How many Intelligence Committee meetings have you been to lately? Thought so.
Quote:
Rumsfeld is a ****ing liar. One among many.
Rummy is the classic re-tread from 'Nam, dredged up for nostalgia. Those folks were MASTERS of managing the public. They kept Vietnam looking winnable to lots of people for years- when it was a blown play from the start.
The TV and print news concerning the war, regardless of which side you take, has been pathetic.
As opposed to your perfect record of attendance I gather? Hook, line, and sinker eh Jube?
I was simply pointing to the fact that we (the American public) may never know what the govt knew re: Iraq. I DON'T know, none of us do, and that is the point. We are in the dark, so to say that something is not justified when Congress has voted more than once to go ahead with it, makes me wonder what the missing piece is. We elect Reps and Sens to do that job for us, to go to those meetings, to have the inside info, and make the correct decision.
How many Intelligence Committee meetings have you been to lately? Thought so.
As many as you have. if it was so damn dangerous, why did it only take a little over a month to completly bring down the country? No nukes, or chem, or bio weapons... no found WMDs. No air force to speak of... Where was this threat again? I'm sorry... I must have missed that.
Quote:
Rummy is the classic re-tread from 'Nam, dredged up for nostalgia. Those folks were MASTERS of managing the public. They kept Vietnam looking winnable to lots of people for years- when it was a blown play from the start.
The TV and print news concerning the war, regardless of which side you take, has been pathetic. [/B]
He's also a ****ing liar. He was caught in a lie and tried to dance his way through it. Badly I might add. The whole administration is based on fear and ignorance. His campaign is showing up the same way.
I was simply pointing to the fact that we (the American public) may never know what the govt knew re: Iraq. I DON'T know, none of us do, and that is the point. We are in the dark, so to say that something is not justified when Congress has voted more than once to go ahead with it, makes me wonder what the missing piece is. We elect Reps and Sens to do that job for us, to go to those meetings, to have the inside info, and make the correct decision.
You're baiting a fight, man. Unnecessary.
8)
Weak argument because congress also voted for the medicare monster and later found out bush and co. seemingly withheld crucial information about costs.
In the end, the proof is in the pudding. David Key went into Iraq as an administration crony, but came out converted in his views. This isn't new news, but Kay said Iraq didn't have then after the war and dollars to doughnuts, didn't have them before the war. The intelligence used to justify the war was cherry picked and any nay-sayers where unduly pressured (i.e. the outing of Valerie Plume).
Bush played the "trust me" card hoping to find the weapons the neo-cons predicted where there. Whoops, no WMD's.
Its still fun the watch a liar squirm when called though isn't it?
Let's be intellectually honest. Clinton and his crew were certain they were there as well... back in 98. Hell, those weapons killed a bunch of Kurds and Iranians. Was Clinton manipulating the CIA as well? Bush screwed up, royally in my opinion... be he is not the first (nor will he be the last) to screw up in Mid East policy.
Weak argument because congress also voted for the medicare monster and later found out bush and co. seemingly withheld crucial information about costs.
Equally weak rebuttal. Bush being FOS on one front does not, by logical default, make him FOS on ALL fronts.
If he had never touched Medicare, this board would have lit up with stories of Eeeeevil Bush and how our parents are choosing between heat and drugs.
He was FOS on Medicare. Bad bill. There are 435 other people in the equation, though. Is he FOS on Iraq? We'll see when it is all over with, about the time the Warren Commission Report is released.
And why did he do medicare at all? To avoid being demonized by people for NOT doing something. He acts- he is criticized. He does not- he is criticized. Its no longer about Bush, it is about hate. Medicare was a no-win for him... Conservatives HATE the drug program, and Liberals use it to point out that they "made Bush" take on thier entitlement program.
Blind hate for Bush. Blind hate for Kerry. Blind hate for pixels on a board.
Let's talk about what we can work together on, not how we can assume and maintain absolute ideological power.
Equally weak rebuttal. Bush being FOS on one front does not, by logical default, make him FOS on ALL fronts.
If he had never touched Medicare, this board would have lit up with stories of Eeeeevil Bush and how our parents are choosing between heat and drugs.
He was FOS on Medicare. Bad bill. There are 435 other people in the equation, though. Is he FOS on Iraq? We'll see when it is all over with, about the time the Warren Commission Report is released.
