the NSA that "couldn't spell' al-Qaeda?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #102 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
This is from (according to Clarke) the NSA that "couldn't spell' al-Qaeda?

It's not Bush's fault! They didn't turn over a plan!

Jeez. This line of argument was just on an episode of the west wing (in reruns) tonight: "You mean to say X has been broken all this time and the other guys didn't do anything to fix it?" The translation? It's not our fault!

I'm just glad that Condi is under no obligations to the administration and is free to speak her mind.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #103 of 386
This post by Billmon is probably the best I've read. Apparently, Clarke is a "national security ultrahawk" who is "openly contemptuous of hill democrats" and sounds a lot like a neocon.
post #104 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
"You mean to say X has been broken all this time and the other guys didn't do anything to fix it?" The translation? It's not our fault!


There is more to the editorial piece than those two paragraphs.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #105 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
There is more to the editorial piece than those two paragraphs.

Then thanks for posting a link. Or at least a date. That way, you know, I might've been able to read it myself. Hell, for all I know, you made it up.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #106 of 386
Oh beehave!!


nevermind. they want a subscription!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #107 of 386
For DMZ:

Quote:
9/11: For The Record

By Condoleezza Rice
Monday, March 22, 2004

The al Qaeda terrorist network posed a threat to the United States for almost a decade before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Throughout that period -- during the eight years of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration prior to Sept. 11 -- the U.S. government worked hard to counter the al Qaeda threat.

During the transition, President-elect Bush's national security team was briefed on the Clinton administration's efforts to deal with al Qaeda. The seriousness of the threat was well understood by the president and his national security principals. In response to my request for a presidential initiative, the counterterrorism team, which we had held over from the Clinton administration, suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted. No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration.


We adopted several of these ideas. We committed more funding to counterterrorism and intelligence efforts. We increased efforts to go after al Qaeda's finances. We increased American support for anti-terror activities in Uzbekistan.


We pushed hard to arm the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle so we could target terrorists with greater precision. But the Predator was designed to conduct surveillance, not carry weapons. Arming it presented many technical challenges and required extensive testing. Military and intelligence officials agreed that the armed Predator was simply not ready for deployment before the fall of 2001. In any case, the Predator was not a silver bullet that could have destroyed al Qaeda or stopped Sept. 11.


We also considered a modest spring 2001 increase in funding for the Northern Alliance. At that time, the Northern Alliance was clearly not going to sweep across Afghanistan and dispose of al Qaeda. It had been battered by defeat and held less than 10 percent of the country. Only the addition of American air power, with U.S. special forces and intelligence officers on the ground, allowed the Northern Alliance its historic military advances in late 2001. We folded this idea into our broader strategy of arming tribes throughout Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban.


Let us be clear. Even their most ardent advocates did not contend that these ideas, even taken together, would have destroyed al Qaeda. We judged that the collection of ideas presented to us were insufficient for the strategy President Bush sought. The president wanted more than a laundry list of ideas simply to contain al Qaeda or "roll back" the threat. Once in office, we quickly began crafting a comprehensive new strategy to "eliminate" the al Qaeda network. The president wanted more than occasional, retaliatory cruise missile strikes. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies."


Through the spring and summer of 2001, the national security team developed a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda -- which was expected to take years. Our strategy marshaled all elements of national power to take down the network, not just respond to individual attacks with law enforcement measures. Our plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived. It focused on the crucial link between al Qaeda and the Taliban. We would attempt to compel the Taliban to stop giving al Qaeda sanctuary -- and if it refused, we would have sufficient military options to remove the Taliban regime. The strategy focused on the key role of Pakistan in this effort and the need to get Pakistan to drop its support of the Taliban. This became the first major foreign-policy strategy document of the Bush administration -- not Iraq, not the ABM Treaty, but eliminating al Qaeda.


Before Sept. 11, we closely monitored threats to our nation. President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the director of the CIA every day -- meetings that I attended. And I personally met with George Tenet regularly and frequently reviewed aspects of the counterterror effort.


Through the summer increasing intelligence "chatter" focused almost exclusively on potential attacks overseas. Nonetheless, we asked for any indication of domestic threats and directed our counterterrorism team to coordinate with domestic agencies to adopt protective measures. The FBI and the Federal Aviation Administration alerted airlines, airports and local authorities, warning of potential attacks on Americans.


Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free U.S.-held terrorists. The FAA even issued a warning to airlines and aviation security personnel that "the potential for a terrorist operation, such as an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the United States, remains a concern."


We now know that the real threat had been in the United States since at least 1999. The plot to attack New York and Washington had been hatching for nearly two years. According to the FBI, by June 2001 16 of the 19 hijackers were already here. Even if we had known exactly where Osama bin Laden was, and the armed Predator had been available to strike him, the Sept. 11 hijackers almost certainly would have carried out their plan. So, too, if the Northern Alliance had somehow managed to topple the Taliban, the Sept. 11 hijackers were here in America -- not in Afghanistan.


President Bush has acted swiftly to unify and streamline our efforts to secure the American homeland. He has transformed the FBI into an agency dedicated to catching terrorists and preventing future attacks. The president and Congress, through the USA Patriot Act, have broken down the legal and bureaucratic walls that prior to Sept. 11 hampered intelligence and law enforcement agencies from collecting and sharing vital threat information. Those who now argue for rolling back the Patriot Act's changes invite us to forget the important lesson we learned on Sept. 11.


In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the president, like all Americans, wanted to know who was responsible. It would have been irresponsible not to ask a question about all possible links, including to Iraq -- a nation that had supported terrorism and had tried to kill a former president. Once advised that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11, the president told his National Security Council on Sept. 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda and that the initial U.S. response to Sept. 11 would be to target al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.


Because of President Bush's vision and leadership, our nation is safer. We have won battles in the war on terror, but the war is far from over. However long it takes, this great nation will prevail.


The writer is the national security adviser.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #108 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Fill in Iraq/SH with the whatever you want.

Let me put it to you this way:

If you find yourself in the cross-hairs of a terrorist that hates the US for being the US (bathist, Al-Queda, hammas, former Iraqi holdout etc.), your trying to understand their reasons for hating you or even thinking that you understand, will not help you. I think it is them against you no matter what you do unless you join them. I am not sure how else you can look at it. It is a classic good vs. evil scenario.

Oh yeah, this whole thing has gone way past just criticizing Bush's policies. I really hate hearing people say "It is patriotic to criticize", while they feel it is only Bush that deserves criticism. I am not sure patriotic is the term I would use.

There's no such thing as a good versus evil scenerio. I'll give you an example: Hitler. He's a universily accepted "Evil Guy" is he not? So, if Hitler is evil then all those against him are good (boolian logic you only have two options good or evil).

Stalin was against Hitler. I guess Stalin was a good guy.

Well, no not really. Stallin killed millions of Russians before, during and after WWII. This boggles my mind.

Let me think about this again:

Good and evil are the only choices.

Hitler was evil.

The Swiss remained neutral during WWII. Whoa my head is hurting because the swiss were neither good nor evil.

Third times the charm:
Hitler was evil.

Moussalini alligned with Hitler thus Moussalini was evil. Yeah that fits.

But I'm still lost because Stalin was "good" but not really. The Swiss were neither good or evil but they profited from the war from both sides which seems evil enough.

Mossalini was evil.

I guess, even when we look at situation as inherently evil as WWII Nazi Germany we are still confronted with shades of gray.

I really wish I could view the world through the lenses of those crawford glasses where the world isn't necessarily rose colored, but it is black and white. Viewing the world as black and white would make life soooo much easier, but that's not the way things really are. Thw world is a jumble of colors and shades of grays which can't be pigeon-holed as simple "Good" and "Evil".
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #109 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
There's no such thing as a good versus evil scenerio. I'll give you an example: Hitler. He's a universily accepted "Evil Guy" is he not? So, if Hitler is evil then all those against him are good (boolian logic you only have two options good or evil).

Stalin was against Hitler. I guess Stalin was a good guy.

Well, no not really. Stallin killed millions of Russians before, during and after WWII. This boggles my mind.

Let me think about this again:

Good and evil are the only choices.

Hitler was evil.

The Swiss remained neutral during WWII. Whoa my head is hurting because the swiss were neither good nor evil.

Third times the charm:
Hitler was evil.

Moussalini alligned with Hitler thus Moussalini was evil. Yeah that fits.

But I'm still lost because Stalin was "good" but not really. The Swiss were neither good or evil but they profited from the war from both sides which seems evil enough.

