PDA

View Full Version : "Democrats: Clueless About War In Iraq And The War On Terror"


PaceAdvantage
07-15-2007, 02:07 AM
An interesting take on things:

I agree that Saddam Hussein’s regime had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks (the Bush administration has never claimed any such thing). But I’d point out that Saddam was heavily involved with international terrorism before we invaded his country. And even regardless of Iraq’s involvement with terrorism before we invaded, the fact is that we’re fighting the terrorists there now

We can’t leave Iraq to go focus on al Qaeda because by being in Iraq we’re already fighting al Qaeda. And forcing them to use up manpower and resources they could be using to attack the west

So either the Democrats are woefully out of touch with the realities of the global war on terror, or they’re flat-out misleading the American people for purely political purposes

http://www.kxmc.com/News/Nation/143506.asp

The Judge
07-15-2007, 09:47 AM
They are just heartless politicans the same as their Republican brothers but the Republicans can't get out of it that easy. There are no "weapons of mass destruction" and that;s what the war was sold on. This was known by both parties before the war was started. Only a couple of elected officials stood-up and they were looked upon and attacked as enemies of the state.

Just saw on T.V a soldier who said he was there on day one told what happened the first day of the was. 150,000 troops just rolled into /across Iraq with no speical equipment. They had been told to expect 50,000 casualties from WMD's. When there were none ,this is when he said he and other troops knew they have been lied too.

No WMD's no war, it was a bill of goods, whats there now is a civil war. What will happed when the U.S pulls out can't be good for the US or Iraq but it must be done. Let them work out there own problems and send in the U.N when things get out of control. The U.N must step up to the plate.

When we are out we can then put righteous pressure on the U.N to do their duty we can't do that know. Might have to give-up a little control of some oil but heck we can still buy it for less then fighting a war with no end.

Use that money to buy the oil and give the oil to the companies , then let them sale it back to us . Its the same thing without the false face and it won't cost lives. Main draw back the companies can't beat and pound their chest and say what great businessmen they are. They will have to admitt they are socialist which they are ,and they are on welfare which they been for sometime now.

Chuckles_the_Clown
07-15-2007, 10:29 AM
For the most part a very accurate post. Obviously, Iraq was a rigged card game. Herr Bushler had a single poker deck but he had sixteen aces up his sleeves. (Thats called cheating, lying, fraud and Murder in non-republican circles and its why Republicans are now vanishing faster than the Dodo Bird and Passenger Pigeon)

I'm not sure I understand your oil context highlit in blue below. Obviously, taxpayers have subsidized the Republican Oil Monopoly during the past two years of Record Profits. Big Oil stands to be "corrected" after November of 2008. Sherman Anti Trust Oil Corporations won't be gifted Iraqi Oil to sell it back to us. Thats their intent now with the Profit Sharing Agreement Bushler is hoping to force down the Iraqi Parliments throat. That agreement gives the U.S. Oil Monopoly 83% of Iraq's Oil for 30 years and is the single most significant reason why the Iraqi army won't fight for their goverment. They know that Government does not represent them. It is "Vichy" and represents Exxon/Mobil.

And some folks still wonder why there is "terrorism"?

They are just heartless politicans the same as their Republican brothers but the Republicans can't get out of it that easy. There are no "weapons of mass destruction" and that;s what the war was sold on. This was known by both parties before the war was started. Only a couple of elected officials stood-up and they were looked upon and attacked as enemies of the state.

Just saw on T.V a soldier who said he was there on day one told what happened the first day of the was. 150,000 troops just rolled into /across Iraq with no speical equipment. They had been told to expect 50,000 casualties from WMD's. When there were none ,this is when he said he and other troops knew they have been lied too.

No WMD's no war, it was a bill of goods, whats there now is a civil war. What will happed when the U.S pulls out can't be good for the US or Iraq but it must be done. Let them work out there own problems and send in the U.N when things get out of control. The U.N must step up to the plate.

When we are out we can then put righteous pressure on the U.N to do their duty we can't do that know. Might have to give-up a little control of some oil but heck we can still buy it for less then fighting a war with no end.

Use that money to buy the oil and give the oil to the companies , then let them sale it back to us . Its the same thing without the false face and it won't cost lives. Main draw back the companies can't beat and pound their chest and say what great businessmen they are. They will have to admitt they are socialist which they are ,and they are on welfare which they been for sometime now.

The Judge
07-15-2007, 10:55 AM
If you can start a war without an act of congress and no declaration of war I don't see a problem getting aroung the Sherman- Anti Trust Act or anything else. My point is don't kill ,just face the truth ,at this point we are going to pay for the oil one way or another . If we buy it and "give" it to the oil companies which is going to happen in some form or another we might as well do it without a crazy war.

Secretariat
07-15-2007, 11:06 AM
PA,

Yuo may have to change your post to read. 75% of the country as opposed to just Democrats.

Tom
07-15-2007, 11:19 AM
There are no "weapons of mass destruction" and that;s what the war was sold on. This was known by both parties before the war was started.



No. You are wrong. Almost everyone said SH was a threat and most thought he had WMD. (He did, and they are now in Syria, moved there by the Russians.

Chuckles_the_Clown
07-15-2007, 12:12 PM
There are no "weapons of mass destruction" and that;s what the war was sold on. This was known by both parties before the war was started.

Theres still politicians out there like Hillary Clinton that insist she was "misled" about the Weapons of Mass Destruction. (WMD's). I don't even like to use the phrase because the Weapons, (even had they actually existed), were never as large a threat or as deadly as the Propaganda Wing of the Bush White House insisted. The Iraqis and Iranians used Gas against each other in the 1980-1988 Iran/Iraq War and even if released in concentrated amounts, weather and wind neutralized the Gas on many occasions. A much more accurate phrase for these weapons is "Weapons of Mysterious Disappearance."

Colin Powell tried to tell the U.N. (with cartoon drawings) that Mobile Weather Balloon Vehicles were Mobile Chemical Plants.

He also tried to tell the U.N. that anodized tubes for rocket mortars were tubes for uranium enrichment. Nuclear experts had told the CIA and George Tenet that the tubes might be able to be used for uranium enrichment, but you'd have to remove all the anodization first. In order to keep Powel stupid enough to tell his fairy tale at the U.N., Tenet never shared the fact with him that his own CIA had told him that the tubes were useless for enrichment. Such is how the S.S. operated in the Bush White House.

Powell perjured himself before the U.N. on February 5th, 2003. Hillary and others may claim they were misled, but it was clear to anyone paying attention that after Powell's U.N. address, War with Iraq was Illegal based upon Cartoon drawings and rocket mortar tubes. There was no hard evidence and no basis to believe Saddam possessed any "scarey weapons." Powell and the White House would have been laughed out of any court of law in this land upon a complete absence of proof and they were laughed out of the U.N. with Bushler foregoing the "Up and Down" vote there he had promised the Nation he would insist upon. Fascists use words to mislead and Bush the Misleader lied to us every time he opened his Fascist maw.

The Reichstag, I mean Whitehouse, even went so far as to maintain that a serin gas bomb shell IED exploded near our troops during the early months of the occupation. No one died from the explosion and the resevoir in the shell though empty was claimed to have residue of serin gas as confirmed by an unidentified laboratory stateside. No corroborration from a second lab was ever attempted. This was the type of Proof Hilter insisted you Zieg Heil him upon.

Hillary and others were privy to conversations with Dick Durbin and others that sat on committees and knew the truth about the fabricated Iraq war. The U.N. had demonstrated that 95% plus of Saddam's 1991 WMD's could be accounted for. But you didn't need to sit on those committees or talk to the members that were privy to intelligence reports. All you had to do was weigh what our Stroomtrooper Government said with the reality you could observe. The truth was clear to anyone who watched looking for proof: The Iraq War was a Lie.

God Bless those that have died in Vain and Damn to hell those that have conspired to kill them.

46zilzal
07-15-2007, 01:35 PM
No. You are wrong. Almost everyone said SH was a threat and most thought he had WMD. (He did, and they are now in Syria, moved there by the Russians.
BALONEY, prove it.

Backed up against the wall, he would have used them.

Tom
07-15-2007, 01:45 PM
You say.
And history shows us that that is not generally correct.

*waaak* Zilly want a cracker? *waaaak*

46zilzal
07-15-2007, 01:47 PM
You say.
And history shows us that that is not generally correct.

*waaak* Zilly want a cracker? *waaaak*
if historical you could quote the info

Secretariat
07-15-2007, 02:38 PM
PA,

I think you need to read this.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jul15,0,3132262.story?coll=la-home-center

Saudis' role in Iraq insurgency outlined

Sunni extremists from Saudi Arabia make up half the foreign fighters in Iraq, many suicide bombers, a U.S. official says.

By Ned Parker, Times Staff Writer
July 15, 2007

BAGHDAD — Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.

About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.

Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency.

He said 50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers. In the last six months, such bombings have killed or injured 4,000 Iraqis.

The situation has left the U.S. military in the awkward position of battling an enemy whose top source of foreign fighters is a key ally that at best has not been able to prevent its citizens from undertaking bloody attacks in Iraq, and at worst shares complicity in sending extremists to commit attacks against U.S. forces, Iraqi civilians and the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.

...........................................

Perhaps you've been neoconned!

PaceAdvantage
07-15-2007, 02:59 PM
Perhaps you've been neoconned!

How so? In what way?

The source for this article's data is unnamed and the data collection method unknown. Thus, the whole premise is teetering on the brink of unreliability.

Even if it were 100% true, so what? What are you going to do, start a war with Saudi Arabia just because their borders are as porous as ours? Maybe Saudi Arabia's neighbors should take a page out of recent US history and attempt to draft their own immigration bill....

Secretariat
07-15-2007, 07:08 PM
How so? In what way?

The source for this article's data is unnamed and the data collection method unknown. Thus, the whole premise is teetering on the brink of unreliability.

Even if it were 100% true, so what? What are you going to do, start a war with Saudi Arabia just because their borders are as porous as ours? Maybe Saudi Arabia's neighbors should take a page out of recent US history and attempt to draft their own immigration bill....

So what??? Excuse me? I thought our administration has been painting that the majority of these attacks were coming through Iran. This source is saying the majority are coming through Saudi Arabia, an ally.

I'm not prepared to go to war with Iran based on "so what?" We've already gone down that irresponsible path.

If indeed the Saudis are supplying the bulk of the suicide bombers in iraq I woudl think that is kind of important information so we can at least avoid goign to war with Iran.

It makes a lot of sense come to think of it. Almost all the 911 attackers were Saudi.

Let's hope this at least is investigated by the conservative press. Perhaps Rush will check it out

PaceAdvantage
07-15-2007, 07:17 PM
When they come up with something other than an "unnamed source" and "secret surveys" then I'll put some stock into what the L.A. Times is telling me.

Secretariat
07-15-2007, 07:49 PM
When they come up with something other than an "unnamed source" and "secret surveys" then I'll put some stock into what the L.A. Times is telling me.

hmmm...no LA times. how about FOX News?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235407,00.html

Report: Iraqi Officials Track Financing for Sunni Insurgents to Saudi Citizens
Friday, December 08, 2006

CAIRO, Egypt — Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.

Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.

But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.

Tom
07-15-2007, 08:01 PM
So Sec, what you are tryingt o say here today is that is is NOT a civil war in Iraq, but rather on being fueled and financed by terroists. But we should get out because we should be fighting terroroists somewhere else?

PaceAdvantage
07-15-2007, 08:07 PM
Now you're talking about a whole other kettle of wax...funding....

I wouldn't be shocked if these insurgents are getting funding from folks right HERE in the U.S.A....nevermind Saudi Arabia.

With the consistent sub-par execution of the Iraq invasion by the Bush administration, and the subsequent undermining of the effort by those on the left, there is now a high cost of doing business in Iraq.

Those that want to see the United States suffer an embarassing withdrawel from Iraq (Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, most of the Muslim world, and many right here in the USA) are more emboldened each and every day. Hell, the enemies of the United States must be particularly giddy now that comparisons to Nazi Germany are apparently hitting the mainstream.

Soros should be quite proud of himself by now. After all, he was the one who got the ball rolling on this lunatic "Nazi" stuff that has made its unwelcome way to off-topic recently:

February 2, 2007 -- SEN. Barack Obama might want to tell George Soros to shut up, now that the Hungarian-born billionaire has equated the George W. Bush administration with the Third Reich. Soros, who spent $26 million trying to beat Bush two years ago, is a key supporter of the media-darling Illinois Democrat's presidential campaign. But last week at Davos, Soros made folks like Gwyneth Paltrow and Sean Penn look downright patriotic. After asserting that the United States is recognizing the error it made in Iraq, Soros said, "To what extent it recognizes the mistake will determine its future." He went on to say that Turkey and Japan are still hurt by a reluctance to admit to dark parts of their history, and contrasted that reluctance to Germany's rejection of its Nazi-era past. "America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany," Soros said. "We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process." Soros spokesman Michael Vachon told Page Six: "There is nothing unpatriotic about demanding accountability from the president. Those responsible for taking America into this needless war should do us all a favor and retire from public office."

You know, I'd be pissed off too if I wasted all that money trying to defeat George Bush in 2004....


In an interview with The Washington Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post) on November 11, 2003,[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#_note-19) Soros said that removing President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) from office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death." He said he would sacrifice his entire fortune to defeat President Bush, "if someone guaranteed it", and many continue to state this as Soros's position even after Soros clarified the humorous nature of the statement in a Q&A session at the end of his March 3, 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004) address to California's Commonwealth Club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Club).

Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress), committed $5 million to MoveOn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoveOn), while he and his friend Peter Lewis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lewis) each gave America Coming Together (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Coming_Together) $10 million. (All were groups that worked to support Democrats in the 2004 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2004).) On September 28 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_28), 2004 he dedicated more money to the campaign and kicked off his own multi-state tour with a speech: Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#_note-20) delivered at the National Press Club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Press_Club) in Washington, DC.

The online transcript to this speech received many hits after Dick Cheney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney) accidentally referred to FactCheck.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck) as "factcheck.com" in the Vice Presidential debate, causing the owner of that domain to redirect all traffic to Soros's site. [23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#_note-21)

Soros was not a large donor to US political causes until the U.S. presidential election, 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2004), but according to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2003-2004 election cycle, Soros donated $23,581,000 to various 527 Groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_Group) dedicated to defeating President Bush. Despite Soros' efforts, Bush was reelected to a second term as president in U.S. presidential election, 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2004).

After Bush's reelection in 2004, Soros and other wealthy liberal political donors backed a new political fundraising group called Democracy Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Alliance) which aims to support the goals of the U.S. Democratic Party.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#_note-22)

Tom
07-15-2007, 08:56 PM
And now Hillary is running. The bimbo who was bamboozaled by the dumb Bush! What qualifications - BUSH out smarted her! :lol:

But Sec, you seem to be insiting that this is not a civil war.

hcap
07-16-2007, 06:42 AM
The foreign detainees are a miniscule group compared to the 19,000 detainees in Multinational Force prisons.

However get ready for the Iran booga booga.
Even tho' some of us may compare the bushies to the nazis as far as eroding our rights as the nazis did when first vying for power-I don't anyone thinks the bushies are anywhere near as bad as the nazis eventually were, yet.

But the WANT TO BE nazis here ALWAYS compare threats to Hitler and Stalin. Ad Hitleritum.

Iranians are not the hitlersesque threat that Saddam was also made out to be

Soon blah, blah, blah, blah the Iran booga booga.

....And we were NEVER at war with Eastasia. We were ALWAYS at war with Eurasia.


http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/07/16/tomo/story.jpg

Secretariat
07-16-2007, 05:53 PM
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003612271

Scaife-Owned Newspaper Calls for Iraq Troop Withdrawal -- Questions Bush's 'Mental Stability'

By E&P Staff

Published: July 16, 2007 3:29 PM ET
NEW YORK The Pittsburgh newspaper owned by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife yesterday called the Bush administration's plans to stay the course in Iraq a "prescription for American suicide."

The editorial in the Tribune-Review added, "And quite frankly, during last Thursday's news conference, when George Bush started blathering about 'sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't enable you to be loved,' we had to question his mental stability."

It continued: "President Bush warns that U.S. withdrawal would risk 'mass killings on a horrific scale.' What do we have today, sir?

"If the president won't do the right thing and end this war, the people must. The House has voted to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by April. The Senate must follow suit.

"Our brave troops should take great pride that they rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein. And they should have no shame in leaving Iraq. For it will not be, in any way, an exercise in tail-tucking and running.

"America has done its job.

"It's time for the Iraqis to do theirs."

......................

btw.. Tom, it is a civil war. The Saudis are supporting the Sunnis against the Shia.

PaceAdvantage
07-16-2007, 06:03 PM
NEW YORK The Pittsburgh newspaper owned by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife yesterday called the Bush administration's plans to stay the course in Iraq a "prescription for American suicide."

Man, the melodrama is just so out of control lately. On the one hand you have comparisons to Nazi Germany, and now you have staying the course in Iraq as a "prescription for American suicide!!!!!?!?!?!?"

What the hell are the people making these claims smoking?

I'll let you all in on a big secret....IRAQ AIN'T NO BIG DEAL. Sorry to say it, but somebody had to.

America isn't going to kill itself, the world isn't going to come to an end, and presently, even with Iraq still raging in the background, things are going pretty well here in the good ol U. S. of A......thank you very much.

Stock markets hitting all time highs, or haven't you seen? S&P looking quite healthy....jobs-a-plenty.....unemployment still under 5%....inflation under control...and just today I hear that better than expected tax income will allow the deficit to be CUT IN HALF!

