Tragedy of the Bush Administration

[quote=dude]

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?? )

[/quote]

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...

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

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?? )

[/quote]

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...

[/quote]

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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

[quote=dude]

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

[/quote]

You mean you now admit the CIA DID tell Bush there were WMDs in Iraq? good for you...

[quote=dude]

Please read:

The Bush administration's use of intelligence on Iraq did not just blur this distinction; it turned the entire model upside down.

[/quote]

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.

[quote=dude]

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.

[/quote]

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"?

[quote=dude]

We got handed our asses in Vietnam because of the same kinds of ignorance which started the Iraq war.

[/quote]

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...

[quote=dude]

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.

[/quote]

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...

[quote=dude]

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?

[/quote]

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....

[quote=dude]

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.

[/quote]

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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. 

[quote=babbling looney]

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. 

[/quote]

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.

[quote=csmelnix]

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. 

[/quote]

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.   

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. 

[quote=dude]

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

[/quote]

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.

[quote=dude]

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? 

[/quote]

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.

[quote=dude]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 ...

[/quote]

Are you talking about Al Qeada or the people with the purple fingers?

[quote=dude]

"...and there are dozens of emerging countries who have been bankrupted by American "democracy" (as they would see it). "

[/quote]

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...

[quote=dude]

 ... prompted by american energy consultant's projections of growth, ...

[/quote]

Here we go again....

[quote=dude]

 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. 

[/quote]

Give me a single example of a country that defaulted on an IMF debt and had, as a result, US company seize assets.

 [quote=dude]

I have been very fortunate to have lived abroad and to have many international friends. 

[/quote]

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.

[quote=csmelnix]

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.

[/quote]

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.

[quote=csmelnix]

There were many agencies inside the US who disagreed with the notion that Iraq had WMDs; …

[/quote]

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.

[quote=csmelnix]

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).

[/quote]

You’re not going to quote Ritter, are you? We could devote an entire thread to his lunacy.

[quote=csmelnix]

France, I know it's France, rejected the claim as did Russia.

[/quote]

Sorry, wrong on both counts. Both countries disagree with our attack, they did however, believe Saddam had WMDs.

[quote=csmelnix]

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!

[/quote]

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.

[quote=csmelnix]

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 ....[/quote]

Yawn… Bush should “admit”…. yadda yadda yadda…

[quote=csmelnix]

BL - by the way, the army has consistently forced former VOLUNTEERS who once made a choice to serve beyond their contract.....[/quote]

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.

[quote=csmelnix]

Finally, anybody that believes what we are doing in Iraq is the on the right track answer these questions:

[/quote]

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.

[quote=csmelnix]

Going to Iraq was a tremendous strategic mistake in the war on terror.

[/quote]

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.

[quote=csmelnix]

We had the world in our corner after 9/11 to tackle the Taliban …

[/quote]

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?

[quote=csmelnix]

Instead we left Afghanistan early, it will bite us soon…

[/quote]

The voice of doom seems to not know that we left US troops under UN command there…

[quote=csmelnix]

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).

[/quote]

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.

[quote=csmelnix]Who the hell our we to bring democracy to anybody and force them to choose.    [/quote]

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...

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.

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...

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?

[quote=babbling looney]

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?

[/quote]

BL,

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

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.

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.

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.

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:

Material added to the unclassified version (additions italicized):

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

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

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.

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.

[quote=csmelnix]

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. 

[/quote]

It's in the contract you sign when you join. "Forced" is nonsense.

[quote=csmelnix] .... the army absolutely stretched it extraordinarily to do what they did. 

[/quote]

You mean they acted within the law, right? Yeah, that's what I thought you meant...

[quote=csmelnix]

 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.

[/quote]

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? 

[quote=menotellname]

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...

[/quote]

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

[quote=csmelnix]

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/Iraq_Summary_Tab les.pdf

George Bush has made some false claims as .....

[/quote]

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”…..

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

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.

[quote=SonnyClips]This blind love of Bush is about to cause its adherence a great deal of pain. [/quote]

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...

[quote=SonnyClips]

 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?

[/quote]

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

[quote=SonnyClips]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.

[/quote]

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.

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.

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.

[quote=SonnyClips]

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" />

[/quote]

There you go, a hunting accident = "going down in flames" roflmoa...

[quote=SonnyClips]

I think your party is due for an enema.

[/quote]

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.

[quote=SonnyClips]

Mike. Look at your post again and tell me how your responses have to do with my post. Come on now.

[/quote]

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.

[quote=csmelnix] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

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

[/quote]

You continue your pattern of trying to bolster your weak posts with childish asides. Do it once more and you can chat by yourself….

[quote=csmelnix]

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?   

[/quote]

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)

[quote=csmelnix]

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.

[/quote]

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….

[quote=csmelnix]

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. 

[/quote]

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

[quote=csmelnix]

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? 

[/quote]

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?

[quote=csmelnix]

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. 

[/quote]

So who used the word “traitor”? Do you make things up often?

[quote=csmelnix]

The quote you pull on Iraq is 3rd source opinion...

[/quote]

Sorry, no sale. Blix says in his book just what I told you. French intel agencies said Saddam had WMD.

[quote=csmelnix]

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.

[/quote]

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?

[quote=csmelnix] 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? 

[/quote]

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…

[quote=csmelnix]

What's our mission in Iraq? 

[/quote]

If you need that reexplained to you you’re wasting my time….

[quote=csmelnix]

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…

[/quote]

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…

[quote=csmelnix]

“…that you will win at all costs. ..”

[/quote]

“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?

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

[quote=dude]

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.

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. 

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

[quote=skeedaddy]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.

[/quote]

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. 

[quote=csmelnix] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You couldn't be anymore wrong again with the former generals and current ones. 

[/quote]

Name one that was a commander on the ground in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq. Answer, zero.

[quote=csmelnix] Gen. Sheneski, forced to retire because his views differed w/ that of Rumsfeld. 

[/quote]

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.

[quote=csmelnix]

 Gen. Zinni,

[/quote]

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.

[quote=csmelnix]  

Grange, McCaffrey, Schwarkopf all had similar opinions. 

[/quote]

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?

[quote=csmelnix] 

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). 

[/quote]

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.

[quote=csmelnix] 

…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.

[/quote]

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.

[quote=csmelnix] 

….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.

[quote=csmelnix] 

About Blix's book and comment on France - it's negligible in the end w/ my …

[/quote]

No it isn’t. You said French intelligence did think Saddam had WMD. Blix’s book proves otherwise.

[quote=csmelnix] 

It was clever of you to forget about trying to address the Iraq mission and the other questions I poised; care to try again?

[/quote]

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.