Mossalini was evil.

I guess, even when we look at situation as inherently evil as WWII Nazi Germany we are still confronted with shades of gray.

I really wish I could view the world through the lenses of those crawford glasses where the world isn't necessarily rose colored, but it is black and white. Viewing the world as black and white would make life soooo much easier, but that's not the way things really are. Thw world is a jumble of colors and shades of grays which can't be pigeon-holed as simple "Good" and "Evil".

Hey, if you can't see evil for what it is then no-one here can help you. I really feel sorry for some people that don't have that ability. You can make as many excuses as you want to, but it does not change the fact that there is a lot of evil in the world now and it is really up to each person to stand up for what is right to stop it. It starts at home.

When any person looks at a group of innocent people and sees killing them them as a way to forward some agenda, I call them evil. We are talking about terrorists and terroristic dictators here. If Stalin and Hitler fall in there fine, But let's talk today, post 9/11.

As far as your reasoning goes, it does not apply here. I never said what you are implying. I am talking from a purely american standpoint, that is what I know. But I think that the UN is not a force for good anymore, and especially when it came to Iraq. Some may call that evil, and if deaths were caused by their actions to fill their pockets, I call it that to.

You ever heard of the term "two faced"? Well there are a lot of countries and regimes that are that. Not, only that, a lot of times evil is done in secrecy, thus making it harder to identify.
post #110 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You ever heard of the term "two faced"? Well there are a lot of countries and regimes that are that. Not, only that, a lot of times evil is done in secrecy, thus making it harder to identify.

I don't mean to start a US-bash; however, why is the US supporting Uzbekistan and Pakistan dictators and Saudia Arabia as well as undermining Venezuelan democracy? Why are WMD not evil and dangerous when we sell them to our friends, but evil and dangerous when our friends become enemies?

Isn't that two-faced?

The point being that these things you think are clear 'good' and 'evil' -- including the country you live in -- are not.
meh
meh
post #111 of 386
So Bush's two top former advisors on terrorism have left and are now speaking out:

Richard Clark: National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism

Rand Beers: Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Combating Terrorism

Both are now teaching together at Harvard. Beers is committed to the kerry campaign.

You can also rest assured that Clarke has strong backing from a large chunk of the republican party.

So we have both of Bush's top terrorism advisors during 9.11 leaving and speaking out and we have the former treasury secretary speaking out.

Then we have all of ther other people that have blown the whistle on the admin.

There's a point, no matter how much you've invested in the current president, where you just have to recognize that the Bush admin needs to go.
post #112 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
So we have both of Bush's top terrorism advisors during 9.11 leaving and speaking out and we have the former treasury secretary speaking out.

Wasn't O'Neill a security advisor as well?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #113 of 386
O'Neill was treasury secratery.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #114 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
O'Neill was treasury secratery.

yes, I know, but I *believe* that he either also sat on the NSC or was one of Bush's national security advisors in addition to serving as treasury sec.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #115 of 386
I never heard that. Maybe he was. I'll do a google search.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #116 of 386
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Wasn't O'Neill a security advisor as well?

Who cares . . obviously he's EVIL!!

"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...

"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...

post #117 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
I never heard that. Maybe he was. I'll do a google search.

Got it:

"As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council." (Source)

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #118 of 386
Treasury Sec.


This is bordering on Hysteria. A civil service lifer with ties to Kerry and who wasdemoted by Condi says she "looked skeptical", Bush "didn't tell him" to do this or that "but he just knew"? Clarke has his own "brilliant " past as well.

What?!


There have somehow been NO terrorist attacks in since 9/11 and Bush is some kind of evil buffoon?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #119 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Treasury Sec.

See my post above yours. O'Neill was on the NSC.

Quote:
This is bordering on Hysteria. A civil service lifer with ties to Kerry and who wasdemoted by Condi says she "looked skeptical", Bush "didn't tell him" to do this or that "but he just knew"? Clarke has his own "brilliant " past as well.

What?!

I have no idea what this means.

Quote:
There have somehow been NO terrorist attacks in since 9/11 and Bush is some kind of evil buffoon?

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #120 of 386
....too much over-the-top inunendo. If Bush is doing a "horrible" job on terrorism how could you tell?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Yet another ex-admin says they wanted Iraq right at 911