The Incredible Shrinking Deficit
By Donald Lambro
Monday, July 16, 2007


WASHINGTON -- There is some very good news in the battle to slay the budget deficit. It is being cut in half well ahead of forecasts, offering fresh evidence that reducing federal tax rates does not undermine government revenues. The Bush administration has a lot of problems on its plate, both foreign and domestic, but the budget deficit is not one of them. This is one area where President Bush's policies have been a resounding success, though don't expect to see this reported on the nightly network news shows.



So, excuse me if I don't participate in the IRAQ=SKY IS FALLING mentality, because it just isn't so.

PaceAdvantage
07-16-2007, 06:41 PM
Oh, and before one of you geniuses counters with the "Iraq is certainly a big deal to all the brave men and women killed in action," my intent was not to minimize their sacrifices or the sacrifices of their families.

I will add that nearly 6,000 military men and women died during the first six years of the Clinton administration and nobody said boo. Where were the coffin shots during his first six years? Kind of calls into question that whole "When Clinton lied, no one died" chant.

Secretariat
07-16-2007, 06:42 PM
I'll let you all in on a big secret....IRAQ AIN'T NO BIG DEAL. Sorry to say it, but somebody had to.

No big deal? Tell that to the 3600 Amercian soldier's familes and 25000 wounded. Tell that to hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians. Tell that to the millions forced to leave Iraq and find shleter in other countries. Tell that to the american taxpayer dolling out 512 billion a year.

No big deal. Is that the new definition of big spending conservatism?

I got news for you as well. The soldiers in Clinton's administration did not die in a misguided combat operation. Why so many died in the Clinton adminstration peace time one needs to ask what exactly happened in the First Gulf War?

lsbets
07-16-2007, 06:55 PM
Nice call on the drama queen's reply PA. :lol: :lol: :lol:

The Judge
07-16-2007, 07:14 PM
Reading this site gives a different outlook on what type of shape the U.S is end debt wise. Taking everything into account. www.Federalbudget.com.

I got no axe to grind all I can do is pay my taxes but I keep hearing about other countries owning so much of the U.S debt (bonds etc.) then you hear about countries actually having been sold the rights to run U.S ports and it makes you wonder whats going on. Why do that unless some sort of pressure was applied?

delayjf
07-16-2007, 07:36 PM
I will add that nearly 6,000 military men and women died during the first six years of the Clinton administration

PA could please provide a link, I'd like to tuck that little nugget away.

wes
07-16-2007, 08:53 PM
http://www.floppingaces.net/the-clintons/

What was Clinton doing while in office?????


wes

boxcar
07-16-2007, 09:25 PM
http://www.floppingaces.net/the-clintons/

What was Clinton doing while in office?????


wes

That's easy. Womanizing. He was professional male whore.

Boxcar

rastajenk
07-16-2007, 09:27 PM
Getting his knob jobbed.

Tom
07-16-2007, 10:35 PM
Why so many died in the Clinton adminstration peace time one needs to ask what exactly happened in the First Gulf War?

Well, if you don't kow, I'll 'splain it to ya.....
A MADMAN, who had used WMD on his own people, totrutred and killed hundreds of thousand of innocnet people, stolen the Iraqi government by force, and previoulsy attacked Iran, decided to invade Kuwait and steal thier oil. We got together with a lot of other countries, drove him back, and then left him in power instead of taking him out.

The moral of the story is, take out the trash when it starts to smell.

Tom
07-16-2007, 10:44 PM
And PA, let's not forget the Iran is leaning towards allowing inspections to resume of it's nuke plants, and N Korea has at least said they will shutdown thier reactor. Since the nuke threat of both was being blammed on Bush's policies, it is only fair to credit him with these accomplishments.

And, after only 1 month, Generals are saying the surge is definately showing results....which is why suddenly the dems are in such a hurry to speed up withdrawl. Everyone agreed Sept 15 was the 3 month point to use to evaluate the surge. Now they want to declare failure right now. The suge only got to full strength a couple of weeks ago. But you see, any kind of a victory in Iraq is bad politically for the dems. and that is thier only concern. Support the troops? Ha! No way Jose - the dems care ONLY about winning the WH in 2008....the troops do not matter to them. In fact, they would love the numbers of dead wounded to go up - good for Soros and the boys to use in thier campaigns.

Just today, The Breck Girl (Edwards) aid that a military vicotry in Iraq was never possible. Is this the kind of loser anyone would want to be our Commmander-N-Chief?

Secretariat
07-17-2007, 01:25 AM
Well, if you don't kow, I'll 'splain it to ya.....
A MADMAN, who had used WMD on his own people, totrutred and killed hundreds of thousand of innocnet people, stolen the Iraqi government by force, and previoulsy attacked Iran, decided to invade Kuwait and steal thier oil. We got together with a lot of other countries, drove him back, and then left him in power instead of taking him out.

The moral of the story is, take out the trash when it starts to smell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

Coalition deaths
Gulf War casualty numbers are controversial. Coalition military deaths have been reported to be around 378, but the DoD reports that US forces suffered 147 battle-related and 235 non-battle-related deaths, plus one F/A-18 Hornet Navy Pilot, Scott Speicher listed as MIA. The UK suffered 47 deaths, Saudi, (18),Egypt, (10),UAE, (6),Syria, (3),Kuwait, (1),and France, (2). The largest single loss of Coalition forces happened on February 25, 1991, when an Iraqi Al-Hussein missile hit an American military barrack in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia killing 28 U.S. Army Reservists from Pennsylvania. Being that Egyptian foot soldiers were some of the first to land in Kuwait to evict Iraqi forces, some sources report that Egypt suffered far more casualties than the official numbers reported.[citation needed]

Coalition wounded
The number of coalition wounded in combat seems to have been less than 1,000. However, as of the year 2000, 183,000 U.S. veterans of the Gulf War, more than a quarter of the U.S. troops who participated in War, have been declared permanently disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs [4]. About 30% of the 700,000 men and women who served in U.S. forces the Gulf War still suffer an array of serious symptoms whose causes are not fully understood [5]


...

Now Tom, the First Gulf War was udner Bush I's leadership. The DOD reports 147 battle-related losses, and less than 1000 wounded among the entire coalition.

Yet, somehow more than a quarter of the US troops who were in Bush I's first gulf war were decalred permanently disabled by Veteran's Affairs. Why is that? Ddi Clinton launch into a war in which there were ANY combat fatalities? Yet 183,000 U.S. forces from the Gulf War still suffer an array of serious symptoms whose causes are not fully understood.

I suppose you're now saying Clinton was reponsible for Gulf War syndrome. Only an extremist Republican could come up with that one. :bang: :bang:

PaceAdvantage
07-17-2007, 01:30 AM
Again, I have to reiterate, when I say IRAQ AIN'T NO BIG DEAL, I say that in relation to those that will have us believe that (and I quote here):

stay the course in Iraq a "prescription for American suicide."

Of course Iraq is important, but in the grand scheme of things, it really isn't all its being made out to be. American Suicide my ass.

PaceAdvantage
07-17-2007, 01:33 AM
PA could please provide a link, I'd like to tuck that little nugget away.

Here's a link:

http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf

Secretariat
07-17-2007, 01:33 AM
"In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved," Lugar, R-Ind., said in a Senate floor speech. "Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term."

Another GOP Senator, Richard Lugar, who woke up. (along with Warner, along with Domenici, along with Voinovich and Hagel).

PaceAdvantage
07-17-2007, 01:37 AM
Who said anything about persisting indefinitely?

JustRalph
07-17-2007, 05:44 AM
"In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved," Lugar, R-Ind., said in a Senate floor speech. "Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term."

Another GOP Senator, Richard Lugar, who woke up. (along with Warner, along with Domenici, along with Voinovich and Hagel).

I have got to say something here. Dick Lugar is 75 years old........so are tons of these Senators etc.

How many of you would take the "most important" advice in your life from a 75 year old man? I know many I would take advice from..........but I also know many 75 year olds that I wouldn't.............I am starting to worry about this Senate, and the age of the members............and them not having the same perspective as the American public. I admit they have lots of experience, but the ones who have been in the senate for 20-30 years........worry me.............

Tom
07-17-2007, 07:33 AM
Gulf War Syndrome.....perhaps caused by eposure to gas, ie, WMD?

Secretariat
07-17-2007, 11:52 AM
Again, I have to reiterate, when I say IRAQ AIN'T NO BIG DEAL, I say that in relation to those that will have us believe that (and I quote here):



Of course Iraq is important, but in the grand scheme of things, it really isn't all its being made out to be. American Suicide my ass.

And yet this President has spent over a trillion taxpayer dollars on something that you refer to as "No Big Deal"...imagine if there ever was a big deal...coudl we afford it? Jeez.....

Secretariat
07-17-2007, 11:53 AM
Gulf War Syndrome.....perhaps caused by eposure to gas, ie, WMD?

We don't know...it certainly wasn't caused by the Clinton Presidency.

Secretariat
07-17-2007, 11:57 AM
I have got to say something here. Dick Lugar is 75 years old........so are tons of these Senators etc.

How many of you would take the "most important" advice in your life from a 75 year old man?

"I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." - Ronad Reagan, way past 75 whe nhe said this and you laughed

It's interesting. I heard nothing about the age of Lugar, Warner, Domenici or Strom Thurmond when he was alive for that matter previously. Now that they see the fallacies of this war it is in your itnerests to disown them. Typical neocon behavior. Instead of listening to what they might be saying, you devalue their opinions because of their age?!!! Unbeleivable.

JustRalph
07-17-2007, 01:04 PM
"I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." - Ronad Reagan, way past 75 whe nhe said this and you laughed

It's interesting. I heard nothing about the age of Lugar, Warner, Domenici or Strom Thurmond when he was alive for that matter previously. Now that they see the fallacies of this war it is in your itnerests to disown them. Typical neocon behavior. Instead of listening to what they might be saying, you devalue their opinions because of their age?!!! Unbeleivable.

Where do I say I disown them? If you think these guys criticising the president on this war is anywhere near what I would be telling him, you are wrong. I just don't think these guys are representing the view of their constituents back home. Not as they once did. I think Ronnie Reagan was great. I also think toward the end he wasn't as sharp as he was early on. But I trusted the group around him. And I didn't mind Iran/Contra either.

These Senators are asleep at the switch most of the time. They are behind the eight ball on everything........they are late to act on just about anything and they are insulated at home and in Washington. This current group has decided that they are going to go with the wind and be early on this September report. That is all it is. and they are playing politics. that is it. That is all they know how to do. 85% percent of them need to be replaced and I would love to see a new group of 50 year olds...........with some common sense. Even younger if you pick the right guys...............

JustRalph
07-17-2007, 01:07 PM
And yet this President has spent over a trillion taxpayer dollars on something that you refer to as "No Big Deal"...imagine if there ever was a big deal...coudl we afford it? Jeez.....

that is the real crux of your entire attitude Sec. You would rather the money be spent on your social programs and such. Libs and Dems live and breath control over the money. That is what it comes down to. Power and Money. So you can take as much as possible and give it away to those who you think deserve it. At the government level we have a term for that.............

Tom
07-17-2007, 01:14 PM
"I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." - Ronad Reagan, way past 75 whe nhe said this and you laughed BECAUSE IT WAS A JOKE. GOOGLE FUNNY SEE WHAT YOU FIND.

It's interesting. I heard nothing about the age of Lugar, Warner, Domenici or Strom Thurmond when he was alive for that matter previously. Now that they see the fallacies of this war it is in your itnerests to disown them. Typical neocon behavior. Instead of listening to what they might be saying, you devalue their opinions because of their age?!!! Unbeleivable.

If you search, I think will find a few comments by me about the age of Strom.
And Sec, we disown them when they talk crap and sound like dems.

Tom
07-17-2007, 01:16 PM
Are you talking about the War on Poverty again?
I think that underlines just how effective these dem entitlement programs have been

Originally Posted by Secretariat
And yet this President has spent over a trillion taxpayer dollars on something that you refer to as "No Big Deal"...imagine if there ever was a big deal...coudl we afford it? Jeez.....

Secretariat
07-17-2007, 06:39 PM
I just don't think these guys are representing the view of their constituents back home. ...85% percent of them need to be replaced and I would love to see a new group of 50 year olds...........with some common sense. Even younger if you pick the right guys...............

You also state -

"I am starting to worry about this Senate, and the age of the members............and them not having the same perspective as the American public."

Well, JR, as to the perspective of the American public, you need to look at the latest polls on Iraq. That represents the American public's viewpoint.

In the 2006 election the number one issue was Iraq and the President's party was strongly defeated. Maybe these guys are more in touch with their constituency than you are unwilling to admit.

Secretariat
07-17-2007, 06:43 PM
that is the real crux of your entire attitude Sec. You would rather the money be spent on your social programs and such. Libs and Dems live and breath control over the money. That is what it comes down to. Power and Money. So you can take as much as possible and give it away to those who you think deserve it. At the government level we have a term for that.............

I would like to see more money go to positive things that help people rather than kill people, no doubt about that.

But as for who gives the most money you'll have to look at the Republicans from the last Congress and the current President as passing the biggest budgets in decades. And it is Republicans that insist on still giving corporate welfare to the oil companies.

Secretariat
07-17-2007, 06:46 PM
If you search, I think will find a few comments by me about the age of Strom.
And Sec, we disown them when they talk crap and sound like dems.

Or like the majorty of people in this country?

Tom
07-17-2007, 07:38 PM
Yeah Sec, at one time, most people believed in WITHCHES and that the earth was FLAT.

Intelligence NEVER was dependent on poularity.

Right now, 49% of the people at idiots (normal condition) and 25% arae temporaily dis-illusijnoed with republicans. But with Copngress having lower popularity than Bush, it will swing back into alignment.
Remember, this is a 2 year learning curve - those who were fed up with repubs now get to see what dems are like, adn after 7 montths, it is pretty obvious what dupes that really are. This is the best time to be a republican candidate for 2008 - it is almost 100% certain that the dems have NO CHANCE. 7 wasted months - even better than I had hoped for.
:lol::lol:

lsbets
07-17-2007, 07:49 PM
You also state -

"I am starting to worry about this Senate, and the age of the members............and them not having the same perspective as the American public."

Well, JR, as to the perspective of the American public, you need to look at the latest polls on Iraq. That represents the American public's viewpoint.

In the 2006 election the number one issue was Iraq and the President's party was strongly defeated. Maybe these guys are more in touch with their constituency than you are unwilling to admit.

The election turned to the Dems in borderline districts not based on Iraq, but based on the fact that the Republicans in charge had become as corrupt as the Dems they upended in 94. They had become the trash they were supposed to replace, just look at the dude from Florida who liked young boys and the coverup of his actions, and were rightfully thrown out.

wonatthewire1
07-17-2007, 07:53 PM
working the DC and Nawlins houses but he says he's cool now...

all you guys are banking on pollyticians that only want your vote and your money...sooner or later you'll throw in the towel on Demoncrats & Repukes but I guess some more has to come out of your pockets first

and some of you guys still praising pollyticians for the economy!!!!

lol - keep the fantasy alive

:p

PaceAdvantage
07-18-2007, 12:21 AM
and some of you guys still praising pollyticians for the economy!!!!

Not really. Just pointing out the reality that the USA has not gone to shit as many would have you believe (because of IRAQ no less....)

Lefty
07-18-2007, 01:15 AM
won, you don't think the tax cuts have helped this economy then just wait until dems raise them again.

Secretariat
07-18-2007, 03:11 PM
The election turned to the Dems in borderline districts not based on Iraq, but based on the fact that the Republicans in charge had become as corrupt as the Dems they upended in 94. They had become the trash they were supposed to replace, just look at the dude from Florida who liked young boys and the coverup of his actions, and were rightfully thrown out.

You're kidding yourself. The number one issue affecting voters when they left the polling booth was Iraq. It was in 2006, and will be again in 2008 whether you choose to beleive it or not.

lsbets
07-18-2007, 04:16 PM
You're kidding yourself. The number one issue affecting voters when they left the polling booth was Iraq. It was in 2006, and will be again in 2008 whether you choose to beleive it or not.

The mindless robot parrots the party line again without applying any critical thought. What will tomorrow's talking points be Sec?

Was it Iraq that propelled Lamont to victoty over Lieberman in the general election? Oh wait, Lamont lost the general. As a matter of fact, when you look at the races (not the polls), the pull out now challenger lost far more often than they won. You can choose to believe the Pelosi/Reid talking points, but objective analysis says it was the Republicans becoming as corrupt as the Dems they kicked out that led them to lose power. They deserved to lose power. Unfortunately, our country doesn't deserve the mess that is this current Congress, perhaps the worst in history. I think the Iraqi Parliament is more effective than this bunch of dolts.

Secretariat
07-18-2007, 06:32 PM
The mindless robot parrots the party line again without applying any critical thought. What will tomorrow's talking points be Sec?

Was it Iraq that propelled Lamont to victoty over Lieberman in the general election? Oh wait, Lamont lost the general. As a matter of fact, when you look at the races (not the polls), the pull out now challenger lost far more often than they won. You can choose to believe the Pelosi/Reid talking points, but objective analysis says it was the Republicans becoming as corrupt as the Dems they kicked out that led them to lose power. They deserved to lose power. Unfortunately, our country doesn't deserve the mess that is this current Congress, perhaps the worst in history. I think the Iraqi Parliament is more effective than this bunch of dolts.

And again the mindless taunts and name calling. Obviously, civility is something you've never learned. Oh well.

Actually, I hope you and your party continue to believe that Iraq had nothing to do with the 2006 election. So instead of attempting to dissuade you I encourage to keep deluding yourself.

lsbets
07-18-2007, 06:40 PM
And again the mindless taunts and name calling. Obviously, civility is something you've never learned. Oh well.

Actually, I hope you and your party continue to believe that Iraq had nothing to do with the 2006 election. So instead of attempting to dissuade you I encourage to keep deluding yourself.

