Tragedy of the Bush Administration

124 replies [Last post]
dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

For all those Bush lover's out there (that's George w. Bush lovers, to clarify ). 
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0210/dailyUpdate.html
My affection (or infection) grows daily for our gracious president, who manufactures and bends information like silly putty to deceive masses of sheep into happily sending their children off to be slaughtered (and to slaughter).  It's amazing to me that more people in our society are not inflamed by the implications of what the Bush Administration has done. 
This may seem extreme, but Hitler used similar tactics (fear mongering) to achieve his own dimented goals.
It's obvious to me that all Bush will suceed in doing is to usher in the new Cold War or maybe be God's tool in initiating Armageddon .   Makes me wonder.
(MikeB, any comments?? )

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

dude wrote:
For all those Bush lover's out there (that's George w. Bush lovers, to clarify ). 
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0210/dailyUpdate.html
My affection (or infection) grows daily for our gracious president, who manufactures and bends information like silly putty to deceive masses of sheep into happily sending their children off to be slaughtered (and to slaughter).  It's amazing to me that more people in our society are not inflamed by the implications of what the Bush Administration has done. 
This may seem extreme, but Hitler used similar tactics (fear mongering) to achieve his own dimented goals.
It's obvious to me that all Bush will suceed in doing is to usher in the new Cold War or maybe be God's tool in initiating Armageddon .   Makes me wonder.
(MikeB, any comments?? )

 
You're joking, right? Hitler? "what Bush has done"? "Manufactors information"? All based on the word of a critic in the CIA?
 
Believe what you want. Personally I'll continue to remember that the prior administration and most every intel agency on planet said the same thing Bush did. I suppose they all made it up. Add into that the fact that the Senate's own bi-partisan investigation found nothing of the sort.
I mean, read this, The Washington Post quotes Mr. Pillar as saying the US intelligence community made mistakes in concluding that Mr. Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction..
The guy admits the intel community DID reach the conclusion that Saddam had WMD, but he somehow he blames Bush for believing them. He has an axe to grind...

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

mikebutler222 wrote:dude wrote:
For all those Bush lover's out there (that's George w. Bush lovers, to clarify ). 
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0210/dailyUpdate.html
My affection (or infection) grows daily for our gracious president, who manufactures and bends information like silly putty to deceive masses of sheep into happily sending their children off to be slaughtered (and to slaughter).  It's amazing to me that more people in our society are not inflamed by the implications of what the Bush Administration has done. 
This may seem extreme, but Hitler used similar tactics (fear mongering) to achieve his own dimented goals.
It's obvious to me that all Bush will suceed in doing is to usher in the new Cold War or maybe be God's tool in initiating Armageddon .   Makes me wonder.
(MikeB, any comments?? )

 
You're joking, right? Hitler? "what Bush has done"? "Manufactors information"? All based on the word of a critic in the CIA?
 
Believe what you want. Personally I'll continue to remember that the prior administration and most every intel agency on planet said the same thing Bush did. I suppose they all made it up. Add into that the fact that the Senate's own bi-partisan investigation found nothing of the sort.
I mean, read this, The Washington Post quotes Mr. Pillar as saying the US intelligence community made mistakes in concluding that Mr. Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction..
The guy admits the intel community DID reach the conclusion that Saddam had WMD, but he somehow he blames Bush for believing them. He has an axe to grind...

It was made clear in the article that there is more to it that if Iraq had WMD.  Issues like possible civil war etc...  Please read:

The Bush administration's use of intelligence on Iraq did not just blur this distinction; it turned the entire model upside down. The administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made. It went to war without requesting – and evidently without being influenced by – any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq. (The military made extensive use of intelligence in its war planning, although much of it was of a more tactical nature.) ... As the national intelligence officer for the Middle East, I was in charge of coordinating all of the intelligence community's assessments regarding Iraq; the first request I received from any administration policymaker for any such assessment was not until a year into the war.
I don't know MikeB, but in my life experience, I have come to the conclusion that blowing up poor people doesn't create a safer world, just generates more animosity.  We got handed our asses in Vietnam because of the same kinds of ignorance which started the Iraq war. 
The "domino effect"?    Hell Ho Chi Minh wanted to have a positive relationship with the US, but just because he chose to implement a Communist style government (actually it was more "nationalist") all the fear mongering idiots in Washington got blinders on.
These days the equivalent of the Domino effect (it's amazing how good politicians are at inventing things to be afraid of, helps to motivate people) is WMD. 
Just like the "Domino effect" which had tons of great analysis to support it, WMD is and was a delusion manufactured to motivate people to support an agenda already in place. 
I actually voted for Bush during the first election.  He ran on a platform I agree with:  Smaller Fed gvmt,  compasionate conservativism (hah, ) and........ Not becoming a World Police.
I understand that 911 changed some things.  I just don't think that Bush has done a great job at solving the true problem:  Tensions and misunderstanding between two very different cultures
Sure his solutions might treat the symptoms for a while, but just like drugs, you'll need more and more to keep managing the symptoms and eventually you get side effects and your liver get's shot.
Do you think that if you get into a disagreement or have a fight with someone that showing up on their doorstep with a bat in hand will solve the problem?  Or, is it usually a better idea to facilitate an open dialogue and diplomatically develop a better understanding of the other person's position?
The "We're Americans, citizens of the Greatest Country in the World and we are going to bring our enlightenment to the rest of the ignorant world so they can enjoy our lifestyles (which they may not want), our wealth, our values" attitude will only cause greater hatred among the less fortunate in the world. 
Dude's forcast is greater conflict, unless we as a country show a very sincere interest in giving the less fortunate in the world a platform to be heard.  Problem is, is that our motivations are centered around exploitation not helping, therefore the platform we give these folks means they have to adapt to our paradigm, which might not mesh well with theirs.

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

I mean the Islamic world, in general hates the US.  So, is it better to just bomb the sh*t out of them until they capitulate or maybe understand what we're doing that upsets them, put our exploitative agenda aside and foster some understanding. 
Like I said before, Afghanistan is understandable and there was pretty good cause to replace the Taliban (clear link with Al Queada) using military action.  Iraq is a completely different story though.
 

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

You do realize that there has been a power struggle going on between the administration and CIA and FBI elites that have been ensconced since the Carter era?  This is pure sour grapes on the part of the retiring (and possibly forcibly retired) career spys and pencil pushers with lifetime cushy jobs.  The President who is an elected official and is responsible for setting foreign policy has been butting heads with the upper levels of these fossilized bureaucracies who are not accountable to anyone it seems. 
You are very young, Dude.  You need to learn that all you read in the papers, which are also in a power struggle (with the Administration and with the new open media, bloggers) is not always completely true.  BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) doesn't make for objective reporting. 
By the way.  Children don't go to war or serve in the military. Grown up men and women make these choices.  So until we start having 12 year olds in the military.....please enough about children.
Dude's forcast is greater conflict, unless we as a country show a very sincere interest in giving the less fortunate in the world a platform to be heard.  Problem is, is that our motivations are centered around exploitation not helping, therefore the platform we give these folks means they have to adapt to our paradigm, which might not mesh well with theirs
BL's forecast is greater conflict unless we as a country don't get our act together, cease the endless and pointless political posturing, and quit pampering people who have no rational thoughts. People who want to kill other people over cartoons about an intangible and disputed idea (God).  We need to kick butt and take names. The reason we are in this dangerous position is that for the last 20 years the US has been a pansy pantie waisted pushover.  We have given our enemies the idea that we can be bullied, threatened and frightened into doing what is in their best interests as opposed to our own.  Turning the other cheek doesn't mean inviting being bitch slapped by a bunch of barbarians stuck in the 12th century. 
Who gives a rat's behind about their paradigm? If they have to adapt to our paradigm, whatever that is, too bad.  We give enough to "less fortunate" countries without any thanks. In fact they whine further that we should give more and complain about the quality of the aid that they have received.  Private charities can give all the money they want to and in any part of the world.  I give to worthy charities where I know the money I have given is going to be used for the needy and not line the pockets of some dictator.  The government of the US should be looking out for our own citizens and not worrying about the civil rights of murderers and deranged thugs.  If we need to spend taxpayer money on aid to another country then the end result should be to the benefit of the United States taxpayer.  
The United States government isn't a charity to support the world.  Donate to the Red Cross or better yet the Salvation Army in you want to help the less fortunate.
The Left comparing Nazi Germany and Hitler to Bush and this current Administration, just shows how pitiful our education system is. When you have no idea of history and what real suffering is, it is easy to make ignorant comparisons. 

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

So, is it better to just bomb the sh*t out of them until they capitulate or maybe understand what we're doing that upsets them, put our exploitative agenda aside and foster some understanding
You might as well try to discuss the theory of relativity with my cat for all the good it will do to try to reason with the radical, rabid, Islamist who think that it is their way or no way.
Why do we need to understand them?  How about, they need to understand us and show some tolerance for other people's cultures. 

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

I wasn't comparing bush w/ Hitler, just the tactic of fear mongering.  That's all.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

dude wrote:
It was made clear in the article that there is more to it that if Iraq had WMD.

You mean you now admit the CIA DID tell Bush there were WMDs in Iraq? good for you...
dude wrote:
Please read:
The Bush administration's use of intelligence on Iraq did not just blur this distinction; it turned the entire model upside down.

Sorry, Dude, all you have is a guy that worked at the CIA (the outfit that missed it in Vietnam, missed the end of the USSR, missed the revolution in Iran, etc, etc, etc...) playing CYA. His OWN BOSS told Bush it was a "SLAM DUNK" that Saddam had WMDs, and this guy blames Bush for believing him.
 
dude wrote:
I don't know MikeB, but in my life experience, I have come to the conclusion that blowing up poor people doesn't create a safer world, just generates more animosity.

Incredible. You see the end of Saddam, the move to democracy, people risking their lives to vote, US troops risking their own lives to limit civilian deaths (if we didn't care about that we'd level half the country for 20,000 ft) and all you can call it is "blowing up poor people"?
dude wrote:
We got handed our asses in Vietnam because of the same kinds of ignorance which started the Iraq war.

So it's your view that the terrorists in Iraq represent some nationalist movement? I wonder why they spend their days killing their fellow civilians if they "represent" them...
dude wrote:
Just like the "Domino effect" which had tons of great analysis to support it, WMD is and was a delusion manufactured to motivate people to support an agenda already in place.

Sure, that's what it is. And that evil genius Bush (or is he a moron today, I haven't seen today's memo) managed to get the Clinton administration onboard long before he came to office. Amazing...
 
 
dude wrote:
Do you think that if you get into a disagreement or have a fight with someone that showing up on their doorstep with a bat in hand will solve the problem? Or, is it usually a better idea to facilitate an open dialogue and diplomatically develop a better understanding of the other person's position?

Why haven't I thought of that before? I mean, the guys that murdered 3,000 people on 9/11 really just wanted an "open dialogue". In fact, that's all Japan wanted at Pearl Harbor and all Hitler wanted from the Jews....
dude wrote:
Dude's forcast is greater conflict, unless we as a country show a very sincere interest in giving the less fortunate in the world a platform to be heard.

Here's Mike's forecast. If people as delusional as you are about the aims of the terrorists ever manage to come to positions of real power in this country, America is history.
This isn't about "open dialogue" or the needs of "the less fortunate". It's about an unrepentantly murderous element of radical Islam that wants to kill you and everyone like you, because you don't share their religious beliefs. They want, as a minimum, to reestablish the Caliphate that used to run from Spain to the Far East.
 
BTW, they'll gladly have you come join their twisted version of Islam, if you like, but you’ll have to get used to stoning to death women who are rape victims as well as gays. Oh, and you’ll have to stomach cutting off the hands of those “less fortunate” who steal a loaf of bread to feed their families.
 
 
 

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

You're a fear monger mikeB.  you belong with the Bush crowd.
Also, the idiots keep on framing this as a "bringing democracy to the world" effort.  Did you ever think that maybe the people don't want it? 
Yeah, I'm a fan of Democracy, but if you were to put yourself in their shoes with their paradigm, Democracy sounds like an American Export to them and there are dozens of emerging countries who have been bankrupted by American "democracy" (as they would see it).  Namely the numerous countries who took out infrastructure loans in the 70's from the world bank and IMF, prompted by american energy consultant's projections of growth, which never materialized leaving these countries on the hook for BILLIONS of dollars, oh and BTW, if you default on these loans, in the contract it specifies that American corporations will get resource concessions (oil and timber) which will funnel more of your wealth to the U.S. 
I have been very fortunate to have lived abroad and to have many international friends.  It's amazing to me how ignorant the average American is to a lot of these issues.  Most Americans have an opinion on International issues with out actually understanding the scope and perspectives of all parties involved.  It's kinda like Someone who is brought up under one religion and having an opinion of and making judgements about another religion that he/she has no understanding of. 

