Bush Lied-intelligence and facts fixed to support war in Iraq

[SlightlyGoofy]

Laura, you are a wise woman. Where in the world would we have been if more people would have read Mein Kampf?

What is it they say about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer?

Slightly Goofy

 

[richiebaseball]

Well, considering the Republican party is the party of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, and Reverend "**** for brains" in NC, it's amazing how sensitive you are to "hypocrisy" and how quickly you throw out the charge.

Then again, with that lineup, it isn't all that amazing.

What exactly are you saying? That Republicans give their nuts a talk show and Democrats elect theirs to office?

As for hypocrisy, I'm not so blinded by partisanship that I don't see quite a lot of it from the right. I'm actually rather surprised to see that you are.

Richard

 

[ThAnswr]

I didn't know the NPP was a popularity contest. I know Carter tried for peace in the Mideast, but was unsuccessful. Arafat and the Hamas organization were known terrorists. Hamas still is.

Bush and Blair are doing what's right for this world - fighting terrorism and liberating 50 million plus, and spreading freedom. Thank God. History will vindicate them even further.

Carter wasn't successful in bringing peace to the Middle East? Really?

What do you call the Camp David Accords that were signed by Menachim Began (Isreal) and Anwar Sadat (Eqypt)? That wasn't a successful peace agreement even though it ended hostilities between 2 groups that had fought 4 wars against each other? It isn't successful when 2 former enemies no longer trade shots with each other?

 

[Lebjwb]

So there we have the "grand plan" of the LW fanatics - it their own words. Wait til someone ELSE does something and then find something to say "I would not have done THAT" about. <do I hear an echo here?>

ROFLMAO

The actual question = "What would you DO?" = is STILL unanswered.

You know Einstein, the last person on this planet I answer to is you. You might talk to your students that way, but not to me. Tread lightly.

 

[Charade]

You know Einstein, the last person on this planet I answer to is you. You might talk to your students that way, but not to me. Tread lightly.

Well, I've been nice to you and asked you twice WWLebjwbD and all I got were two flippant answers. It appears as if Rok is on to something.

 

[Lebjwb]

Well, I've been nice to you and asked you twice WWLebjwbD and all I got were two flippant answers. It appears as if Rok is on to something.

Quite honestly, I've been busy all day with my family. I'm funny that way especially on Mothers Day.

I certainly don't dance to the tunes called by the neo-cons. And if you'd put any thought into the posts, you'd see that I've already answered the question. Do what Bu$h has not.

Start with this; Don't invade Iraq. What does that buy you? Think it through...

Oh and ah, Rok...still waiting on your response to the Rolling Stone article.

 

[Lebjwb]

Well, I've been nice to you and asked you twice WWLebjwbD and all I got were two flippant answers. It appears as if Rok is on to something.

The only thing Rok is on is crack.

 

[Charade]

Quite honestly, I've been busy all day with my family. I'm funny that way especially on Mothers Day.

Again with a flippant attitude.

I certainly don't dance to the tunes called by the neo-cons. And if you'd put any thought into the posts, you'd see that I've already answered the question. Do what Bu$h has not.

Start with this; Don't invade Iraq. What does that buy you? Think it through...

You're a real hoot. I was just asking you a question and demanding nothing. Your answers are still non-answers. And if you had spent more time reading my posts, you would have realized that I was speaking in general terms and said to exclude Iraq.

But I will stop now because it's pretty clear that you can't (or won't) answer a simple question.

 

[Rokkitsci]

We can't go back in the time machine to correct things, but the problem with this statement is that apparently "the available intel at the time" was fixed, rigged, etc. It was trash. That's what the whole thread is about.

And if you believe that there was a good relationship between Osama and Saddam, then fine. Plenty of people think they had close ties, just like plenty of people think Iraqis flew the planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. My own post proves that the invasion made things worse by having Al Qaeda start siding with Saddam's loyalists.