And why did he do medicare at all? To avoid being demonized by people for NOT doing something. He acts- he is criticized. He does not- he is criticized. Its no longer about Bush, it is about hate. Medicare was a no-win for him... Conservatives HATE the drug program, and Liberals use it to point out that they "made Bush" take on their entitlement program.
I disagree in that your original assertion implied that congress and the senate automatically had all of the pertenet information at hand to wit I rebutted with another instance where the information "should" have been at hand but was not. Also, as to why the bill was passed: as you've said it was done for political reasons and in that light the withholding of information in order to ensure passage of an otherwise unpopular bill was done as a handout to substantial number of active voters.
Also, Bush being FOS on one front concerning political expediency brings into doubt his level of S**T concerning other front of political expediency. He wanted the Mediace bill passed and it turns out the admin was FOS. He wanted the war thus logical conclusion is "in retrospect, did he lie to us as he did with medicare?" That was the point I was makeing because again your original assertion was that "we" can't make a judgement because "they" had the intelligence and "we" didn't.
Another point, Bush said give him a good mediacre plan. The powers that be did not give Bush a good plan; moreover, the powers that be would have been better served by writing a plan unacceptible to the Dems and then blame the Dems for its failure as they are doing the the Kerry/Body Armour 87Billion vote.
Finally, I don't hold Clinton completely blameless in this fiasco, but make no mistakes, Clinton didn't lie to the American people about going to war--Bush did. Clinton lied about other things. Keep in mind one doesn't have to know they are lying in order to tell a lie. This current admin had a preconceived notion about Iraq stemming from the first gulf war and an agenda of invasion from day one. This admin knew the WMD argument was weak (I'll try and dig up the Rummy interview where he said as much) but it was the argument necessary to energize the population enough to undertake a war.
I was simply pointing to the fact that we (the American public) may never know what the govt knew re: Iraq.
Bull. We already know most , if not all, of what they knew and told Congress. Don't be so naive. There's transcripts of statements, documents, made from a myriad of agencies from the CIA to the Iraq Survey Group.
Quote:
I DON'T know, none of us do, and that is the point. We are in the dark, so to say that something is not justified when Congress has voted more than once to go ahead with it, makes me wonder what the missing piece is.
You don't know. Some of us bother to actually find the information and facts so we don't talk out of our butts. You have absolutely zero credibility if you really believe that nonsense. We know what members of Congress were told. We know how the intel. was manipulated. Want an example? Here: UAVs capable or carrying biological and chemical weapons that could be launched off of boats on the easter seaboard.
Senator Bill Nelson voted for the Iraq war resolution ?precisely because of the administration?s UAV evidence.?77 He explained: I was told not only that [Hussein had weapons of mass destruction]and
that he had the means to deliver them through unmanned aerial vehicles,but that he had the capability of transporting those UAVs outside of Iraq and threatening the homeland here in America, specifically by putting them on ships off the eastern seaboard. . . . I thought there was an imminent threat.78
Quote:
We elect Reps and Sens to do that job for us, to go to those meetings, to have the inside info, and make the correct decision.
Are you really that obtuse? Or again, maybe you just have no clue what you're talking about.
Quote:
You're baiting a fight, man. Unnecessary.
8)
A fight?? Are you so embarrassed by your lack of resources, or intimidated by others that you feel the need for that? Grow up man.
Let's be intellectually honest. Clinton and his crew were certain they were there as well... back in 98. Hell, those weapons killed a bunch of Kurds and Iranians.
Clinton didn't take the country to war, so get over him. You do realize that Iranian-Iraqi war was many years ago right? You do realize "those weapons" have a short shelf life right? You do realize that we had inspectors back in Iraq before the war who, just like our forces there(remember David Kay?) didn't, and haven't found anything right?
I was simply pointing to the fact that we (the American public) may never know what the govt knew re: Iraq. I DON'T know, none of us do, and that is the point.
Actually we do.
007 ain't real and in a normal day 90% of info used by the CIA is open and available to the public. With Iraq it was much higher, and likely everything or close to everything secret has now been released (as in the false accounts given by INC folks).
Let's be intellectually honest. Clinton and his crew were certain they were there as well... back in 98. Hell, those weapons killed a bunch of Kurds and Iranians. Was Clinton manipulating the CIA as well? Bush screwed up, royally in my opinion... be he is not the first (nor will he be the last) to screw up in Mid East policy.