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Also, the idiots keep on framing this as a "bringing democracy to the world" effort.  Did you ever think that maybe the people don't want it? 
Well, if we bring them democracy and they reject it, as the Palistinians have done, then at least they will have had a choice.  We have to respect that choice. We don't have to like it.Right now they have no basis of comparison and no choice.  
And they have no right to make our decisions or choices, like what we can print in our newspapers, what kind of jokes we find funny or what we show on our movie screens because it doesn't align with their religious beliefs. I also have lived abroad, and have international friends and relatives from countries in Europe, Korea and South America so  I can climb on that high-horse too.

csmelnix's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-01

I hate to get into politics but...speaking as a very strong conservative MB and BL, you two are doing what the President's men did; Cherry pick what makes your case. 
To state as the pundits do that all intelligence agencies in the world claimed Iraq had WMDs is flat out wrong.  Most claimed he had the ability - it's a far cry from having and being able to deliver; especially when claiming Iraq was an imminent threat where the warning may be a mushroom cloud.  There were many agencies inside the US who disagreed with the notion that Iraq had WMDs; the state department's intelligence agency, several analysts within the CIA were doubtful, former weapons inspectors - i.e. Scott Ritter (who by the way claimed from the beginning this to be the case and was scoffed at like all the other doubters).  France, I know it's France, rejected the claim as did Russia.  And by the way, would you or any sane person who was willing to commit our nation's soldiers to war, base such a grave decision on intelligence dated back to 1998? This is what the pundits all claim when they state Clinton said it too!
Dude, frankly just raises a consistent approach Bush's administration uses when anybody disagrees with them.  The problem with this president is he is so stinking stubborn and full of himself that he can't see when he makes a mistake and adjust to it; for that would mean he would have to admit he and Rumsfeld have absolutely bungled the prosection of this war.
This CIA officer isn't the only one to come out and claim this - Gary Baer has, as has the former CIA bureau chief in the Middle East (name slips me at this time). 
BL - by the way, the army has consistently forced former VOLUNTEERS who once made a choice to serve beyond their contract.....maybe it would be more appropriate to say sending off our men to die.
Finally, anybody that believes what we are doing in Iraq is the on the right track answer these questions:
1. What's our mission in Iraq? 2.  How did we measure success in Iraq?  3.  What does when they stand up we stand down mean?  4.  How do we measure that?  5.  How many have to stand up for us to stand down?  6.  What criteria are we using to measure progress there?  7.  What is success in Iraq? 
Going to Iraq was a tremendous strategic mistake in the war on terror.  We had the world in our corner after 9/11 to tackle the Taliban and fight true terrorist networks throughout the world and those nations that truly funded and sponsored terrorism (syria, iran).  Instead we left Afghanistan early, it will bite us soon, we helped solidify in the middle east the mistrust of our efforts and improve the efforts of recruiting more terrorists.  Invading Iraq in what turns out to be bull s*&t reasons has also forced the extremism we see in Iran and the increase desire to build nuclear weapons (no better deterent against a nation bent on regime changes).  We invade Iraq and allow the 2 biggest sponsor of terrorism for years to get a pass!  Makes total sense to me. 
You all need to read up on the comments of Gen. Sheneski, Zinni, MacCaffrey, Grange, about the inept application of the battle plan this administration utilized and continuous to use today. 

csmelnix's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-01

Who the hell our we to bring democracy to anybody and force them to choose.  Since when is that are job and God given right?  Think about what that says to other nations out there.  What if Bush doesn't like our system of government, will he invade us?  Yea, sounds like a very stablizing foreign policy strategy. 

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

babbling looney wrote:
So, is it better to just bomb the sh*t out of them until they capitulate or maybe understand what we're doing that upsets them, put our exploitative agenda aside and foster some understanding
You might as well try to discuss the theory of relativity with my cat for all the good it will do to try to reason with the radical, rabid, Islamist who think that it is their way or no way.
Why do we need to understand them?  How about, they need to understand us and show some tolerance for other people's cultures. 

BL you are sooooo ignorant on this issue.  The vast majority of the Iraqi population is progressive, not radical.  Sadam Hussein is a progressive (they call them Sunni) Moslem.  In fact the vast majority of the Moslem world are not radicals.  It's like bombing innocent Americans and destroying cities because of the radical Christians that exist in our country.  
Why should they show us tolerance?  You must not be aware of the long list of things we have done to them (indonesia, Iran etc...)(from their perspective) which has resulted in greater poverty and strife.  Check out the book:
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man 
As a start.
If you all think you're getting great unbiased news in this country, y'all are supremely deluded.  In fact, of the countries I've traveled and the numerous international friends I keep in touch with America has the MOST biased and narrow news coverage out there.

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

csmelnix wrote:
I hate to get into politics but...speaking as a very strong conservative MB and BL, you two are doing what the President's men did; Cherry pick what makes your case. 
To state as the pundits do that all intelligence agencies in the world claimed Iraq had WMDs is flat out wrong.  Most claimed he had the ability - it's a far cry from having and being able to deliver; especially when claiming Iraq was an imminent threat where the warning may be a mushroom cloud.  There were many agencies inside the US who disagreed with the notion that Iraq had WMDs; the state department's intelligence agency, several analysts within the CIA were doubtful, former weapons inspectors - i.e. Scott Ritter (who by the way claimed from the beginning this to be the case and was scoffed at like all the other doubters).  France, I know it's France, rejected the claim as did Russia.  And by the way, would you or any sane person who was willing to commit our nation's soldiers to war, base such a grave decision on intelligence dated back to 1998? This is what the pundits all claim when they state Clinton said it too!
Dude, frankly just raises a consistent approach Bush's administration uses when anybody disagrees with them.  The problem with this president is he is so stinking stubborn and full of himself that he can't see when he makes a mistake and adjust to it; for that would mean he would have to admit he and Rumsfeld have absolutely bungled the prosection of this war.
This CIA officer isn't the only one to come out and claim this - Gary Baer has, as has the former CIA bureau chief in the Middle East (name slips me at this time). 
BL - by the way, the army has consistently forced former VOLUNTEERS who once made a choice to serve beyond their contract.....maybe it would be more appropriate to say sending off our men to die.
Finally, anybody that believes what we are doing in Iraq is the on the right track answer these questions:
1. What's our mission in Iraq? 2.  How did we measure success in Iraq?  3.  What does when they stand up we stand down mean?  4.  How do we measure that?  5.  How many have to stand up for us to stand down?  6.  What criteria are we using to measure progress there?  7.  What is success in Iraq? 
Going to Iraq was a tremendous strategic mistake in the war on terror.  We had the world in our corner after 9/11 to tackle the Taliban and fight true terrorist networks throughout the world and those nations that truly funded and sponsored terrorism (syria, iran).  Instead we left Afghanistan early, it will bite us soon, we helped solidify in the middle east the mistrust of our efforts and improve the efforts of recruiting more terrorists.  Invading Iraq in what turns out to be bull s*&t reasons has also forced the extremism we see in Iran and the increase desire to build nuclear weapons (no better deterent against a nation bent on regime changes).  We invade Iraq and allow the 2 biggest sponsor of terrorism for years to get a pass!  Makes total sense to me. 
You all need to read up on the comments of Gen. Sheneski, Zinni, MacCaffrey, Grange, about the inept application of the battle plan this administration utilized and continuous to use today. 

Damn........ I was starting to get worried that I was the only one who understood these issues around here.  Thanks for framing it in a more digestible format.
We are only succeeding in creating greater fear and mistrust around the world. 
BL and MB's attitudes would be more realistic if America had a history of integrity with these countries/cultures.  The problem is that there is no trust on their end of our motives.  So........attacking a vulnerable population of innocent people creates greater trust?????  No, it's more likely to escalate the acqusition of nuclear weapons and alienation.
Oh and MikeB, I am a conservative and no I'm not a conspiracy theorist.  You also can't box me in with the "Evil Oilmen" B.S. either.  I am a free thinker who questions everything, Even my own motives and knowledge.  It's how I stay objective and informed on truth not propaganda BS.  Go live in a couple different countries for a year or so and you're likely to have an awakening about the control of information.   

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

BL you are sooooo ignorant on this issue.  The vast majority of the Iraqi population is progressive, not radical.
I thought I very carefully put all the adjectives in -radical- -rabid- to distinguish between not radical, not rabid Islamists.  Where did I mention Iraq? Never.  Iraq is yesterday's mashed potatoes.  Picking nits over Iraq while the house is burning down around us is foolish.
It's like bombing innocent Americans and destroying cities because of the radical Christians that exist in our country.  
Yes, it is very much like that.  Now you get it.  It doesn't take many bombs or for that matter vials of smallpox or antrax to achieve an extremists goal. 
You must not be aware of the long list of things we have done to them (indonesia, Iran etc...)(from their perspective) which has resulted in greater poverty and strife
Typical of the I hate America crowd.  We are all baaaad people and must abase and flagilate ourselves over things that happened in the past that we had no control over or weren't even alive at the time to be able to be involved.  Yes, bad things happened and were caused by greedy men. It happened throughout history in more countries than just the United States.  We can keep a tally of all the bad things that have happened and make a get even list for later.  Get over it. Go and do good in the future.  It is this Hatfield and McCoy attitude on a global scale that will not get us anything but further into peril.   Wahhhh my grandfather was insulted by your grandfather.....so I'm going to kill your children. 
We are in a culture war and the future of Western thought and freedom is at stake.  We can show all the tolerance that we want but it will not change the fundamental intolerance of the enemy.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/dwest.htm
"Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions."Wherever Islam conquered, surrendering dhimmi, known to Muslims as "people of the book [the Bible]," were tolerated, allowed to practice their religion, but at a dehumanizing cost.  
I am not a religious person and I begrudge no one their faith in whatever god/s they choose. I'm not singling out Islam in particular,. Christianity has its own idiots and fanatics, however I don't see any rampaging Lutherans attempting to blow up buildings and people eating pizza in the name of God. 
I believe that the majority (there I spelled it out for you) of people throughout the world just want to live and get on with their lives.  The intolerance, arrogance, inflexible and intrusive attitude of the power mad and I think literally insane religious fanatics are what is fueling our headlong rush to world war.  I'm all for live and let live. Unfortunately the enemy isn't that flexible. 
I think this is a war (and I don't mean Iraq or the other political nits the left wants to focus on) that is going to last for years, decades and possibly even centuries. It has been going on for decades and centuries and now that we have really nifty weapons to be able to destroy a good portion humanity, it is coming to a head.  By the time there is a resolution, I and you will be long dead. 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

dude wrote:
You're a fear monger mikeB.  you belong with the Bush crowd.

You mean I fully understand what the terrorists THEMSELVES say their aims are.
You can start the campfire and wait to sign Kumbaya with this murderous gang. Best of luck to you on that one.
dude wrote:
Also, the idiots keep on framing this as a "bringing democracy to the world" effort.  Did you ever think that maybe the people don't want it? 

Those people lining up in Iraq, the ones risking their lives to vote, just what do you think THEY want? Let me guess, you know better than they do.
dude wrote:Yeah, I'm a fan of Democracy, but if you were to put yourself in their shoes with their paradigm, Democracy sounds like an American Export to them ...

Are you talking about Al Qeada or the people with the purple fingers?
dude wrote:
"...and there are dozens of emerging countries who have been bankrupted by American "democracy" (as they would see it). "

Oh spare me the gibberish about kelpocracies that ran off with the IMF money. I can only guess you figure they'd be better off is left to the likes of them...
 
dude wrote:
 ... prompted by american energy consultant's projections of growth, ...

Here we go again....
dude wrote:
 BTW, if you default on these loans, in the contract it specifies that American corporations will get resource concessions (oil and timber) which will funnel more of your wealth to the U.S. 

Give me a single example of a country that defaulted on an IMF debt and had, as a result, US company seize assets.
 dude wrote:
I have been very fortunate to have lived abroad and to have many international friends. 