As I have pointed out to you many times Sec, I have no party, and I also see no need to be civil towards you. You exemplify all that is wrong with this country with your blind, mindless partisanship. Its a good things there are not many out there like you.

Secretariat
07-18-2007, 11:38 PM
As I have pointed out to you many times Sec, I have no party, and I also see no need to be civil towards you. You exemplify all that is wrong with this country with your blind, mindless partisanship. Its a good things there are not many out there like you.

Oh you have a party alright. It is exemplified by all your posts. Just like the belief that the Iraq War wasn't the major issue in 2006 you delude yourself by assuring yourself you're above party affiliation, yet about every post on any kind of policy you've made screams right wing republican. Denial isn't only a river in Egypt.

As to civility, I expected no less from your previous posts. As to mindless partisanship, look in the mirror, or at least go back and read your own posts. As to many out there like me, you'd best look at the polls again. There are many out there like me, and to your dismay, we are not going away silently.

PaceAdvantage
07-19-2007, 12:59 AM
Denial isn't only a river in Egypt.

Man, that was weak. Is "TALK TO THE HAND" next on your comeback list?

Polls....polls....polls.....

All I hear from you are polls. Didn't I also hear you say that polls are rigged? I heard that, right? That's how GWB got elected, right? Rigged polls....

Whose to say the polls you are quoting aren't rigged as well...hell, if they can rig a national election, who's to say the powers that run these polls can't rig them in order to influence public policy....

Nah, that could never happen. As we all know, Democrats are immune from shady dealings....cough cough....John Murtha....cough cough....

lsbets
07-19-2007, 06:36 AM
Look at the polls Sec, Congress is less popular than Bush. Most people are like me, not happy with Bush, not happy with Congress. You're waaayyyy out there on the lunatic fringe. Most people care about what is good for our country, as you admitted, you care first and foremost about what is good for you party, no matter what bad things that might mean for our country. As long as your party benefits thats all that matters. Thank God for the sake of our nation and my children there are not many out there like you.

rastajenk
07-19-2007, 10:36 AM
Of course Iraq was the major issue in Oh-Six. The people want a winning strategy, and felt like the R's weren't giving them one. Now that they will have had a couple years to see that the D's don't have one either, they'll turn them out too. "Lose at any cost" is a much worse strategy than "win at any cost."

Secretariat
07-19-2007, 11:42 AM
Look at the polls Sec, Congress is less popular than Bush.

You still don't get it. Congress is composed of two parties. THe Executive one.

When Congress' polls ar down they are a reflection on the inaction of Congress - not the Democratic Party.

Since the Demcorats assumed a small majority in the Senate, the Republicans have fillibustered or ued cloture to deny up or down votes on many bills - something McCain stated Republicans would only do so in extreme cases. in fact they've done it in almost all cases- thus essentially requring a 60 vote majority to get bills passed. if one looked at a majority in congress one would see that a majority of Senators did in fact vote for a timetable for withdrawal. It is a minority of Republican Senators that are in fact controlling Congress via cloture.

When people are polled, they're looking at ALL of Congress. The truth is Pelosi still scores much higher than Bush individually in polls, and I'm not necessarily a big Pelosi fan myself

PA, polls and elections are all we have to determine numbers in terms of the will of the people. When one poll is out of whack with the others I agree, but when ALL of them say the same thing they reveal a pretty common denominator, and that is GW's approaval rating hovers between 25-27% approval. Any way you look at it that is terrible. 3/4ths of the people in this country disaprove of his job performance.

If I were polled on Congress I would also vote to disapprove of Congress, but my vote would be based on the minority stonewalling via cloture major progrssive legislation.

lsbets
07-19-2007, 11:45 AM
Spin how you want Sec, but Bush is twice as popular as the Democrat controlled Congress. The Dems are in charge and the people know that. They are at 14%. You know how low 14% is? Nixon was more popular when he left office. 14% means even your dog thinks you suck. And your party controls Congress, a Congress well on its way to being the worst Congress ever, perhaps more ineffective than the Iraqi Parliament.

Tom
07-19-2007, 11:55 AM
The only people who can count on congress are.....Al Qeda.

Secretariat
07-19-2007, 11:59 AM
Spin how you want Sec, but Bush is twice as popular as the Democrat controlled Congress. The Dems are in charge and the people know that. They are at 14%. You know how low 14% is? Nixon was more popular when he left office. 14% means even your dog thinks you suck. And your party controls Congress, a Congress well on its way to being the worst Congress ever, perhaps more ineffective than the Iraqi Parliament.

Pelosi's latest approval was 34%. Bush 25-27 in all polls. Yes, they're both dismal, but you are the one spinning. If Congress is at 14%, why is Pelosi's approval 20% higher than that?

Obviously, people are dismayed by the gridlock in Congress as am I, but they are not singling Pelosi out as the major problem.

You can call my previous post spin all you want. Read it again. It is exactly what is occurring.

hcap
07-21-2007, 07:38 AM
The election turned to the Dems in borderline districts not based on Iraq, but based on the fact that the Republicans in charge had become as corrupt as the Dems they upended in 94. They had become the trash they were supposed to replace, just look at the dude from Florida who liked young boys and the coverup of his actions, and were rightfully thrown out.
Yes corruption played a part, but the war was the pivotal issue.

Based on the July 2007 Quarterly Finance Reports
to the Federal Elections Commission,
Ron Paul is the most supported candidate in terms of
financial support by Military Personnel and Military Veterans...

Source: Finance Reports for the 2007 July Quarterly.
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/

Looking at the percentages, the antiwar candidates
outstrip the pro-war candidates nearly 3:1.

All 2008 Presidential Candidates

Name Percentage Name Percentage
Ron Paul 26.23 Duncan Hunter 1.05
Barack Obama 24.02 Joe Biden 0.84
John McCain 18.31 Mike Gravel 0.16
Hillary Clinton 11.08 Sam Brownback 0.07
Bill Richardson 5.59 Dennis Kucinich 0.05
Mitt Romney 4.05 Tommy Thompson 0
John Edwards 2.63 Chris Dodd 0
Rudy Giuliani 2.44 Jim Gilmore 0
Mike Huckabee 1.84 John Cox 0
Tom Tancredo 1.63

The repugs are Not doing that well among the military.
Ls, you are not the voice of the troops.
Admit WWIII or IV is going to be lost by your failed strategy.
All the tactical manuevering- surging etc does not deal with the greater
problems.

Immensely worsened by the guy (s) youse guys cheered and applauded all day long

Winston W bush. Your man. Your hero :kiss: :kiss:

The Judge
07-21-2007, 08:14 AM
They had a chance to really come in and run the country to do what was right but they decided to play politics instead. Their drum beat was win the presidentcy at any cost. This means let the war run its course and keep it tied around the Republicans until election time.

This may be a good plan but it was not why they were elected. They were put into office to end the war. So I agree that the war was the big issue but the Democracts blew it and continue to do so.

They are so much alike until big money gives to both parties. There is no party for the working man or the little guy (the adverage American) its always a lesser of evil vote for them.

lsbets
07-21-2007, 10:54 AM
Hcap, I never claimed to be the voice of the troops. All I claim is that i know the troops a hell of a lot better than you, a group which you have admitted you view with nothing but contempt.

My failed strategy? I never realized I wrote the plans for General Petraeus. I'm sure he would be as surprised as I am, just as you would be shocked if you ever saw how reality differs from the fantasy world you live in. The next time you fell the need to look down your nose at the guys serving in our military, think for a second that maybe you should thank them for affording you the chance to live in that fantasy bubble of yours.

hcap
07-21-2007, 02:51 PM
Contempt?

Fill me in. Contempt for a failed strategy yes. Contempt for viewing the world thru a military centric, military dominated mindset in lieu of a broader world view, yes. Contempt for those that engaged us in a simplistic good guy/bad guy cartoon foreign policy, yes.

When did I ever say or admit I viewed the the individual soldier or that matter the military with contempt. Even my annoyance with you is not based on your service or loyalty. It is the obvious error of folly now. You and others who supported the gung ho invasion not being able to admit NOW the larger mistake as things fall apart.

In the larger war against terrorism, military tactics are not a replacement for geopolitical strategy. No matter how successful Petraeus may be in the short term-winning battles- the war is lost. Not because of individual soldiers, but their civilian leadership.

Secretariat
07-21-2007, 04:41 PM
The strategy of "clear, hold, and build" has been flawed. Not because the troops haven't done a good job. They have.

The problem has NEVER been the clear. It's been in the hold, and build part.

The Iraqis ultimately must "hold" and "build". THe problem is even as Pace testifed recently have not been up to the task. The same was true of the South Vietnamese Army.

This issue is primary. This Iraqi govt. has problem incapable of meeting benchmarks effectively, and the Iraqi Army, and especially the police (which is critical) are too easily bribed or infiltrated to effectivelt hold and build anything.

Can our troops clear? sure. Can they hold? Only if they never withdraw. In effect if our US Army becomes the Iraqi Police force for a time that can go on pretty much unknown while the American taxpayer pays for the security of Iraq.

Tom
07-21-2007, 06:03 PM
So Sec, are you suggesting we pull our troops out of.....

Germany
Japan
Korea
Somallia


????

PaceAdvantage
07-22-2007, 12:07 AM
...NOW the larger mistake as things fall apart.

In the larger war against terrorism, military tactics are not a replacement for geopolitical strategy. No matter how successful Petraeus may be in the short term-winning battles- the war is lost. Not because of individual soldiers, but their civilian leadership.

You see, it's phrasology such as this that just does not deserve intelligent response. It's as if you believe that the more you repeat a lie, the better chance it has of becoming true. Unfortunately for our country as a whole (but fortunately for you I suppose), it may actually work this time.

I always hate to say this, but good ol' Osama had America pegged (at least when it comes to a certain segment of the population + politicians) when he labeled us a Paper Tiger after Somalia (GWB was not around back then, was he?)

hcap
07-22-2007, 07:55 AM
Actually bush fell into the trap that bin laden set. Invading and occupying an Islamic country.

Bush and his enablers such as you were hoodwinked by a third world Muslim terrorist. So in fact your response misses the larger point.

Secretariat
07-22-2007, 01:19 PM
So Sec, are you suggesting we pull our troops out of.....

Germany
Japan
Korea
Somallia

????
Germany - yes . That war is over.
Japan - yes. That war is over.
Korea - We are still monitoring a truce, but that conflict has still not been resolved. Maybe if we would talk to N. korea directly it appears this could lead to a withdrawal of US troops eventually.
Somalia - I am unaware of how many US troops are in Somalia. How many?

Look, the point is as GW said when he came into office, we cannot be the world's policemen. But basically, that is all we are doing currently in Iraq. Policing the state.

Even by the Pentagon's own admission, Al Queda has gained strength even as the Iraq War rages. Why? Two fundamental reasons, 1) our presence in Iraq and disregard for collteral damage as nightly been viewed on Al Jazzera and functionaed as a catalyst for the biggest recruitment project for al Queda in the region, 2) Al Queda leadership is in Pakistan which is teetering on a possible overthrow of Musharraf. Without the will and direct action to effectively take out the leadership of Al Queda, we're spinning wheels in a civil war fighting Saudis extremists who have come into Iraq, Sunnis, Shia and any other maniac Islamic extremist who shouts death to America.

The key here is to make it NOT a US problem, but a world problem with Iraqis actually determining the outcome. Transiton the presence of it being America's war. Let the UN police train the Iraqi police, let the Iraqi Army stand up and defend their own country, save the US taxpayer billions of dollars, really support the troops and save a few lives in the process, and actually go after Bin Laden hard.

Tom
07-22-2007, 01:33 PM
:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

JustRalph
07-22-2007, 04:49 PM
Korea - We are still monitoring a truce, but that conflict has still not been resolved. Maybe if we would talk to N. korea directly it appears this could lead to a withdrawal of US troops eventually.

First off, We are pulling out of Germany. Over the next few years we are closing bases over there. Some of the German cities that raised so much hell about our Iraq foray will be dead in five years because we support them with military dollars. Rumsfelds revenge...........

I see you are harping about Korea, I think the Bushies have done a pretty decent job buying off Kim. At least we have verified that the reactors are shut down. I would have preferred the one time expense of a few smart bombs and some cruise missiles ........but the U.S. Press wouldn't let that happen.

After fifty years, you still don't understand why those 60k U.S. Troops are on the border of Korea? It will never be drawn down......until the overthrow of the communist country of N. Korea takes place. It is all about math and the numbers and keeping S. Korea in business...........think about the S.Korean economy and such?

PaceAdvantage
07-23-2007, 02:10 AM
Actually bush fell into the trap that bin laden set.

Yes, UBL is certainly a crafty one. Let's not forget the help he received from an unexpected but strong ally....the collective US Left....

hcap
07-23-2007, 07:56 AM
You gentlemen controlled all branches of government until 2006.
Had your way with all foreign policy.
Most of the media was in lockstep with the prevailing "wisdom"
Left leaning and peace advocating groups were marginalized continuously-and on this board as well.

And you now claim the MASSIVE failure of all of YOUSE is because of the "collected left".

Need I remind you of your theory of the "elite upper west side liberul" not representing the will of the people?

Delusional Pa, delusional.

Lefty
07-23-2007, 11:28 AM
yes, the collected left turned Joe and Jill Blow against the war on terror. The collected left keeps saying the war on terror isn't real, that Bush has invented a Bogeyman. John Edwards goes so far as to say the war on terror is a bumpersticker.
The Media has exposed secrets that have made it harder to fight the war on terror yet vow to keep the Harry Potter ending secret.
Yeah, it's a tough fight, but Bush, despite all the leftwing denigration remains strong and committed to fight the terrorists.
Just heard on the news that People in Iraq, even Al Qaeda starting to help the americans.

Bill Olmsted
07-23-2007, 02:00 PM
I'm laying even money that Hillary will be the next President of the United States.

JustRalph
07-23-2007, 03:43 PM
I'm laying even money that Hillary will be the next President of the United States.

she is going to have to win in the south................tall order

Bill Olmsted
07-23-2007, 04:08 PM
Of course she won't take Texas (Is that the south?) But she will take Florida easily (Definitely NOT the south). My guess is that Bill will help with the deep south. The blacks love him. Rednecks hate him and her, but who cares? Religious conservatism is toast anyway. Virginia is not really south anymore and the republicans can forget about NY and CA. And the way things are going in Iraq, I think the marginal states will lean towards Hillary.

Who do the republicans have? Nobody. Nada. Ziltch. It's a done deal. Welcome to the future.

Hail to the Queen!

Bill Olmsted
07-23-2007, 04:25 PM
Not only will the Executive Branch belong to the Dems, but both houses of Congress will also be heavily Democratic. And who do we have to thank for it? George W. and the rest of the clowns who have sold us a bill of goods for the past 7 years.

Welcome to the new Paradigm folks.

"The Times they are a Changin'."

PaceAdvantage
07-23-2007, 07:59 PM
And you now claim the MASSIVE failure of all of YOUSE is because of the "collected left".

I didn't claim anything of the sort. Perhaps you are the deluded one....

I said they were an ALLY of bin Laden's, either wittingly or unwittingly.

Tom
07-23-2007, 08:19 PM
Nothing could be worse for this contry than to have that low-rent BITCH in the White house. Except maybe Biden, the Breck Girl, Barry Hussein, or any of the other dems, the party of Al Qeda.

A vote for a democrat is a vote for Bin Laden.

PaceAdvantage
07-23-2007, 08:33 PM
I don't think Hillary has a shot in hell of becoming President. Her likability factor is terrible.

But hell, I'm delusional according to Hcap. If Hillary and Obama are all they have, then there is a very, VERY good chance a Republican will win the big one in 2008.

The Democrats couldn't be putting up a more VULNERABLE set of candidates if they tried, in a year in which they really should RUN AWAY with the election.

They are so clueless....but then again, that's the title of this thread, isn't it?

Secretariat
07-23-2007, 08:34 PM
yes, the collected left turned Joe and Jill Blow against the war on terror. The collected left keeps saying the war on terror isn't real, that Bush has invented a Bogeyman. John Edwards goes so far as to say the war on terror is a bumpersticker.
The Media has exposed secrets that have made it harder to fight the war on terror yet vow to keep the Harry Potter ending secret.
Yeah, it's a tough fight, but Bush, despite all the leftwing denigration remains strong and committed to fight the terrorists.
Just heard on the news that People in Iraq, even Al Qaeda starting to help the americans.

Wow, Lefty, you don't have much faith in the american people if it takes a few liberals to all of a sudden dissuade 75% of the people the GW might just be wrong. I have to laugh as you spend the first part of your post criticzing the media, and then post something "you just heard on the news" as something you're now trusting. Make up your mind.

I'm not a big Edwards fan, but the "war on terror" is like the "war on poverty". It is a slogan. We were attacked by Al Queda, not every terrorist in the world. Our conflict should be with them, not in nation building global democratization.

This adminstration has been waylaid on the fight agaisnt Bin Laden, as has been pointed out so many times. There was no Al Queda - Hussein connection with 911 which is where this all began. Even the latest release of classifed documents shows that Hussein was attempting to arrest Zarqawi in Iraq, before we invaded. This administration has turned a blind eye to Saudi connections, and been bogged down in a giant taxpayer sucking sound.

As to the Hilary complaints, well, I'm struggling as I cannot vote for her as well due to her continual corporatist pandering, and support of NAFTA. I am hoping for a different outcome in the primaries, but if not I will look at someone like Giuliani, or a write in candidate. I must admit, I am unhappy with the candidates on both sides.

Tom
07-23-2007, 08:39 PM
We have 500 days left until the election.
Does anyone think any of the DEMS can keep it up for that long?
Too many stories to keep straight, too many opportunities to sepak honestly, openly (stupidly)!