[quote=csmelnix] 

please accept my apology. 

[/quote]

Accepted.

[quote=SonnyClips]"... The point was that anyway you slice it it was a dumbfcuk thing to do ..."

[/quote]

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....

[quote=SonnyClips]

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.

[/quote]

Yeah, that's the ticket... 

[quote=dude] <?: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. 

[/quote]

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.

 [quote=dude] 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). 

[/quote]

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.

[quote=dude]

“…..but I think Bush has capitalized on the percieved threat to achieve an underlying agenda not fully disclosed to the American public.”

[/quote]

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.

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. 

[quote=dude] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

O.K. MikeB.  Tell me now, what don't you like about Bush? 

[/quote]

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.

[quote=dude]

 I referenced "Bush Lovers" because it seems like you unequivacally support Bush. 

[/quote]

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?

[quote=dude]

 You give the impresion that you have Rose tinted Bush goggles on.

[/quote]

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

[quote=dude]

  I personally feel that it's dangerous to sign off on someones decisions with such passion. 

[/quote]

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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[quote=SonnyClips]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....

[quote=SonnyClips]....seem strangely willing to go to great lengths to find reasons why these misstakes are not the admins fault.

[/quote]

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.

[quote=SonnyClips]

 In doing so it impeaches your credibility to speak to any of it.

[/quote]

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" />

[quote=SonnyClips]
Sooner or later your eyes will open to the type of fools these guys are.

[/quote]

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.

[quote=SonnyClips] If say you and I owned a business together Mike and an employee had this kind of luck ...[/qUOTE]

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?  

[quote=csmelnix] <?: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. 

[/quote]

Then you'll have no problem providing quotes. Oh, wait, you can't do that....

 [quote=csmelnix]

Everyone of them has served on the ground in Iraq …

[/quote]

Bzzzzz, wrong again, thanks for playing… not one of them has commanded troops in this conflict.

----- hissy fit snipped------

[quote=csmelnix]

Commander in Chief - leaders are responsible for all that their people do and fail to do;

[/quote]

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.

 [quote=csmelnix]

“… if you resign upon the end of your 8 years, you are done,..”

[/quote]

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.

[quote=csmelnix]

who's painting what with a broad brush. 

[/quote]

That would be you attributing your hyperbolic comments to retired general officers.

[quote=csmelnix]

 “….it's a waste of time for you because YOU CAN'T ANSWER THEM BECAUSE NOBODY FREAKN KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

[/quote]

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..

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.

Sooner or later your eyes will open to the type of fools these guys are. The DWI's, fatal car crashes, bad business deals, 911, trading Sammy Sosa, pretzels, mountain bike, daugters busted with fake IDs, No WMD, Can't catch Osama, leaks on wiretaps, leaks on Plame, leaks about Powell's UN speech, Castro making fat jokes about your brother, mother talking sh*t about poor people, Michael Brown, Indictments of Delay, Safavian, Abramoff, and Libby, Ongoing investigations of Rove and Cheney in Plame affair, Michael Chertof, Anthony Moscatiello , Anthony Ferrari, and James Fiorillo, Paul O'Neil, Lawrence Wilkerson, Hunting Accident, prolonged ground campaign in Iraq, Body Armour, Army Hummer tire failures due to excess wait of vehicles, etc etc etc.

OMFG!! I'm laughing sooooo hard.  Pretzels......mountain bike......you forgot to mention that maybe Bush had a booger hanging from his nose once or Barbara Bush cooks with lard instead of peanut oil, or Cheney says the  "F" bomb occaisonally.  I think once Condoleza Rice had toilet paper stuck to to bottom of her heels.

The DWI's, fatal car crashes, bad business deals, can't catch Osama

Ted Kennedy, Whitewater, Mary Jo Kopeckne.....oh wait you weren't talking about the Democrats.  That's right they never ever did anything stupid or bad.   Just the Bushies. oooookay.

 trading Sammy Sosa

LOL this is the funniest of all. !!!  Oooh the world is coming to an end..... they traded a baseball player or was it football.     Who gives a rip...  Hope they got something nice in exchange.  Mabye new slipcovers for the couch.

[quote=Sailor25]It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone ..."[/quote]

Why not attribute that to the person who said it? BTW, it used to be that to be a fascist you had to hold a certain set of beliefs, now all you have to do is support, even if in part, the Bush agenda. Ask Joe Lieberman....

[quote=babbling looney]

OMFG!! I'm laughing sooooo hard.  Pretzels......mountain bike......you forgot to mention that maybe Bush had a booger hanging from his nose once or Barbara Bush cooks with lard instead of peanut oil, or Cheney says the  "F" bomb occaisonally.  I think once Condoleza Rice had toilet paper stuck to to bottom of her heels.[/quote]

It's like BDS just started with the Florida issue in 2000 and has grown worse. I hear Dick Cheney eats kittens and Bush has children in chains in the basement of the White House doing laundry.

Notice how in all the hysteria they never, never mention an alternative?

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=babbling looney]

OMFG!! I'm laughing sooooo hard.  Pretzels......mountain bike......you forgot to mention that maybe Bush had a booger hanging from his nose once or Barbara Bush cooks with lard instead of peanut oil, or Cheney says the  "F" bomb occaisonally.  I think once Condoleza Rice had toilet paper stuck to to bottom of her heels.[/quote]

It's like BDS just started with the Florida issue in 2000 and has grown worse. I hear Dick Cheney eats kittens and Bush has children in chains in the basement of the White House doing laundry.

Notice how in all the hysteria they never, never mention an alternative?

[/quote]

Dick eats kittens in addition to spotted owls?  How does Bush get away with keeping innocent children in chains?  See what happens when you elect bloodthirsty oilmen and illuninati alumni to the throne of power.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=Sailor25]It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone ..."[/quote]

Why not attribute that to the person who said it? BTW, it used to be that to be a fascist you had to hold a certain set of beliefs, now all you have to do is support, even if in part, the Bush agenda. Ask Joe Lieberman....

[/quote]

MikeB,

ya' know, you are a piece of work.  Sailor has a great point with his post.  Do you have any humility at all?  It's becoming clear that you have it all figured out and in fact know it all.  No use in discussing anything with you.

I love how skepticism and distaste for Bush, gets you branded as a liberal.  It's funny because I know a lot of conservatives (including myself) that are very dissappointed in Bush. 

Obviously with your military background MikeB, i would expect nothing less than believing the military is the best tool for any challenge; it would invalidate your background, training and the large personal sacrifice and investment you've made to think otherwise.  I suspect you're too stubborn to honestly put your preconcieved notions aside and question.  If you can't see that there are clear reasons to question Bush's incompetence than you do have rose tinted glasses.  Not that you have to agree with me, but I am concerned by your zealousness and apparent lack of objectivity. 