Funny how people don't want to listen to Osama bin Laden when he tells us stuff. I don't agree with one iota of his thoughts or the reasons behind his actions, but he does explain his motives quite well in his statements. One would do well stop ignoring the man and think about why he spews the crap he spews. To defeat our enemy, we must understand what he thinks, what he believes. This is why Bush and the rest of his administration has done so badly in this war--they don't analyze and examine the motives of the enemy.

I do not agree that the intel was "rigged" - regardless of how others interpret this one memo.

I repeat - when we are at war, we should wage it to win or not even bother. That means to go after the enemy with the most force possible, everywhere possible, based on the best information available at the time.

Now, does that mean you may look for every possible potential the enemy MAY have and take action to eliminate it? === In my mind you do.

Does it mean that you look for every possibility that your avowed enemy may actually be be totally innocent and defer to them in every case? == In my mind that is really stupid = during a WAR.

What is really happening here is that Bush political opponents are just livid that he was elected just prior to some momentous world event and that he has responded with great leadership. All they are doing is trying to minimize his accomplishments in any way possible. The Democrats are proving to be quite crassless - and classless - in their constant obstruction and outright lying about the situation.

Back to the memo that is the topic of the thread - it was released just prior to the British election with the hope of derailing Blair. I do not trust its sources based on that alone. Information released just days before an election does not impress me at all. It is usually a very biased interpretation that cannot stand the light of inspection - or is a triviality that is only has no importance. I don't even care which this memo is - if it really exposed criminality, then I am sure more will come of it. I expect it will fade into obscurity from whence in came now that it did not accomplish its goal of defeating Blair. Of course the LW fanatics will hang on to it forever and keep it alive but who cares - they are becoming so marginalized that only Michael Moore pays any attention to them anymore.

I will say this to all the LW fanatics. - If you think Bush and Blair actually LIED to the world, and if you think that the INVENTED all this information for the venal purpose of waging an ilegal war - then BRING CHARGES - IMPEACH THEM.

Stop with the whimpering and whining and moaning = get your legislators to shut their mouths and bring IMPEACHMENT charges.

LW fanatics ==== PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Oh - as for terrorists' motives and our trying to understand them - I say BALONEY = I don't care what their motive is. That will wait for the analysis AFTER we eliminate them. Books can be written THEN. I have no time to try to "understand" why they want to kill us. As long as that is their only solution to WHATEVER greivance they have, my only interest is in trying to kill them first.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Again with a flippant attitude.
You're a real hoot. I was just asking you a question and demanding nothing. Your answers are still non-answers. And if you had spent more time reading my posts, you would have realized that I was speaking in general terms and said to exclude Iraq.

But I will stop now because it's pretty clear that you can't (or won't) answer a simple question.

LOL - you are learning - until he can find a screed someone else has written for him to cut and paste - he is paralyzed. A man of few original thoughts.

Not worth the effort to respond to that one.

I laugh at him - constantly. And normally, I have sympathy for the handicapped - but not this one.

 

[swilphil]

Laura, Bill Sykes, and Lebjwb all answered your question on what the administration could have done differently. Just because you don't agree with their reasons doesn't mean they didn't answer the question.

Your condescending attitude is getting a little old. Just because a person doesn't support Bush doesn't make he or she a Left-Wing fanatic. You claim that we are cutting and pasting from liberal websites (I've never even been on a liberal website), but it sounds like you are using all the codes words found on right-wing websites.

 

[Charade]

Laura, Bill Sykes, and Lebjwb all answered your question on what the administration could have done differently. Just because you don't agree with their reasons doesn't mean they didn't answer the question.

They did? I'm a pretty good reader (graduated high skool) but I don't think I've read anything but things like (summarization) "Bush sucks and everything he's done has led to more terrorism" . That's not a "plan", that's criticism. Granted, most of them agree with the actions in Afghanistan (on principal) but even screwed that up by pulling troops out to go after Iraq and let OBL escape. Now if we apply Lebjwb's plan, which is the opposite of whatever Bush has done, wouldn't that literally mean do nothing?

 

[Laura]

I do not agree that the intel was "rigged" - regardless of how others interpret this one memo.