If the had a site, then where are the weapons then? Never Said Bush was manipulating the CIA. I said he used bad or biased information and picked and chose what he liked from it.
Bull. We already know most , if not all, of what they knew and told Congress. Don't be so naive. There's transcripts of statements, documents, made from a myriad of agencies from the CIA to the Iraq Survey Group. You don't know. Some of us bother to actually find the information and facts so we don't talk out of our butts. You have absolutely zero credibility if you really believe that nonsense. We know what members of Congress were told. We know how the intel. was manipulated. Want an example? Here: UAVs capable or carrying biological and chemical weapons that could be launched off of boats on the easter seaboard.
Senator Bill Nelson voted for the Iraq war resolution ?precisely because of the administration?s UAV evidence.?77 He explained: I was told not only that [Hussein had weapons of mass destruction]and
that he had the means to deliver them through unmanned aerial vehicles,but that he had the capability of transporting those UAVs outside of Iraq and threatening the homeland here in America, specifically by putting them on ships off the eastern seaboard. . . . I thought there was an imminent threat.78
Are you really that obtuse? Or again, maybe you just have no clue what you're talking about.
A fight?? Are you so embarrassed by your lack of resources, or intimidated by others that you feel the need for that? Grow up man.
That was needlessly harsh. Sorry I disagree with your worldview...
There's nothing wrong with disagreement, so long as both sides are accounting for all available information.
Your disagreement ignores a mountain of info. It's like saying that you disagree that there are even US troops on the ground in Iraq right now. Or that the earth has a moon.
I purposely ignore anything to do with politics, so I'm clueless as to how often he does this, or the things he's said in the past, etc... but god DAMN that was funny. I could actually hear his brain screaming "HOLY ****!!!" while he had his ass handed to him.. err... had his quote read back to him.
Funny stuff. I might have to rethink my anti-politics thread policy if they've all got gems like this.
Facts can be cited on both sides. You get yours, I get mine, and we are not going to change each other's minds. Bueno? The facts both support and contradict your position... if these issues were as simple as you make them with the "facts" you are referring to, there would be no debate... which there is no shortage of on this board.
The amazing thing is that they actually called him on a transparent lie. The sad thing is this scenario could have been played out in virtually any interview with any member of the Bush whitehouse for the past two years.
On assertions of job growth, Medicare costs, WOMD, war on terror budgetary support, distribution of tax cuts, etc.
And maybe if the press had bothered to be a little more confrontational all along, we wouldn't be where we are today.
Comments
Originally posted by FaydRautha
And it wasn't.
How many Intelligence Committee meetings have you been to lately? Thought so.
Rumsfeld is a ****ing liar. One among many.
Rummy is the classic re-tread from 'Nam, dredged up for nostalgia. Those folks were MASTERS of managing the public. They kept Vietnam looking winnable to lots of people for years- when it was a blown play from the start.
The TV and print news concerning the war, regardless of which side you take, has been pathetic.
Originally posted by Jubelum
How many Intelligence Committee meetings have you been to lately? Thought so.
As opposed to your perfect record of attendance I gather? Hook, line, and sinker eh Jube?
Originally posted by Gilsch
As opposed to your perfect record of attendance I gather? Hook, line, and sinker eh Jube?
I was simply pointing to the fact that we (the American public) may never know what the govt knew re: Iraq. I DON'T know, none of us do, and that is the point. We are in the dark, so to say that something is not justified when Congress has voted more than once to go ahead with it, makes me wonder what the missing piece is. We elect Reps and Sens to do that job for us, to go to those meetings, to have the inside info, and make the correct decision.
You're baiting a fight, man. Unnecessary.
8)
Originally posted by Jubelum
How many Intelligence Committee meetings have you been to lately? Thought so.
As many as you have. if it was so damn dangerous, why did it only take a little over a month to completly bring down the country? No nukes, or chem, or bio weapons... no found WMDs. No air force to speak of... Where was this threat again? I'm sorry... I must have missed that.
Rummy is the classic re-tread from 'Nam, dredged up for nostalgia. Those folks were MASTERS of managing the public. They kept Vietnam looking winnable to lots of people for years- when it was a blown play from the start.
The TV and print news concerning the war, regardless of which side you take, has been pathetic. [/B]
He's also a ****ing liar. He was caught in a lie and tried to dance his way through it. Badly I might add. The whole administration is based on fear and ignorance. His campaign is showing up the same way.