Goody, I've been just as lucky. Perhaps I was luckier because my friends didn't try to sell those myths on me, and they were luckier because I didn't respond with the "yeah, we suck" response you're singing.
....blame America first gibberish snipped....
 
And just what does any of your mythology have to do with a "dialogue" with people who stone rape victims to death, think homosexuality should carry a death sentence, and think the short cut to heaven is to kill non-believers?
You can call me a "fear monger", I consider that a badge of honor coming from someone so deeply confused about the aims of terrorists.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

csmelnix wrote:
To state as the pundits do that all intelligence agencies in the world claimed Iraq had WMDs is flat out wrong. Most claimed he had the ability - it's a far cry from having and being able to deliver; especially when claiming Iraq was an imminent threat where the warning may be a mushroom cloud.

 
Where to begin with dispensing with this fiction? How about the idea that intel agencies well outside the US thought Saddam had WMD? Well, sorry, but that’s what Germany, Italy, the UK and French agencies said. BTW, even “having the ability” was in violation of the cease-fire agreement and a violation of the various UN resolutions.
 Next, the “imminent threat” myth. The critics love to repeat that one, but Bush said many, many times that Iraq wasn’t an “imminent threat”. What he said was waiting until Saddam was, was too late.
How about “ability to deliver”? I suppose you could have trusted Saddam to not deliver a WMD via a suitcase, a cargo ship or a terrorist group (the most likely scenario) he might had it to deliver via other means. Personally, since he wasn’t even supposed to have the means to make, much less have stockpiles, I see no reason to “trust” him after 12 years of interfering with UN inspections.
csmelnix wrote:
There were many agencies inside the US who disagreed with the notion that Iraq had WMDs; …

Name the agency that told Bush there weren’t WMDs. Not some pocket somewhere, some agent that now says he never believed it, an agency. The Senate Committee (and Dude’s CIA critic) have already admitted the intel agencies told Bush Saddam had them.
csmelnix wrote:
i.e. Scott Ritter (who by the way claimed from the beginning this to be the case and was scoffed at like all the other doubters).

You’re not going to quote Ritter, are you? We could devote an entire thread to his lunacy.
csmelnix wrote:
France, I know it's France, rejected the claim as did Russia.

Sorry, wrong on both counts. Both countries disagree with our attack, they did however, believe Saddam had WMDs.
csmelnix wrote:
And by the way, would you or any sane person who was willing to commit our nation's soldiers to war, base such a grave decision on intelligence dated back to 1998? This is what the pundits all claim when they state Clinton said it too!

Wow, talk about missing the point. The reason Clinton (among others) is often cited has having said the same things about Saddam is twofold. First, he had to deal with Saddam’s interruptions of UN inspections, his attacks on US aircraft and Saddam’s weapons programs documentation for eight years. Second, it proves that WMD worries was not a creation of the Bush administration.
 
csmelnix wrote:
The problem with this president is he is so stinking stubborn and full of himself that he can't see when he makes a mistake ....
Yawn… Bush should “admit”…. yadda yadda yadda…
csmelnix wrote:
BL - by the way, the army has consistently forced former VOLUNTEERS who once made a choice to serve beyond their contract.....
You mean the Army has consistently required a small number of volunteers to live up to the obligations in their contract, ie “stop loss”? Again, spare me. I was “stop loss” affected myself during my time in the military. Don’t try to twist that into something it isn’t.
csmelnix wrote:
Finally, anybody that believes what we are doing in Iraq is the on the right track answer these questions:
 

Again? How many times do you need those answered? The mission was to remove Saddam and leave the Iraqis to form their own, elected government. We'll leave when the gov't there can defend itself.
csmelnix wrote:
Going to Iraq was a tremendous strategic mistake in the war on terror.

It’s hard to imagine that taking away terrorism’s pal, Saddam, and pulling 57 million people out from under his boot was a “tremendous strategic mistake”. Al Qeada says over and over again that Iraq is the center of the current war. Perhaps you should believe them.
csmelnix wrote:
We had the world in our corner after 9/11 to tackle the Taliban …

What have you been smoking? We had the usual “NO WAR FOR OIL” types in the street screaming. We had Le Mode, in the second paragraph of their “We’re all Americans now” editorial saying we had it coming. BTW, where’s the evidence that some government isn’t working with us against AQ because we went to Iraq?
csmelnix wrote:
Instead we left Afghanistan early, it will bite us soon…

The voice of doom seems to not know that we left US troops under UN command there…
csmelnix wrote:
Invading Iraq in what turns out to be bull s*&t reasons has also forced the extremism we see in Iran and the increase desire to build nuclear weapons (no better deterent against a nation bent on regime changes).

You must be joking. The radicals were in charge of Iran long before we went to Iraq. In fact, what really steamed Iran’s mullahs was the US going after their pals, the Taliban.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

csmelnix wrote:Who the hell our we to bring democracy to anybody and force them to choose.   
I love the way the left has left behind their "bear any burden" roots. I supoose if you think we "forced them to chose" you gotta believe that living under Saddam wasn't that bad a gig...

skeedaddy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-16

Dude, welcome back, I guess you were just making a living. No county's
foreign policy is without self interest, certainly not ours. Our foreign
policy is full of exploitation, and I don't have a problem with that either.

Its an exchange of goods and services, kind of like our welfare system.
It's cheaper to provide cable for a welfare recipient, than pay for a jail cell.

I do however hate anything that is radical or fanatical, that goes for
politics, religion and sports. The majority of the Muslim world is not
radical, that's true. But there are over 30 million of them that are, and
that's a problem.

This conflict will not be resolved by Bush, Coca Cola or dollars. Doesn't
bin Laden have a $25 million bounty on his head? I don't have an answer,
because I can't relate to someone that self inflicts a beating with a chain,
or straps a bomb to his torso and walks into a crowded tea house.

Now I forgot what point I was trying to make, so I'll leave it there.

menotellname's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-01

Gee...I believe there is an extremely long thread on here covering these same topics.
I guess BL and Mike B still haven't learned.
Heck...wasn't BL suggesting genocide in the other thread?
Hmmmmmmmm...

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

BL suggesting genocide in the other thread?
What the f### are you talking about.  I never suggested genocide.  Prove it.
I guess BL and Mike B still haven't learned.
Learned what?  To agree with everything you say?  To roll over and play dead when the least amount of threat appears on the horizon? To give in to threats and reliquish our freedoms? To not question the party line? What?

menotellname's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-01

babbling looney wrote:
BL suggesting genocide in the other thread?
What the f### are you talking about.  I never suggested genocide.  Prove it.
I guess BL and Mike B still haven't learned.
Learned what?  To agree with everything you say?  To roll over and play dead when the least amount of threat appears on the horizon? To give in to threats and reliquish our freedoms? To not question the party line? What?

 
BL,
In one of the post Katrina threads you suggested genocide of those in New Orleans.  Kind of a sad commentary.

csmelnix's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-01

Mike B your full of sh*t.  I too was under stop loss.  When you are held beyond your contract and are force to serve it's force service.  Many reservists who were duped by the army after serving 8 years received recall stupid; not one's who were recalled prior to their 8 yrs being up and having stop loss authority over them.  Secondly, you need to study the US Code on the ability to recall reserves, the army absolutely stretched it extraordinarily to do what they did.  Open your eyes asshole.  And no, France did not say he had WMDs and yes they did say he had the abiliity.  The ability is the intrepretation, the inspectors found no evidence and yet we were all to willing to disregard their findings as further proof of not being able to believe the facts.  Agencies that countered Bush's belief:  I already said one - the State Dept. intelligence service did.  There are absolute counters to findings w/i the CIA, DIA that also discounted the notion he had them.
Anyway, my argument isn't that we went to war there per se... it's this ass of a president and his crony Rumsfeld couldn't run it any more f'd up than they have and they continue to go down the same path they have from day 1 w/o regard to outside experts like I mentioned before who have explain why they are screwing it up so bad.  And if you want to get into the battle plan of it, bring it on - I have more than first hand experience in this game; a resume I am confident you can't come close too.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

In one of the post Katrina threads you suggested genocide of those in New Orleans.  Kind of a sad commentary
Bulls##t. I did not suggest genocide.

csmelnix's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-01

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/Iraq_Summary_Tab les.pdf
George Bush has made some false claims as part of the campaign to get support for war on Iraq. For example, at Camp David on September 7, 2002 he cited a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) saying that "a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA -- that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Yet, as the Washington Post reports (October 22, 2002 or alternative location), "The IAEA did issue a report in 1998, around the time weapons inspectors were denied access to Iraq for the final time, but the report made no such assertion. It declared: 'Based on all credible information to date, the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material.' The report said Iraq had been six to 24 months away from nuclear capability before the 1991 Gulf War."
Most observers believe that the threat is less than it was in 1991, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The former head of the UN inspection team, Scott Ritter, states that 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were confirmed destroyed and that there is no evidence that Iraq retained any of its weapons or capacity for producing them. Because there have been no inspections since 1998, no one knows for sure just what Iraq has. Since 1991, Iraq has not used weapons of mass destruction nor engaged in war with any other country. Due to 12 years of UN sanctions, Iraq is now an impoverished country, making a large-scale weapons program far less feasible, Ritter said.
Few countries have had 93 per cent of their major weapons capability destroyed. This was reported by Rolf Ekeus, the chairman of the United Nations body authorised to inspect and destroy Iraq's arsenal following the Gulf War in 1991. UN inspectors certified that 817 out of the 819 Iraqi long-range missiles were destroyed. In 1999, a special panel of the Security Council recorded that Iraq's main biological weapons facilities (supplied originally by the US and Britain) 'have been destroyed and rendered harmless.'
As for Saddam Hussein's "nuclear threat," the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iraq's nuclear weapons programme had been eliminated "efficiently and effectively". The IAEA inspectors still travel to Iraq and in January [2002] reported full Iraqi compliance. Blair and Bush never mention this when they demand that "the weapons inspectors are allowed back". Nor do they remind us that the UN inspectors were never expelled by the Iraqis, but withdrawn only after it was revealed they had been infiltrated by US intelligence."
the Bush administration has for now dropped what had been a central argument used by supporters of military action against Baghdad: Iraq's links to al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations.
Although administration officials say they are still trying to develop a case linking Saddam Hussein to global terrorism, the CIA has yet to find convincing evidence, according to senior intelligence officials and outside experts with knowledge of discussions within the US Government.
Analysts who have scrutinised photographs, communications intercepts and information from foreign informants say they cannot validate two prominent allegations made by the government: links between President Saddam and al Qaeda members who have taken refuge in northern Iraq, and an April, 2001, meeting in Prague between September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent
The CIA Director George Tenet has become the unlikely source of embarrassment to President George W Bush, undermining Mr Bush's warning of catastrophic threats from Saddam Hussein and exposing disagreements within the intelligence world about the nature of the danger.
In a letter to Congress, Mr Tenet said: "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical and biological warfare against the United States."
Mr Tenet says that only if attacked would Iraq use whatever weapons of mass destruction it has.
George Bush said in his Cincinnati speech to the American people: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Assessing intentions
A central issue here is one of assessing Iraq's intentions. Numerous reports over the past few months have detailed its capabilities, though even some of those are in dispute.
Think tanks have put out several summaries. The British Government added new detail with its own dossier. The CIA has this month joined in with a document of its own.
Mr Tenet's assessment, however, deals more with intentions than with hardware.
And it raises the question whether President Bush has been exaggerating the threat to justify military action.
In March 1999, UNSCOM, reported on the state of the weapons inspections program to date and revealed the following:
The IAEA has been able, in the course of its eight years of extensive inspection activities, to develop a technically coherent picture of Iraq's clandestine nuclear programme covering the stages from the production and procurement of natural uranium compounds, through Iraq's development of enrichment processes, to the design and experimental work for the eventual weaponization of highly enriched uranium. Iraq's programme had been very well funded and was aimed at the development and production of a small arsenal of nuclear weapons, but there were no indications that Iraq had achieved its programme's objective. Most of the IAEA activities involving the destruction, removal and rendering harmless of the components of Iraq's nuclear weapons programme which to date have been revealed and destroyed were completed by the end of 1992. In February 1994, the IAEA completed the removal from Iraq of all weapon-usable nuclear material essentially research reactor fuel. On the basis of its findings, the Agency is able to state that there is no indication that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons or any meaningful amounts of weapon-usable nuclear material or that Iraq has retained any practical capability (facilities or hardware) for the production of such material. [Emphasis Added]
... With regard to ... verification of the material balance of proscribed missiles and related operational assets, UNSCOM was able to destroy or otherwise account for: (a) 817 out of 819 imported operational missiles of proscribed range; (b) all declared mobile launchers for proscribed Al Hussein class missiles, including 14 operational launchers; the disposition of 9 of the 10 imported trailers used for the indigenous production of mobile launchers; and the destruction of 56 fixed missile launch sites; (c) 73 to 75 chemical and biological warheads of the declared 75 operational special warheads for Al Hussein class missiles; 83 of the 107 imported and some 80 of the 103 indigenously produced conventional warheads declared by Iraq to be in its possession at the time of the adoption of resolution 687.
... UNSCOM has supervised or been able to certify the destruction,, removal or rendering harmless of large quantities of chemical weapons (CW), their components and major chemical weapons production equipment as follows: (a) over 88,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions; (b) over 600 tonnes of weaponized and bulk CW agents; (c) some 4,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals; (d) some 980 pieces of key production equipment; (e) some 300 pieces of analytical instruments. The prime CW development and production complex in Iraq was dismantled and closed under UNSCOM supervision and other identified facilities have been put under monitoring.
UNSCOM ordered and supervised the destruction of Iraq's main declared BW production and development facility, Al Hakam. Some 60 pieces of equipment from three other facilities involved in proscribed BW activities as well as some 22 tonnes of growth media for BW production collected from four other facilities were also destroyed. As a result, the declared facilities of Iraq's BW programme have been destroyed and rendered harmless.  ... in spite of well-known difficult circumstances, UNSCOM and IAEA have been effective in uncovering and destroying many elements of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes in accordance with the mandate provided by the Security Council. It is the panel's understanding that IAEA has been able to devise a technically coherent picture of Iraq's nuclear weapons programme. UNSCOM has achieved considerable progress in establishing material balances of Iraq's proscribed weapons. Although important elements still have to be resolved, the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated.
In addition, Professor Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in politics at Cambridge University in Britain provides detailed analysis of the state of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Amongst many things he notes that
If the allegations that Iraq possessed a stockpile of illicit weapons were to be true, then the UK and US would need to present credible evidence that Iraq had managed to stabilise its chemical and biological agents to a greater extent than it is previously thought to have done. The UK dossier does not make this claim, except as an unsubstantiated assertion that Iraq had "the knowledge and capability to add stabiliser to nerve agent and other chemical warfare agents which would prevent such decomposition." The fact that this assertion falls short of the claim that Iraq actually achieved the stabilisation of its chemical agents can be taken as an acknowledgement that no evidence has been discovered - after over 7 years of intrusive inspections and 11 years of intelligence gathering - to demonstrate Iraq's retention of stabilised chemical or biological agents.
Furthermore, the claims about Iraq possessing a stockpile of biological weapons created before 1991 may suffer from the same problems as discussed for the notion of a stockpile of chemical weapons, above.
—       Glen Rangwala, Claims and evaluations of Iraq's proscribed weapons, February 6, 2003
—       Perhaps one of the biggest revelations (and one of the most silent in the mainstream media) has been how perhaps the most key defector, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, General Hussein Kamel, the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation had stated categorically in 1995 that "All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed." He said this in an interview to UNSCOM and IAEA after he defected to Jordan in in August 1995. When he had returned to Iraq in 1996 he was assassinated. He was no friend of the Iraq regime, for in that interview, he said "I can state publicly I will work against the regime." Yet on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, he is clear that Iraq destroyed these weapons after the Gulf War.
 