I repeat - when we are at war, we should wage it to win or not even bother. That means to go after the enemy with the most force possible, everywhere possible, based on the best information available at the time.

Now, does that mean you may look for every possible potential the enemy MAY have and take action to eliminate it? === In my mind you do.

Does it mean that you look for every possibility that your avowed enemy may actually be be totally innocent and defer to them in every case? == In my mind that is really stupid = during a WAR.

What is really happening here is that Bush political opponents are just livid that he was elected just prior to some momentous world event and that he has responded with great leadership. All they are doing is trying to minimize his accomplishments in any way possible. The Democrats are proving to be quite crassless - and classless - in their constant obstruction and outright lying about the situation.

Back to the memo that is the topic of the thread - it was released just prior to the British election with the hope of derailing Blair. I do not trust its sources based on that alone. Information released just days before an election does not impress me at all. It is usually a very biased interpretation that cannot stand the light of inspection - or is a triviality that is only has no importance. I don't even care which this memo is - if it really exposed criminality, then I am sure more will come of it. I expect it will fade into obscurity from whence in came now that it did not accomplish its goal of defeating Blair. Of course the LW fanatics will hang on to it forever and keep it alive but who cares - they are becoming so marginalized that only Michael Moore pays any attention to them anymore.

I will say this to all the LW fanatics. - If you think Bush and Blair actually LIED to the world, and if you think that the INVENTED all this information for the venal purpose of waging an ilegal war - then BRING CHARGES - IMPEACH THEM.

Stop with the whimpering and whining and moaning = get your legislators to shut their mouths and bring IMPEACHMENT charges.

LW fanatics ==== PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Oh - as for terrorists' motives and our trying to understand them - I say BALONEY = I don't care what their motive is. That will wait for the analysis AFTER we eliminate them. Books can be written THEN. I have no time to try to "understand" why they want to kill us. As long as that is their only solution to WHATEVER greivance they have, my only interest is in trying to kill them first.

Your problem is, then, that the only person you seem to want to listen to is Bush. You don't think he lied--apparently none of us can make you think that. And you're right, if we impeach Clinton over lying about sexual relations, we SHOULD be trying to get Bush impeached for this.

But I will say that one can't defeat the terrorists without understanding what they are about. That doesn't mean one agrees with them, it doesn't mean one is deferring to them, it means we know how they will react to setbacks, we know what the worst thing you could do to them, we know what would make them happy, we know how to stop them. Knowledge is power. Just mindlessly invading Muslim countries only makes things worse.

 

[ThAnswr]

I do not agree that the intel was "rigged" - regardless of how others interpret this one memo.

I repeat - when we are at war, we should wage it to win or not even bother. That means to go after the enemy with the most force possible, everywhere possible, based on the best information available at the time.

Now, does that mean you may look for every possible potential the enemy MAY have and take action to eliminate it? === In my mind you do.

Does it mean that you look for every possibility that your avowed enemy may actually be be totally innocent and defer to them in every case? == In my mind that is really stupid = during a WAR.

What is really happening here is that Bush political opponents are just livid that he was elected just prior to some momentous world event and that he has responded with great leadership. All they are doing is trying to minimize his accomplishments in any way possible. The Democrats are proving to be quite crassless - and classless - in their constant obstruction and outright lying about the situation.

Back to the memo that is the topic of the thread - it was released just prior to the British election with the hope of derailing Blair. I do not trust its sources based on that alone. Information released just days before an election does not impress me at all. It is usually a very biased interpretation that cannot stand the light of inspection - or is a triviality that is only has no importance. I don't even care which this memo is - if it really exposed criminality, then I am sure more will come of it. I expect it will fade into obscurity from whence in came now that it did not accomplish its goal of defeating Blair. Of course the LW fanatics will hang on to it forever and keep it alive but who cares - they are becoming so marginalized that only Michael Moore pays any attention to them anymore.

I will say this to all the LW fanatics. - If you think Bush and Blair actually LIED to the world, and if you think that the INVENTED all this information for the venal purpose of waging an ilegal war - then BRING CHARGES - IMPEACH THEM.

