Just heard on news on radio station that Nancy Pelosi now favors immediate pull out!

[Fitswimmer]

I don't have blind faith in him. Or the government. Or any politician. I'm simply looking at the facts, all the facts, instead of just a select few of them that fit the theory that someone lied. I don't think a bunch of people lied. I think a bunch of people were wrong. And when that happens, in any organizational beauracracy, there's going to be massive finger-pointing.

I agree. I don't have faith in any politician. Sadly, most of them have proven that they'll do just about anything and say just about anything to get elected and stay elected.

Clearly, the information that has come out shows that the intelligence used to support the war was wrong. Whether there was deliberate intent or not will come out somewhere in the next two years of investigations. The only interest I have is that along with all that investigating we do something to get our people out of there before we lose any more.

 

[Judge Smails]

OK, I was deeply pissed off. Because we have a bunch of wussy public servants. And for God's sake, if you aren't willing to admit the antiamerican hysteria right after 9/11, then you just obviously are not willing to admit anything. How can we debate a person who can't admit the most simple, obvious thing?

Because it doesn't fit in with their fantasyland, Norman Rockwellesque picture of george w. bush. It's all in red, white and blue for these people. If you're against bush then you're against the war and if your against the war then your against the troops and if your against the troops then you are a filthy traitor. It is just that simple for these people. bush doesn't lie, he is the embodiment of America.

Except I say that bush and his gang are liars. I agree...let the damn hearings begin. Let's get it all out in the open and if he is found to have lied to get us into this war, then punish him to the full extent of the law...and I mean the FULL extent of the law.

If he is innocent and has been right all along then they can carve his face next to Jefferson's on Rushmore, build monuments to last for generations, and we can name our children after him.

The only way we can put this all behind us is to hold the hearings. I'm not afraid of what they will uncover, are any of you?

 

[LuvDuke]

Because it doesn't fit in with their fantasyland, Norman Rockwellesque picture of george w. bush. It's all in red, white and blue for these people. If you're against bush then you're against the war and if your against the war then your against the troops and if your against the troops then you are a filthy traitor. It is just that simple for these people. bush doesn't lie, he is the embodiment of America.

Except I say that bush and his gang are liars. I agree...let the damn hearings begin. Let's get it all out in the open and if he is found to have lied to get us into this war, then punish him to the full extent of the law...and I mean the FULL extent of the law.

If he is innocent and has been right all along then they can carve his face next to Jefferson's on Rushmore, build monuments to last for generations, and we can name our children after him.

The only way we can put this all behind us is to hold the hearings. I'm not afraid of what they will uncover, are any of you?

I see the night shift has clocked in.

And ITA. We will never put this behind us until the truth gets out.

 

[auntpolly]

This is the most impressive rewriting of history I've ever seen on these boards, LOL, noooooo, no one was afraid to speak out! Everyone spoke their mind and America applauded them!

I know we love WDW folks, but this is really impossible to discuss here in Fantasyland!

 

[bsnyder]

OK, I was deeply pissed off. Because we have a bunch of wussy public servants. And for God's sake, if you aren't willing to admit the antiamerican hysteria right after 9/11, then you just obviously are not willing to admit anything. How can we debate a person who can't admit the most simple, obvious thing?

I'm sorry, it's not simple and obvious to me. I think we're a very diverse country with many different points of view. And i heard a lot of them being discussed after 9/11. I still do. I see absolutely no signs, then and now, that free speech is in any danger in this country. Far from it.

 

[Judge Smails]

He didn't. If Bush lied, then Tony Blair and the Democrats did the same - are they evil too? And why would Tony Blair even DO that. It wasn't politically expedient for him, in GB. Far from it.

And those people who now claim they knew, before the invasion, yet they didn't speak up? He didn't explain that, either.

I know many of you truly believe that Bush lied. I think you're being manipulated by a group of people who don't really believe it, but it has suited their political purposes well, to make those charges. If you look at ALL the facts, not just the ones that support your view, it's the only logical conclusion.

Your entire argument hinges on that bush, blair and the democrats all had access to the same information.

I find this completely implausable and it runs against what any reasonable person would believe to be true especially given the secretivness of this administration.

 

[Saffron]

The Democrats blew it big time when they voted to allow Bush and Co to go to war because of WMD. Or was it to liberate the people of Iraq? Or was it to get rid of a murderous dictator? Or was it to establish a democracy in a place that wanted a democracy? What the hell was it that the Democrats voted for anyway? I can't keep Bush's reasons straight. But whatever, the Democrats blew it big time.

