What neocons don't tell you - Page 6

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Right, see he's just drunk with power. That's what it's all about. It's not about stopping Americans from getting killed or anything. I mean damn...I thought I was cynical.

And 9/11 DID change everything. 3,000 Americans were slaughtered on their way to work and on civilian airliners. It had to change everything. It's bad enough you can't see this, but what's worse is that you essentially mock those who say it. If you can't see that times have in fact changed, then all I can say is thank God himself you're not running the country.

But hey...I shouldn't surprised. Your position is essentially what Obama and Edwards and the left wing of the Democratic Party want. They want to convince Americans that security isn't important so we can finally talk about Really Important Stuff (TM) Like Education (TM) and Healthcare (TM).





Sing all you'd like. The very best anyone has been able show was that the admin selectively used intel to build a case for war. Well no shit. I mean, whooda thunk it? You also have one statement by Bush referencing a supposed report out of the IAEA that Saddam was "I think, 6 months away from a nuclear weapon" which turned out not to be true. That's what you have. If there was more, he'd have been impeached by now. Even the new Democratic Majority isn't trying that. Explanation? Hmmm.

Originally Posted by franksargent

... he seems spot on on in both clips, IMHO.

The first clip just verifies the obvious in authoritarian and democratic governments actions after 9/11, Patriot Act, etceteras.

The second clip pretty much refutes all of the hatter nonsense.

And as a side bar, the military is always considering (or planning) for future contingencies in "our" tactical/strategic and national interests, same would be true of the national parties, to establish policies that they would consider to be "in our national interests" should they gain (or regain) control of government through the political process called elections.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Sing all you'd like. The very best anyone has been able show was that the admin selectively used intel to build a case for war. Well no shit. I mean, whooda thunk it? You also have one statement by Bush referencing a supposed report out of the IAEA that Saddam was "I think, 6 months away from a nuclear weapon" which turned out not to be true. That's what you have. If there was more, he'd have been impeached by now. Even the new Democratic Majority isn't trying that. Explanation? Hmmm.

Originally Posted by tonton

You see, SDW, the thing that's dishonest about this... the thing that resulted in lies... the thing that possibly might have even included lies to congress about matters of national urgency... is that the only party to the majority of classified prewar intelligence about Iraq was the White House. So by "selectively" presenting intelligence, you are obfuscating intelligence. You are hiding intelligence that Congress and the nation has the right to know to make an informed judgment of the situation. They are misled to make an uninformed decision.

Now remember that when you ask why so many Democrats voted for the war and then against it.

When they didn't have all the facts, they voted for it. After they had been deliberately misled by the president through selective reporting of intelligence. Now that they have more facts, those with a spine are speaking out (and voting) against it.

Originally Posted by jimmac

You're in denial SDW!

Yes Bush is drunk with power.

Wiretapping, Homeland security, WOT, and Iraq!

Writing his own reports about the war!

Jesus H. Christ! That's about as close to a dictatorship as we've ever been!

Give me an extra big break SDW but what you're saying just doesn't make sense. It's making excuses!

Yes Bush is drunk with power.

Wiretapping, Homeland security, WOT, and Iraq!

Writing his own reports about the war!

Jesus H. Christ! That's about as close to a dictatorship as we've ever been!

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Nonsense. NONSENSE, I tell you. The administration relied on certain points to make their case for war. That doesn't mean anything was "hidden" from Congress. You have absolutely no support for that statement.

I see. We're back to "Bush tricked them." Seriously, that is perhaps one of the pathetic claims I've heard. They saw the intelligence and voted the way they did because they were SCARED of the political environment that existed at the time and didn't want to lose seats. Hillary did "her own research." Was she tricked too? Of course not. Now the political environment is much different, and they are going with it for political gain and political gain alone. Of course, they're Democrats, so they somehow managed to take the 60/40 split of public opinion in their favor and fuck that up too.



I think it's possible that every single WORD of your post is actually rhetorical. That has to be some kind of record in someone's book. But let's take it point by point for fun.



First, I don't even know what means. Do you? I threw it out there, and you bit. SDW dangles bone. jimmac bites like the good dog he is.



1. Wiretapping in the manner it's been done? I support it. Fully.

2. Homeland Security: Bush opposed the creation of the deparment initially. Did you realize that? It was certainly not his grand dream.

3. There's probably no convincing you on this one. In your view, 9/11 was just an excuse to go to war with Iraq. I don't see it that way. So we'll leave it there.




Uh, you mean as he is REQUIRED to do by Federal Law?



Now that is just stupid. We're not a dictatorship and we're not close to one. You're simply frustrated because your OWN PARTY refuses to end the war, which was their campaign promise. Congress could exercise it's rights under our DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM and end the war TODAY if they wanted to. I realize you disagree fully with Bush's actions, but the fact is in continuing the war he is acting well within his legitimate Constitutional powers. It's Congress--in other words the people you voted for--- that isn't doing its duty.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Writing his own interpretation of the report is just stupid!

How about an unbiased account like the GAO report we've already had?


You're in denial SDW.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

The only thing that matters is how much of the info comes from the commanders in the theater. Of course, you've bought into the Dems preemptive line that the report will be filled with LIES and HALF-TRUTHS and...well, LIES!

And just last week, senior military commanders in Baghdad who work for General Petraeus entered the political fray by taking issue anonymously with the grim assessment of Iraqs politics and security by non-partisan Congressional investigators.

What's Wrong with the GAO Report
Measuring failure--or the failures of measuring.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Uh, since the Administration has to WRITE IT, it's hardly an "interpretation." The interpretation will be what Congress makes of it.

The only thing that matters is how much of the info comes from the commanders in the theater. Of course, you've bought into the Dems preemptive line that the report will be filled with LIES and HALF-TRUTHS and...well, LIES!