As another common example also reported often by the mainstream media, Iraq supposedly kicked out the U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.


  • The inspectors were not kicked out, but withdrawn by the U.S. in order for the bombing to commence.

  • It was also claimed that Iraq was not cooperating and that this was another reason for withdrawing.

  • However, there were many reports from U.S. newspapers that CIA engineers were working amongst the UN inspection team.

  • Iraq therefore felt it had some legitimate reasons not to cooperate any more.

 
Iraqi intelligence was successful in intercepting and recording CIA engineers in Iraq as part of the inspection teams.  They also were aware of the Israeli intelligence assisting the inspectors.  What is never mentioned is the United States in attempts to provoke Iraqi non-compliance, repeatedly sought to inspect the headquarters of Saddam Hussein’s personal security facilities.  As a sovereign nation and fully aware of the US desire to oust him as leader of Iraq, it is no surprise that such access was consistently denied.

By Jessica T. Mathews and Jeff Miller

Published: March 31, 2004

 

 

The failure to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq is frequently portrayed as the result of either intelligence failures or misrepresentation of the intelligence by others. In fact, both were involved. It appears that a third factor was involved as well: misrepresentation of intelligence by the intelligence community itself.
One week before lawmakers were to vote on the use of force in Iraq, the CIA released an unclassified version of its just-completed National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). As the intelligence community's definitive judgments on key issues, NIEs are always important documents on which great care is expended. However, this NIE was unusually important because it was the authoritative assessment of the Iraqi threat available to members of Congress on which to base a decision whether to support or oppose a war.
A close comparison of the unclassified version (CIA White Paper: "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs," published in October 2002) and the original classified NIE (parts of which were declassified and released after the war), reveals striking differences. In addition to changes presumably made to protect sensitive sources and methods, the differences are of two types. Some convey the impression that the intelligence community was much more confident and more united in its views than it actually was. Others appear designed to portray a sense of heightened threat, and particularly of a threat that could touch the U.S. homeland. Sentences and phrases in the classified NIE expressing uncertainty were deleted while new formulations alluding to gathering danger were added.
The words "we judge" and "we assess" were deleted from five key findings of the classified document. For example, the classified version read: "We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs." The unclassified version stated: "Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs." The classified NIE opined: "We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents." In the unclassified version, this was a certainty: "Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents." The classified version expressed the view: "We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin) and VX." The unclassified version was unequivocal: "Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents." In each case, uncertainties turned into fact.
The unclassified version had no reference to the dissenting opinions of the Department of Energy, U.S. Air Force, or the extensive dissenting views of the Department of State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) on Iraq's nuclear weapons program and its attempts to acquire aluminum tubes. Instead, where there was agency disagreement, the unclassified version used the phrase "most analysts assess" or "most analysts believe." Only on one occasion did the unclassified version mention the reason why "some" analysts disagreed. We now know that entire government agencies rejected many of what were portrayed as consensus judgments and that they held less alarmist views of Iraqi behavior.
A summary box that assigned confidence levels to key judgments was expunged. Only in the classified NIE did the intelligence community reveal that it had "low confidence" in its ability to assess: when Saddam would use WMD; whether he would engage in clandestine attacks against the United States; and, whether he would share chemical or biological weapons with Al Qaeda. The judgments themselves, also omitted, were that the intelligence community believed Saddam was unlikely to engage in such risky activity unless he was provoked by fear of regime change; in other words, unless he faced imminent attack.
The following excerpts detail more of the striking differences between the two documents. They raise a disturbing question: why the director of central intelligence would release a document purporting to reflect the consensus judgment of the intelligence agencies that distorted those views in highly significant ways.
In recent congressional testimony, CIA director George Tenet asserted: "You have the confidence to know that when I believed somebody was misconstruing intelligence I said something about it." (3/9/04) In this case it appears that he misconstrued the available intelligence himself.
Key sentences omitted from the unclassified version:


  • "We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD program."

  • "We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD."

  • "He probably would use CBW when he perceived he irretrievably had lost control of the military and security situation, but we are unlikely to know when Saddam reaches that point."

  • "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war."

  • "Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge."

  • The classified NIE expresses low confidence in its ability to assess "whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida."

Material added to the unclassified version (additions italicized):

  • "Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the US Homeland."

  • "Baghdad's UAVs-especially if used for delivery of chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents-could threaten Iraq's neighbors, US forces in the Persian Gulf, and the United States if brought close to, or into, the US Homeland."

However, some omissions arguably make the unclassified version less alarmist than the original (information that was only in the classified version is italicized):

  • "Iraq's efforts to re-establish and enhance its cadre of weapons personnel as well as activities at several suspect nuclear sites further indicate that reconstitution is underway."

  • "Baghdad probably has developed genetically engineered BW agents."

  • "An array of clandestine reporting reveals that Baghdad has procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and equipment sufficient to allow limited CW agent production hidden within Iraq's legitimate chemical industry."

  • "Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear weapons program about the same time that UNSCOM inspectorsdeparted - December 1998."

  • "Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons and possibly as much as 500 metric tons of CW agents - much of it added in the last year."

Jessica Mathews is president of the Carnegie Endowment and Jeff Miller is a researcher in the president's office.

By Joseph Cirincione

Published: April 01, 2005

function largePhoto(photo_id,tableName) {
urlString = ('/index.cfm?fa=show_photo&photo_id=' + photo_id +'&tableName=' + tableName);
winStats='toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no ,menubar=no,resizable=yes,'
winStats+='scrollbars=yes,width=600,height=400'
if (navigator.appName.indexOf("Microsoft")>=0) {
winStats+=',left=100,top=10'
}else{
winStats+=',screenX=100,screenY=10'
}
aWindow=window.open(urlString,"thewindow",winStats)
}

The president’s commission on intelligence delivered half a report. Like the colonel played by Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men," the commission acted as if America can’t handle the truth. The commissioners would have us believe that those who provided the false intelligence were solely to blame, and the senior political leaders who ordered and presented the claims to the public were passive victims. Conservative pundits have quickly declared, "case closed," and urge us to focus on rearranging the deck chairs on the intelligence ship. But buried deep inside the report is evidence that contradicts the commission’s own conclusions and raises serious questions about their recommendations. Most damning is the tale of two CIA analysts who were removed from their positions for "causing waves" when they questioned the reliability of the defector known as "Curveball."
This story only appears 200 pages into the report. It is at the very end of the Iraq section (pg. 192) after Conclusion 26 that finds no evidence of politicization of the intelligence.
An analyst with WINPAC (the CIA’s Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center) was in Iraq in the summer and fall of 2003 and reported serious doubts about the reliability of Curveball’s claims that Saddam built mobile biological labs and conducted biowarfare experiments. We now know that the analyst was correct. Curveball lied. There were no mobile biolabs or bioweapons of any kind. The commission reports that in late 2003, the CIA did not want to admit that "Curveball was a fabricator…because of concerns about how this would look to the ‘Seventh Floor’ and to "downtown.’" Instead, says the commission, the analyst was "read the riot act’ by his office director who accused him of ‘making waves’ and being ‘biased.’" He was kicked out of WINPAC. The same punishment was meted out to a chemical weapons analyst in Iraq who pressed for a reassessment of the CIA’s claims of a large-scale CW program. He, too, was forced to leave WINPAC.
To most reasonable observers, this would be a clear case of senior management not wanting to change a threat assessment that was heavily used by the White House "downtown." Political considerations trumped the findings from the professional analysts. However, the commission does not agree. . They label this "bad management" and a "failure of tradecraft."
No Evidence?
Only by applying this tortured logic is the commission able to reach Conclusion 26, "The Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments in response to political pressure to reach a particular conclusion.” The commission chairmen say they found "absolutely no instance" in which anyone reported feeling pressure to change an assessment.
The Los Angeles Times notes in an April 1 editorial, "Somehow, the panel must have missed the intelligence agents who told reporters for The Times on several prewar occasions that they thought their product was being politicized and that they were pushed to provide evidence to support the Bush administration’s claims." The panel must have also forgotten (even though it cites the article from the Washington Post December 9, 2004 in footnote 860) about the lawsuit filed by an analyst who said his superiors at the CIA "insisted that Plaintiff falsify his reporting" and when he refused, he was removed from his position. These claims may not be correct, but they are not even mentioned by the commission. In fact, their existence is denied.
The panel did note on page 11, "It is hard to deny the conclusion that intelligence analysts worked in an environment that did not encourage skepticism about the conventional wisdom." Further on page 14, "In ways both subtle and not so subtle, the daily reports [to the president] seemed to be ‘selling’ intelligence—in order to keep its customers, or at least the First Customer, interested."
Despite the "gossamer nature of evidence" regarding Iraq allegedly importing uranium from Niger, which President Bush infamously referenced in his 2003 State of the Union address, the Department of Energy concluded that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. A senior intelligence officer quoted in the report noted on page 75 that DOE’s "position had ‘made sense politically but not substantively’ and that one analyst said "DOE didn’t want to come out before the war and say [Iraq] was not reconstituting."
Finally, if it truly was management and tradecraft failures that skewed the intelligence, then why didn’t these failures skew the intelligence prior to 2002? Same management, same tradecraft, but the estimates in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 were decidedly more cautious and more accurate. It is only in 2002 that the estimates make several unexplained dramatic leaps in findings and certainty. The Carnegie Endowment study, "WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications" detailed this pattern in January 2003.
The dots are all there, but the commission did not connect them. The commission did not question the president or the vice-president, or apparently any senior official outside the intelligence agencies. Thus, we do not know what happened in the repeated meetings Vice President Cheney had with CIA officials. We do not know what impact the vice-president assertions of "absolute certainty" of an Iraqi nuclear program in August and September 2003 had on the development of the deeply flawed October National Intelligence Estimate. We do not know how the intelligence activities of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Stephen Cambone and Under Secretary Douglas Feith impacted the assessments because the commission never examined their work. They could have done all this, even with their purposely narrow mandate to examine only the performance of the intelligence agencies. They did not.
Thus, we do not have an adequate basis for judging the validity of their recommendations. Is one of the keys to "push" the intelligence community more, as the commission recommends, or was it too much pushing by the White House that caused the problem? We cannot say. The report may have some useful findings and recommendations, but until we get the whole truth we cannot have confidence in many of the changes now being implemented.
The truth is out there. And we can handle it.