Stop with the whimpering and whining and moaning = get your legislators to shut their mouths and bring IMPEACHMENT charges.

LW fanatics ==== PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Oh - as for terrorists' motives and our trying to understand them - I say BALONEY = I don't care what their motive is. That will wait for the analysis AFTER we eliminate them. Books can be written THEN. I have no time to try to "understand" why they want to kill us. As long as that is their only solution to WHATEVER greivance they have, my only interest is in trying to kill them first.

I'm so surprised such a learned, well-read individual such as yourself would scoff at the idea of knowing one's enemy. Surely someone of your great intellect would've heard of "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. I'm sure you're aware that this text is used as a basis of studying war and tactics. Here's what Sun Tzu had to say about knowing your enemy:

"Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril. When you are ignorant of the enemy, but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."

http://qing_long_institute.tripod.com/qinglonginstitute/id11.html

And if you're not familiar with "The Art of War", click on the link and take the opportunity to add to your vast storeroom of knowledge. I realize Sun Tzu's treatise written in 500 B.C. cannot compare with "Rok's Art of War" (2003), but you never know, you might actually learn something.

 

[dcentity2000]

Observation 1: Clinton and Bush are quite different, despite being guilty of the same crime. The former destroyed his reputation for a lie; the latter destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands for a lie, be it right or wrong.

Observation 2: I don't know what the law is in reference to impeaching the President in the US; there are currently legal battles being fought here in the UK to get Blair out; he has also been asked by various colleagues to leave and is seen by the polled majority as a "liar" and a "liability" to his own political party.

Observation 3: The cost of legal challenge is sky high when you deal with the Government here in the UK; in fact, it is expensive to the point of prohibitive, even with legal aid. I imagine the same goes in the USA.

Observation 4: If the leaders did not lie, the intelligence agencies have displayed an alarming degree of incompetence and are not to be trusted with such life or death situations.

Observation 5: We are therefore reliant on the executive to self govern, reliant on a flawed intelligence system or a flawed leadership or both, and certain people won't tell me if they eat shellfish.

Observation 6: Ergo, we are all in trouble.



Rich::

 

[richiebaseball]

You know Einstein, the last person on this planet I answer to is you. You might talk to your students that way, but not to me. Tread lightly.

Are you trying to threaten people again?

 

[minniepumpernickel]

I'm so surprised such a learned, well-read individual such as yourself would scoff at the idea of knowing one's enemy. Surely someone of your great intellect would've heard of "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. I'm sure you're aware that this text is used as a basis of studying war and tactics. Here's what Sun Tzu had to say about knowing your enemy:

"Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril. When you are ignorant of the enemy, but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."

http://qing_long_institute.tripod.com/qinglonginstitute/id11.html

And if you're not familiar with "The Art of War", click on the link and take the opportunity to add to your vast storeroom of knowledge. I realize Sun Tzu's treatise written in 500 B.C. cannot compare with "Rok's Art of War" (2003), but you never know, you might actually learn something.

I love "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. I almost hate to butt in here, but I didn't know that you read that stuff! I doubt very highly that Charade has ever read anything like this. He doesn't seem to be into enlightetninment. Um., I doubt that Bush has either!!

 

[Lebjwb]

Are you trying to threaten people again?

No. His responses have become personal. Tread lightly or get reported.

 

[momof2inPA]

You know what's amazing about the original story? Bush and co. twisted arms in the intelligence agencies to spin their Iraq intelligence so that Bush/Cheney could take the U.S. into war and risk innocent soldiers lives. That's nothing new, it's been done in Vietnam, etc. Then, when it was obvious to the world that there were no WMD's, Bush went back, blamed those same intelligence agency cooperatives and spies, exposed them to the media, and fired them. How's that for loyalty?

Would all of you Republican defenders do the same?

 

[sodaseller]

There is no reasonable argument to the contrary that the Administration cooked and misrepresented the state of intelligence, and bears responsibility for that. The argument that casts him as a victim of bad intel is both false and shows poor character on his part