Mike I will provide quotes when you answer the questions I asked.  Maybe you need to watch Meet the Press someday when those officers are on it. 

Great comments sailor if it weren't for di&kheads like Mike, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in....we'll see reality in a few more yrs douchbag when progress still has moved toward an endstate there.

I love how skepticism and distaste for Bush, gets you branded as a liberal.  It's funny because I know a lot of conservatives (including myself) that are very dissappointed in Bush

And vice versa.... the least bit of support for some of the administration's policies get you called a Bush clone, neocon, or lumped in with evangelical christians.   I am a conservative and also not happy with some of Bush's policies.  He is not anywhere conservative enough for me.

Come on people.  Everything isn't black and white.  Well, except for the fact that Ted Kennedy is a fat, corrupt blowhard who's brain is pickled by too much scotch.

All this bloviating on whether we should have gone into Iraq is pointless.  We are there now.  Like it or not.  What we need to do is focus on winning,work together as a nation that is in peril, keep the terrorists from another 9/11 (or worse) and getting out with as little loss of life and political entanglements as possible.    You can argue about the past all you want but it is a waste of breath.  You can't change the past. You can't un-ring the bell.

Here spin this:

Lauer: "Sticking to the subject of morale, it's clear that there were miscalculations going into this war. Clearly the way we were going to be greeted hasn't turned out to be the reality, the level and the scope of the insurgencies [were underestimated], so when it comes again to military commanders and troops, do you feel they may be frustrated that back home in Washington no one has lost their job over this?"

McCaffrey: "Clearly bad judgments were made by the civilian leadership in the Pentagon going into this war. It got away from us, it didn't have to be this way. One would think Sec. Rumsfeld and others would be held accountable for it."

Lauer, finally sensing blood in the water: "These military people live by a code, among other things, of accountability, so do you think they would want someone like Sec. Rumsfeld or others to be held accountable?"

McCaffrey suggested that troops in the field wouldn't focus on that, but that "the military leadership" realizes that the civilian heads of the Pentagon engaged in "widespread" misjudgements.

Lauer, clearly now with his man in his sights: "You've heard the drumbeats for a while and it seems to be intensifying again [thanks to you, Matt] surrounding Sec. Rumsfeld. Do you think he's going to hold onto his job?"

Lauer hit the Mother Lode, as McCaffrey replied:

"I'm surprised to be honest he's still there. His judgments were egregiously wrong. He's staying now to shape the Armed Forces over the next 20 years. It's hard to imagine why someone who made that series of bad calls would be allowed to be the architect of future armed forces."

McCaffrey called on a number of senators to lead the anti-Rumsfeld coup. He described McCain, Hagel, Warner, Reed as people "who understand national security," and in a clear pitch for them to lead the revolt, said "it's about time for them to step in and make their views known."

Gen. Meigs: Tim, it doesn't matter. We're there. We lanced the boil. We're there. We have Salafist penetration into this situation in a very-hard core Sunni insurgency in a critical point in the Middle East, where if it goes south, if we get a civil war between Sunnis and Shias, international markets will be affected. Our role as an international leader will be affected. We'll have a huge strategic problem. So having pushed Humpty Dumpty off the wall, which I would agree was untimely, the Pottery Barn rule applies. We have got to leave this as a stable situation. We cannot afford to pull out here prematurely.

Mr. Russert: Does that mean putting in more troops, if necessary?

Gen. Meigs: It means doing whatever's required strategically to ensure that we get an Iraqi government and an Iraqi security services that can run a reasonable country that's constituent-based.

Mr. Russert: Do we have more troops to put in there if need be?

Gen. Meigs: If we had to surge troops, we could. It wouldn't be easy but we could, yes.

Mr. Russert: General McCaffrey, you said this two weeks ago:

Gen. McCaffrey: We haven't put the strategic argument in the right context in the public. However, you know, I pulled out a quote, 24 August news conference, Secretary Rumsfeld: "Throughout history there's always been those that predicted America's failure just around every corner." And he goes on to talk about "many Western intellectuals praised Stalin during the period of World War II."

For God's sakes, Tim, you know, we have to have this argument set up in a respectful manner to the American people. We have had 16,000 killed and wounded, $200 billion. It's a very difficult situation. And I think some of the happy talk and spin coming out of the Pentagon leadership is part of the president's problem.

Mr. Russert: Do you believe that Secretary Rumsfeld should stay in his current position?

Gen. McCaffrey: Well, I don't think I have a legitimate viewpoint to express on that thing. I think many people argue that his misjudgments have put us in a serious difficult position. I think the intervention, as Wes Clark says, was badly done. You know, I go over there and look at these soldiers and Marines in combat right now and Navy SEALs. They're the best kids we ever had in uniform--I don't think that's an overstatement in terms of courage and commitment--but they've got to be backed up by the American people, by the Congress and by the Pentagon with more sensible policies and adequate resources and we don't have that right now

Gen. Clark: Tim, and if I could just--I just want to come in on one thing here. You got us here as military experts. But if you ask any of the top leaders, they will tell you that the country has a responsibility. The president has a responsibility. This administration has a responsibility diplomatically in the region. One of my greatest heartburns with this operation is we dumped the responsibility on our uniformed services over there for doing this. We haven't carried the load diplomatically in the region.

Now, every one of us who serve in top positions knows that there has to be hand-in-glove teamwork between military force, diplomacy, economic power and informational power. This administration has relied excessively on the courage and skill of the men and women in uniform. It doesn't want to talk to the people in Iran. It doesn't want to talk to Syria. It doesn't want to do the hard work and heavy lifting of diplomacy because of domestic politics at home. And I think it's time we said it. You know, I just can't stand to see the sacrifices men and women in uniform and their families make when this administration won't lift its finger the right way diplomatically to give them the help they need to succeed in Iraq.

Mr. Russert: You have this concern about diplomacy. General McCaffrey, you raised a concern about misjudgments made. Anthony Zinni, a man you know well, had this to say--he's the former head of the U.S. Central Command. He says that "Rumsfeld has turned the nation's top military officials into `Stepford generals,' who have acquiesced in a transfer of power from uniformed officers to the Pentagon's civilian managers. ... `We have a very strong-willed secretary. We went into a war where he took away a lot of the prerogatives of the military, made some military decisions on troop strength and postwar planning, and they did not do well to say the least.'"

Do you agree with General Zinni?