As Mick Jagger once said, "Ti-i-i-ime is on my side, yes it is!

Lefty
07-23-2007, 11:29 PM
sec, a few liberals? The big 3 TV, public tv and radio, and virtually every newspaper ragging on the pres every day after day after day. That's a few liberals? About like Custer meeting a few Indians...

DanG
07-23-2007, 11:54 PM
sec, a few liberals? The big 3 TV, public tv and radio, and virtually every newspaper ragging on the pres every day after day after day. That's a few liberals? About like Custer meeting a few Indians...
Just out of curiosity Lefty and anyone else who believes in this mans basic capabilities…

Is the defense of this president out of genuine respect for his leadership, managerial qualities and sharp judgment…or…is it caused by a deep resentment of our seemingly “only” alternative?

In all sincerity and with a relatively equal contempt for both parties I can say; I doubt this mans basic intelligence and problem solving skills and that is putting it as respectfully as I can.

PaceAdvantage
07-24-2007, 12:50 AM
If I may step in for a moment, I would just like to add that defending rational thought and common sense isn't necessarily defending this President.

For myself, there is A LOT this President has done wrong and for sure this administration has blown missed opportunities. But, the only thing that really is on everyone's mind is Iraq, and I still believe that the invasion was an acceptable course of action in a post 9/11 world.

I also believe it has been seriously mismanaged by those in charge partly because they were not allowed to play by anywhere NEAR the rules that the enemy was allowed to play by in this theatre. And why was this you may ask? Because of the dreaded political correctness involved and the fact that the administration clearly did not want negative press for the war in its earliest stages.

The whole "Shock and Awe" and "Embedded reporters" was just plain silly. They were playing to the media as if to pacify them, when in reality, they should have just been trying to take control of the situation as quickly and as effectively as possible, using as much force as it would take to get it done and under control ASAP. But no, they went in with a limited force to pacify the leftists who would end up on their ass inevitably.

There was no reason to go in with a limited force, except to try and pacify any early critics in the media.

I also don't believe the war has been inevitably LOST (whatever that means, since we actually won the war, overthrew the government, and established free elections...if that's not winning, then I need a new handbook), nor do I believe that an immediate withdrawal will accomplish anything positive.

That is NOT necessarily defending the President, although it might be agreeing with him on more than a few levels.

I don't like it when people equate thinking rationally (in my opinion) to "defending the President." I just don't see it that way....not that you asked ME of course....lol

Damn, I just ramble on and on lately.....

JustRalph
07-24-2007, 01:12 AM
In all sincerity and with a relatively equal contempt for both parties I can say; I doubt this mans basic intelligence and problem solving skills and that is putting it as respectfully as I can.

You don't go from running a state like Texas at a level where you get praised by both sides of the aisle as one of the best they have ever seen, to a total moron in a year or two.

he never had a chance. I would like to personally kick him in the ass for some of the stuff he has done..........but PA is right about the reasons for most of what he has done. The conditions and animosity built up in the 2000 election set him up for failure. But remember, he was re-elected. if you believe the election was stolen.........I won't try to change your mind.

He overcame most of it.......but then was let down over and over again by those who planned and executed the war. Presidents don't make most of the decisions that were boondoggles in this Iraqi war. If you know anything about Generals and such..........they run stuffing their careers and pensions into their hip pockets when things go wrong.........many have done that in the last 4 years. Others were retired or asked to retire.

If you really, really question his intelligence skills............go back and realize that he got better grades in college than Gore and Kerry and regardless of what you have read..........graduated second in his Fighter pilot school class. And the F-102-06 wasn't an easy plane to fly. I have some experience with watching them fly on a daily basis and spending time with the pilots. Every day for 2 years. The F-106 was just a follow up later version of the 102. Idiots don't graduate from flight school in the military. They get new jobs.........doing something where they can't hurt anybody.

There is lots of stuff out there about how Bush is an idiot........if he was as dumb as they make him out to be.........he would have never made it as far as he did..........

PaceAdvantage
07-24-2007, 01:20 AM
There is lots of stuff out there about how Bush is an idiot........if he was as dumb as they make him out to be.........he would have never made it as far as he did..........

Oh come now Ralph....didn't you get the "Bush-Nazi Germany-Rothchild-Bilderberg-CIA-Freemason" memo? You didn't know baby Bush was going to end up in the White House whether he was a genius or a borderline idiot? It's all part of the NWO man....don't you read Rense.Com? :faint:

DanG
07-24-2007, 01:53 AM
Fair enough…PA / Ralph…

You’re grown men and obviously entitled to your own opinion…

We would go on for 50 years discussing each individual policy, judgment etc…In the case of the mans basic intelligence, I wasn’t repeating what the general consensus is, these are my views after hearing the man talk and field live questions several times.

Test scores and matters of achievement given his advantages in life do not impress me. At the mans core when I look into his eyes I see a borderline simpleton. That’s my view, just as you have yours.

A basic flaw in many of these debates is we often each speak as if we and we alone understand the facts and have interpreted them correctly. Most who disagree must be wrong or have to be using erroneous intelligence sources at the very least.

I went through a phase before I figured out how to support myself gambling were I was a seminar junky. Motivational, leadership and all the jazz that goes with it. So many impressive speakers with admirable qualities. Deep thinkers who could have an open dialogue on many issues.

On that train of thought…

Not long ago I was watching our president in a press conference with Tony Blair. I honestly cringed when he spoke in comparison to the ease that Blair could think on his feet and articulate an answer. I’m not saying we need Einstein in office, but my favorite president George Washington wrote that it should be a man of dignity and intelligence. In “my” view…we as a nation have failed to fulfill those basic requirements.

PS: Maybe at Saratoga we can continue the conversation over an adult beverage or three. These things are much more fun to discuss at Siro’s. ;) It's time for some sleep, because there won't be much up there! :jump:

Lefty
07-24-2007, 02:02 AM
Dan, so he is not the best speaker in the world but i submit it was Blair following Bush's lead not the other way around. I doubt many could have kept this economy going at the record pace it has after 9-11 and during this war on terror. He's not slick but he's strght. No matter how the dems try to spin oit, he told us right off this war on terror would take yrs and not be an easy fight. No matter how he's been denigrated by the dems and the leftwing press he's kept his aplomb and stuck to his guns. While I don't agree with everything he's done, i admire the man.

PaceAdvantage
07-24-2007, 02:16 AM
Not long ago I was watching our president in a press conference with Tony Blair. I honestly cringed when he spoke in comparison to the ease that Blair could think on his feet and articulate an answer.

I remember that press conference, and I was cringing right along side you, believe me.

Again though, one must remember that we are CONSTANTLY bombarded with these gaffes (Letterman EVERY NIGHT), so although it may be true he's dumber than dirt, the media has once again played a huge role in promulgating that image whether it is 100% accurate or not.

If we were bombarded with images of every gaffe, every pause or every misstep other Presidents have made in a similar manner as Bush has been treated, perhaps we wouldn't think so highly of these past leaders through history's watchful eye.

The media is so much more powerful than we like to give it credit for in this country. One huge example of this is that most folks at the time had no idea Franklin D. Roosevelt got around in a wheelchair in private, as he was never pictured in his chair. In public, he was either propped up against the podium or on rare occasions, seen on crutches.

hcap
07-24-2007, 08:24 AM
Spin how you want Sec, but Bush is twice as popular as the Democrat controlled Congress. The Dems are in charge and the people know that. They are at 14%. You know how low 14% is? Nixon was more popular when he left office. 14% means even your dog thinks you suck. And your party controls Congress, a Congress well on its way to being the worst Congress ever, perhaps more ineffective than the Iraqi Parliament.

Poll Finds Democrats Favored On War
But Bush, Congress Both Get Low Ratings on Iraq

By Jon Cohen and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 24, 2007; Page A01

Most Americans see President Bush as intransigent on Iraq and prefer that the Democratic-controlled Congress make decisions about a possible withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

As the president and Congress spar over war policy, both receive negative marks from the public for their handling of the situation in Iraq. But by a large margin, Americans trust Democrats rather than the president to find a solution to a conflict that remains enormously unpopular. And more than six in 10 in the new poll said Congress should have the final say on when to bring
the troops home.

....Overall approval of Congress stands at 37 percent in the new poll, with the 60 percent disapproval rating equal to public dissatisfaction with the Republican-controlled Congress late last year. Congress's approval rating has declined over the past three months because self-identified Democrats have soured in their assessment.

....Congressional Democrats still receive higher marks than their Republican counterparts for their performance, but independents give both parties equally negative reviews.

....But when it comes to judging the president versus congressional Democrats on the issue of Iraq, the public stands with Congress. Fifty-five percent said they trust congressional Democrats on the war, compared with 32 percent who said they trust Bush. (Eleven percent of all respondents and 17 percent of independents said they trust "neither.") And by 2 to 1, Americans said Congress, rather than the president, should make the final decision about when to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. Nearly three in 10 Republicans side with Congress over the president on this question.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072301143.html

hcap
07-24-2007, 08:36 AM
Seven months into the current two-year term, the Senate has held 42 "cloture" votes aimed at shutting off extended debate — filibusters, or sometimes only the threat of one — and moving to up-or-down votes on contested legislation. Under Senate rules that protect a minority's right to debate, these votes require a 60-vote supermajority in the 100-member Senate.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_9ks36c549BI/RqQI849AveI/AAAAAAAAAH8/fHValKsZs7k/s400/FILIBUSTERS.small.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

rastajenk
07-24-2007, 08:38 AM
Those pesky Senate rules.

lsbets
07-24-2007, 09:03 AM
I would hate to accuse you of cherrypicking your polls Hcap, but the poll you posted here has Bush at 33%, 8 points higher than the poll you posted regarding Bush in the other thread this morning. You wouldn't do that, now would you?

Tom
07-24-2007, 10:33 AM
I just do not agree that inability to speak in public is a refelction of anything other than an inability to speak in public.

I have know very intelligent people who could not convey simple ideas to a group no matter what, yet left alone, they wrote flowingly and expressed ideas with no problems.

DanG
07-24-2007, 10:38 AM
Lefty ~ Dan, so he is not the best speaker in the world but i submit it was Blair following Bush's lead not the other way around. I doubt many could have kept this economy going at the record pace it has after 9-11 and during this war on terror. He's not slick but he's strght. No matter how the dems try to spin oit, he told us right off this war on terror would take yrs and not be an easy fight. No matter how he's been denigrated by the dems and the leftwing press he's kept his aplomb and stuck to his guns. While I don't agree with everything he's done, i admire the man.
Lefty;

I respect your viewpoint; we just agree to disagree here.


The media is so much more powerful than we like to give it credit for in this country..
PA;

You make a good point on the power of the media and I can sight several examples in my life.

1) My Mother lives close by and I see her about once a week. She has become a Fox news junky and virtually gets all of her news from Fox. When a world event happens I can predict her response 99.9% of the time. I realize many of you swear by their 24 hour network, but from my perspective I always feel I’m being spoon fed directly from GOP headquarters on Fox / from the DNC on CNN and at times from Neptune on MSNBC.

2) My X’s brother is a chiropractor in Tampa. He makes a point in life to avoid 99.9% of news coverage that does not directly pertain to him and his family. I can honestly say he probably has the most optimistic viewpoint of humanity that I have ever met and it’s possible it’s no coincidence.

3) I made a good friend at the Telecommunications Company I worked for. He IS the poster child of political junkies. Reads and watches everything he can get his hands on. It impossible to tell if the modern media blitz has had any effect on him because he has force fed himself information his entire life.

3 continued…) The interesting thing about Chuck is he is what I consider a true conservative in the Goldwater tradition. He is extremely dissatisfied with our current regime because of what he calls the systematic approach to increase the size of government. This is where I miss the conservative voice in our nation. Take three sets of books and review the median numbers and the size of government and wasteful spending is unprecedented. George Will, Pat Buchanan etc…have all been quoted as expressing this and I miss true conservatives speaking out against this behavior.

In short…Yes…the media coverage and our “imbedded” political parties have access to controlling the mainstream “news” like never before. Case in point; keep reading over the next twenty years on our current conflict and you will read of battles and circumstances that you never dreamed existed.

One last point and then I have to start packing…

The far right vs. the far left;

Given only two choices of which should govern, I would take the far right every time. I believe the idealism of the far left has little basis in reality and would be quickly exploited by individuals meant to do harm. I think in their hearts the left forget there are actually dangerous people on the planet that must be dealt with harshly to preserve our way of life.

Having said that…I also “cringe” when on this board and everywhere really…a person with a liberal / right point has their motivation / intentions questioned. To me it’s the height of arrogance to become so convinced in ones viewpoint that all others become enemy combatants.

Are their subversives who would like to damage our nation from within?…of course; as every society in history has experienced. But the majority of right / left and moderate viewpoints really do have the nation’s best interests at heart.

Inevitably many will disagree with me, but unfortunately I must be going (as Groucho would say). :)

Best of luck to those playing Saratoga / Del Mar…45 days of horseplayer’s heaven every year!!! :jump:

delayjf
07-24-2007, 12:49 PM
I just do not agree that inability to speak in public is a refelction of anything other than an inability to speak in public.

Jimmy Carter was known for his intellect, and he spoke intelligently..you be the judge.

JustRalph
07-24-2007, 01:20 PM
Jimmy Carter was known for his intellect, and he spoke intelligently..you be the judge.

Great point!

I know some people who live in Indiana who were friends with Dan Quayles family. They used to seeth when they spoke about how Quayle was portrayed by the media. They told me that Dan was known as a great congressman and one who got lots of things done on behalf of the people he represented. They said he was the most personable guy in the world and very very smart with much common sense. You would never know it by the media portrayal.

Tom
07-24-2007, 01:42 PM
Jimmy Carter was known for his intellect, and he spoke intelligently..you be the judge.:lol::lol::lol:

Secretariat
07-24-2007, 07:55 PM
sec, a few liberals? The big 3 TV, public tv and radio, and virtually every newspaper ragging on the pres every day after day after day. That's a few liberals? About like Custer meeting a few Indians...

See Lefty. I don't see it that way. Most of the big 3 TV stations are owned by large corporations and large corproations tend to lean toward the conservatvie side. in fact NBC is owned by GE which benefits from war in terms of defesne contracts. Disney is extremely conservative. And CBS after the firing of Rather has been so conservative in their reporting I cannot bear to watch it.

As to Sunday morning talk shows Russert doesn't even challenge fallacies stated by Republicans such as McConell this past week. And there is hardly ever a progressive on the shows. When is the last time you've seen Barbara Boxer or Russ Feingold on any of those shows? And then the pundit shows are loaded with Republican leaning writers like Will or Brooks or the latest guy from the Wall Street Journal, a bastion of conservatism. How about a guy from The Nation or Vanity Fair?

So I see it as a LOT of Conservatives, and very, very few liberals indeed. We are in agreement you're seeing a skewed viewpoint. We just don't agree on the type of viewpoint.

PaceAdvantage
07-25-2007, 03:06 AM
Poll Finds Democrats Favored On War
But Bush, Congress Both Get Low Ratings on Iraq

Hey, I finally beat you to the punch...I posted a similar article earlier...

PaceAdvantage
07-25-2007, 03:11 AM
in fact NBC is owned by GE which benefits from war in terms of defesne contracts.

Thus I can rightly conclude that MSNBC is the byproduct of a guilty conscience?

hcap
07-25-2007, 07:37 AM
I would hate to accuse you of cherrypicking your polls Hcap, but the poll you posted here has Bush at 33%, 8 points higher than the poll you posted regarding Bush in the other thread this morning. You wouldn't do that, now would you?Usually I post a graph showing a compilation of many polls. I will as soon as it is updated.
.................................................. ..............................................


Meanwhile back at the ranch.........

Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
In Modern Era, Only Nixon Scored Worse, And Only Truman Was Down for So Long

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; Page A03

President Bush is a competitive guy. But this is one contest he would rather lose. With 18 months left in office, he is in the running for most unpopular president in the history of modern polling.

...The latest Washington Post-ABC News survey shows that 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance, matching his all-time low. In polls conducted by The Post or Gallup going back to 1938, only once has a president exceeded that level of public animosity -- and that was Richard M. Nixon, who hit 66 percent four days before he resigned.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402263.html




No cherry picking required. The Wash Post poll has bush at 33% is a low from that polling outfit

...."Bush's overall approval rating equals its all-time low in Post-ABC News polls at 33 percent, with 65 percent disapproving"

AND The other poll-American Research Group- showing bush at 25% is a low from that organization.

The main headline of the WashPost poll that you conveniently ignored was

Poll Finds Democrats Favored On War
.." But by a large margin, Americans trust Democrats rather than the president to find a solution to a conflict that remains enormously unpopular. And more than six in 10 in the new poll said Congress should have the final say on when to bring the troops home."

So much for "Dingy Harry" Or that "bitch Pelosi"

More like Dingy bitch Winston W bush
All hail

hcap
07-25-2007, 08:01 AM
Hey, I finally beat you to the punch...I posted a similar article earlier...Emphasis hereOriginally Posted by hcap
Poll Finds Democrats Favored On War
But Bush, Congress Both Get Low Ratings on Iraq

lsbets
07-25-2007, 09:02 AM
When is the last time you've seen Barbara Boxer or Russ Feingold on any of those shows?

July 22nd - Meet the Press guest list:


MIKE MCCONNELL
Director of National Intelligence

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI)
Foreign Relations Committee
Intelligence Committee

DAVID BROOKS
New York Times Columnist

STEPHEN HAYES
Senior Writer, The Weekly Standard
Author, "Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President"

BOB WOODWARD
Assistant Managing Editor, Washington Post
Author, "State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III"

One Adminisration official, one liberal Senator - the one you said is never on these shows, and three journalists - one from the right and two from the left. By my math that's 3-2 liberal. And Russert let Feingold say everything he wanted to without being challenged.