I have no idea why we're in Iraq. I didn't know why we were invading the country in 2003 and I have no idea why we're there now. Is it about oil, maybe. Is it about nation building, maybe. The closest I can come to thinking why we're there is because Iraq is in the center of the Middle East. What a great place to set up home to keep an eye on other Middle Eastern countries, like a spy central. I think that's a horrible, disgusting reason to kill people, but I think if something like that were to be said, it would make sense. It would be selfish, horrific, disgusting, murderous behavior, but I could see that as Bush's reason, seeing how spying on people seems to be a favorite past time of his. Otherwise I have no clue why we're there.

There were people who spoke out against the war, they were thought to be nuts by the neo-cons. Remember Howard Dean (who didn't have a vote on the war unfortunately) and Kucinich who was labled as nuts for speaking his mind and voting against the war. Why the Democrats sold out is beyond me. I guess it had to do with what politicians do best ... vote in the middle and hope for the best and hope to GOD you have an honest man as our leader. Too bad for the Democrats, they really dropped the ball.

On the other hand, about all this pulling out of Iraq TODAY, right NOW stuff.
Before the war started people on the left on this board were crying for an exit strategy, simply because when it was inevitable that the invasion was going to happen, no one wanted to see another Vietnam. And ... once the invasion happened people cried louder for an exit strategy. What did we get? "Stay the course", "Mission accomplished", "we'll be there as long as it takes" BS. All the while, those of us on the left kept saying, if we go in there without a strategy we'll be bogged down in there for years if not decades.

And NOW, right now, this minute without the newly elected Democrats even being in office yet, the Republicans NOW want an exit strategy when they could not have given a fig before this last election day. Funny how that works, huh?

You made this mess. You decided to vote Bush and company back into office AFTER the war started. You clean it up, no matter if the war wages on 5, 10, 20 months or years from now. You championed this war. You cheered as the bombs dropped. You cheered as stories of success where hand selected and hand fed to you. You bought the story of Bush being a uniter not a divider. You cheered the mission being accomplished. You wanted to stay the course. You wanted to be there as long as it takes. You take responsiblity for this mess and stop trying to lay the blame at the feet of the people who have been decrying this war since day one. Let's not forget, Bush is still in charge of the military and foreign policy. You do something to get him to get off his smirking, idiotic *** and get our men and women out of there before more get killed and maimed. You take responsiblity for your actions. You take responsibilty for the way the Iraqis live and die today and how they'll live and die once we pull out of there. You take responsibilty for Iraq today, tomorrow, next month, next year, next decade, next century and stop trying to blame it the Democrats. You come up with a plan to get us out of your war, the war you wanted, the war you championed, the war you are NOW, three years and thousands of dead and wounded later, worried about ending. You.

And if it all goes well, I for one will sit back and smile at you and your mission and the great job you did in bringing peace in the Middle East and the entire world, it's been a dream of mine since I was a kid. I will be happy and proud of all of you who championed this war. Until then, I'll stick with trying to give others a chance to figure a way out of that debacle you call "The War on Terrorism" or is it "Iraqi Freedom" or what the hell is it anyway?

 

[Fitswimmer]

Because it doesn't fit in with their fantasyland, Norman Rockwellesque picture of george w. bush. It's all in red, white and blue for these people. If you're against bush then you're against the war and if your against the war then your against the troops and if your against the troops then you are a filthy traitor. It is just that simple for these people. bush doesn't lie, he is the embodiment of America.

Except I say that bush and his gang are liars. I agree...let the damn hearings begin. Let's get it all out in the open and if he is found to have lied to get us into this war, then punish him to the full extent of the law...and I mean the FULL extent of the law.

If he is innocent and has been right all along then they can carve his face next to Jefferson's on Rushmore, build monuments to last for generations, and we can name our children after him.

The only way we can put this all behind us is to hold the hearings. I'm not afraid of what they will uncover, are any of you?

Look, it's real easy to paint everyone with your little Red and Blue brush but it's just not that simple. There are many of us that can believe that there may have been deliberate intent to deceive AND can also hold the opinion that there may NOT have been a deliberate intent. Until the hearings are held, nobody knows for certain. I'm sure they will start right away in January and we will see hard evidence one way or the other. Let's hold on the firing squads until then, shall we? (especially those we are holding on each other!)

 

[bsnyder]

This is the most impressive rewriting of history I've ever seen on these boards, LOL, noooooo, no one was afraid to speak out! Everyone spoke their mind and America applauded them!

I know we love WDW folks, but this is really impossible to discuss here in Fantasyland!

I didn't say "no one" was afraid to speak out. But if anyone was afraid to speak, it was their own fault. Or it was their need for "American to applaud them" that kept them silent.

You've obviously got a very interesting view of free speech. One that's very different from mine. For some reason you think it means speaking your mind and then everyone has to automatically agree with you.

 

[Judge Smails]

I'm sorry, it's not simple and obvious to me. I think we're a very diverse country with many different points of view. And i heard a lot of them being discussed after 9/11. I still do. I see absolutely no signs, then and now, that free speech is in any danger in this country. Far from it.