Gen. Downing: Well, that's a--that's a--that's a very controversial statement. The people that I know in the building, Tim, in the Pentagon say that Secretary Rumsfeld is a very aggressive, very, very tough leader, but you can talk to him. Certainly there were decisions made during the Iraq War, Tim, that were probably ones that we wish we could--we could relive.

'Where's the Threat?'

Anthony Zinni's passage from obedient general to outspoken opponent began in earnest in the unlikeliest of locations, the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. He was there in Nashville in August 2002 to receive the group's Dwight D. Eisenhower Distinguished Service Award, recognition for his 35 years in the Marine Corps.

Vice President Cheney was also there, delivering a speech on foreign policy. Sitting on the stage behind the vice president, Zinni grew increasingly puzzled. He had endorsed Bush and Cheney two years earlier, just after he retired from his last military post, as chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in Iraq.

"I think he ran on a moderate ticket, and that's my leaning -- I'm kind of a Lugar-Hagel-Powell guy," he says, listing three Republicans associated with centrist foreign policy positions.

He was alarmed that day to hear Cheney make the argument for attacking Iraq on grounds that Zinni found questionable at best:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said. "There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Cheney's certitude bewildered Zinni. As chief of the Central Command, Zinni had been immersed in U.S. intelligence about Iraq. He was all too familiar with the intelligence analysts' doubts about Iraq's programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. "In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.' "

Though retired for nearly two years, Zinni says, he remained current on the intelligence through his consulting with the CIA and the military. "I did consulting work for the agency, right up to the beginning of the war. I never saw anything. I'd say to analysts, 'Where's the threat?' " Their response, he recalls, was, "Silence."

Zinni's concern deepened as Cheney pressed on that day at the Opryland Hotel. "Time is not on our side," the vice president said. "The risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action."

Zinni's conclusion as he slowly walked off the stage that day was that the Bush administration was determined to go to war. A moment later, he had another, equally chilling thought: "These guys don't understand what they are getting into."

Unheeded Advice

Zinni's concern deepened at a Senate hearing in February, just six weeks before the war began. As he awaited his turn to testify, he listened to Pentagon and State Department officials talk vaguely about the "uncertainties" of a postwar Iraq. He began to think they were doing the wrong thing the wrong way. "I was listening to the panel, and I realized, 'These guys don't have a clue.' "

That wasn't a casual judgment. Zinni had started thinking about how the United States might handle Iraq if Hussein's government collapsed after Operation Desert Fox, the four days of airstrikes that he oversaw in December 1998, in which he targeted presidential palaces, Baath Party headquarters, intelligence facilities, military command posts and barracks, and factories that might build missiles that could deliver weapons of mass destruction.

In the wake of those attacks on about 100 major targets, intelligence reports came in that Hussein's government had been shaken by the short campaign. "After the strike, we heard from countries with diplomatic missions in there [Baghdad] that the regime was paralyzed, and that there was a kind of defiance in the streets," he recalls.

So early in 1999 he ordered that plans be devised for the possibility of the U.S. military having to occupy Iraq. Under the code name "Desert Crossing," the resulting document called for a nationwide civilian occupation authority, with offices in each of Iraq's 18 provinces. That plan contrasts sharply, he notes, with the reality of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. occupation power, which for months this year had almost no presence outside Baghdad -- an absence that some Army generals say has increased their burden in Iraq.

Listening to the administration officials testify that day, Zinni began to suspect that his careful plans had been disregarded. Concerned, he later called a general at Central Command's headquarters in Tampa and asked, "Are you guys looking at Desert Crossing?" The answer, he recalls, was, "What's that?"

The more he listened to Wolfowitz and other administration officials talk about Iraq, the more Zinni became convinced that interventionist "neoconservative" ideologues were plunging the nation into a war in a part of the world they didn't understand. "The more I saw, the more I thought that this was the product of the neocons who didn't understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had an idea that worked on the ground."

Iraq is in serious danger of coming apart because of lack of planning, underestimating the task and buying into a flawed strategy," he says. "The longer we stubbornly resist admitting the mistakes and not altering our approach, the harder it will be to pull this chestnut out of the fire."

Three years ago, Zinni completed a tour as chief of the Central Command, the U.S. military headquarters for the Middle East, during which he oversaw enforcement of the two "no-fly" zones in Iraq and also conducted four days of punishing airstrikes against that country in 1998. He even served briefly as a special envoy to the Middle East, mainly as a favor to his old friend and comrade Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

Zinni long has worried that there are worse outcomes possible in Iraq than having Saddam Hussein in power -- such as eliminating him in such a way that Iraq will become a new haven for terrorism in the Middle East.

"I think a weakened, fragmented, chaotic Iraq, which could happen if this isn't done carefully, is more dangerous in the long run than a contained Saddam is now," he told reporters in 1998. "I don't think these questions have been thought through or answered." It was a warning for which Iraq hawks such as Paul D. Wolfowitz, then an academic and now the No. 2 official at the Pentagon, attacked him in print at the time.

Now, five years later, Zinni fears it is an outcome toward which U.S.-occupied Iraq may be drifting. Nor does he think the capture of Hussein is likely to make much difference, beyond boosting U.S. troop morale and providing closure for his victims. "Since we've failed thus far to capitalize" on opportunities in Iraq, he says, "I don't have confidence we will do it now. I believe the only way it will work now is for the Iraqis themselves to somehow take charge and turn things around. Our policy, strategy, tactics, et cetera, are still screwed up."

(CBS) Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the most respected and outspoken military leaders of the past two decades.

From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after.

Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration thought so highly of Zinni that it appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts -- special envoy to the Middle East.

But Zinni broke ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now, in his harshest criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are guilty of dereliction of duty -- and that the time has come for heads to roll. Correspondent Steve Kroft reports. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

“There has been poor strategic thinking in this,” says Zinni. “There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a failure.”

From Richard Wallace in New York
Daily Mirror (England)

THE American general who led allied troops to victory in the Gulf War, yesterday refused to accept that there was enough evidence to invade Iraq.

Retired Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf insisted that UN inspections must continue and said the US had not considered the consequences for the Middle East after an invasion.

He said: "The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought.

"Having said that, I don't know what intelligence the US government has. And before I can just stand up and say 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq', I guess I would like to have better information."

He added: "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive."

Schwarzkopf slammed defence chief Donald Rumsfeld for his warlike language.

He said: "I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made. He almost sometimes seems to be enjoying it.

"When he makes his comments, it appears that he disregards the army. He gives the perception when he's on TV that he is the guy driving the train and everybody else better fall in line behind him, or else. It's scary.

"Let's face it, there are guys at the Pentagon who have been involved in operational planning for their entire lives.

"And for this wisdom, acquired during many operations, just to be ignored and in its place have somebody who doesn't have any of that training, is of concern."