Originally posted by Jubelum
I was simply pointing to the fact that we (the American public) may never know what the govt knew re: Iraq. I DON'T know, none of us do, and that is the point. We are in the dark, so to say that something is not justified when Congress has voted more than once to go ahead with it, makes me wonder what the missing piece is. We elect Reps and Sens to do that job for us, to go to those meetings, to have the inside info, and make the correct decision.
You're baiting a fight, man. Unnecessary.
8)
Weak argument because congress also voted for the medicare monster and later found out bush and co. seemingly withheld crucial information about costs.
Bush played the "trust me" card hoping to find the weapons the neo-cons predicted where there. Whoops, no WMD's.
Its still fun the watch a liar squirm when called though isn't it?
Threat from Iraq? Nawwww...
Originally posted by faust9
Weak argument because congress also voted for the medicare monster and later found out bush and co. seemingly withheld crucial information about costs.
Equally weak rebuttal. Bush being FOS on one front does not, by logical default, make him FOS on ALL fronts.
If he had never touched Medicare, this board would have lit up with stories of Eeeeevil Bush and how our parents are choosing between heat and drugs.
He was FOS on Medicare. Bad bill. There are 435 other people in the equation, though. Is he FOS on Iraq? We'll see when it is all over with, about the time the Warren Commission Report is released.
And why did he do medicare at all? To avoid being demonized by people for NOT doing something. He acts- he is criticized. He does not- he is criticized. Its no longer about Bush, it is about hate. Medicare was a no-win for him... Conservatives HATE the drug program, and Liberals use it to point out that they "made Bush" take on thier entitlement program.
Blind hate for Bush. Blind hate for Kerry. Blind hate for pixels on a board.
Let's talk about what we can work together on, not how we can assume and maintain absolute ideological power.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Equally weak rebuttal. Bush being FOS on one front does not, by logical default, make him FOS on ALL fronts.
If he had never touched Medicare, this board would have lit up with stories of Eeeeevil Bush and how our parents are choosing between heat and drugs.
He was FOS on Medicare. Bad bill. There are 435 other people in the equation, though. Is he FOS on Iraq? We'll see when it is all over with, about the time the Warren Commission Report is released.
And why did he do medicare at all? To avoid being demonized by people for NOT doing something. He acts- he is criticized. He does not- he is criticized. Its no longer about Bush, it is about hate. Medicare was a no-win for him... Conservatives HATE the drug program, and Liberals use it to point out that they "made Bush" take on their entitlement program.
I disagree in that your original assertion implied that congress and the senate automatically had all of the pertenet information at hand to wit I rebutted with another instance where the information "should" have been at hand but was not. Also, as to why the bill was passed: as you've said it was done for political reasons and in that light the withholding of information in order to ensure passage of an otherwise unpopular bill was done as a handout to substantial number of active voters.
Also, Bush being FOS on one front concerning political expediency brings into doubt his level of S**T concerning other front of political expediency. He wanted the Mediace bill passed and it turns out the admin was FOS. He wanted the war thus logical conclusion is "in retrospect, did he lie to us as he did with medicare?" That was the point I was makeing because again your original assertion was that "we" can't make a judgement because "they" had the intelligence and "we" didn't.
Another point, Bush said give him a good mediacre plan. The powers that be did not give Bush a good plan; moreover, the powers that be would have been better served by writing a plan unacceptible to the Dems and then blame the Dems for its failure as they are doing the the Kerry/Body Armour 87Billion vote.
Finally, I don't hold Clinton completely blameless in this fiasco, but make no mistakes, Clinton didn't lie to the American people about going to war--Bush did. Clinton lied about other things. Keep in mind one doesn't have to know they are lying in order to tell a lie. This current admin had a preconceived notion about Iraq stemming from the first gulf war and an agenda of invasion from day one. This admin knew the WMD argument was weak (I'll try and dig up the Rummy interview where he said as much) but it was the argument necessary to energize the population enough to undertake a war.
Originally posted by Jubelum
I was simply pointing to the fact that we (the American public) may never know what the govt knew re: Iraq.
I DON'T know, none of us do, and that is the point. We are in the dark, so to say that something is not justified when Congress has voted more than once to go ahead with it, makes me wonder what the missing piece is.