I'm sorry you didn't/don't see it but just because YOU don't doesn't mean it didn't happen. And why should you have been witness to it? You wouldn't have been subjected to it because of your supportive position on bush. Try looking at from someone who opposes the administration. It was pathetic. I saw the same thing in the '60s with the hardhats..."America, Love it or Leave it". It's the same GD thing right now. THE SAME GD THING! Those of us old enough to remember know that it is too.

 

[Judge Smails]

Look, it's real easy to paint everyone with your little Red and Blue brush but it's just not that simple. There are many of us that can believe that there may have been deliberate intent to deceive AND can also hold the opinion that there may NOT have been a deliberate intent. Until the hearings are held, nobody knows for certain. I'm sure they will start right away in January and we will see hard evidence one way or the other. Let's hold on the firing squads until then, shall we? (especially those we are holding on each other!)

I'm not sure I understand your post as we are in agreement if you compare our previous comments.

BTW it won't be a firing squad, it'll be the gallows. War criminals and traitors are given a sentence of death by hanging.

 

[bsnyder]

Your entire argument hinges on that bush, blair and the democrats all had access to the same information.

I find this completely implausable and it runs against what any reasonable person would believe to be true especially given the secretivness of this administration.

No - your argument hinges on the supposition that Blair and the Democrats didn't have any of the dissenting information. And that the CIA forwarded everything single thing they had directly to the President's desk. We know neither of those things is true.

As for secretiveness - a conspiracy theorist would automatically assume it's because the Administration is hiding something from the American people. A reasonable person would realize that in the realm of national security, post 9/11, that it would be suicidal to have the transparency that some people are demanding.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Several points:

1) People didn't know information was being witheld. All the information was not put out there. And for people who did have access to classified information, like Bob Graham, he couldn't talk about it, but he did vote against going to war.

2) People did mention it at the time which has already been mentioned on this thread.

3) And contrary to what you seem to think, the Democratic party most certainly was behind Bush in the leadup to the war as were the American people. Taking us to war was a no-brainer politically for the Bush administration at the time.

4) How are you supposed to know important information was being withheld? How are you supposed to ask questions about something most people didn't even know existed? How are you supposed to question the validity of something when you don't know something to the contrary exists? The fact is, this administration has been one of the most secretive in this nation's history. So you tell me how you're supposed to get your hands on something they claim they don't have and doesn't exist?

As far as being a paper-tiger, the reason why Osama Bin Laden is holed up in Pakistan is because the paper-tiger toppled the Taliban in under 60 days which caused him to run for his life. It's only when the Bush administration took their eye off the ball and mired this country in Iraq is when Bin Laden got some breathing room.

Regarding #1-4 Why wasn't the vote to go to war unanimous? Why did people NOT in Graham's position vote against it?

You're right about Osama, if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball we probably would have had him No argument there. My friend's daugher did two tours in Iraq and she said most of her team would have traded both to get a shot at Afganistan. Even the troops would have rather fought that fight.

 

[Judge Smails]

No - your argument hinges on the supposition that Blair and the Democrats didn't have any of the dissenting information. And that the CIA forwarded everything single thing they had directly to the President's desk. We know neither of those things is true.

As for secretiveness - a conspiracy theorist would automatically assume it's because the Administration is hiding something from the American people. A reasonable person would realize that in the realm of national security, post 9/11, that it would be suicidal to have the transparency that some people are demanding.

We know neither of those things is true.

We bet? No you think that it's true. Those of us in the reality based community think otherwise.

You know bet you never were able to refute my postings on the Iraq war and oil. The best you could come up with was a childish jab about "conspiracy", but you never did post one vowel of intelligent debate on the issue.

 

[bsnyder]

I'm sorry you didn't/don't see it but just because YOU don't doesn't mean it didn't happen. And why should you have been witness to it? You wouldn't have been subjected to it because of your supportive position on bush. Try looking at from someone who opposes the administration. It was pathetic. I saw the same thing in the '60s with the hardhats..."America, Love it or Leave it". It's the same GD thing right now. THE SAME GD THING! Those of us old enough to remember know that it is too.

See my post above. And you have no idea how old I am...

And how cheeky is it to complain that a Bush supporter hasn't been subjected to scorn? No different than "love it or leave it". So what? Grow a thicker skin and get over it!

 

[bsnyder]

We bet? No you think that it's true. Those of us in the reality based community think otherwise.

You know bet you never were able to refute my postings on the Iraq war and oil. The best you could come up with was a childish jab about "conspiracy", but you never did post one vowel of intelligent debate on the issue.