Schwarzkopf, interviewed on MSNBC-TV’s “Hardball,” chided Rumsfeld for his reply to a soldier in Kuwait over the lack of armor on many military vehicles used in Iraq.

“I was very, very disappointed — no, let me put it stronger — I was angry by the words of the secretary of defense when he laid it all on the Army, as if he, as the secretary of defense, didn’t have anything to do with the Army and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up,” Schwarzkopf said.

Schwarzkopf, a registered independent who campaigned for Bush in the last two presidential elections, has previously criticized Rumsfeld on several occasions as arrogant and out of touch with troops on the ground.

Monday, Schwarzkopf said the Defense Department had badly misjudged the situation in Iraq. Reserve forces were rushed into urban combat — “toughest kind of fighting” — without adequate training, and “things have gone awry.”

“In the final analysis, I think we are behind schedule” in Iraq, Schwarzkopf said. “... I

In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.

Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward.

"We have no idea what we will need until we get there on the ground," Mr. Wolfowitz said at a hearing of the House Budget Committee. "Every time we get a briefing on the war plan, it immediately goes down six different branches to see what the scenarios look like. If we costed each and every one, the costs would range from $10 billion to $100 billion." Mr. Wolfowitz's refusal to be pinned down on the costs of war and peace in Iraq infuriated some committee Democrats, who noted that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., the budget director, had briefed President Bush on just such estimates on Tuesday.

"I think you're deliberately keeping us in the dark," said Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia. "We're not so naïve as to think that you don't know more than you're revealing." Representative Darlene Hooley, an Oregon Democrat, also voiced exasperation with Mr. Wolfowitz: "I think you can do better than that."

Mr. Wolfowitz, with Dov S. Zakheim, the Pentagon comptroller, at his side, tried to mollify the Democratic lawmakers, promising to fill them in eventually on the administration's internal cost estimates. "There will be an appropriate moment," he said, when the Pentagon would provide Congress with cost ranges. "We're not in a position to do that right now."

At a Pentagon news conference with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, Mr. Rumsfeld echoed his deputy's comments. Neither Mr. Rumsfeld nor Mr. Wolfowitz mentioned General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, by name. But both men were clearly irritated at the general's suggestion that a postwar Iraq might require many more forces than the 100,000 American troops and the tens of thousands of allied forces that are also expected to join a reconstruction effort.

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said. General Shinseki gave his estimate in response to a question at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers — are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." He also said that the regional commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, would determine the precise figure.

A spokesman for General Shinseki, Col. Joe Curtin, said today that the general stood by his estimate. "He was asked a question and he responded with his best military judgment," Colonel Curtin said. General Shinseki is a former commander of the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia.

In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help.

[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=Sailor25]It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone ..."[/quote]

Why not attribute that to the person who said it? BTW, it used to be that to be a fascist you had to hold a certain set of beliefs, now all you have to do is support, even if in part, the Bush agenda. Ask Joe Lieberman....

[/quote]

MikeB,

ya' know, you are a piece of work. Sailor has a great point with his post.

[/quote]

"Sailor" quoted Andrew Sullivan quoting Glen Greenwald, and he did it without attribution.

The fact is the opposite is the truth. It used to be you had to stand for something to be ok in the eyes of liberals, now, you could be the most reprehensible sort of thug or someone with zero common ground with liberals, but if you bash Bush, you’re suddenly just A OK.

[quote=dude]I love how skepticism and distaste for Bush, gets you branded as a liberal. It's funny because I know a lot of conservatives (including myself) that are very dissappointed in Bush. [/quote]

Yeah, you’re a “conservative”. Mouthing every fringe conspiracy theory about hidden agendas, the “blame America first” diatribe, the “we need an open dialogue”. All hallmarks of a conservative. Actually this is just a dodge on your part having hand your head handed to you on your “Bush let bin Laden’s family go” trope. I don’t recall anyone calling you a liberal. Liberal, “real conservative” (like Buchanan going after Bush for being a “closet liberal lime his father”) I couldn’t care less. The issue is your grasp on who we face and what should be done about it.

[quote=dude]Obviously with your military background MikeB, i would expect nothing less than believing the military is the best tool for any challenge; it would invalidate your background, training and the large personal sacrifice and investment you've made to think otherwise.[/quote]

What a steamy load of nonsense. I’ve NEVER, NEVER said any thing remotely like “the military is the best tool for any challenge”. You just keep stuffing that foot further and further down your throat. You should quit while you’re behind.

[quote=dude]I suspect you're too stubborn to honestly put your preconcieved notions aside and question. [/quote]

Says the guy with the “open dialogue with the terrorist guy” who thinks there’s no real threat beyond Bush’s “hidden agenda”. Your tinfoil hat is slipping….

[quote=dude]

If you can't see that there are clear reasons to question Bush's…

[/quote]

There may be, but the moonbat theories you’ve raised aren’t “clear reasons” to question anything but your grasp on reality.

[quote=dude]

Not that you have to agree with me, but I am concerned by your zealousness and apparent lack of objectivity.

[/quote]

So it’s “objectivity” that causes you to spout nonsense like the Moore theory that Clarke disproved? Face it, dude, you suffer from BDS, and worse yet, you’re so incredibly ill-informed that it’s down right scary.

Again, stop reading the “9/11 was an inside job” websites and devote just a little bit of time to read what bin Laden and his lieutenants have written by their own hands as to what their goals are. Just get informed.

[quote=csmelnix]

Mike I will provide quotes when you answer the questions I asked.  Maybe you need to watch Meet the Press someday when those officers are on it. 

[/quote]

If the mission isn't clear to you by now, repeating it again won't help you.

[quote=csmelnix]

Great comments sailor if it weren't for di&kheads like Mike, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in....we'll see reality in a few more yrs douchbag when progress still has moved toward an endstate there.

[/quote]

What are you, 12 years old?

[quote=csmelnix]

Here spin this:

[/quote]

Spin it? I won't even bother to read it the way you presented it. Neither will anyone else....

QUOTE=SonnyClips] I'm saying they are ding dongs. [/quote]

And you reach that conclusion via an objective, spin and distortion free process. And of course, the final blow is..... a hunting accident....

[quote=SonnyClips]
Everything you can say about Carter, Kerry or Teddy I would probably agree with. [/quote]

Then why keep complaining that the public rejected them for Bush?

[quote=SonnyClips]

Billy Clint on the other hand is a whole different matter. Hell you won't even mention him in your rants …....