You don't know. Some of us bother to actually find the information and facts so we don't talk out of our butts. You have absolutely zero credibility if you really believe that nonsense. We know what members of Congress were told. We know how the intel. was manipulated. Want an example? Here: UAVs capable or carrying biological and chemical weapons that could be launched off of boats on the easter seaboard.
Senator Bill Nelson voted for the Iraq war resolution ?precisely because of the administration?s UAV evidence.?77 He explained: I was told not only that [Hussein had weapons of mass destruction]and
that he had the means to deliver them through unmanned aerial vehicles,but that he had the capability of transporting those UAVs outside of Iraq and threatening the homeland here in America, specifically by putting them on ships off the eastern seaboard. . . . I thought there was an imminent threat.78
We elect Reps and Sens to do that job for us, to go to those meetings, to have the inside info, and make the correct decision.
Are you really that obtuse? Or again, maybe you just have no clue what you're talking about.
You're baiting a fight, man. Unnecessary.
8)
A fight?? Are you so embarrassed by your lack of resources, or intimidated by others that you feel the need for that?
Originally posted by Jubelum
Let's be intellectually honest. Clinton and his crew were certain they were there as well... back in 98. Hell, those weapons killed a bunch of Kurds and Iranians.
Clinton didn't take the country to war, so get over him. You do realize that Iranian-Iraqi war was many years ago right? You do realize "those weapons" have a short shelf life right? You do realize that we had inspectors back in Iraq before the war who, just like our forces there(remember David Kay?) didn't, and haven't found anything right?
Originally posted by Jubelum
I was simply pointing to the fact that we (the American public) may never know what the govt knew re: Iraq. I DON'T know, none of us do, and that is the point.
Actually we do.
007 ain't real and in a normal day 90% of info used by the CIA is open and available to the public. With Iraq it was much higher, and likely everything or close to everything secret has now been released (as in the false accounts given by INC folks).
Originally posted by Jubelum
Let's be intellectually honest. Clinton and his crew were certain they were there as well... back in 98.[/URL]
UNSCOM was crucial in our understanding of Iraq's weapons, regardless of how many of how many times bushites regurgitate the above statement.
Here's a good run-down:
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html
Originally posted by Jubelum
Let's be intellectually honest. Clinton and his crew were certain they were there as well... back in 98. Hell, those weapons killed a bunch of Kurds and Iranians. Was Clinton manipulating the CIA as well? Bush screwed up, royally in my opinion... be he is not the first (nor will he be the last) to screw up in Mid East policy.
Threat from Iraq? Nawwww...
If the had a site, then where are the weapons then? Never Said Bush was manipulating the CIA. I said he used bad or biased information and picked and chose what he liked from it.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Senator Bill Nelson voted for the Iraq war resolution ?precisely because of the administration?s UAV evidence.?77 He explained: I was told not only that [Hussein had weapons of mass destruction]and
that he had the means to deliver them through unmanned aerial vehicles,but that he had the capability of transporting those UAVs outside of Iraq and threatening the homeland here in America, specifically by putting them on ships off the eastern seaboard. . . . I thought there was an imminent threat.78
Are you really that obtuse? Or again, maybe you just have no clue what you're talking about.
A fight?? Are you so embarrassed by your lack of resources, or intimidated by others that you feel the need for that?
That was needlessly harsh.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Sorry I disagree with your worldview...
There's nothing wrong with disagreement, so long as both sides are accounting for all available information.
Your disagreement ignores a mountain of info. It's like saying that you disagree that there are even US troops on the ground in Iraq right now. Or that the earth has a moon.
Funny stuff. I might have to rethink my anti-politics thread policy if they've all got gems like this.
Originally posted by Jubelum
That was needlessly harsh.
It's tough love baby.
Come back when you're ready to discuss facts.
Originally posted by Gilsch
It's tough love baby.
Come back when you're ready to discuss facts.
Um, return replies I'm leaving. Nope.
Facts can be cited on both sides. You get yours, I get mine, and we are not going to change each other's minds. Bueno? The facts both support and contradict your position... if these issues were as simple as you make them with the "facts" you are referring to, there would be no debate... which there is no shortage of on this board.
On assertions of job growth, Medicare costs, WOMD, war on terror budgetary support, distribution of tax cuts, etc.
And maybe if the press had bothered to be a little more confrontational all along, we wouldn't be where we are today.