Could you have picked a worse show to single out and a worse Senator to mention as never being on? Would you like more concrete examples to counter your statement or will admit that you just don't know what you're talking about? Former Disney CEO Michael Eisner - you know, that really conservative company you mentioned - his personal political contributions go 3-1 Democrats. $149,843 Dem vs. $40,000 Republican. I could go on, for days if you'd like.

lsbets
07-25-2007, 09:15 AM
Sec, one more just for fun. Les Moonves, Viacom/CBS - the ones you called so conservative:

76% to Dems
2.8% to Reps
21.2% other

rastajenk
07-25-2007, 10:16 AM
The notion that big corporations and other business entities cannot simultaneously tilt conservatively with regards to running the business, while still respond to and embrace populist ideals, seems almost quaint. Of course they can. Why couldn't they? That GE is a war profiteer and purveyor of the anti-war message on MSNBC isn't a zero-sum, either/or contradiction; it's getting the bread buttered on both sides.

The stark simplicity of the left never ceases to amaze me.

Lefty
07-25-2007, 11:30 AM
sec, these corpsdon't mess much with the newsroom and when over 80%of these newscasters say they vote DEm, doesn't that tell you something?
Are you saying papers like the Times aren't liberal when they had over 50 frontpage stories about Abu Grahib? A story that was being investigated by the govt log before the news broke it? And the times keeps giving away WH secrets but protects the Harry Potter ending. You saying the news isn't liberal is a joke and you know it. BTW, if the mainstream news wasn't liberal, there would have been no need for Rush and those that followed his lead.

46zilzal
07-25-2007, 11:36 AM
Should change this thread to POLITICIANS are clueless.

Lefty
07-25-2007, 11:46 AM
zilly, yes, maybe, but that's the framework in which we have to make our decisions. So saying they arte clueless adds not a whit to the conversation.

Lefty
07-25-2007, 11:50 AM
sec, here's a link for you.

http://www.mrc.org/archive/realitycheck/welcome.asp

Secretariat
07-25-2007, 09:09 PM
Isbets,

Wow, I'm happy that a Progressive finally made meet the press. Perhaps it's as a result of the complaints of Paul Waldman and Media Matters.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140010

"The numbers for Meet the Press during the years we covered are as follows (these can be found in the appendix of the report):

1997
44.0% - Republicans
56.0% - Democrats

1998
47.7% - Republicans
51.5% - Democrats

1999
45.7% - Republicans
51.2% - Democrats

2000
44.9% - Republicans
52.3% - Democrats

2001
65.6% - Republicans
34.4% - Democrats

2002
61.8% - Republicans
38.2% - Democrats

2003
61.9% - Republicans
38.1% - Democrats

2004
54.5% - Republicans
45.5% - Democrats

2005
62.7% - Republicans
37.3% - Demcrats

As you can see, a small Democratic advantage during the second Clinton term became a large Republican advantage during the first Bush term. Overall, we see that Democrats held a 53-percent-to-46-percent advantage on Meet the Press during Clinton's second term (or a difference of 7 percentage points), not very different from the 56-percent-to-44-percent disparity you have cited from your own figures for his first term. But Republicans held a 62-percent-to-38-percent advantage during Bush's first term, a difference of 24 percentage points. This difference was even larger in 2005. Assuming your figures are correct, including Clinton's first term would have only strengthened our conclusions."

.....

"The figure for Republicans and Democrats on Meet the Press during Bush's first term, to repeat, was 62 percent Republicans to 38 percent Democrats, a difference of 24 percentage points, twice as large as the figure you offered for Meet the Press during Clinton's first term."

.....

"I would also like to point your attention to the question of journalist guests. Meet the Press regularly features roundtables made up of neutral reporters and conservative opinion writers without any progressives in sight. To take just one example, on October 30, 2005, your show featured a roundtable of David Broder, Judy Woodruff, William Safire, and David Brooks. I would be eager to learn just how you would consider such a panel "balanced."

......................................

So you 're right Isbets, on one show Russ Feingold got to speak. I encourage you to read Waldman's response to MTP which was not contradicted by MTP.

A conservative media. You better beleive it. There was no opposing viewpoints in Iraq at all leading up to thie Iraq Fiasco, but people echoing the WH. No investigative journalism but administration cheerleaders. Conservative media. Absolutely.

lsbets
07-25-2007, 09:19 PM
If you take media matters as a reliable source, you're dumber than I thought. You made an assinine post, within minutes I had refuted every point, and your reply is a link to George Soros' propoganda machine. Give me a break. What kind of spin do you have for the very far left leaning political contributions from the heads of those "conservative corporations"?

Lefty
07-25-2007, 11:47 PM
Hey sec, has this been on the mainstream liberal news? Surge working. Petraus hitting the terrorists simultaneously in many locations. Thety are on the run with nowhere to regroup. Sunnis and Shiites working together. Even low level Al Qaeda helping. Any word on this in the big media?

hcap
07-26-2007, 06:15 AM
Sec' these guys suffer from having their big time foreign policy balloon pricked and deflated into a shrunken foreskin. They evidently will never own up to their monumentaly bad set of decisions that the ultimate "pricker" of the balloon bamboozled us into.

Just read this, it explains why all of our counterparts on this board are attacking dissent....

"The absence of victory inspires a search for an enemy within."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/07/26/cheney/

"Neoconservative publicists spread the calumnies that critics of Bush's policy are against the troops and that these critics will be responsible for genocide if they and not Bush are followed. William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard -- whose July 15 article in the Washington Post, "Why Bush Will Be a Winner," Bush has recommended to his White House staff -- has published a new piece in the latest issue of his magazine, "They Don't Really Support the Troops." "Having turned against a war that some of them supported, the left is now turning against the troops they claim still to support," he writes. His combination of nuance and crudity is ideologically deft. By pointing out that "some of them supported" the war at the start, his intention is not to draw distinctions but to lump all critics together as now undifferentiated and discreditable -- "the left." Then he ascribed a common motive: fear that Bush will succeed and a hatred of the soldiers. "They sense that history is progressing away from them -- that these soldiers, fighting courageously in a just cause, could still win the war, that they are proud of their service, and that they will be future leaders of this country."

hcap
07-26-2007, 06:40 AM
This was the mistake our flaccid neocon board members made from jump....

http://www.buzzflash.com/store/images/704_200.jpg

PaceAdvantage
07-26-2007, 10:41 AM
"flaccid" and "foreskin"

Interesting choice of words. Has Soros and Co. now turned to the homoerotic imagery to make their points?

Lefty
07-26-2007, 11:37 AM
PA, he was dreaming about Clinton and those words came to mind.

46zilzal
07-26-2007, 11:47 AM
But the again Alfred E. Newman's good buddy keeps rambling on like this:"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th."
White House, Jul. 12, 2007

Tom
07-26-2007, 12:01 PM
Sec, if you hear one dem, you've heard them all. :lol:
Maybe ratings are higher with repubs. :jump:

Secretariat
07-26-2007, 05:42 PM
If you take media matters as a reliable source, you're dumber than I thought. You made an assinine post, within minutes I had refuted every point, and your reply is a link to George Soros' propoganda machine. Give me a break. What kind of spin do you have for the very far left leaning political contributions from the heads of those "conservative corporations"?

Interesting. Meet the Press has not refuted those figures, but of course you know better than them.

lsbets
07-26-2007, 06:00 PM
Interesting. Meet the Press has not refuted those figures, but of course you know better than them.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where they said "Yup, George Soros is right, we're conservative as hell". :lol: :lol: :lol:

No comments on the money? Or is that an "incovenient truth"?

I'm still laughing about "When was the last time you saw Russ Feingold on one of those shows?" - Umm, a couple of days ago.

You and zilly just randomly post without having a clue as to the topic at hand. You'd think you guys would get embarrassed once in a while.

Tom
07-26-2007, 06:48 PM
I'm gonna reply to this post.....in 2.5 years. :kiss:

hcap
07-27-2007, 06:21 AM
"flaccid" and "foreskin"

Interesting choice of words. Has Soros and Co. now turned to the homoerotic imagery to make their points?
I'm not the one to fall for this crap. You gentlemen did. Remember the hero worship? The falling all over yourselves to bend over and receive instructions from the commander in chief. Landing on a ship 10 miles off the coast? Not even piloting? Mission you know what. Bullshit bought and sold to hard up neocons and neocon off topic board MEMBERS

AND the tight straps cured everything.

http://www.culturefreak.com/images/Bush-FlightSuit-Doll02.jpg

hcap
07-27-2007, 06:33 AM
Well youse guys got what you were wishing for. Royally screwed.
Remember what Andy Card said about not launching "a new product in August" ?
This was what you really bought. And what All of us paid for.

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/755/bushfingerxz0.gif

Steve 'StatMan'
07-27-2007, 06:58 AM
I'm not the one to fall for this crap. You gentlemen did. Remember the hero worship? The falling all over yourselves to bend over and receive instructions from the commander in chief. Landing on a ship 10 miles off the coast? Not even piloting? Mission you know what. Bullshit bought and sold to hard up neocons and neocon off topic board MEMBERS



The members of the armed services clearly accomplished a wonderful task by accomplish the mission of miliatry diposing Saddam Hussein. Brought the President of the United States on a plane to the region to celebrate, and to show the enemy our military superiority over the pompus and evil Saddam.

Hcap, you've been using that Angry Peace Girl avatar for several years now. You're up very early in the morning for a non-school day. You're also very cranky. Did you have your first period and PMS, Angry Peace Girl?

P.S. Thanks for the nice picture! You sent it out, so you must be OK with it.

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/755/bushfingerxz0.gif

hcap
07-27-2007, 07:17 AM
Steve you obviously bought the crotch straps as evidence of Brains.
To babble this is kinda funny...

"Brought the President of the United States on a plane to the region to celebrate, and to show the enemy our military superiority over the pompus and evil Saddam"

We invaded a third world country devastated by 10 years of crippling sanctions with a military machine funded 500 times greater than that of who we invaded. Big f**k**g deal

Pompous is not a word to use in any paragraph with the word bush.
The wordplay is too perfect

BTW, all images brought to you Steve, courtesy of the White House marketing machine.

Except for the bush finger from his earlier days.
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/755/bushfingerxz0.gif

A pompous ass if there was ever one

Steve 'StatMan'
07-27-2007, 07:30 AM
Steve you obviously bought the crotch straps as evidence of Brains.

I'm not the one looking at his crotch.
:lol:

hcap
07-27-2007, 07:38 AM
Why else would you still defend his shrunken foreign policy?
You and all the other hero worshippers bought it.
But hey there's nothing wrong with that.

As LS might say..

You just don't measure up.

lsbets
07-27-2007, 07:41 AM
Big f**k**g deal
A pompous ass if there was ever one

A neccesary part of your agenda is minimizing, and ultimately demonizing, the actions and accomplishments of our military. Big F-n Deal? Tell that to anyone who went halfway around the world, leaving their families behind, facing the uncertainties of combat and the high possibility of death. Tell that to the families left at home who worry on a daily basis about who might knock on their door.

Pompous? Perhaps instead of being so smug and condescending, the next time you meet a vet you should look up and say thank you for letting you sit safely behind your computer and enjoy the privelage of being such an openly, free pompous ass.

hcap
07-27-2007, 07:42 AM
Seven months into the current two-year term, the Senate has held 42 "cloture" votes aimed at shutting off extended debate — filibusters, or sometimes only the threat of one — and moving to up-or-down votes on contested legislation. Under Senate rules that protect a minority's right to debate, these votes require a 60-vote supermajority in the 100-member Senate.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_9ks36c549BI/RqQI849AveI/AAAAAAAAAH8/fHValKsZs7k/s400/FILIBUSTERS.small.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

http://www.bartcop.com/trillionth-time.gif

Steve 'StatMan'
07-27-2007, 07:49 AM
You're unfit to take over.

Looks like were all screwed.

hcap
07-27-2007, 07:52 AM
A neccesary part of your agenda is minimizing, and ultimately demonizing, the actions and accomplishments of our military. Big F-n Deal? Tell that to anyone who went halfway around the world, leaving their families behind, facing the uncertainties of combat and the high possibility of death. Tell that to the families left at home who worry on a daily basis about who might knock on their door.

Pompous? Perhaps instead of being so smug and condescending, the next time you meet a vet you should look up and say thank you for letting you sit safely behind your computer and enjoy the privelage of being such an openly, free pompous ass.You really have a inferiority complex, dont' ya?

Isn't it true that we had a huge military advantage?
Isn't it true that we fought country with no military to speak of.
Any fighter jets? Radar and communication facilities with any strength?

Saddams forces knew their extreme inabilty to stand up to us.

Strategically they withdrew and faded into the background to wage an asymmetrical war. So the same troops that you claim I don't respect are facing death and injury due to a monumental political and military miscalculation by the folks you enabled, and you.

hcap
07-27-2007, 08:05 AM
This is why we are up shits creek.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000645

To hear President Bush tell it, all he does is sit back and patiently take the advice of his generals in the field and in the Pentagon. But every field commander to return from Iraq and put on his civvies has told a different tale: the White House hammers ridiculous strategies down their throats, doesn’t listen to a word they say, and instead takes direction from a group of juveniles in their fifties over at Neocon Central Command, the American Enterprise Institute.

..This is another point on which White House lies are wearing thin and the truth is beginning to shine through. And Rowan Scarborough over at the D.C. Examiner has offered up an extremely revealing vignette. He looks at where the current strategy for the surge got cooked up. He notes that in the final analysis, there were three plans sent to the White House. One was prepared by General Petraeus and his team out in Baghdad. The second was crafted by the Joint Chiefs in the Pentagon. And the third plan was put together by a bunch of overgrown teenagers who play with lead soldiers at the American Enterprise Institute. And guess which one the White House picked? That’s right, the AEI plan.

lsbets
07-27-2007, 08:14 AM
You really have a inferiority complex, dont' ya?


Ah, Hcap - you and I both know that, as you quoted from me earlier - you just don't measure up.

Minimize and demonize - I called that one years ago.

hcap
07-27-2007, 08:23 AM
You are the one that doesn't measure up.
You lose a debate and cop out with crapola like.
"Minimize and demonize - I called that one years ago."

You also called for invading Iraq years ago.
You also claimed you knew who the insurgents were years ago.
You also predicted a glorious out come-years ago.
Be man enough to admit that you were wrong on all counts

BTW, you owe Sec an apology.

lsbets
07-27-2007, 08:42 AM
Now you're really babbling. Full blown deranged mode for you this morning.

As I said - minimize and demonize, its all you have when dealing with those superior to you.

Steve 'StatMan'
07-27-2007, 08:53 AM
Saddams forces knew their extreme inabilty to stand up to us.

Strategically they withdrew and faded into the background to wage an asymmetrical war. So the same troops that you claim I don't respect are facing death and injury due to a monumental political and military miscalculation by the folks you enabled, and you.

So how would Saddam have done it, if his forces couldn't defeat a rebel group within his own country, hiding within the local populace? Well, in his 'good (bad) old days', he have had the entire village gassed and killed them all. Actually did it to the Kurds (Light usually argues it was the Iranians.) Later on, he just had all the men his soldiers could find executed by mowing them all down with bullets. Then, he (what was it, diverted the desert towns only water supply, or poisoned it, I forget which) and left the rest of the villagers to starve and die of thirst. Quite evil, but quite effective.

Of course, he could have just burned the villages to the ground, with the people trapped, or pre-executed, inside. That would have worked. Given the above, he wouldn't need the poison gas anymore, sitting in the tanks with the little stickers that the U.N. had tagged them with.

Yeah, the U.S. is really evil h-crap.

46zilzal
07-27-2007, 01:33 PM
To hear President Bush tell it, all he does is sit back and patiently take the advice of his generals in the field and in the Pentagon. But every field commander to return from Iraq and put on his civvies has told a different tale: the White House hammers ridiculous strategies down their throats, doesn’t listen to a word they say, and instead takes direction from a group of juveniles in their fifties over at Neocon Central Command, the American Enterprise Institute.

Same exact thing that Woodward writes about in State of Denial which is documented to the eyeballs, but that doesn't matter to the war supporters who only want that "W" on the scoreboard.

delayjf
07-27-2007, 07:40 PM
You sleep and rise under the blanket of freedom they (the US Armed Forces) provide and yet you find the gall to denigrate and marginalize their achievements. How lucky you are to live in the fallout of their sacrifice – because I can guarantee you, they don’t fight and die for the likes of you. You abhor the Military, its traditions and the values of those that serve. Thank God this nation’s defense and security does not depend on the limp wristed, skip-to-my-lu left. I especially like the part when you and your irk refer to yourselves as Patriots for do nothing more than speaking out against the war – for you to claim patriotic equity with those who leave their home and families to fight this war is a joke.

We invaded a third world country devastated by 10 years of crippling sanctions with a military machine funded 500 times greater than that of who we invaded. Big f**k**g deal

Would it make you “feel” better had we only used forces in the size and strength of the Iraqi army? Do you have a clue about how to fight a war or are you just angry because it was not a fair fight. If the latter, I’m sure you’re quite happy with the US body counts the left loves to broadcast on a daily basis. If you had a pair, you’d pick-up an AK, join the Taliban and take to the hills. But please spar me the “I support the Troops” rhetoric. You detest traditional American morals and values – that’s what they are fighting for, that’s why they joined. The United States Military epitomizes traditional American moral and values. Which explains your contempt for them.

JustRalph
07-27-2007, 08:47 PM
Not even piloting?

Did you expect him to land on the carrier? You have no idea what it takes to do that do you? Once again....................you act like an ass.