 

09 June 2003
Defense Agency Issues Excerpt on Iraqi Chemical Warfare Program(DIA director Jacoby clarifies press reports on agency assessment) (1290) The Defense Department released on June 7 an unclassified excerpt ofan earlier Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study on Iraq's chemicalwarfare (CW) program in which it stated that there is "no reliableinformation on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemicalweapons, or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemicalwarfare agent production facilities." But the excerpt, drawn from a classified DIA study published inSeptember 2002, also Stated that "Iraq will develop various elementsof its chemical industry to achieve self-sufficiency in producing thechemical precursors required for CW agent production." The fullexcerpt is based on the DIA's analysis titled: "Iraq -- Key WMDFacilities -- An Operational Support Study." The official unclassified excerpt was leaked to the media on June 6.Navy Admiral Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense IntelligenceAgency (DIA), stepped forward the same day to clarify his agency's2002 assessment of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, saying "DIAjoined in the intelligence community assessment ... that they had aweapons of mass destruction program in place." Jacoby made his remarks during a media availability on Capitol Hill atthe invitation of Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Chairman JohnWarner (Republican, Virginia) following a closed hearing on themissions of the 75th Exploitation Task Force and the Iraq Survey Group-- both of which are involved in the search for information relatingto Iraq's WMD. Warner said Jacoby's clarification -- first made duringthe closed committee session -- had interest to the public at large. Jacoby was responding to questions raised after the June 6 pressreports suggesting that in the lead-up to policy decisions about Iraqiweapons capabilities, the DIA found there was no reliable informationthat Iraq was producing and stockpiling chemical weapons. The DIAdirector said the quote appearing in media reporting was actually asingle sentence lifted out of a much longer planning document. "It talks about the fact that at the time, in September 2002, we couldnot specifically pin down individual facilities operating as part ofthe weapons of mass destruction programs, specifically, the chemicalwarfare portion," he said, according to an unofficial transcript ofthe exchange with reporters. "It is not, in any way, intended toportray the fact that we had doubts that such a program existed ...was active, or ... was part of the Iraqi WMD infrastructure" Jacobyadded. "We did not have doubts about the existence of the program," thedirector said. As of September 2002, he continued, "we could notreliably pin down, for somebody who was doing contingency planning,specific facilities, locations or production that was underway at aspecific location at that point in time." Asked if additional information surfaced about Iraq after September,Jacoby said: "there was (a) continuing flow of information coming into us for analysis and assessment during that whole period." Prior to Jacoby's clarification, media reporting about the DIA studyfueled a brewing controversy by suggesting that elements of the Bushadministration may have shaded or exaggerated existing intelligenceabout Iraq's WMD programs to gain support for the war in 2003. Warner urged people to trust the administration "as we go forward tosearch out" answers about Iraq's WMD capabilities. "I would hope wewould have the opportunity to have public hearings to dispel whateverdoubts remain," he said. Warner went on to emphasize that committee members will draw theirconclusions about the reliability of the intelligence "only after avery careful and methodical review of material, evidence of all types,and testimony from a wide range of individuals. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff ChairmanGeneral Richard Myers made remarks to reporters on June 5 during amedia stakeout following a meeting with House Intelligence Committeemembers. Rumsfeld endorsed existing intelligence about Iraq and saidthat he believes "that the presentation (to the United Nations) madeby Secretary Powell (February 5) was accurate and will be proved to beaccurate." Following is the unclassified excerpt of the 2002 DIA study: (begin excerpt) A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors,munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United NationsSpecial Commission) actions. Nevertheless, we believe Iraq retainedproduction equipment, expertise and chemical precursors and canreconstitute a chemical warfare program in the absence of aninternational inspection regime. Iraq's successful use of chemicalweapons in the past against Iranian troops and Kurdish civiliansincreases the likelihood of a chemical warfare reconstitution. Iraqhas not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing andstockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has -- or will --establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities. Unusualmunitions transfer activity in mid-2002 suggests that Iraq isdistributing CW munitions in preparation for an anticipated U.S.attack. Iraq retains all the chemicals and equipment to produce theblister agent mustard but its ability for sustained production ofG-series nerve agents and VX is constrained by its stockpile of keychemical precursors and by the destruction of all known CW productionfacilities during Operation Desert Storm and during subsequent UNSCOMinspections. In the absence of external aid, Iraq will likelyexperience difficulties in producing nerve agents at the rate executedbefore Operation Desert Storm.
To add to Blair's woes, Paul Wolfowitz, US deputy Defense secretary and the man credited with being the architect of the Iraqi war, told American magazine Vanity Fair last week that the Bush administration only focused on alleged WMDs because it was a politically convenient means of justifying the removal of Saddam. 'For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction,' the leading neo-conservative hawk said, 'because it was the one reason everyone could agree on'.
Then to cap it all, a secret transcript of a discussion between US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw came to light on Friday showing that, even while they were telling the world that Saddam was armed and dangerous, the pair were worried that the claims about Iraq's WMD program couldn't be proved. Powell reportedly told Straw he hoped that when the facts came out they wouldn't 'explode in their faces'.
So how on earth did the British people come to believe Saddam was sitting in one of his palaces with an itchy trigger finger poised above a button marked 'WMD'? And if there were no WMDs, then why did we fight the war? The answer lies with Rumsfeld.
With September 11 as his ideological backdrop, Rumsfeld decided in autumn 2001 to establish a new intelligence agency, independent of the CIA and the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP). He put his deputy, Wolfowitz, in charge. The pair were dissatisfied with the failure of the CIA among others to provide firm proof of both Saddam's alleged WMD arsenal and links to al-Qaeda.
Regime change in Iraq had been a long-term goal of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Even before Bush took over the presidency in September 2000 the pair were planning 'regime change' in Iraq. As founders of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), one of the USA's most extreme neo-con think-tanks, the pair were behind what has been described as the 'blueprint' for US global domination -- a document called Rebuilding America's Defenses.
Other founders of the PNAC include: Vice-President Dick Cheney; Bush's younger brother Jeb; and Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff. The Rebuilding America's Defenses. document stated: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'
The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great-power rival and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.
It also calls for America to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' and describes US armed forces as 'the calvary on the new American frontier'. The UN is sidelined as well, with the PNAC saying that peace-keeping missions demand 'American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations'.
That was the policy blueprint, but to deliver it Rumsfeld turned to the Office of Special Plans. Put simply, the OSP was told to come up with the evidence of WMD to give credence to US military intervention.
But what do conventional intelligence experts make of the OSP? Colonel Patrick Lang is a former chief of human intelligence for the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in the 1990s. He was also the DIA's chief of Middle East intelligence and was regularly in Iraq. He said of the OSP : 'This office had a great deal of influence in a number of places in Washington in a way that seemed to me to be excessive and rather ill-advised.
'The regular organizations of the intelligence community have very rigorous rules for how you evaluate information and resources, and tend to take a conservative view of analytic positions because they're going to dictate government decisions.
'That wasn't satisfactory in Secretary Rumsfeld's Pentagon so he set up a separate office to review this data, and the people in this office, although they're described as intelligence people, are by and large congressional staffers. They seemed to me not to have deceived intentionally but to have seen in the data what they believe is true. I think it's a very risky thing to do.'
Most of the OSP intelligence was based on debriefings with Iraqi exiles -- a tactic, says Lang, which is highly questionable as the exiles have clear, personal agendas that might taint their claims. But even if the US was using selective intelligence to justify war against Iraq, does that mean that Tony Blair was also being briefed with OSP intelligence ? According to Melvin Goodman, veteran CIA analyst and current professor of national security at the National War College in Washington, the answer is an unequivocal 'yes'. Goodman says that there is 'no question' that Blair was 'brought along at the highest level' by Bush and Rumsfeld, adding that the Prime Minister was 'vulnerable because of his own evangelical bent' over bringing democracy to the Middle East.
That US view has been corroborated by British intelligence sources who have confirmed to the Sunday Herald that the UK government was being influenced by the selective intelligence emanating from the OSP. Senior UK intelligence sources representing a range of views from across all the spying services said: 'There was absolute skepticism among British intelligence over the invasion of Iraq. The intelligence we were working on was basically of a technical nature coming from satellite surveillance and eavesdropping. The only real Humint (human intelligence from agents) that we had was from Iraqi exiles and we were skeptical of their motives.'
It was this 'tainted' information which was used to compile the crucial dossier on Iraq which Blair presented to MPs last September. The most sensational part of the dossier claimed that Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes -- a claim based on one single Iraqi defector. A British intelligence source said: 'The information had been lying around for ages. The problem was we didn't really trust the defectors as they were working in their own self-interest and really doing their master's bidding -- by that I mean us, the UK. They also had one eye to the future and their role in any new Iraqi government.'
The British intelligence source said the best Humint on Saddam was held by the French who had agents in Iraq.
'French intelligence was telling us that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD program That's why France wanted a longer extension on the weapons inspections. The French, the Germans and the Russians all knew there were no weapons there -- and so did Blair and Bush as that's what the French told them directly. Blair ignored what the French told us and instead listened to the Americans.'
Another source -- an official involved in preparing the Iraqi dossier for Blair -- told the BBC: 'Most people in intelligence weren't happy with [the dossier] as it didn't reflect the considered view they were putting forward.' Other sources said they accepted there was a 'small WMD program in Iraq, but not one that would either threaten the West or even Saddam's neighbors. Another said they were 'very unhappy' with the dossier, others said they were 'pissed off' and one described the claim that WMDs could be ready in 45 minutes as 'complete and utter bollocks'.
The Sunday Herald was told: 'The spooks were being asked to write this stuff. The dossier had been lying around for about six months. When it came time for publication Downing Street said it wasn't exciting or convincing enough. The message was that it didn't cut the mustard in terms of PR as there wasn't much more in it than a discerning newspaper reader would know.
June 9, 2003
Institute for Science and International Security
Despite the Bush Administration's assertions, allies of the United States did not fully agree with the Administration's assessment on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Prior to the war in Iraq, some foreign countries questioned U.S. assertions on WMD presence in Iraq. Now, some in the U.S. Congress question whether or not the intelligence agencies manipulated intelligence to gain support for the war in Iraq. However, the White House insists that U.S. intelligence on Iraq's WMD were fairly presented. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said that the efforts of the Saddam Hussein regime to conceal its actions "clearly give a picture of a regime that had weapons of mass destruction and was determined to conceal them."1
The debate on Iraqi WMD continues. For example, Russia was not convinced by either the September 24, 2002 British dossier or the October 4, 2002 CIA report. Lacking sufficient evidence, Russia dismissed the claims as a part of a "propaganda furor."2 Specifically targeting the CIA report, Putin said, "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another." He goes on to say, "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."3 However, Putin was apprehensive about the possibility that Iraq may have WMDs and he therefore supported inspections. The Russian ambassador to London thought that the dossier was a document of concern. "It is impressive, but not always…convincing."4
French intelligence services did not come up with the same alarming assessment of Iraq and WMD as did the Britain and the United States. "According to secret agents at the DGSE, Saddam's Iraq does not represent any kind of nuclear threat at this time…It [the French assessment] contradicts the CIA's analysis…"5 French spies said that the Iraqi nuclear threat claimed by the United States was a "phony threat."6
After Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech on February 5, 2003 to the United Nations Security Council, the focus of discussion among U.S. allies changed. France, Russia, and Germany did not find Powell's "evidence" strong enough to support the U.S.'s stance on the Iraqi threat. However, having already questioned the veracity of the dossier and CIA report, they instead concentrated on persuading the international community to continue UN inspections.