[/quote]

ROFLMAO. We haven't mentioned him because he's past tense. You're no longer offering him as an alternative. OTOH, if you like, we could talk about how he, in the interest of making sure the world loved him, failed to do anything substantive against the terrorists who struck US citizens and property around the world. Good Ol' Bill, finger wet and in the breeze, looking for the political angle, and ignoring the work that had to be done... He could work a room, but that’s as far as it goes…

[quote=SonnyClips]

"... and I think thats why Yall seem to be climbing the walls at this criticism."

[/quote]

You mean rolling on the floor laughing...

There are two things in the last 15 years that have damaged the Democrats like nothing else. The first was Clinton triangulating himself into losing the Democratic House and Senate. A situation they haven't recovered from and won't for a long, long time.

The second is the BDS problem that's driven the loons in the party to grab control, pushing rational voices aside. That's a hicky the Democrats won't recover from for an even longer time. The moonbats now running the show all gather together with deep thinkers like Michael Moore and exchange conspiracy theories that make the vast middle (the people who, unlike you and I, don't care much about politics and the ones who actually decide elections) just roll their eyes and pull the lever for the GOP.

[quote=SonnyClips] Hell don't you think that he is the only one doing anything that actually helps us Liberals. If what you say holds any water then Bush is the best friend we got. [/quote]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Obviously I disagree, Sonny. BDS has driven your party over the cliff. Did you happen to see the Alito hearings? The flap over wiretapping calls for AQ operatives? Michael Moore invited to sit in the presidential box at your convention? No, sorry, like Carville and Begala have said the turn by the Democrats away from the DLC has put them on the path to permanent minority status. I mean, Nancy Pelosi? The public thinks you guys just don't get it. You've certainly energized your far left wing base, but you isolated the public at the same time.

[quote=SonnyClips]
As far as <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Clinton is concerned he may be yesterdays news but being old hat doesn't keep you and BL from mentioning Teddy K and the Chappaquidic incident.

[/quote]

You may have noticed Teddy still serves in the Senate. He's your "conscience" and his latest, his incredible behavior at the Alito hearings, makes the point for us about what shambles the Democrats are in.

 [quote=SonnyClips] Bill does a helluva job drumming up goodwill for this country still and he has been more than kind to W.  [/quote]

I would agree. It’s a shame no one can talk any sense into JImmah Carter…

[quote=SonnyClips]

As far as the Dems being dead in the water I think you might find yourself suprised in the next few years and really only time will tell.

[/quote]

Again, sorry, Sonny, but you’re about to go through a dark period like you’ve never gone through before. You may have the op-ed page of the NY Times, most of Hollywood and the Micheal Moore/George Soros of the world, but the shift to the far left has made the Democrats unelectable at the top for a long time to come.

 [quote=SonnyClips]

Who do you think is going to be the standard bearer for the GOP. I think Barack may drop for the Dems and McCain did him a helluva favor by getting pissed at him, elevating him by showing that he is weighty enough to slug it out with a big ol politico.

[/quote]

Probably McCain, but as usual, I disagree with you on the specifics. McCain has earned, fairly or not, his “plain speech” label. People on both sides (outside we junkies) see him as a pure truth teller. I think Obama did himself a great disservice because he’s a relatively unknown, a blank slate, and now mister plain speaking says Obama is just another two faced political opportunist. I suspect Obama sees it that way too as he quickly jumped to change positions.

Also, just between us kids, Obama isn’t going anywhere. The Democrats are big about having a black face up front and center, playing the dishonest “we’ve always been with you” game with minorities while having “Sheets” as your Senate Minority Leader. But you’ve never been big on actually (unlike the GOP) putting blacks in positions of power.

[quote=SonnyClips]

 There is also rumbling that Lieberman might jump ship to join a McCain ticket, I wish he would he may be a great guy but he sure isn't much of a lib these days.

[/quote]

I feel for Joe. He’s saying what many responsible Democrats are saying, that it’s dangerous to twist BDS into an excuse to believe the GWOT is a fraud. With the fringe of the Democrats running the show and getting into Stalinist purges, he’s suddenly a fascist for NOT screaming like Kennedy that the war in Iraq was “invented in Texas”. If you drive the last of the visible, responsible Democrats out of your party, you might was well pack up your tents.

You just said it yourself. Here’s a guy that opposes Bush on almost every single domestic issue, yet he’s “isn’t much of a lib” because he sees the real danger we face and how we can’t wish it away.

[quote=SonnyClips]

The only way this works is if alot of people go to jail from the GOP and the country feels it needs to heal, then the GOP might see a need for McCain or Lieberman for that matter. [/quote]

Oh for crying out loud Sonny, how disconnected from reality are you? I mean I like you. You seem to have your eyes at least partially open, but “go to jail”? The public, for all the doubts they have about Bush, for all they (rightly) tire of war, they just don’t trust you guys with national security and that isn’t going to change anytime soon.

[quote=SonnyClips]What do you think of the former gov. from VA and Evan Bayh from IN for the Dems and a Giuliani/ McCain ticket for the GOP. [/quote]

Bayh has little going for him aside from being pretty and not being Kerry or any of the other usual suspects. I’d vote for Giuliani, but even if he got by the muggling the religious right would put on him, he may have too many skeletons. Who knows. I like McCain as well, but his penchant for “feel good” but stupid agendas like the tobacco nonsense, the “campaign finance reform” debacle, etc. make me pretty nervous. Then again, his love affair with the media would be over the second he looked as though he might win the GOP nomination because he’s pro-life. The knives would be drawn and quickly by those who currently hang on his every word.

[quote=SonnyClips]
I would be willing to bet my car that Obama is our first African American Prez whether or not that is in 08 or 12. I will let you beat up on the Idea before I explain why. [/quote]

Hmmm, so a one term Senator, black, will be elected in either ’08 or ’12. Bet your car, the exercise will be good for you.

BL from mentioning Teddy K and the Chappaquidic incident.

The reason I bring this up when you try to make ridiculous (heee heee pretzles) charges to demean the current administration is to give you some historical perspective.  You and Dude, while well meaning and I'm sure quite sincere, are so young that all a long time ago to you is last year. You have no real perspective or the ability to look at the long term consequences of the self serving actions of the extreme liberal elements of the Democratic party.   

I'll be willing to bet that you weren't even a gleam in your parents eyes in 1969 when Ted Kennedy cravenly killed a young woman and got away with it with no consequences to his privileged life. I was already in college.  To listen to that fat piece of dung lecture about morality is enough to make me want to puke.   The same goes for Clinton who abused the office of the President and lied under oath, a crime I might remind you for which many people go to jail.