I am sure the President saw many a swiming perch while winging over the ocean.......... :lol:

PaceAdvantage
07-28-2007, 01:57 AM
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/755/bushfingerxz0.gif


I just can't get enough of this clip....too bad it's against board policy to make it an avatar....:lol:

hcap
07-28-2007, 08:18 AM
As the Orwellian story line continues to fall apart, none of you will admit to being wrong. As 70% of the country now agrees with the minority opinion here, you gentlemen are still buying the neocon mythology.

Your rationale has changed as many times as a one year olds' diapers.
"Benchmarks" proudly paraded out to show progress have not panned out.
Jessica Lynch, Pat Tilman, "last throes", "dead enders", "FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH", "TURNED THE CORNER",“We will stand down as they stand up,” all have lost any all semblance of reality and any evidence of da grand plan working.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, the old standbye benchmark trotted out by the administration and enablers has been the availability of electricity as evidence of our "goodness". Well bunkies I guess the "collective left" and elite uptown westside liberals blew up the Baghdad electric grid...

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-iraqpower27jul27,0,7131927,full.story?coll=la-home-center

U.S. drops Baghdad electricity reports
The daily length of time that residents have power has dropped. The figure is considered a key indicator of quality of life.
By Noam N. Levey and Alexandra Zavis, Times Staff Writers
July 27, 2007

WASHINGTON -- As the Bush administration struggles to convince lawmakers that its Iraq war strategy is working, it has stopped reporting to Congress a key quality-of-life indicator in Baghdad: how long the power stays on.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that Baghdad residents could count on only "an hour or two a day" of electricity. That's down from an average of five to six hours a day earlier this year

hcap
07-28-2007, 08:25 AM
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/755/bushfingerxz0.gif


I just can't get enough of this clip....too bad it's against board policy to make it an avatar....:lol:It's your playground, I suggest you, LS, JR, Tom, Steve, Gary G, etc ALL adopt it as avatar. So fitting and maybe this as a tagline....

http://www.oh-12.us/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/2204slim-pickens-dr-strangelove-bomb-ride.jpg

Tom
07-28-2007, 11:05 AM
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/755/bushfingerxz0.gif


I just can't get enough of this clip....too bad it's against board policy to make it an avatar....:lol:

He is replying to Hcap's posts.....and 46's. :lol::lol::lol:

Secretariat
07-28-2007, 11:26 AM
Interesting article on the Saudis and Iraq. Who exactly are we fighting in Iraq?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27saudi.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

If one listens to the WH we're fighting almost solely Al Queda in Iraq yet Al Queda forces make up less than 5% of the adversary with Saudis (our erstwhile ally) making up the bulk of foreign fighters in Iraq.

"Now, Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia’s counterproductive role in the Iraq war. They say that beyond regarding Mr. Maliki as an Iranian agent, the Saudis have offered financial support to Sunni groups in Iraq. Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow.

One senior administration official says he has seen evidence that Saudi Arabia is providing financial support to opponents of Mr. Maliki. He declined to say whether that support was going to Sunni insurgents because, he said, “That would get into disagreements over who is an insurgent and who is not.”

Senior Bush administration officials said the American concerns would be raised next week when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates make a rare joint visit to Jidda, Saudi Arabia.

Officials in Washington have long resisted blaming Saudi Arabia for the chaos and sectarian strife in Iraq, choosing instead to pin blame on Iran and Syria. Even now, military officials rarely talk publicly about the role of Saudi fighters among the insurgents in Iraq."

So no WMD's, and the evil doer Zarqawi didn't even join Al Queda until AFTER we attacked Iraq, and now the bulk of the foreign fighters are from an allied state? Can the man mess it up any more? Can his polls go below 25% favorable in this country? Can PA posters still continue to support this blockhead? :bang: :bang: :bang:


btw..Hcap, great post on the Senate delaying tactics setting a record. Obstructionism seems to be the only tactic the Republicans can employ.

hcap
07-28-2007, 06:02 PM
Originally Posted by Sec..
If one listens to the WH we're fighting almost solely Al Queda in Iraq yet Al Queda forces make up less than 5% of the adversary with Saudis (our erstwhile ally) making up the bulk of foreign fighters in Iraq.Exactly.

Meanwhile how's that other guy, you know the one that really attacked us, doing? The winner or the Iraqi war-so far


http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/01/mike04292007_2.gif

Jr sez...
Did you expect him to land on the carrier? You have no idea what it takes to do that do you? Once again....................you act like an ass.
I am sure the President saw many a swiming perch while winging over the ocean..........

Bush is not permitted to fly. When he was a no show for his last flight exam, his flight status was stripped. It's one of the ways he had failed to perform his duties in the Texas Air Guard.

Unless of course he rewrote the rules. Hey, he can fire all the prosecutors he wants, why not?

Swimming perch? Could be, but don't forget the foul odor of rotting fish in...

1-the White House
2-the Justice department
3-the 4th (or is it fifth? sixth?) branch of government. Darth Cheney.
4-Saddam hid his caviar with his WMDs before he shipped 'em to Syria.

hcap
07-28-2007, 06:21 PM
Some historical perspective.
About this time, that of the phony, staged photo op of "Mission Accomplished",
the administration was having a leetle beat of trouble. Of course you all remember what got us in in the first place. Well here is an example of why some distraction was needed.

The mission accomplished staging was May 1, 2003

David E. Sanger

WASHINGTON, May 4 -- With his administration under growing international pressure to find evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons, President Bush told reporters today that ''we'll find them,'' but cautioned that it would take some time because, he said, Mr. Hussein spent so many years hiding his stockpiles.

Mr. Bush's comments came after his senior aides, in interviews in recent days, had begun to back away from their prewar claims that Mr. Hussein had an arsenal that was loaded and ready to fire.

They now contend that he developed what they call a ''just in time'' production strategy for his weapons, hiding chemical precursors that could be quickly loaded into empty artillery shells or short-range missiles.

Lefty
07-28-2007, 09:30 PM
Why are you guysso obsessed? It's over, we're in the war and we better damn well win or heads will roll; literally. Your enemy is not the Pres it's the terrorists. Grow up and realize that fact.

Tom
07-28-2007, 09:55 PM
No, Lefty - their enemy is US.
They have to surrender in IRaq - any victory trhere is a defeat for them. And they will do anything to ensure a loss. They are so transparent - they are Bin Laden's puppets.

46zilzal
07-28-2007, 10:57 PM
No, Lefty - their enemy is US.
They have to surrender in IRaq - any victory trhere is a defeat for them. And they will do anything to ensure a loss. They are so transparent - they are Bin Laden's puppets.
You really use this stuff?

Tom
07-28-2007, 11:36 PM
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ensure

delayjf
07-30-2007, 07:13 PM
So no WMD's, and the evil doer Zarqawi didn't even join Al Queda until AFTER we attacked Iraq,

Again,your forgetting the WMDs we were able to "persuade" the Libyia to give up.

Zarqawi was wounded in Afganistan fighting for the Al Qaeda. He later recieved treatment in Iraq. Prior to 9/11, he received funding (from bin lauden) and ran a terrorist camp in Afganistan? Who care when he "officially" joined Al Qaeda, he fought with them and was funded by them.

Wrong on the facts again.

Secretariat
07-30-2007, 07:43 PM
Again,your forgetting the WMDs we were able to "persuade" the Libyia to give up.

Zarqawi was wounded in Afganistan fighting for the Al Qaeda. He later recieved treatment in Iraq. Prior to 9/11, he received funding (from bin lauden) and ran a terrorist camp in Afganistan? Who care when he "officially" joined Al Qaeda, he fought with them and was funded by them.

Wrong on the facts again.

We didn't invade Libya for WMD's, we invaded Iraq for that reason. As Rumseld said "we know where they are". "It's a slam dunk," Tenet claimed. Wrong again.

Hussein was attempting to arrest Zarqawi when we invaded Iraq. Zarqawi wasn't even mentioned by this administration as a reason to invade Iraq. Look it up. It was all about Saddam and WMD's. There was NO Husein-Bin Laden connection, there was no Hussein-Zarqawi connection (except Hussein was trying to arrest him), and there have never been found the stockpiles of WMD's. Boy, when GW tells you something you fall for it hook ,line and stinker.

btw.. You're wrong again on the facts.

delayjf
07-30-2007, 08:13 PM
We didn't invade Libya for WMD's,
Didn't have too, with three Carrier Battle Groups sitting in his back yard plus a daily front row viewing of "Shock and Awe". The US gave Kadafi what we in the Marine Corp refer to as "the proper motivation" to give up his WMD. Which would still be under Libyian control had we not invaded. I don't care if we never found one AK round in Iraq, getting those weapons out of the hands of a Government that has supported Terrorism was worth the Invasion. A pity you don't have the forsight to see that.

and there have never been found the stockpiles of WMD's
Since there have been US troops who have been treated for Sarin, just how much is a stockpile to you? How many people have to die in a gas attack before you'd say, that's enough?

Boy, when GW tells you something you fall for it hook ,line and stinker.

Boy, when Michael Moore tells you something you fall for it hook line and Stinker.

Tom
07-30-2007, 11:23 PM
Bottom line Sec, is the WMD from Lybia are no longer a threat.

Did you catch the latest Brookings Institute report - on CNN tonight, looking like the surge is working and they recommend it continute. This was thier most encouraging visit to Irag so far.

Of course, that is not what dems want to hear - they are counting on defeat as part of thier political strategerie.

And Grodon Brown declared Bush was doing the right thing, that Iraq was just another front in the war on terror.


Boy, the truth sucs, don't it?

Lefty
07-31-2007, 12:31 AM
Tom, yep, even the lib N.Y. Times printed this.

Secretariat
07-31-2007, 07:39 PM
delayjf,

Even Cheney can admit mistakes. Today, he said maybe he erred about the "last throes" comment. Are you still blindly sticking to the WMD argument in Iraq? If you are, please, please become the campaign manager for one of the Republican nominees.

hcap
08-01-2007, 06:42 AM
Bottom line Sec, is the WMD from Lybia are no longer a threat.

Of course, that is not what dems want to hear - they are counting on defeat as part of thier political strategerie.

Boy, the truth sucs, don't it?
Gee Tom, did you get this crap from your roots in pre-Nazi Germany..

In German it is known as Dolchstosslegende

"The Stab-in-the-back myth (German: Dolchstoßlegende, literally "Dagger stab legend") refers to a social myth and persecution-propaganda theory popular in Germany in the period after World War I through World War II. It attributed Germany's defeat to a number of domestic factors instead of failed militarist geostrategy. Most notably, the theory proclaimed that the public had failed to respond to its "patriotic calling" at the most crucial of times and some had even intentionally "sabotaged the war effort."

The legend echoed the epic poem Nibelungenlied in which the dragon-slaying hero Siegfried is stabbed in the back by Hagen von Tronje. Der Dolchstoss is cited as an important factor in Adolf Hitler's later rise to power, as the Nazi Party grew its original political base largely from embittered WWI veterans, and those who were sympathetic to the Dolchstoss interpretation of Germany's then-recent history."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchsto%C3%9Flegende

hcap
08-01-2007, 06:49 AM
From

http://harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081080

Every state must have its enemies. Great powers must have especially monstrous foes. Above all, these foes must arise from within, for national pride does not admit that a great nation can be defeated by any outside force. That is why, though its origins are elsewhere, the stab in the back has become the sustaining myth of modern American nationalism. Since the end of World War II it has been the device by which the American right wing has both revitalized itself and repeatedly avoided responsibility for its own worst blunders. Indeed, the right has distilled its tale of betrayal into a formula: Advocate some momentarily popular but reckless policy. Deny culpability when that policy is exposed as disastrous. Blame the disaster on internal enemies who hate America. Repeat, always making sure to increase the number of internal enemies.

Lefty
08-01-2007, 11:55 AM
Trble is, hcap, you socialists can't admit that yopu really are pulling for our defeat under a Repub leadership. You counter that by going around calling everyubody nazis. But the truth is, you and other libs on this board never have given Bush credit for anything. That goes for the guys you follow that are in power too. You have minimized everything good and shined a bright light on anything that's even slightly negative.
But the truth is, we HAVE NEVER been DEFEATED militarily. So besides the terrorists that want to kill us our biggest enemy is liberals seeking power to the detriment of the country and guys like you that follow them. You prove thiis by every post andespecially when you use the "nazi" accusation.

delayjf
08-01-2007, 12:13 PM
Even Cheney can admit mistakes. Today, he said maybe he erred about the "last throes" comment.

What does his underestimation of the insurgency have to do with WMD's? And by the way, nobody is claiming that mistakes have not been made in the execution of this war - but that's the nature of war. Mistakes were made in the landing at Normandy, in the intelligence reports prior to the Battle of the Bulge, or prior to the Tet offensive in Vietnam. Bottom line, there are fewer WMDs in the mid-east that terrorists or Governments that sponser Terrorists have at their disposal. THAT IS A VERY GOOD THING.

If the intent of the US intervention was to prevent as many WMD's as possible from following into the hands of Terrorists organizations - then MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Secretariat
08-01-2007, 05:10 PM
What does his underestimation of the insurgency have to do with WMD's? And by the way, nobody is claiming that mistakes have not been made in the execution of this war - but that's the nature of war. Mistakes were made in the landing at Normandy, in the intelligence reports prior to the Battle of the Bulge, or prior to the Tet offensive in Vietnam. Bottom line, there are fewer WMDs in the mid-east that terrorists or Governments that sponser Terrorists have at their disposal. THAT IS A VERY GOOD THING.

If the intent of the US intervention was to prevent as many WMD's as possible from following into the hands of Terrorists organizations - then MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Mission Accomplished? Boy, you buy everything Bushco presents hook, line and stinker.

This comment I had to reply to:

"Bottom line, there are fewer WMDs in the mid-east that terrorists or Governments that sponser Terrorists have at their disposal. THAT IS A VERY GOOD THING. "

Prove it. According to many RW-ingers here, the WMD's in Iraq were whisked off to Syria and other friendly nations to al Queda. In other words if those supposed WMD's do exist they are no longer even under any kind of inspection process now.

Additionally, Musharaf who has I beleive almost 60+ nuclear weapons and actual strike capabiltiy is in the battle of his life against radical Islam extremists to maintain power. If Musharaaf falls there is no plan B. You have a "Real" WMD threat.

We're told Iran is supposedly beginning to work towards a nuclear weapon.

Yeah, Mission Accomplishd.

Let's add to that that "more" arms expenditures are being sent to the Middle East by this country. In fact Condoleeza Rice is pushing for more arms expenditures to the Saudis, a nation that (a) hates Israel and (b) has more foreign fighters in Iraq than any other nation or terrorist group. Might as well give them more weapons.

And in case you didn't read the State Department's own assessment on international terrorism? It's up since the Iraqi invasion.

Yeah, Mission Accomplished.

Boy, we need an aircraft carrier just to fill up all the BS and dump it somewhere in the ocean.

....

Here's a couple of Marines who've won Congressional Medal of Honors quotes. I suggest you digest them:

"I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our country's most agile military force--the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. I suspected I was part of a racket all the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service."

Major General Smedley D. Butler

"I believe that if we had, and would, keep our dirty, bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of these (third World) nations, so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type, because the 'haves' refuse to share with the 'have nots' by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not American style, which they don't want and, above all, don't want crammed down their throats by Americans."

General David Shoup

Lefty
08-01-2007, 06:39 PM
No we need an aircraft carrier to dump all of you liberals. Nah, Rush says we gotta keep you around, but you'd think every now and then you guys would find something good to say. Even when the Bush agrees(groan)with you Dems, you still dump on him. It proves your mindset.

lsbets
08-01-2007, 06:49 PM
I am amazed at the level of hostility Sec shows towards vets like delay who have been there and done that. A sad display of "swiftboating" :lol: :lol:

delayjf
08-01-2007, 07:20 PM
Prove it.

What's to prove? Do you think the whole libya WMD thing was a hoax or do you disagree that not having those weapons in the mid-east in the hands of a terrorist sponsering government is a good thing?

I never said the regions was clean of all WMDs. Just the WMDs libya possessed. If we had found the WMD we suspected the Iraqi's had, that still would not have solved anything with regards to Pakistan or Iran.

Here's a couple of Marines who've won Congressional Medal of Honors quotes. I suggest you digest them:

There CMH speak well of their character only - it does not validate their politics nor does their perspective necessarily apply to today.

Secretariat
08-01-2007, 08:30 PM
What's to prove? Do you think the whole libya WMD thing was a hoax or do you disagree that not having those weapons in the mid-east in the hands of a terrorist sponsering government is a good thing?

I never said the regions was clean of all WMDs. Just the WMDs libya possessed. If we had found the WMD we suspected the Iraqi's had, that still would not have solved anything with regards to Pakistan or Iran.



There CMH speak well of their character only - it does not validate their politics nor does their perspective necessarily apply to today.

What you said:

"Bottom line, there are fewer WMDs in the mid-east that terrorists or Governments that sponser Terrorists have at their disposal."

I don't think Libya was invaded for WMD's. The "grave" threat was purpotted to be Iraq.

Now let's look at the progress of the Bush policy in the MidEast. What you referred to in your previous post as "Mission Accomplished."

Iraq in a civil war. Hamas elected in Palestine. Iran developing nucealr weapons. The Gaza Strip in anarchy. Our ally, Saudi Arabia has more foreign fighters in Iraq than Al Queda, about 50% versus 5%. Mushraff having diffulty maintaining power. Supposed WMD's in Iraq supposedly (accoridng to the righties on this board) spirited away to Syria unmonitored by the world community.

The words of those courageous veterans General Butler and General Shoup are as relevant today as they were when they made them. If you want a more recent general, how about Zinni on speaking about Iraq said it simply, "They screwed up!"