 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

csmelnix wrote:
Mike B your full of sh*t.  I too was under stop loss.  When you are held beyond your contract and are force to serve it's force service. 

It's in the contract you sign when you join. "Forced" is nonsense.
 
csmelnix wrote: .... the army absolutely stretched it extraordinarily to do what they did. 

You mean they acted within the law, right? Yeah, that's what I thought you meant...
csmelnix wrote:
 And if you want to get into the battle plan of it, bring it on - I have more than first hand experience in this game; a resume I am confident you can't come close too.

You're blowing smoke, pal. We can compare service records, if you like.  When did you attend C&GSOC? No? OK, when did you attend CAS3? Nope? OK, how about the IOAC? Again nothing? Hmmm, ok, when did you get out of BCT? 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

menotellname wrote:
Gee...I believe there is an extremely long thread on here covering these same topics.
I guess BL and Mike B still haven't learned.
Heck...wasn't BL suggesting genocide in the other thread?
Hmmmmmmmm...

Sounds like menotelltruth is still up to his old habits....

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

csmelnix wrote:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/Iraq_Summary_Tab les.pdf
George Bush has made some false claims as .....
 

 
Wow, all that wasted bandwidth in a failed attempt to try to counter the fact that the head of the CIA, appointed by Clinton, said it was a "slam dunk”…..

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

For those confused by some incorrect reporting here, here's a source, a critic of Bush as a matter of fact, who sheds light on what the French Intelligence agencies thought;
http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd77/77iraq.htm
In contrast, according to Blix, President Chirac had a healthy scepticism about intelligence. Although the French intelligence services were convinced WMD remained in Iraq, Chirac recognised that the intelligence services "sometimes intoxicate each other". His thinking "seemed to be dominated by the conviction that Iraq did not pose a threat that justified armed intervention".9
Blix's book; Disarming Iraq: the search for weapons of mass destruction
 

7GOD63's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-01-29

CX you hate Bush? Did you vote for Gore? So we should have just sat back like Clinton did and the world we be a wonderful place? During Clintons years terrorists were running around the world and breading like rabbits. A few of my dorm mates died in the Kobar Tower bombing. Embassies around the world were being blown up. US Cole. World Trade Center I and II. Extreme idology spreding throughout the world. Mostly they focused on societys that were illiterate and poor (Africa, Middle East and Palestine). They were the easiest to influence.
Oh wait I am sorry Bush should have prevented World Trade Center II since he was in power for 7 months.
It sucks that US troops (100% of them were not drafted) have died, but the fact is the world is a better place. There are a lot of studies that show countries have a better opinion of America then they did pre 9/11. Who is helping the Pakistani's? Who freed 50,000,000 in Afganistan and Iraq? Lybia now has an open policy. Jordan, Saudi, Pakistan, Turkey, Spain, Eastern Europe, Kuwait, Iraq, Afganistan, Indonesia, Poland, Japan, Singapore, Ukrain, Moldova, New Zealand, Britian, Lithuania, South Korea, Kazakhstan, Columbia, Bolgeria, Netherlands, Finland, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Norway, Yamen, Australia and most of the world is on our side with the war against terrorism.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalit ion.htm
I don't know your stop loss situation, but since you type here you are alive. Thanks for serving. As I serve I am proud that we have a leader who does not flip flop. He said before he became president we need better home land security. He stated we will follow terrorists to the end of earth and we are. He utilizes all means necessary to protect the mother land and for that he is one of the best presidents in our history. Don King agrees with me on this.
Remember September 11th did happen and everything from the New Years, Brooklin Bridge, Buffalo 6, Los Angelas and everything we don't know about was prevented due to a strong NATIONAL DEFENSE and intel policy.  Saddam is in prison. 50 of the top 55 terrorists in IRAQ are dead or captured. Bin - Ladden is in a hole in Tora Bora and his training camps and army are gone. Talaban is dead. Our intel is 100% better then it was in the 90's. The list goes on and on, but if one is against BUSH then the sky is falling. One final thing..... George Bush is gone in 3 years. Then Mitt Romney will be the president.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:This blind love of Bush is about to cause its adherence a great deal of pain.
Gee, that sounds so much like the "We'll take back the House in 1994, 96, 98, 2000, 2002, 2004..." it's a broken record.
BTW, what's about to cause some adherents a great deal of pain is the irrational Bush-hatred on the part of people who can't even form a rational alternative. Oops, too late, it's already destroyed the Democrats...
SonnyClips wrote:
 Oh and 7 months after your elected you have the largest attack on the US by foreign forces should reflect poorly on your leadership. If not when do we draw the line for when you're responsible?

You may have forgotten, but your side already had an election to make that case and John "You bet we might have" Kerry lost.
 

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

SonnyClips wrote:Mitt Romney is as likely to be our next President as Hillary. As far as Bush nothing will prove his failure like history.
Or success.  I agree that Hillary will never be President.  She has too many skeletons in her closet.  Can we all say Rose Hill law firm records and Vince Foster.  Basically she is hard, cold calculating, self centered b#tch.
Mitt Romney strikes me as one of the more capable candidates that the Republicans can put forward.  Who else have they got?   Certainly not McCain.  He is about at popular with the Republican base as Hillary is.This blind love of Bush is about to cause its adherence a great deal of pain.
There is no blind love of Bush. I see his failings and am not happy with everything he has done.  He should do more to stop illegal immigration and enforce the deportation of illegals.  He needs to veto and veto and veto bills until Congress quits spending like drunken sailors.  He needs to keep the Federal Government out of issues like the Oregon suicide law.  He should have stood firmly on the side of Denmark in the cartoon jihad.  He needs to be much tougher on calling the Democrats who actively want to see us fail in the war on terror for their own political benefit what they really are...greedy treasonous cowards.
It is only the BDS people like yourself (I presume) who see things in black and white only.  If you hate Bush then I must love him.  Not so.
 The facts are not breaking in your favor. Oh and 7 months after your elected you have the largest attack on the US by foreign forces should reflect poorly on your leadership. If not when do we draw the line for when you're responsible? If something screwed up in your job of a similar magnitude don't you think you would be held accountable, and rightly so?
Bush was only in office for 7 months and he is supposed to be responsible for 15 or more years of irresponsible foreign policy?!?  8 years of Clinton allowing the US to be pushovers for terrorists and bitch slapped by the extremists and the folly of the Carter administration by allowing Iran to box us into a corner by holding hostages for over a year set the stage for 9/11.  The years of intelligence gathering that is now questionable in its quality is Bush's fault?   You can't be serious.  He wasn't in office even long enough to rearrange the furniture in the White House, much less undo years of bad policy.
Let's put it this way.  I bring you my portfolio that has stocks that I bought in 1999, like Cisco, Lucent, Enron etc.  I have lost a lot of money and now it is YOUR fault because you have control of my portfolio.  Right!!!  You must also feel accountable for Wounded Knee, Slavery and the Japanese internment camps too if this is your rational. You can't go back and change the past. All you can do is work with what you have and try to change the future.  To expect Bush to be a mind reader who could travel to the past and fix all the problems of the world in his first 7 months in office is just ludicrous.  I think you are smarter than that, if you can just overcome your BDS.

csmelnix's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-01

MB- resume chk douche. 
YG'92; 1 rifle plt 2/327 101:  '94 3 Bn/75th B Co right down on Heart attack hill:  Q Course in '96 along w/ IOAC and CAS in Leavenworth and later w/ SFAS in Bragg and 2 yrs w/ 5th group in Campbell.  Their  focus - do you know?   
Of course you do - you are so much a better expert on that area of the world w/ no real world experience.  Pogue good indicator of that is your are an employee v an owner and your resume was laughable, pretty standard.  Isn't it about time for another b/d change.
Now on to the contract: When somebody signs up they sign up for 8 years.  When after 8 years you get called back that's beyond your obligation.  The army stretch is when they pull some bull crap out of their hat and know full well not a court in the country will rule against them.  US Code gives Congress the right and the President the right under national emergency to hold members beyond 8 years.  However, when you are already beyond 8 and have resigned or been discharged - this is my complaint.  I have zero sympathy as well when somebody has 6 plus months or so left on that 8 year commitment.
Say what you will about Scott Ritter, but isn't it funny how everything he said about what we will find in Iraq has come to fruition? 
To clarify:  I am a conservative just like Pat Buchanon who by the way has almost identical views as I, does that make him a traitor too.  The fact is, Pat comes from the cloth of true conservatism, where we MIND governmental intrusion, expansion of their power and the sticking of their nose in other countries business.  NO I DID NOT VOTE FOR GORE nor JOHN "why the long face" Kerry. 
The quote you pull on Iraq is 3rd source opinion...Chirac made straight his belief that we would not find any WMDs there because they actually had humint on the ground and also because they believed what our administration didn't; that is, when we sent over 40 family members of Iraqi regime heads to Iraq to seek the "truth" about their WMDs program - every one of them came back stating just what SCOTT RITTER, the State Dept Intell and parts of the CIA and DIA stated - they were destroyed by 1994. 
Again, regardless if you believe we should have or shouldn't have gone to Iraq at the end of the day is not my issue with the Bush administration.  It is what I said last time - you couldn't mismanage a war any better than he has.  This is undeniable even to a well respected IOAC graduate like yourself.  And just in case it isn't clear answer the questions I pose in my first thread (that you conveniently glossed over):  Do you know from your big army training what the basic rule of thumb is to determine size of force necessary to begin offensive ground operations?  It's a far cry from what Rumsfeld used - here's a hint; according to Rumsfeld Iraq would be a nation of say 12 million.  Guess how many are in Iraq's capital?  How about Basra?  How about Mosul?  How about Tikrit, Ramadi, etc etc...
What's our mission in Iraq?  (recall the who, what, when, where and why).  What metrics are we using to determine success/failure in Iraq?  How do we know when we have success there?  What does it mean, "when they stand up we stand down?"  How many have to stand up for us to stand down?  What criteria are we using to determine when stand up occurs?  
You and I can ask 100 people these questions inside and outside the military, you will get consistently several different answers for each.  When you decide as a commander to commit our forces you have an obligation to ensure you have done everything in your power as their leader to provide them with the weapons, equipment and information necessary to win and that you will win at all costs.  Bush has failed miserably here and that is why I hate what he has done with our fight there.  Good bad or in different it is what it is and these facts or indisputable by events on the ground; even you, with that powerful resume must see this too.

csmelnix's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-01

7GOD - you are putting words in my mouth.  I am not sitting here bragging about Clinton; My service was under him and he didn't do our nation proud either.  Read what I am complaining about - and I will take issue that our world is a better place; this is going to get a lot worse, before it gets better.  My stop loss has nothing to do with my dispute here either; it never played a role.  I love that we waited zero time to destroy the Taliban I am not so happy we left as quickly as we did there.  We are fighting a war on Terror right?  Why Iraq and not Syria or Iran?  They have been the two biggest state sponsors of terror for over 4 decades yet we pretty much gave them a pass for Iraq?  That's a big contention of mine 7G that's all.  As my last post stated; this is where I hate our situation, we went to Iraq and have just bungled the execution of that war and now we are in a situation of not being able to handle a far greater threat to our world, not just us, in Iran.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Romney I think is a tough sell in alot of circles because of his churches baptizing dead Jews and such. The Mormons don't get such a great reception at the Holocaust museum when the do these posthumous baptismal rights. Sounds crazy don't it? That and evangelicals think the LDS are heretical. Hell the irony is it takes a state full of open minded libs to elect I like Mit, other than say Utah. You see the courting of the Religious Right has its problems
This is problematic for Romney. It is predjudice pure and simple. The same crap that Kennedy, as a Catholic, faced and one of the reasons that Lieberman, who I think is one of the best Democrats, would never be allowed to run for President or even VP.   He is a Jew, and that can't be forgiven by the Muslims and the Evangelical Christians. Too bad. I would probably have crossed party lines and voted for him. 
What ever happened to separation of Church and State?  Or does that only apply if  liberals want to ban the Ten Commandments (part of the Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths), get rid of Christmas, or try to remove In God We Trust from billions of dollars.  I know the idea that people could or should be able to separate some one's personal faith (or lack of faith) from their public abilities as an elected official is idealistic.  This will probably never happen.  People are such hypocrites.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:sh*t Cheney just shot a 78 year old man in the ass. Wake up the sons a bitches are going down in flames. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

There you go, a hunting accident = "going down in flames" roflmoa...
SonnyClips wrote:I think your party is due for an enema.