Here is some historical perspective. I lived through the shame of the left forcing a defeat in the Vietnam War and making deaths of 50,000 men worthless.  One of whom was my fiancee and many of whom were my friends.  I see the same rush to blame America for everything and the attempt to force us to defeat in Iraq and it makes me mad.  The aging radicals (Cindy Sheehan) and others who hate America and see Communism/Socialism as the answer are grasping at this chance to re-live their faded glory. The Democrats see this war as a chance to grab for power.  The fact that they are attempting to make the deaths of brave men and women who have volunteered (not drafted) to serve in the military and the deaths of uncounted thousands of Iraqis worthless , means nothing to them.  So what if we weaken our country to the point that we openly invite acts of war to be committed in the US. So what if the consequences of their rush to defeat causes the deaths of more thousands as it did it Vietnam and Cambodia which was a direct result of the vacuum left by the withdrawal from Vietnam.

If the Democrats ever want to win a national election again, they have to jettison the Sheehan, Moore, Dean elements of the party.  The moderates and even the Republican base may not love Bush, but they love their own safety and recognize that the current trend of the Dems is only going to get us deeper and deeper in trouble.  The answer from the Democrats is usually more socialism, welfare programs and other things that appeal to the misguided altruism of people and nothing in the way of economic policy.

I don't know about Obama, other than he sounds just like any other weasel politician willing to stab some one in the back if it is to his own benefit. McCain will never have the support of conservatives since he supported legalizing the worst restriction on free speech, which will eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court.  Most conservatives view him as a turncoat.  I would love to see a Condi/Guiliani ticket for the GOP, but I believe that Condi really doesn't want to run.  That's too bad because the people who really want to be President shouldn't and the people who are smart enough to not put themselves into meat grinder are probably our best choices.

That's what I thought Mike, you are a fraud!

MikeB:

Yeah, you’re a “conservative”. Mouthing every fringe conspiracy theory about hidden agendas, the “blame America first” diatribe, the “we need an open dialogue”. All hallmarks of a conservative. Actually this is just a dodge on your part having hand your head handed to you on your “Bush let bin Laden’s family go” trope. I don’t recall anyone calling you a liberal. Liberal, “real conservative” (like Buchanan going after Bush for being a “closet liberal lime his father”) I couldn’t care less. The issue is your grasp on who we face and what should be done about it.

It's apparent you are misinterpreting my point and position.  I'm wasting my time with this.  Whatever......time to go make some $$$.

[quote=dude]

MikeB:

Yeah, you’re a “conservative”. Mouthing every fringe conspiracy theory about hidden agendas, the “blame America first” diatribe, the “we need an open dialogue”. All hallmarks of a conservative. Actually this is just a dodge on your part having hand your head handed to you on your “Bush let bin Laden’s family go” trope. I don’t recall anyone calling you a liberal. Liberal, “real conservative” (like Buchanan going after Bush for being a “closet liberal lime his father”) I couldn’t care less. The issue is your grasp on who we face and what should be done about it.

It's apparent you are misinterpreting my point and position.  I'm wasting my time with this.  Whatever......time to go make some $$$.

[/quote]

I doubt I misunderstand your position since I quoted you directly. Having said that, we'd all be better off making some $$$$$  

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

MikeB:

Yeah, you’re a “conservative”. Mouthing every fringe conspiracy theory about hidden agendas, the “blame America first” diatribe, the “we need an open dialogue”. All hallmarks of a conservative. Actually this is just a dodge on your part having hand your head handed to you on your “Bush let bin Laden’s family go” trope. I don’t recall anyone calling you a liberal. Liberal, “real conservative” (like Buchanan going after Bush for being a “closet liberal lime his father”) I couldn’t care less. The issue is your grasp on who we face and what should be done about it.

It's apparent you are misinterpreting my point and position.  I'm wasting my time with this.  Whatever......time to go make some $$$.

[/quote]

I doubt I misunderstand your position since I quoted you directly. Having said that, we'd all be better off making some $$$$$  

[/quote]

Also I'll add that it's not a fringe conspiracy theory to think that George Bush had some predetermined motive and used intelligence to support it.  In fact it's quite a mainstream belief amigo. 

Also, I wasn't trying to imply that Bush was directly responsible for letting the Saudi's leave (although indirectly he was).  I was just bringing up the fact that it happened for some reason (whether Richard Clarke authorised it or not) and curiously Bush happens to be good friends with many of these folks.  My bigger issue is with the Iraq war.  I don't believe that 911 was an inside job either.

[quote=SonnyClips]Anytime a less known politician is engaged in a tif with a older politician it winds up being a coup for the lesser known.[/quote]

That's not how I see it. As I see it Obama was a blank slate (to which people project many positive things) until a "trusted advisor" (to coin a phrase) told us all he was tow faced. Obama lost, and he proved that he lost by back tracking.

 [quote=SonnyClips]

Obama signs were in peoples yards next to Bush's.

[/quote]

To me that means people got a warm and fuzzy voting for a blank slate. It surely doesn't mean Obama, with a sigle term behind him is ready for prime time. IL went for Kerry and Obama ran against a laughable  candidate that the GOP couldn't get away from fast enough. I don't have anything yet, against him aside from what McCain pointed out, but he just isn't seasoned enough. For him to win Hilary would have to implode and then in the general, the GOP candidate would have to get caught with a dead girl or a live boy.

QUOTE=dude]

Also I'll add that it's not a fringe conspiracy theory to think that George Bush had some predetermined motive and used intelligence to support it. In fact it's quite a mainstream belief amigo. [/quote]

“Some predetermined agenda”? If by that you mean he wanted to go to war and was happy the intel supported it, fine. That’s mainstream. There’s a an element that says he “cherry picked” (whatever the frick that means, given the fact that he was told it was a “slam dunk” to prove) the intel. Then there’s the fringe that talks about “hidden agendas” and “exaggerated threats”.

[quote=dude]

Also, I wasn't trying to imply that Bush was directly responsible for letting the Saudi's leave (although indirectly he was). I was just bringing up the fact that it happened for some reason (whether Richard Clarke authorised it or not) and curiously Bush happens to be good friends with many of these folks.

[/quote]

Dude, you really should admit you bought a pig in a poke on that one. Not only did the White House not approve of the departure for suspicious reasons, the bin Ladens didn’t leave before the FBI talked to them and they didn’t leave before the flight restrictions were lifted. You were had and no less that two bi-partisan investigations say so.

The fact that you can't let it go, despite all the evidence says to me you're unwilling to face facts.

[quote=dude]

My bigger issue is with the Iraq war. I don't believe that 911 was an inside job either.

[/quote]

Dude, honestly, with all the respect I can muster, you traffic in some pretty bizarre stuff. I read you post on the other thread, and I have to say I find that your knee-jerk either blame-America-first-ism, or some form of BDS has clouded you judgment about the threat we face.