Tom
08-01-2007, 09:38 PM
So Sec, in your little goose-step Soros driven world, if a nuke sold to terrorists by Lybia went off in NYc, would anyone hear it since it wasn't from Iraq??????

You know what I love, even with your party in power, your level of depression/frustration/frenzy increases daily! :lol::lol::lol:

You are a poor winner!

delayjf
08-02-2007, 12:23 PM
I don't think Libya was invaded for WMD's. The "grave" threat was purpotted to be Iraq.
Libya was not invaded at all, there was no need, our action in Iraq / Afghanistan showed Kaddafi there was a new sheriff in town and his name is “W”. Who we invaded is irrelevant to my point – That being a Government with a history of supporting terrorist organizations no longer can supply those organizations with WMD. I know it’s hard for you, but that fact is irrefutable.

Hamas elected in Palestine. Iran developing nucealr weapons

If you are insinuating that there would now be peace between Israel and Palestine had we not invaded Iraq, you’re flat wrong. Their conflict pre-dates the first Iraq war; Hama’s election had everything to do with the events of that region and nothing to do with Iraq. Also, Iran has been developing Nuclear weapons for years; their nuclear program did not start in 03. No one is claiming that there have not been mistakes made with regards to post-war Iraq.

Saudi Arabia has more foreign fighters in Iraq than Al Queda, about 50% versus 5%. Mushraff having diffulty maintaining power.
The accuracy of you numbers notwithstanding, their nationality is immaterial. Curious, what percent would you say are from Iran? You mention Musharraf difficulties in Pakistan, those are related to events in Afghanistan not Iraq, Is it now your opinion that the US should not have gone into Afghanistan?

Supposed WMD's in Iraq supposedly (accoridng to the righties on this board) spirited away to Syria unmonitored by the world community.
For strategic reasons, all the more reason for the US to be involved in that region.

Secretariat
08-03-2007, 09:14 PM
Libya was not invaded at all, there was no need, our action in Iraq / Afghanistan showed Kaddafi there was a new sheriff in town and his name is “W”. Who we invaded is irrelevant to my point – That being a Government with a history of supporting terrorist organizations no longer can supply those organizations with WMD. I know it’s hard for you, but that fact is irrefutable.

To say "who we invaded is irrelivant" is exactly the point. If you check out my posts you will never find me criticizing the invasion of Afghansitan after 911. Not once. The problem has always been invading a country that had ntohing to do with 911, and slwoing our progress on actually going after the Al Queda leadership. We're still waiting for those Iraqi WMD's. There are not udner GW"s desk. He said so. How many people have lost there lives, how much has it cost for a hiuge, huge mistake. Initead of destroying the infrastructure of Iraq, wouldnt it have been wonderful if that moeny went to rebuildign our own infrastructure...especially in lieu of the fact that the Iraqis had never invaded us, nor conspired with Al Queda, nor had any WMD stockpiles. To actually still follow this folly puts you in the minority my friend. I admire your service, and character, but like your disagreement about the two congresional medal of honor general's policies beliefs, I must absolutely disagree with yours.

If you are insinuating that there would now be peace between Israel and Palestine had we not invaded Iraq, you’re flat wrong. Their conflict pre-dates the first Iraq war; Hama’s election had everything to do with the events of that region and nothing to do with Iraq. Also, Iran has been developing Nuclear weapons for years; their nuclear program did not start in 03. No one is claiming that there have not been mistakes made with regards to post-war Iraq.

I did not say there would be peace between Israel and Palestine. I am saying give the Palesitinans democracy and they choose a terrorists organization destabilizing the region even further eventually causing Israel to invade Lebanaon again killing thousands of civilians. Collateral damage. I know. If you belevie that Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq then you are deceived. The Repubs like to use the word "emboldened". Hamas was easily emboldened by the resistance of the insurgents. GW's push for democracy backfired in Palestine. Instead he got an elected terrorist organziation. I am glad you agree mistakes have been made in Iraq. A lot of them, and n one in this administration has yet paid for that. There are thousands upon thousands of American weapons unaccounted for, thousands of waste in contracts, thousands of people killed or wounded.


The accuracy of you numbers notwithstanding, their nationality is immaterial. Curious, what percent would you say are from Iran? You mention Musharraf difficulties in Pakistan, those are related to events in Afghanistan not Iraq, Is it now your opinion that the US should not have gone into Afghanistan?

The nationalist is not immaterial. You still don't get it. The Saudis have been actively supporting the Sunni movmement in Iraq. It is in their itnerest for Iraq not to become a Shia state like Iran. So Saudis actively participate and support the Sunni insurgency. Why do you think Rice went to Saudi Arabia to complain? Look at those nationalities of who actually invaded us on 911 were. Wake up and smell the coffee. There were NO Iraqis.


For strategic reasons, all the more reason for the US to be involved in that region.

Our presence there functions as the biggest recruitment tool Al Queda hs ever had. And it is the reason that no matter how many we kill over there, there will that many more coming back at us. I thought in my life I'd never see anything as bad as the Nixon administration. I was wrong. We're living it now.

hcap
08-04-2007, 06:37 AM
"Democrats: Clueless About War In Iraq And The War On Terror"--?????

But not ass bad as the repugs
According to the latest NBCWSJ poll, bush and his repug lacky water carriers are NOT doing well.

Yep the WSJ, not exactly the conspiring defeatist LEFTIST conspiracy press.
( Unless NBC brainwashed the WSJ? ) Maybe fed them some peyote?

The Dems enjoy huge, double-digit advantages on every domestic issue, but when asked which party is more trustworthy on dealing with the “war on terrorism,” it was the only question on which Americans were divided right down the middle — 29% said Dems, 29% said Republicans, 20% said both, and 18% said neither.

The trend is noteworthy. In October 2002, the GOP enjoyed a 36-point advantage on this question. But end of 2003, it had slipped to a 26-point lead. In early 2004, it slipped a few more points, and in late 2004, a few more still. By last fall, the Republicans led Dems on the question by 10 points, and now the GOP advantage has disappeared altogether.

How long, do you suppose, will the media continue to report that Republicans still enjoy far more public trust on terrorism than Dems?

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ0707_poll.pdf

In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W. Bush is doing in handling the situation in Iraq?
7/07*
Approve........................................... ..
22
Disapprove........................................
72

Both parties...

Very Positive
The Republican Party
July 2007
8%

Very Positive
The Democratic Party
July 2007
15%


Dealing with Iraq
Party Advantage
Dems 38%
Repugs 23%

Lefty
08-04-2007, 12:04 PM
Polls from viewers of NBC the most liberal news org going right now, not too conclusive. The Generals over there say the surge isworking. The news will filter to the public by election time and repubs will win. If by election time the war is going well, hcap, wouldn't that be a good thing for the U.S.? Or will you root against us because of party? Hmmmm?

hcap
08-04-2007, 03:01 PM
WSJ, as well NBC Lefty.

Other generals have been wrong previously, indeed the commander in chief the biggest general has been wrong, the vice prez the biggest commander in CHIEF, told us the insurgents were on their last throes. Over a year ago.

No I don't root for our enemies regardless of what you think.
I doubt the repugs will win. The 2006 midterms pretty much show a "sea change".
Maybe your nick will come in handy when the nick righty will be frowned upon. Thank your prez for the way 70% of the country now feels about foolish foreign misadventures.

jognlope
08-04-2007, 03:22 PM
It was both the timing of the war and the revelation there were not WMD. However, Bush did frame the going to war based on the 13th or so failed attempt by the UN to get compliance from Saddam to reveal his WMDs. Everybody forgets the war was justified, despite UN inspectors says they found nothing, based on Saddam's lack of compliance, shirking the inspectors and satellite films showing big items being moved from warehouses.

It was the timing of this war, with 911. A post editorial called the war "right war, wrong address." Only wrong address because of the timing, just after 911 when we were supposed to be headed toward the caves in Afghanistn looking for Bin Laden. This we kept up.

In any other time, this war would have been seen as jusitifed by many as stopping Saddam finally, which congress has been seeking to do for more than 15 years with Bush senior trying and failing.

Also it's Bush Jr.'s swagger, it hurts him.

Only other option would somehow be to pluck Saddam out of Iran without droping bombs. However, the "fed EE" or whatever his supporting army i8s called, had to be "plucked" with him. So unless we were to be able to hire 20,000 trained assassins or so, bombs were the only way to go. Too bad civilians weren't warned better though.

People do not get that a democratic Iraq would help the region. Only history will verify that.

hcap
08-04-2007, 04:43 PM
However, Bush did frame the going to war based on the 13th or so failed attempt by the UN to get compliance from Saddam to reveal his WMDs. Everybody forgets the war was justified, despite UN inspectors says they found nothing, based on Saddam's lack of compliance, shirking the inspectors and satellite films showing big items being moved from warehousesThe invasion was not based on failing UN compliance. Do you honestly think the congress and the American people would have gone along with such bare pickings.

No it was WMDs, particularly "mushroom clouds".
"and satellite films showing big items being moved from warehouses"Prove it had anything to do with the massive stockpiles claimed by Powell, later disavowed and regretted by Powell.

Yeah democracy would have helped. Except the entire region is in more chaos than when we first started. Also if bush told us we were goin' to invade Iraq to bring democracy and regime change he would not have sold "the product" to anyone. More bare pickings.

Lies brought us into this.

jognlope
08-04-2007, 05:00 PM
Yes it was partly based on failure of compliance. I remember specifically Bush touting that over and over, that under the UN resolution aggessive force was justified.

jognlope
08-04-2007, 05:24 PM
the actual vote to war vis a vis the failure to comply:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Lefty
08-04-2007, 06:45 PM
It doesn't make a bit of diff what the pollsters say about the war. The public has good info hid from them by the lib media but by election time if it's going well you libs will cry; and like it or not, that makes you the enemy too.

46zilzal
08-04-2007, 10:24 PM
It doesn't make a bit of diff what the pollsters say about the war. The public has good info hid from them by the lib media but by election time if it's going well you libs will cry; and like it or not, that makes you the enemy too.
denial, a wonderful trait

Tom
08-04-2007, 11:53 PM
And you practice it like a pro.

PaceAdvantage
08-05-2007, 12:08 AM
Lies brought us into this.

Which ones? Take your pick....address these points made over the years by some of the very politicians now telling us we were "LIED TO"....don't ignore it, address it....Why don't you attack Harry Reid and Howard Dean for lying to us much like you attack Bush and Cheney?

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv (http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv)

And while you digest this video, please pay special attention to the fact that NONE of the politicians in this video EVER QUALIFY their statements with "if the intelligence info turns out to be true" or "based on intelligence estimates"....none of that is being said in these clips....these politicians (all DEMOCRATS) are all making DEFINITIVE statements of TRUTH.

You and the far-left have some explaining to do....

Lefty
08-05-2007, 12:08 AM
zilly, why is it you think I'm the one in denial after all the terrorist attacks around the world, including 9-11. Why do you think I'm the one in denial when they have openly said they will kill EVERYONE that does not convert to Islam? How is it that I'M the one in denial? Please explain; and no links; in your own words, please.

jognlope
08-05-2007, 07:47 AM
I meant war was justified by Bush, not me, on basis of failure to comply. I agree with that senator/general, Wilke ?? wrong spelling, who said that Saddam could be contained without war and that Bush was rushing into war. Saddam seemed only to be interested in tyranny within his own country. But there's no way we could just wait until he kicked the bucket in 20 to 30 years for his atrocities to continue either.

hcap
08-05-2007, 04:00 PM
Why don't you attack Harry Reid and Howard Dean for lying to us much like you attack Bush and Cheney?None of the speakers called for all out war. Clinton did not, None. Not only was the existence of WMDs an issue, but the immanency of the threat was as well. Evidently NONE thought that. It was this president that conjured up both.

If 911 changed everything as some are apt to babble, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia, home of the 911 terrorists? Ok Afghanistan made sense, there was evidence that the 911 terrorists trained there-Al Qaeda bases.

But there were no Iraqis on those flights, and more importantly no proven ties to Saddam. No indication that Saddam was responsible.

Sept 11, 2001. Wartime March 2003. Over 2 years to make the case. The case was never made.
.......................................

Back in 2002, the preznit had a serious problem. In 2002, he was trying to sell the American Congress and people a war against Iraqi. But despite a wide selection of rationales offered to justify the thing, very few people were buying. Breaking UN sanctions or firing on aircraft in the no-fly zone, or the level of Hitlerism that Saddam had achieved was not enough. Yeah go to congress and tell'em Saddam is hitler. See how many votes you get

When none of his advertising slogans seemed to be working, Bushco had no choice but to employ a little old-fashioned exaggeration.

You remember Andy Card...

"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."
Andrew H. Card, Jr.
White House Chief of Staff
The New York Times -- September 7, 2002

It was necessary to create a special, new intelligence group, the Office of Special Plans (OSP), at the Pentagon to stovepipe intelligence favorable to the case for war directly to the office of the sec of defense, then the prez, the vice prez, and the repug leadership. The 2 major points hyped were WMDs and links to terrorism.

The conventional intelligence branches were being party poopers, so someone had to end run around them to make the case for war. The OSP did just that.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/27/031027fa_fact

Youse guys remember Ken Pollack, one of the authors of the recent optimistic surge report.

..... Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, whose book “The Threatening Storm” generally supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, told me that what the Bush people did was “dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership. Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from them.

“They always had information to back up their public claims, but it was often very bad information,” Pollack continued. “They were forcing the intelligence community to defend its good information and good analysis so aggressively that the intelligence analysts didn’t have the time or the energy to go after the bad information.”


So the President and his lackeys tweaked the message. They started promoting the idea that Saddam currently possessed significant weapons of mass destruction, poised to strike the United States and Britain. That certainly got people's attention. In fact, it scared the shit out of them. Public opinion quickly swayed in favor of military intervention, and the rest is history.

However......

24 Feb 2001 In Cairo, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.


On 60 Minutes, Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA’s Europe division, revealed that in the fall of 2002, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others were told by CIA Director George Tenet that Iraq’s foreign minister — who agreed to act as a spy for the United States — had reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program.

BRADLEY: According to Drumheller, CIA Director George Tenet delivered the news about the Iraqi foreign minister at a high level meeting at the White House.

DRUMHELLER: The President, the Vice President, Dr. Rice…

BRADLEY: And at that meeting…?

DRUMHELLER: They were enthusiastic because they said they were excited that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis.

BRADLEY: And what did this high level source tell you?

DRUMHELLER: He told us that they had no active weapons of mass destruction program.

BRADLEY: So, in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam’s inner circle that he didn’t have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?

DRUMHELLER: Yes.

BRADLEY: There’s no doubt in your mind about that?

DRUMHELLER: No doubt in my mind at all.

BRADLEY: It directly contradicts, though, what the President and his staff were telling us.

DRUMHELLER: The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy. Since the war, however, millions of Americans have concluded that they are victims of false advertising. None of the fabled WMDs has actually shown up, despite months of intensive searching. Understandably, people feel they were lied to.

.................................................. .............................................

Since we withdrew the UN inspecters back in 1998, there was no way of knowing for sure the state of Iraqs WMDs. Exaggeration was the name of the game.......

"Iraq also sought to mislead the IAEA, but IAEA inspectors were largely successful in obtaining a relatively complete picture of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program and dismantling it. The IAEA, which removed from Iraq all known fissile material that could be used to make weapons, reported in February 1999 that there were no indications that meaningful amounts of weapon-usable material remained in the country or that it possessed the physical capability to produce significant amounts of such material indigenously. But the IAEA cautioned that because nuclear weapons material or infrastructure could be hidden, it could not verify with absolute certainty that Iraq had no prohibited materials."



The state of chemicals and biological weapons were unknown, so the product launched by bushco was initially to get the Inspectors back in, then if no cooperation-military action....

The AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 first provided the teeth to get the Inspectors back in. Whether you agree with or not, bush promised to allow the Inspectors to do their job and launch an invasion as a last resort.

So why in fact as the Inspectors were reporting no significant quantities or stockpiles, did bush launch the invasion? Iraq was cooperating. Saddam actually disclosed what we later determined to be true-NO STOCKPILES. NO NUKES.

In the famous State of the Union in January the hype of “imminent attacks” from Saddam Hussein, and the ties to terrorists and MOST importantly the lied and exaggerated connection to 911, scared the shit out of the country. Only 3 months later the war was a done deal.

However in those 3 months the hype and lies was obvious..

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0316-02.htm

Iraqi Exile Group Fed False Information to News Media
Global Misinformation Campaign was Used to Build Case for War
by Jonathan S. Landay and Tish Wells

WASHINGTON - The former Iraqi exile group that gave the Bush administration exaggerated and fabricated intelligence on Iraq also fed much of the same information to leading newspapers, news agencies and magazines in the United States, Britain and Australia.

A June 26, 2002, letter from the Iraqi National Congress to the Senate Appropriations Committee listed 108 articles based on information provided by the INC's Information Collection Program, a U.S.-funded effort to collect intelligence in Iraq.

The assertions in the articles reinforced President Bush's claims that Saddam Hussein should be ousted because he was in league with Osama bin Laden, was developing nuclear weapons and was hiding biological and chemical weapons.

Feeding the information to the news media, as well as to selected administration officials and members of Congress, helped foster an impression that there were multiple sources of intelligence on Iraq's illicit weapons programs and links to bin Laden.

Anybody remember the "Bush Doctrine”?

PaceAdvantage
08-05-2007, 04:05 PM
None of the speakers called for all out war. Clinton did not, None. Not only was the existence of WMDs an issue, but the immanency of the threat was as well.

Oh really? You must have different ears than me. Listen to Madeline Albright again. She was talking years BEFORE 9/11 or Bush. Sure sounds like Iraq was an imminent and IMPORTANT threat to me, according to her.....