Golly, a Democrat that has dim views of the GOP's future, will wonders ever cease...
Your problem is that for all the minor hiccups the GOP is going through your party can't capitalize on it because you're not only in more disarray,  but because the loony left has seized control. The Moore/Soros/Sheehan wing of the party has the reigns. But don’t believe me, take the word of two guys that drove your party’s only successful national campaign in the last 30 years, Carville and Begala.
SonnyClips wrote:Mike. Look at your post again and tell me how your responses have to do with my post. Come on now.
They have everything to do with you post. For example, you tried the “But Bush was in charge on 9/11” trope and I pointed out your side ALREADY tried that and the public didn’t buy.
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

csmelnix wrote: <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
<?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />MB- resume chk douche. 

You continue your pattern of trying to bolster your weak posts with childish asides. Do it once more and you can chat by yourself….
csmelnix wrote:
YG'92; 1 rifle plt 2/327 101:  '94 3 Bn/75th B Co right down on Heart attack hill:  Q Course in '96 along w/ IOAC and CAS in Leavenworth and later w/ SFAS in Bragg and 2 yrs w/ 5th group in Campbell.  Their  focus - do you know?   

Nice resume, if it’s real. I was YG 82, RNGR SCH in 83 (Jan course, white stitches), ABN SCH as a student. PLT, TRP command in Europe during a tour twice extended, as a 12A attended IOAC in 86, sent to grad school in 87. CAS3 in 88, CGSOC correspondence in 90 while attached to the State Department in Europe.. Left in 1991. (the prior enlisted service part would bore you, so I won’t bother)
csmelnix wrote:
Pogue good indicator of that is your are an employee v an owner and your resume was laughable, pretty standard.  Isn't it about time for another b/d change.

Awww, I wounded, the little fella doesn’t agree with my career choices. I’m also sure every vet working at any wirehouse hangs his head in shame….
csmelnix wrote:
Now on to the contract: When somebody signs up they sign up for 8 years.  When after 8 years you get called back that's beyond your obligation. 

If you really WERE AD and then IRR, you should know better. You have to request a discharge from the IRR if you’re commissioned. (one small niggle here, I have sympathy for guys called back because the Army said they never requested a discharge, when in fact they had. I had to request it twice. The first time I thought the matter was closed until almost a year later when I got a letter telling me about an upcoming promotion board that I had to prepare for) It isn’t automatic and if you don’t do it, your obligation continues. In fact, even those discharged and those officers retired face a recall obligation to meet the needs of the service. Again, if you ever were a commissioned officer, you know that. The one same
csmelnix wrote:
Say what you will about Scott Ritter, but isn't it funny how everything he said about what we will find in Iraq has come to fruition? 

You can seriously be mentioning the guy that turned out to be on the payroll of an Iraqi with Saddam sympathies, are you? Did ANYONE in the US government or any other believe Ritter?
csmelnix wrote:
To clarify:  I am a conservative just like Pat Buchanon who by the way has almost identical views as I, does that make him a traitor too. 

So who used the word “traitor”? Do you make things up often?
csmelnix wrote:
The quote you pull on Iraq is 3rd source opinion...

Sorry, no sale. Blix says in his book just what I told you. French intel agencies said Saddam had WMD.
csmelnix wrote:
Again, regardless if you believe we should have or shouldn't have gone to Iraq at the end of the day is not my issue with the Bush administration.  It is what I said last time - you couldn't mismanage a war any better than he has.

Right. You see, Bush sits around a table every morning with Rummy and they “manage” the war. And they’ve done a horrible job ignoring the commanders on the ground, as every retiring commander in the CoC has come out in public to say. Oh, wait, none of that’s true….
BTW, since we’re talking military history below, how about pointing out a war where there weren’t critics of the plans and operations on the ground?
csmelnix wrote: Do you know from your big army training what the basic rule of thumb is to determine size of force necessary to begin offensive ground operations? 

 
Hmmm, seems to me the ground operations went pretty well, even without the 4ID being there. If you’ve been watching you’ve heard commanders on the ground, current and retired, saying that troops levels are a balancing act. Too few and you can’t combat the insurgents, too many and you actually help the insurgents by putting too much of an “American face” on the fight.
 
Given a choice between taking your word for it, LT, and the commanders on the ground, I’m going with their views…
 
csmelnix wrote:
 
What's our mission in Iraq? 

If you need that reexplained to you you’re wasting my time….
csmelnix wrote:
 
When you decide as a commander to commit our forces you have an obligation to ensure you have done everything in your power as their leader to provide them with the weapons, equipment and information necessary to win…

Please, not another round of “why aren’t all humvees the heavy armored version” gibberish. Please cite for me a war when the US DIDN’T face similar issues on the ground. Come on, LT, you must have some military history somewhere in your background, name the war…
csmelnix wrote:
“…that you will win at all costs. ..”

“All costs”? You want to level Iraq? That would fall within “all costs”. We could make it a large mass of glass, then again, we wouldn’t really “win” that war.
BTW, are you suggesting we’re losing? Based on what?
 
 

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

As far as bringing me that portfolio. Well if you had that much tech focus with a poor allocation and I didn't begin to unravel the positions then it would be my fault. Hell the same thing happened to me after jan 1. A client had all tech including Intel. We balanced out the portfolio, not because I thought the earnings reports were going to slam him but because its what you are supposed to do. I looked good and it was because I was doing my job
My point on the portfolio analogy that the damage had already been done in the portfolio long before you had control of it. When you get the portfolio you do damage control and it is stupid for the client to blame you personally for decisions that were made that you had no control over.  It is the same stupidity to try to blame Bush for events that were set in motion years and decades before he was in office for only 7 months.  As I said he was there barely long enough to rearrange the furniture, put the "W"s back on the keyboards and learn where all the bathrooms are.  Yet you want to hold him accountable.
How would you feel about voting for someone who's church does something that is seen by your faith as desecrating your ancestors. He could be a helluva politician but would ya vote for him. I don't think its a church and state gotcha its more like "hey his church does rude sh*t to my dead grand daddy." That'd be a tough sell for anyone
Why should it be of any importance at all what religion or lack of religion a candidate adheres to?  This "Hatfield and McCoy" generational vendetta mentality is what perpetuates friction between people.  What difference does it make if Alito or Roberts are Catholic, as long as it has been shown that they keep their religion separate from their public function. 
Snipped from your link from Jefferson:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
I agree with this entirely. The reason that this was even a consideration then, was because people who didn't belong to the approved Church of England were prevented from holding offices, becoming judges and so forth.  The government in those days dictated what religion was official and discriminated against people who didn't belong to it.  This continual harping, by the media and politicians who want to harm their opponents, on the private religious affiliation of people is bringing our political environment back to the poisonous one of the 16th century when we had witch hunts.
sh*t Cheney just shot a 78 year old man in the ass. Wake up the sons a bitches are going down in flames.
He shot him in the face. Get your facts straight. The old fart snuck up from the side. Cheney couldn't hear him because they all wear ear plugs (the weenies) and the old guy was where he wasn't supposed to be when you are hunting quail or pheasant or other upland game birds. Anyone who has ever been hunting knows that.  It was an accident<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />. 
But hey......any tempest in a teapot to make political hash out of somebody is the Democrat's moto

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

dude wrote:
For all those Bush lover's out there (that's George w. Bush lovers, to clarify ). 
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0210/dailyUpdate.html[/quote]
You may not really be interested, dude, but here's the otherside of the debate about Pillar, his history and his views...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/00 0/006/713hkkee.asp?pg=1
Paul Pillar Speaks, Again The latest CIA attack on the Bush administration is nothing new.
by Stephen F. Hayes 02/10/2006 4:15:00 PM

IN A BREATHLESS front-page, above-the-fold article in today's Washington Post, Walter Pincus reports that a former senior CIA official named Paul Pillar accuses the Bush administration of "misusing" intelligence to take the country to war in Iraq. According to the Post account, Pillar uses a forthcoming article in Foreign Affairs to claim that the Bush administration "politicized" the intelligence on Iraq.
Bush administration policymakers did this subtly, Pillar says, by repeatedly asking the CIA questions about Iraq, its weapons programs, and its support for terrorism. This "politicization" was apparently so subtle that it escaped the notice of both the Robb/Silberman Commission and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, which both found that no such politicization took place. If Pillar entertains the possibility that Bush administration officials asked tough questions because after September 11 they were genuinely concerned about the threat from Iraq, the Post article nowhere mentions it.
 
 

csmelnix's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-01

MB,
Will stop the personal attacks, it makes sense.
You couldn't be anymore wrong again with the former generals and current ones.  Gen. Sheneski, forced to retire because his views differed w/ that of Rumsfeld.  Gen. Zinni, Grange, McCaffrey, Schwarkopf all had similar opinions.  I'll spare you the Gen. Clark example for obvious reasons.  Gen. Downing is another example.  Sure, there are always the ones who argue about the prosecution of the war but you have got to be blind and just flat out stupid if you think this war has been executed properly from the top (BUSH).  When in charge be in charge so yes, it's execution falls upon his shoulders. 
Read my posts again, I said stop loss didn't affect me with this deal, I was under stop loss prior but had no bearing on serving beyond my obligation - never was an issue; it does appear however that we do agree on the notion of serving beyond 8 yrs; that was my contention all along that's all.
Not arguing about the armored humvees either; arguing that most leg units in the military still use things like Korean war era flak vests, or reserve units sent to Iraq still use sub par weapons and equipment - just another sign of failure to plan. 
About Blix's book and comment on France - it's negligible in the end w/ my argument but it is just what I said; Blix is the 3rd party referencing an opinion.  Chirac was recorded telling British intelligence that we/they wouldn't find WMDs because they were convinced due to their humint on the ground there, that Iraq no longer possessed them.  At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter as my big contention is the goat f*$k this war has been.  It was clever of you to forget about trying to address the Iraq mission and the other questions I poised; care to try again?
And so you know, I was a captain not an LT - I will rescind my personal attack on your pogueness as well; please accept my apology. 

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

War is easy for chicken hawks. or is that chickenhawks?

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

skeedaddy wrote:Dude, welcome back, I guess you were just making a living. No county's foreign policy is without self interest, certainly not ours. Our foreign policy is full of exploitation, and I don't have a problem with that either. Its an exchange of goods and services, kind of like our welfare system. It's cheaper to provide cable for a welfare recipient, than pay for a jail cell. I do however hate anything that is radical or fanatical, that goes for politics, religion and sports. The majority of the Muslim world is not radical, that's true. But there are over 30 million of them that are, and that's a problem. This conflict will not be resolved by Bush, Coca Cola or dollars. Doesn't bin Laden have a $25 million bounty on his head? I don't have an answer, because I can't relate to someone that self inflicts a beating with a chain, or straps a bomb to his torso and walks into a crowded tea house. Now I forgot what point I was trying to make, so I'll leave it there.
good points skee.  I just get annoyed with all the people who think if you disagree with an approach to problem solving (Bush's) that you must be some freak liberal.  It's the whole "if your not with us your against us" mentality which irritates me.  I guess THE test of integrity for Bush is What Would Jesus Do?
I also don't buy into Military MikeB's fear mongering, seeded by a powerful propaganda maching (his tenure in the US military in addition to many  sources of "objective" media).  Sure, there are threats to be attended to (Taliban, Al Queda) but I think Bush has capitalized on the percieved threat to achieve an underlying agenda not fully disclosed to the American public.  There are many sources which illustrate and verify my perspective.   Anyway, I have made up my mind on the issue as probably most of you have. 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

csmelnix wrote: <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
You couldn't be anymore wrong again with the former generals and current ones. 