Because all either of us have to support or refute the claim is our "feelings". You posted a collection of "facts" about people in the Bush Administration and big business and the "military/industrial" complex. I don't know if they are accurate or not, I'll just assume they are, because I'm not going to take the time to research them. You provided nothing to make the leap from those facts to your conspiracy. And I can't prove a negative...that he's NOT in it for the oil.

And I'll agree that my jab was childish - I apologize. It wasn't because it was the best I could come up with - it was because you were acting childish yourself.

Enjoy your Saturday evening, whatever that may bring. I'm off to yet another "rubber chicken dinner" for DH's job.... This debate will be a heck of a lot more exciting, I'm sure.

 

[Judge Smails]

Because all either of us have to support or refute the claim is our "feelings". You posted a collection of "facts" about people in the Bush Administration and big business and the "military/industrial" complex. I don't know if they are accurate or not, I'll just assume they are, because I'm not going to take the time to research them. You provided nothing to make the leap from those facts to your conspiracy. And I can't prove a negative...that he's NOT in it for the oil.

And I'll agree that my jab was childish - I apologize. It wasn't because it was the best I could come up with - it was because you were acting childish yourself.

Enjoy your Saturday evening, whatever that may bring. I'm off to yet another "rubber chicken dinner" for DH's job.... This debate will be a heck of a lot more exciting, I'm sure.

The facts I posted were dismissed out of hand as being "a coincidence".
A person would have to think that we are not pulling one drop of oil out of the ground in Iraq. The fact remains that there is oil production in Iraq, that the US government is overseeing that production and that companies like halliburton are making enormous profits off of that oil production.

We are in Iraq to take their oil.

 

[LuvDuke]

Regarding #1-4 Why wasn't the vote to go to war unanimous? Why did people NOT in Graham's position vote against it?

You're right about Osama, if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball we probably would have had him No argument there. My friend's daugher did two tours in Iraq and she said most of her team would have traded both to get a shot at Afganistan. Even the troops would have rather fought that fight.

There were several reasons why the vote wasn't unanimous.

1) Some people didn't believe you should give a president an authorization to go to war. The Constitution says "Congress declares war" and not the president goes to war when he/she thinks it necessary.

2) Some people, like Kucinich, are anti-war.

3) Some people looked at the evidence and concluded Iraq wasn't a threat.

There's a myriad of reasons why the vote wasn't unanimous and, frankly, you'd have to go check for yourself as to all of them.

But, frankly, how does the fact that the vote wasn't unanimous somehow lead to the conclusion all the evidence was presented? I don't understand how you're getting from A to B unless I'm misunderstanding.

 

[dcentity2000]

He didn't. If Bush lied, then Tony Blair and the Democrats did the same - are they evil too? And why would Tony Blair even DO that. It wasn't politically expedient for him, in GB. Far from it.

Well, not really. But still...

Tony has this superman complex thingy. It's annoyed all the Conservative and all the Liberal Democrats. He's even annoyed the Green party and - the king of parties - the Monster Raving Loony Party.

Personally, I reckon that he had an ideal in the reformation of Iraq and make a bet over the state of the nation in order to rally support. His gamble fell through - there were no 45 minute WMD stockpiles, etc., etc.

He's been forced into retiring before the next election, although he's been very slippery over the exact date - most of us presumed he'd leave a year after the last election.



Rich::

 

[Judge Smails]

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

As early as April 1997, a report <http://www.rice.edu/projects/baker/Pubs/Studies.htm> from the James A. Baker Institute of Public Policy at Rice University addressed the problem of "energy security" for the United States, and noted that the US was increasingly threatened by oil shortages in the face of the inability of oil supplies to keep up with world demand. In particular the report addressed "The Threat of Iraq and Iran" to the free flow of oil out of the Middle East. It concluded that Saddam Hussein was still a threat to Middle Eastern security and still had the military capability to exercise force beyond Iraq's borders.
The Bush Administration returned to this theme as soon as it took office in 2001, by following the lead of a second report from the same Institute. <2> This Task Force Report was co-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, another group historically concerned about US access to overseas oil resources. The Report represented a consensus of thinking among energy experts of both political parties, and was signed by Democrats as well as Republicans. <3>
The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century <http://www.rice.edu/projects/baker/Pubs/workingpapers/cfrbipp_energy/energytf.htm>, concluded: "The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments."
The Task Force meetings were attended by members of the new Bush Administration's Department of Energy, and the report was read by members of Vice-President Cheney's own Energy Task Force. When Cheney issued his own national energy plan, it too declared that "The [Persian] Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy." It agreed with the Baker report that the U.S. is increasingly dependent on imported oil and that it may be necessary to overcome foreign resistance in order to gain access to new supplies.
Later the point was made more bluntly by Anthony H. Cordesman, senior analyst at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies: "Regardless of whether we say so publicly, we will go to war, because Saddam sits at the center of a region with more than 60 percent of all the world's oil reserves."