Keep dancing. No matter how much babble you post in return, you can't refute the video evidence presented in that clip.

Bill Olmsted
08-05-2007, 04:07 PM
And it's....

One! Two! Three!

What are we fighting for?

Don' t tell me

I don't give a damn

Next stop is Viet NAM

And it's....

Five. Six. Seven.

Open up the Pearly Gates...

Now there ain't no time to wonder why....

Whoopie!! we all gonna die!


Rock on! Right Wingers. Keep tryin' Come on. You can do it. It you try HARD enuf, U may git it right.

Come on, now. You can do it.
And it's One. Two. Three. Four.........

PaceAdvantage
08-05-2007, 04:16 PM
Rock on! Right Wingers. Keep tryin' Come on. You can do it. It you try HARD enuf, U may git it right.

Replace Right Wingers with Left Wingers and you may be onto something. Toke up!

hcap
08-05-2007, 04:20 PM
Did she say invade? Did her president invade? Did they tell the American people either they let the inspectors back in or Saddam has 60 days to get out of town?

Besides, your whole argument that "everybody" thought so is spurious. "The AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 first provided the teeth to get the Inspectors back in. Whether you agree with or not, bush promised to allow the Inspectors to do their job and launch an invasion as a last resort. "

Everybody wanted to see if everybody was right.
Everybody wanted to see if everybody was right.
Everybody wanted to see if everybody was right.

Except Bush. He rushed to war exaggerating the level of threat.
Or why not wait to see what the Inspectors find?
It was obvious based on the lies specifically AFTER the war started, that their administration was covering their collective asses.

It does not take much to realize that they were just as incompetent and deceitful before the war

Oh yeah maybe the UN should have combed the Syrian desert instead

Bill Olmsted
08-05-2007, 04:30 PM
Reinstate the draft.

Money talks. Bullshit walks.

hcap
08-05-2007, 04:34 PM
You remember these lies, don't you
After the war started.

1-We found the weapons of mass destruction.*******
2-We found biological laboratories*******
3-we're in the last throes, the war will last six months,
4-The war could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months--Rummy
5-The oil will pay for the war
6-The lies about Tillman
7-The lies about Jessica Lynch

May 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells Fox News Sunday: "we never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country... We're going to find what we find as a result of talking to people, I believe, not simply by going to some site and hoping to discover it."

4 May 2003 Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."

6 May 2003 President George W Bush declares: "I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program."

12 May 2003 National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice declares: "U.S. officials never expected that we were going to open garages and find weapons of mass destruction."

27 May 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells the Council on Foreign Relations: "Now what happened? Why weren't they [the WMDs] used? I don’t know. There are several possible reasons for that... it may very well be that they didn’t have time to... use chemical weapons. It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict

8 May 2003 Paul Wolfowitz declares: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue -- weapons of mass destruction -- because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

******* Remember when President Bush claimed that the WMD hunt had finally turned up something?

30 May 2003 President George W Bush tells Polish TV: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories... we’ve so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

Tom
08-05-2007, 05:38 PM
Reinstate the draft.

Money talks. Bullshit walks.

You calling our volunteer troops bullshit?
Because it sounds like it.

That is one of the dumbest statements I've heard from the dim witted left. And believe, me I have heard plenty of dumb things from that side.

PaceAdvantage
08-05-2007, 06:04 PM
He rushed to war exaggerating the level of threat.

He didn't exaggerate a thing. Listen to Albright in 1998! Listen to Howard Dean call Iraq an OUTLAW STATE. Both of these people are speaking at a time way BEFORE Bush ever got into office or 9/11.

You are rewriting history.

PaceAdvantage
08-05-2007, 06:05 PM
Hcap, are you going to continue to repost things that have been posted a million times? Why not talk about some FRESH material, like the video clips presented recently from all those Democrats who now pooh-pooh the threat Iraq has posed over the years.

Bill Olmsted
08-05-2007, 06:09 PM
Be the first one
on your block

To have your boy
come home in a box.



(And it's FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT)

PaceAdvantage
08-05-2007, 06:16 PM
Let me guess Bill, you're a hippie wannabe at heart....

lsbets
08-05-2007, 06:19 PM
You are rewriting history.

There's a reason we call him Aesop!

Bill Olmsted
08-05-2007, 06:22 PM
Let me guess Bill, you're a hippie wannabe at heart....

Not a WANNABE, PC

I AM a HIPPIE, A FLAMINGGGGGGGGG LIBERAL

S'cuse me while I
light dis up.

And as for you Tom, Mr. Canandaigua Cowboy, I don't know what to do with you. I think you need re-grooving.

AMF

Tom
08-05-2007, 06:24 PM
Try growing up.....new adventures are always fun.

Bill Olmsted
08-05-2007, 06:26 PM
Growing up is overrated.

I prefer to remain the Eternal Teenager.

PaceAdvantage
08-05-2007, 06:30 PM
Growing up is overrated.

I prefer to remain the Eternal Teenager.

I'll agree with you there!

Tom
08-05-2007, 06:32 PM
46a

Bill Olmsted
08-05-2007, 06:32 PM
Check....

and ....

MATE!

PC wins.

Next game.

PaceAdvantage
08-05-2007, 06:35 PM
Pssst.....who's PC?

Bill Olmsted
08-05-2007, 06:37 PM
I mean PA.


Damn!

Must be that Loco Weed!

hcap
08-05-2007, 06:42 PM
PaceAdvantage Hcap, are you going to continue to repost things that have been posted a million times? Why not talk about some FRESH material, like the video clips presented recently from all those Democrats who now pooh-pooh the threat Iraq has posed over the years.
The Dems agreeing that Iraq had WMDs is also old stuff.

What they did not agree on before Bush hyped the threat was invading and destroying the region.

Youse guys continue to use the "Clinton did it too" defense. Well Clinton did not launch this war, nor did any of those agreeing that WMDs exist. It appears that the more recent data just before the war, about the Iraqi WMDs was stovepiped into Congress and out to the public by the OSP. Cheneys' gang. It was not an accurate assessment of the situation just before the war.
Even so with all the hyping and skewed intelligence every repug except a few bought into the war, whereas there were many many Dems that did not.

Here are the brave ones:in the senate

* Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
* Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
* Robert Byrd (D-WV)
* Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
* Kent Conrad (D-ND)
* Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
* Mark Dayton (D-MN)
* Richard Durbin (D-IL)
* Russell Feingold (D-WI)
* Robert Graham (D-FL)
* Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
* James Jeffords (I-VT)
* Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
* Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
* Carl Levin (D-MI)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
* Patty Murray (D-WA)
* Jack Reed (D-RI)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
* Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
* Ron Wyden (D-OR)



Many of the 126 House Democrats who spoke out and voted against the October 2002 resolution that gave President Bush authority to wage war against Iraq have turned out to be correct in their warnings about the war So Not everyone bought it.

And if we had let the Inspectors finish we would not be arguing about the existence of WMDs. Oh wait, you would still want'a search Syria


Yeas Nays
Republican 215 6
Democratic 81 126
Independent 1

TOTALS 296 133

The House.....

Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu

PaceAdvantage
08-05-2007, 06:53 PM
Youse guys continue to use the "Clinton did it too" defense. Well Clinton did not launch this war, nor did any of those agreeing that WMDs exist.

Forget Clinton. There are plenty of others to choose from besides him in that video clip...like Howard Dean....who woulda thunk it that he was calling not only IRAQ but IRAN outlaw states way back then....

Not me....but that's because I've been shielded from these statements by the loco-left that dominates off-topic. They only present one side of the story, the BushCo side....

They conveniently forget all the powerful Democrats who were warning us about Iraq WAY BEFORE Bush ever got into office. Oh, but that's when the POLLS said it was OK to call Iraq an OUTLAW state and that Saddam and IRAQ posed A GREAT THREAT to the SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Now, for some reason, they didn't pose a great threat....after 9/11....lol

In 1998, before 9/11, they posed a GREAT THREAT to our security (ala Madam Albright), but now we're supposed to believe Light and Hcap that they didn't pose a threat at all because BUSH said they posed a great threat.

It's all so confusing, and would be laughable if it weren't so downright irresponsible and DANGEROUS.

You're playing with the future of the United States here fellas, and I will hold you responsible if anything catastrophic befalls this great nation. I guess you could say I'm "pullin' a Suff" on you.....

Bill Olmsted
08-05-2007, 07:01 PM
Whether or not the Iraq war is "right" misses the point.

The get-down reality of the situation is that this administration has totally--and I mean TOTALLY--screwed up its handling of the war effort. How long have we been there? How many years? Even the Democrats could have won the war by now.

If you want to fight a war...Fight it, for Chrissakes! Don't dick around.
Either shit or get off the pot.

PaceAdvantage
08-05-2007, 07:09 PM
The get-down reality of the situation is that this administration has totally--and I mean TOTALLY--screwed up its handling of the war effort. How long have we been there? How many years? Even the Democrats could have won the war by now.

If you want to fight a war...Fight it, for Chrissakes! Don't dick around.
Either shit or get off the pot.

Again, we agree! How about that! Although, I'm not sure I agree that the Democrats could have won the war by now, as they would have been operating under the same restrictions as Bush was at the time (use as limited a force as possible so as to not take on criticism early when the casuality reports start coming in).

Bill Olmsted
08-05-2007, 07:16 PM
PA

U B D MAN

PaceAdvantage
08-05-2007, 07:19 PM
PA

U B D MAN

Now you're just messin' with my head....

Bill Olmsted
08-05-2007, 07:22 PM
What can I say?

I'm buzzed.

hcap
08-05-2007, 07:26 PM
PAthey conveniently forget all the powerful Democrats who were warning us about Iraq WAY BEFORE Bush ever got into office. Oh, but that's when the POLLS said it was OK to call Iraq an OUTLAW state and that Saddam and IRAQ posed A GREAT THREAT to the SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Now, for some reason, they didn't pose a great threat....after 9/11....lol.Did any of these guys babble about the "gathering storm"?

I will repeat it for you again. None of these guys invaded. Not Albright, Dean Pelosi, Reid. None told Clinton to. So stopping blaming everyone other than the guys acted.

It appears that the more recent data just before the war, about the Iraqi WMDs was stovepiped into Congress and out to the public by the OSP. Cheneys' gang. It was not an accurate assessment of the situation just before the war.
An example of what was fed to the Congress and the rest of us. So if you are given skewed and exaggerated intel??

Bush in Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, Oct. 7, 2002,absolute bullshit. Known to be wrong BEFORE the war...

We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Tom
08-05-2007, 07:44 PM
So if the dems fought the war, they would ahve won by now?
And there would no insurgency and no outside interference from Iran and Syria?
Oh, that's right.....the terrorists are friends of the dems. I forgot.

hcap
08-05-2007, 07:59 PM
The New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has taken Bush sharply to task, asserting that it is "long past time for this administration to be held accountable." "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat," Krugman argued. "If that claim was fraudulent," he continued, "the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history -- worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-Contra."

That's the key-imminent. The gathering storm bullshit.

More on the collection of lies

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

3/7/03

"Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, appears before the Security Council and says that searches have found "no evidence" of mobile biological production facilities in Iraq. He also says that the Iraqis are cooperating with the inspectors. The IAEA's ElBaradei also speaks and says, "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq." He says the Niger uranium documents are "not authentic."

3/17/03

"With little international support, the U.S., Britain, and Spain officially scrap the quest to obtain a new U.N. resolution on Iraq. Four and a half months have passed since U.N. Resolution 1441, and a new resolution would signal the world's belief that Iraq had failed the terms of that resolution and now faced the consequences. The "coalition of the willing" announces it will enforce the U.N. resolution without the U.N.'s approval."

Then 3/18

Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 18, 2003; Page A13

As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged -- and in some cases disproved -- by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports.

For months, President Bush and his top lieutenants have produced a long list of Iraqi offenses, culminating Sunday with Vice President Cheney's assertion that Iraq has "reconstituted nuclear weapons." Previously, administration officials have tied Hussein to al Qaeda, to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and to an aggressive production of biological and chemical weapons. Bush reiterated many of these charges in his address to the nation last night.

But these assertions are hotly disputed. Some of the administration's evidence -- such as Bush's assertion that Iraq sought to purchase uranium -- has been refuted by subsequent discoveries. Other claims have been questioned, though their validity can be known only after U.S. forces occupy Iraq.

jognlope
08-05-2007, 08:29 PM
Saddam had said he got rid of chemical weapons in 1993 as a result of that UN inspection. He said he just pretended to have weapons after that to scare us.

PaceAdvantage
08-06-2007, 02:32 AM
The New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has taken Bush sharply to task, asserting that it is "long past time for this administration to be held accountable." "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat," Krugman argued. "If that claim was fraudulent," he continued, "the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history -- worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-Contra."

That's the key-imminent. The gathering storm bullshit.IT WASN'T FRAUDULENT! Let me type this out to you, maybe you are deaf and can not hear, so allow me to transcript the words of Secretary of State Madeline Albright in 1998 BEFORE Bush and BEFORE 9/11:

Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a GREAT DEAL HERE. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us, OR OUR ALLIES, is the GREATEST SECURITY THREAT WE FACE. And it is a threat against which we must, and will stand firm.This was stated in 1998. Are you telling me that after 9/11, Saddam posed LESS OF A THREAT then he did when Madeline Albright spoke those words THREE YEARS earlier? Come on man. That bullshit doesn't fly anymore.

How about some more 1998 quotes for you:

There are such a thing as INTERNATIONAL OUTLAWS, I'm not sure China is one, but I'm quite sure Iran and IRAQ are. -- Howard DeanHe will rebuild his arsenal of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. And some day, some way, I AM CERTAIN he will use that arsenal again, as he has TEN TIMES since 1983. -- Sandy BergerIf Paul Krugman refuses to acknowlege all those that came BEFORE Bush saying THE SAME THING as BUSH, then SCREW PAUL KRUGMAN. He's obviously an unreliable commentator.

hcap
08-06-2007, 07:21 AM
None said the threat was imminent. None changed the foreign policy to reflect the so-called "Bush Doctrine". Remember? Preemptive war.
None thought the threat warranted invasion.

I will repeat it for you again and again.... None of these guys invaded. Not Albright, Dean Pelosi, Reid. None told Clinton to. So stopping blaming everyone other than the guys acted.


I will repeat it for you again and again.

It appears that the more recent data just before the war, about the Iraqi WMDs was stovepiped into Congress and out to the public by the OSP. Cheneys' gang. It was not an accurate assessment of the situation just before the war.

Things have been said about the old Soviet Union during the cold war.
About China
About North Korea
We did not invade

I will repeat it for you again and again.
The state of chemicals and biological weapons were unknown, so the product launched by bushco was initially to get the Inspectors back in, then if no cooperation-military action....

The AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 first provided the teeth to get the Inspectors back in. Whether you agree with or not, bush promised to allow the Inspectors to do their job and launch an invasion as a last resort.

So why in fact as the Inspectors were reporting no significant quantities or stockpiles, did bush launch the invasion? Iraq was cooperating. Saddam actually disclosed what we later determined to be true-NO STOCKPILES. NO NUKES.

Lefty
08-06-2007, 11:26 AM
Ya gonna hang your hat on one word hcap? The words of the dems imply the threat is imminent. Maybe that was to big a word for them. But I know you're from the Clinton school of parsing, soi guess it goes to meaning of what is is, or in this case, imminent. A very weak try hcap, you need more lessons. Call Bill.

PaceAdvantage
08-06-2007, 11:59 AM
None said the threat was imminent. None changed the foreign policy to reflect the so-called "Bush Doctrine". Remember? Preemptive war.
None thought the threat warranted invasion.

I will repeat it for you again and again.... None of these guys invaded. Not Albright, Dean Pelosi, Reid. None told Clinton to. So stopping blaming everyone other than the guys acted.


I will repeat it for you again and again.


Ah, but you forget that 9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING! Remember that? Remember you guys bitching and moaning that Bush didn't react to the MEMO that said bin Laden determined to attack?

Well, now we had 9/11, and Bush went back and said, wow, everyone from Madeline Albright to Howard Dean were saying way back in 1998 that Iraq was an OUTLAW STATE and one of the GREATEST THREATS TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY!

Now you add 9/11 on top of that mix, and Bush realized he couldn't sit on his ass like Clinton did all those years. He had to do something. 9/11 was an unfortunate wake up call.

You can't have it both ways Hcap. Even your bullshit stinks after a while.

jognlope
08-06-2007, 12:19 PM
Bush Sr had said when you go after terrorits you "can't do it with one hand behind your back."

Tom
08-06-2007, 02:29 PM
Caroon Boy posted:
I will repeat it for you again and again.... None of these guys invaded. Not Albright, Dean Pelosi, Reid. None told Clinton to. So stopping blaming everyone other than the guys acted.

Ah, some tings never change....the dems never DO ANYTHING. Just like today, the dems of then were whinners, crybabies,and do-nothings. Clinton was the only one to ever take the bull by the horns, or was it the girl by the ears?:rolleyes:

delayjf
08-06-2007, 03:13 PM
So the President and his lackeys tweaked the message. They started promoting the idea that Saddam currently possessed significant weapons of mass destruction, poised to strike the United States and Britain. That certainly got people's attention. In fact, it scared the shit out of them. Public opinion quickly swayed in favor of military intervention, and the rest is history.

This would make sence only if the intel the Clinton administration got was different than what the Bush Administration received - given the statements made by the Clinton administration and key democrats including Clintons Secretary of State - IT OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT. Wheither Bush or Clinton ordered the attack does not change the fact that both administration had the same intel and therefore Bush did not lie or make it up. Unless you are now going to argue that he was able to influence the intel from Austin Tx.