Name one that was a commander on the ground in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq. Answer, zero.
csmelnix wrote: Gen. Sheneski, forced to retire because his views differed w/ that of Rumsfeld. 

Untrue. Shenski was already scheduled to retire having completed his tour as CoSA..... His alleged rejection of a strategy that dates back to ALB 2000, notwithstanding.
csmelnix wrote:
 Gen. Zinni,

Opposed the entire war, never a commander in Iraq.  That’s not to diminish his POV, it’s simply to point out that while there are always critics, you can’t locate one critical of the conduct of the war, AD or retired, that was actually on the ground there.
The major complaint of those not there is always current troop strength, but the commanders there have put forward a very rational reasoning as to why more troops would actually hurt their effort by making this an American fight, not a Iraqi national fight. In fact, we’ll be cutting troop strength even more here soon.
csmelnix wrote:  
Grange, McCaffrey, Schwarkopf all had similar opinions. 

None of them have made the sort of hyperbolic comments you have.  You’re painting with far too wide a brush here. More to the point, for every critic I can name you 5 guys that disagree with them, most of whom have actually served in Iraq.
Sure, there are critics, and if you were actually on AD you know that Rumsfeld has had problems with the inner ranks of some of the Army from day one because of restructuring issues. McCaffrey, whom I happened to have met a few times at Benning when he was AC there, specifically was part of the Tom White (another I guy I worked for and respect) contingent that thought that Rummy was cutting too much of the conventional forces when he, for example, clipped the Crusader arty system and killed to Comanche.  This was all inside baseball territorial preservation on the part of the Army in the post-9/11 inter-service fights.
BTW, critics, even high ranking ones aren’t new. Ever heard the name McAurthur or Patton?
csmelnix wrote: 
Sure, there are always the ones who argue about the prosecution of the war but you have got to be blind and just flat out stupid if you think this war has been executed properly from the top (BUSH). 

You have to be kidding me to claim that you buy the “Bush screwed the pooch” line. Again, if you ever spent a day on AD you know the CinC doesn’t write war plans. If you could claim with some accuracy that Bush was refusing to meet the needs and requests of the commanders on the ground, I’d agree with you. By all accounts that’s not the case and the commanders on the ground are getting everything they ask for. THAT’S what I want a CinC to do.
csmelnix wrote: 
…it does appear however that we do agree on the notion of serving beyond 8 yrs; that was my contention all along that's all.

Not exactly. Every officer knows he essentially has a lifetime obligation should the service need you back, especially due to some specific specialty. Guys with unique specialties that get called back know the drill. The only guys I have any sympathy for are those who were called back with common skills because the Army said they were still on the rolls because they never requested a discharge from the IRR when in fact they had.
csmelnix wrote: 
….arguing that most leg units in the military still use things like Korean war era flak vests, or reserve units sent to Iraq still use sub par weapons and equipment - just another sign of failure to plan. 
[/question]
Oh, spare me. You know better than that (especially the stuff about Korean war era flak jackets) . They may have left CONUS with older equipment (probably 1980s era), but they got the newest and best available when they staged in Kuwait. You have to know that everything you’ve read in the press about deficient equipment, yadda, yadda, yadda has, for better or worse, been SOP in the history of our military.
csmelnix wrote: 
About Blix's book and comment on France - it's negligible in the end w/ my …

No it isn’t. You said French intelligence did think Saddam had WMD. Blix’s book proves otherwise.
csmelnix wrote: 
It was clever of you to forget about trying to address the Iraq mission and the other questions I poised; care to try again?

Seriously, if you’re unaware of what the mission is and under what criteria we’re leaving, you’re wasting my time. It’s been detailed too often to have to repeat.
csmelnix wrote: 
please accept my apology. 

Accepted.
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:"... The point was that anyway you slice it it was a dumbfcuk thing to do ..."

Got it, every person involved in an accident has committed a dumbfcuk thing, and the fact that Cheney pulled the trigger proves "the sons a bitches are going down in flames". Even more importantly, if Cheney is involved in a hunting accident, his ability to comment (and that's all he does, he isn't CinC) should be suspended.
 
On a similar note, Teddy "the Swimmer" Kennedy will be resigning his Senate seat later today after a review of his judgement over the past 40 years....
SonnyClips wrote:
If you back the administrations perspectives then you should be mad at the ineptitude that this little stupid but ultimately unimportant hunting accident stands as a synecdoche for.
Yeah, that's the ticket... 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

dude wrote: <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 I just get annoyed with all the people who think if you disagree with an approach to problem solving (Bush's) that you must be some freak liberal. 

And the people who equate agreeing with Bush, especially given the weak alternatives we’ve been given by the Democrats, you don’t mind calling them “Bush lovers”? How about the “Bush believes in the end of times stuff and therefore he’s driving us to Armageddon” you give us? Is that offensive, especially when you have nothing to support it?
BTW, one only becomes a “freak liberal” when they dip into the conspiracy theories outlined below or spout long-since disproved stories from Michael Moore about how Bush helped people complaisant in 9/11 seek out of the country before the FBI could talk to them.
 dude wrote: I also don't buy into Military MikeB's fear mongering, seeded by a powerful propaganda maching (his tenure in the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US military in addition to many  sources of "objective" media). 

 
Yeah, it wasn’t what the terrorists themselves have said over and over again that “seeded” my views, I’ve simply been brainwashed by my military service and the media. I suspect if it ever were to happen, the Islamofacist that cut your head off would laugh, thinking about how you handed yourself to his knife, something he wouldn’t do when he cuts mine.
 
dude wrote:
 
“…..but I think Bush has capitalized on the percieved threat to achieve an underlying agenda not fully disclosed to the American public.”
 

 
Ohhhhhh “underlying agenda” and, of course, the “perceived” hole in the ground in NYC has been greatly exaggerated.
 
People who, after all we’ve seen from the terrorists, STILL think it’s all about some “agenda” (and they know what they think it is, they just don’t want to hear the laughter that comes when they spell out their conspiracy theories) simply amaze me. I’m certain they only survive in this world because others protect them from the logical consequences of their naiveté.
These are the modern day version of the “Oh, Stalin ain’t so bad, the West just has it out for him” types that could never allow themselves to admit the horrors he perpetrated when the details and documents came spilling out.
 
 

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

O.K. MikeB.  Tell me now, what don't you like about Bush?  I referenced "Bush Lovers" because it seems like you unequivacally support Bush.  You give the impresion that you have Rose tinted Bush goggles on.  I personally feel that it's dangerous to sign off on someones decisions with such passion. 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

dude wrote: <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
O.K. MikeB.  Tell me now, what don't you like about Bush? 

It's like a playbook that never changes. Out come the laughable conspiracy theories, the quoting of Michael Moore’s long disproved myths, and when that falls flat, the mission gets twisted to “OK, you’re delusional unless you can tell me what you DON’T like about him”….. sigh…
Fine, here you go; Bush has never vetoed a spending bill. Happy?
 
Now, the part that works against you is even in the things I disagree with Bush about, your party offers and even more distasteful alternative.
 
dude wrote:
 I referenced "Bush Lovers" because it seems like you unequivacally support Bush. 

You might want to consider that fact that what YOU chose to bring to the table as criticisms are simply over the top conspiracy nonsense that gets no purchase because of their nature.
I mean, start with the “hidden agenda” stuff and then make everyone that disagrees with you a reflexive Bush lover? Does that make any sense?
dude wrote:
 You give the impresion that you have Rose tinted Bush goggles on.

I suppose anyone who sees Bush, and not the terrorists as the real threat to freedom …. Anyone who is in denial of what the terrorists themselves say their aims are…… might get that idea
dude wrote:
  I personally feel that it's dangerous to sign off on someones decisions with such passion. 

It’s funny you should say that because the only “passion” I see that’s an obvious danger to rational thought is the BDS that causes people to say some of the things you say. Seriously.
 
 
 

csmelnix's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-01

Mike,
You are a joke.  We just disagree on too much to continue.  All the generals I named regardless of whether they were in Iraq on this latest round have stated the exact points I raised - they screwed the war completely from start to finish.  Everyone of them has served on the ground in Iraq and intimately know the area of the world.  In fact, most if not all served in CENTCOM.  But since they aren't there now they can't possibly know what they're talking about - You are a freak'n joke.  Thank God you left the service. You must be an advocate of the Ken Lay defense as well to state Bush isn't at fault for prosecuting this war; Commander in Chief - leaders are responsible for all that their people do and fail to do; being a professional school soldier shoudl have taught you that.  Furthermore, there are no lifetime appointments, if you resign upon the end of your 8 years, you are done, who's painting what with a broad brush.  And again, love how you avoid answering the questions; it's a waste of time for you because YOU CAN'T ANSWER THEM BECAUSE NOBODY FREAKN KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:Mike don't overplay my statements. All I'm saying is fcukups continue to fcukup and drag you down with them. {/quote]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
And how does that pithy summary differ from what I said?
Kennedy can't drive, at least not while drunk. Byrd wears a sheet over his head. It's all down hill from there....
SonnyClips wrote:....seem strangely willing to go to great lengths to find reasons why these misstakes are not the admins fault.

For the third time, you guys tried that theme, the "Bush was in charge during 9/11" and it didn't sell. It didn't sell during the election, it won't sell now.
SonnyClips wrote:
 In doing so it impeaches your credibility to speak to any of it.

Wait a sec, the guy trying to make the case that "hunting accident = going down in flames" is trying to make a point about credibility? <?:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />SonnyClips wrote:Sooner or later your eyes will open to the type of fools these guys are.

Ohhhh, a list of talking points. Wow, that's powerful. Man, I bet we’ve never seen such a thing before. Oh, wait, we have, applied to every politician who’s ever existed.
The sad thing is even if the entire list was true and applicable, your side can't seem to find a way to present a rational alternative. That's the really pathetic element in all this.
SonnyClips wrote: If say you and I owned a business together Mike and an employee had this kind of luck ...
You mean if your compiled list of spin, half-truths and untruths were accurate would I consider an alternative? Perhaps, but what did you offer?
John “I voted for it before I voted against it” Kerry? John “magic hat” Kerry? John “Christmas in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Cambodia” Kerry?  Carter II? Just what right have you to b!tch when your cure was worse than any disease you’ve described?  
 
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

csmelnix wrote: <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 All the generals I named regardless of whether they were in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq on this latest round have stated the exact points I raised - they screwed the war completely from start to finish. 

Then you'll have no problem providing quotes. Oh, wait, you can't do that....
 csmelnix wrote:
Everyone of them has served on the ground in Iraq …

Bzzzzz, wrong again, thanks for playing… not one of them has commanded troops in this conflict.
----- hissy fit snipped------
 
csmelnix wrote:
Commander in Chief - leaders are responsible for all that their people do and fail to do;

Hmmm. So you admit Bush isn’t sitting at his desk moving military symbols on the map, that he’s relying on his military professionals. Good for you. And you want to make Bush responsible for that? Fine by me.  But why do you insist on suggesting you know better what troop strengths should be than the commanders actually on the ground? Do you have any proof whatsoever that Bush is ignoring the people closest to the fighting? Of course not.
 csmelnix wrote:
“… if you resign upon the end of your 8 years, you are done,..”

You might want to reread that contract, pal. Ever heard the phrase “for the good of the service”? Plenty of officers with specific, needed skills, have been called back to active duty when needed. In fact, check out the current CoSA, called back from retirement.
csmelnix wrote:
who's painting what with a broad brush. 

That would be you attributing your hyperbolic comments to retired general officers.
csmelnix wrote:
 “….it's a waste of time for you because YOU CAN'T ANSWER THEM BECAUSE NOBODY FREAKN KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Of all the inane criticisms, the worst is the claim that the mission and goals in Iraq haven’t been clearly laid out. It’s almost beyond belief that people would attempt that one. The troops on the ground, reenlisting at high rates and going back to the fight over and again, seem pretty clear on those things as is anyone not willfully ignorant.
BTW, with all this huffing and puffing about the course of the war, are you suggesting we’re losing? Spell it out..
 
 

Sailor25's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-09

It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism," hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a "liberal," such views are no longer necessary.Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×