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.
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.
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.
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. One word: Delusional. You read somehwhere? HAHAHAHHA. Stop...you're killing me.
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
Quote:
In John Pilger's documentary "Breaking of silence", Ray McGovern, former CIA officer and personal friend of George Bush senior said: "The same people who are running US policy now are people who president's father kept at arms length. They were referred to in the circles which I moved, when I was briefing at the top intelligence and policy levels, they were referred to as "crazies". The "crazies" I mean we used to talk about "crazies", everybody knew who they were, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Faith, and those folks".
Go ahead and live in denial. lol
Quote:
Back in the days of George Herbert Walker Bush, and that was from 1989 to 1993, there was a conscious move by the White House to keep ?the crazies? at bay. The administration did not even want to touch them with a ten-foot pole because of the plainly lunatic ideas they were going around spreading about American power in the world. These ?crazies? were the likes of Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and a host of others who had come to believe that the success of the first Gulf War, that of removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, was good enough reason for Washington to assert its authority worldwide. President Bush knew better. He had, after all, been through a succession of jobs ?- Congressman, UN envoy, CIA chief, ambassador to China, Vice President ?- and knew what the world actually looked like.
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.
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.
Clinton has a time machine that allowed him to go to the future?!?!
Maybe Bush should have gotten his hands on this tech. [/B]
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!
I am not convinced that Bush is all that intelligent. The only smart thing he has done is to surrond himself with intelligent people.
That's the mark of a good leader.
jimmac:
Quote:
Man I'm sorry but there's only one reply for the way you twist reality......"The Stupidity is Amazing"
Refute the facts or accept them.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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:
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Bush has shown tremendous leadership throug 9/11. His approach is exactly what we need during this time. You don't have to agree.
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 . . .
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
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).
Quote:
Heck, even if Perle and W, etc came out and AGREED with McGovern and the others you'd be in denial.
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.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
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.
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.
Originally posted by jimmac
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.
Originally posted by NaplesX
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.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Wow. One word: Delusional. You read somehwhere? HAHAHAHHA. Stop...you're killing me.
Wow, awesome rebuttal there. You're too fanatical to even try a Google aren't you?
In John Pilger's documentary "Breaking of silence", Ray McGovern, former CIA officer and personal friend of George Bush senior said: "The same people who are running US policy now are people who president's father kept at arms length. They were referred to in the circles which I moved, when I was briefing at the top intelligence and policy levels, they were referred to as "crazies". The "crazies" I mean we used to talk about "crazies", everybody knew who they were, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Faith, and those folks".
Go ahead and live in denial. lol
Back in the days of George Herbert Walker Bush, and that was from 1989 to 1993, there was a conscious move by the White House to keep ?the crazies? at bay. The administration did not even want to touch them with a ten-foot pole because of the plainly lunatic ideas they were going around spreading about American power in the world. These ?crazies? were the likes of Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and a host of others who had come to believe that the success of the first Gulf War, that of removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, was good enough reason for Washington to assert its authority worldwide. President Bush knew better. He had, after all, been through a succession of jobs ?- Congressman, UN envoy, CIA chief, ambassador to China, Vice President ?- and knew what the world actually looked like.
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.
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.
Originally posted by SDW2001
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.
You might as well claim that fish have feet.
Clinton attacked on the same intel.
Clinton has a time machine that allowed him to go to the future?!?!
Maybe Bush should have gotten his hands on this tech.
Originally posted by giant
Clinton has a time machine that allowed him to go to the future?!?!
Maybe Bush should have gotten his hands on this tech. [/B]
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!
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
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.
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?
Originally posted by SDW2001
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
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
I am not convinced that Bush is all that intelligent. The only smart thing he has done is to surrond himself with intelligent people.
That's the mark of a good leader.
jimmac:
Man I'm sorry but there's only one reply for the way you twist reality......"The Stupidity is Amazing"
Refute the facts or accept them.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Originally posted by SDW2001
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
Originally posted by Gilsch
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, 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.
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
Originally posted by Gilsch
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
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.
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.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Bush has shown tremendous leadership throug 9/11. His approach is exactly what we need during this time. You don't have to agree.
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
Originally posted by Gilsch
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
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).
Heck, even if Perle and W, etc came out and AGREED with McGovern and the others you'd be in denial.
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.