Please, in all sincerity, for sixty minutes, forget who the president is, forget about how we got into Iraq, forget all the Vietnam-open dialogue-what did we do to them stuff and do yourself a favor. Devote an hour to read what bin Laden and his fellow AQ types have written. Not what some US official says they said, what they’ve written and said themselves.

You can’t wish them away, you have to face what they themselves very clearly say are their aims. They killed 3,000 people in a single day. Their only disappointment is that they didn’t kill more. They want to kill every single non-believer and re-establish a medieval caliphate. If we were cowardly enough, and cared little enough about the fate of the rest of the world, we could pull every last American back into our borders, retreat from the rest of the world and they would still work towards 9/11 II. These are people who cheered when they saw the videotape of people jumping out of the twin towers to avoid dying in a fire.

::yawn::

Hilary is a corrupt bulldog and political opportunist.  That's why she fits in so well inside the Beltway.

Let's face it, most if not ALL politicians suck!

[quote=SonnyClips]We all suck. It's how the man keeps us down brotha Joe.[/quote]

Not even close! NASCAR sucks! Drafting is the only way these guys can pass each other at Daytona. Cars that don't suck, don't go.

…reminds me of the story about GM having problems selling the Nova in Mexico…“no va” literally means “it doesn’t go”.

Clipper...well, DUUUUUUUHHHHH!  I don't see how anyone could even try to spin that one any other way!

[quote=tjc45]

[quote=SonnyClips]We all suck. It's how the man keeps us down brotha Joe.[/quote]

Not even close! NASCAR sucks! Drafting is the only way these guys can pass each other at Daytona. Cars that don't suck, don't go.

[/quote]

No....Monica Lewinsky sucks.  Do you think she has any diamond earrings?

CS.. So if Bush is to blame for everything in IRAQ... He sure did kick some as. during the first week.  The only thing that slowed us down was Kerry, Dean, Dems and Kennedy who were chanting 50,000 will die going into Bagdad.

As for Syria and Iran... Are you this closed minded to think military is the only option. Right now the world is against Iran. Oh wait they have three allies in Syria, Hamas and North Korea. Syria just left Lebanon from political pressure.

Long live the anti Bushers of the world. To blind to realize he is gone in 3 years. Court and UN appointees are in place. Saddam and Taliban are gone. Patriot Act is in place. Bankruptcy and medicare reform took place. 4.7% unemployment. Market is strong. Housing is strong. GPD is strong. Terrorists you can run, but you cant hide (Pakistan drone kills 8 )! Taxes are cut.

Clinton fans… Please enlighten me what the great one did??? Of course besides all of the womanizing.

Sonny. Do you think this is Vietnam II?

Also Mike it's useless. People who voted for GORE hate BUSH. They enjoyed the years with a leader who said what we wanted to hear. They truly want to believe that Bush is worse then the terrorist themselves. For this we should say a prayer for them.

WOW.. So Perot had nothing to do with Bush loss? What did Clinton do? No regulation on markets had to stimulate the corruption... BJ in the oval office... Protected the muslims in Bosnia... North Korea stoped developing bombs (Albright)... Terrorism was spreading around the world and in the US... We were attacked multiple times with no responce...  3 chances to kill/catch Saddam... 

It's easy to look at the whole political picture and blame Bush for almost everything that is negative... When you take a look at the person and what they did or did not do it's interesting...

Don't know of a perfect war plan that you talk about, but if the goal was to get Saddam out and for a stable Iraq... 3 elections in two years is rather good...

Back to the books...       Sonny I am just a pup so I do listen to what my elders say, but at times I wonder if they have alzheimers...

Hey Clipper…got news for you…Gore lost in 2000…

[quote=SonnyClips]Gore lost the election not the vote. Frankly, I would rather win the vote. I mean hell all the glory and none of the responsibility, isn't that yer beef anyway? Grow a beard fcuk yer wife get in the history books and not have to be responsible for all this bullsh*t. Oh all that and make more bank, not a bad deal aye?[/quote]

Good.  That means that Al and Tipper(I always thought that name sounded like either a Spaniel or a sorority girl) are just as happy as I am that he's not President of the United States!

7God, 

Where did Bush's ass kicking in the first week get us to?  In case you missed it, we are still fighting there so the first week was one of the many battles; frankly, it means nothing now considering we sit where we do. 

Funny how I'm closed minded in your assumption that I believe military is the only option w/ Iran and Syria - my point is that if we are going to fight terror it just makes more sense to go after the REAL sponsors of terror.  But how is that suggestion closed minded when it was Bush's determination to use the military option v Iraq?  It appears that he may have been a bit more closed minded yet you don't have issues with that.  That's why apologists like you and Mike B are true Hypocrites who just can't be intellectually honest with reality.

I am a registered Republican by the way, but will be changing to the conservative party exclusively.  It's a great victory for freedom and democracy to know that the Patriot Act and data collection at the NSA is in place too.  

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

[quote=csmelnix]Where did Bush's ass kicking in the first week get us to?  [/quote]

Let's see... that would be the end of Saddam's army, the end of Saddam's reign of terror, the end of Saddam's government.

 BTW, I seem to recall the very sort of “OMG, they’ve screwed the pooch. Our supply lines…. Units getting lost….the sandstorm has us stopped in our tracks…” hysteria then that I hear now…

 [quote=csmelnix]In case you missed it, we are still fighting there …

[/quote]

Are we fighting Saddam’s army, or are we fighting a collection of AQ terrorists and thugs who kill more civilians that soldiers, are offending the people they hope to persuade to join them (see AQ’s #2’s letters to the #1 AQ guy in Iraq), who can’t hold terrain. You mean we’re “fighting” IEDs and snipers, both of which have dropped off in their frequency. Some people won’t admit victory a decade after our troops are back home…

[quote=csmelnix]  “… my point is that if we are going to fight terror it just makes more sense to go after the REAL sponsors of terror.”

[/quote]

Hmm, and your “real sponsors of terror”, which of them can claim Saddam’s record of hiding WMDs (remember how his son-in-law had to tell us about his programs at work while the UN was trying to inspect and finding nada?), refusing inspections. Housing/training/recuperating terrorists how have killed Americans, shooting at our planes and plotting to kill a former president?

[quote=csmelnix]

  But how is that suggestion closed minded when it was Bush's determination to use the military option v <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq? 

[/quote]

See the above for a brief review of how your “real sponsors” aren’t nearly in the same category Saddam was.

[quote=csmelnix]

That's why apologists like you and Mike B are true Hypocrites who just can't be intellectually honest with reality.

[/quote]

You wouldn’t know reality if someone drew a circle around it on your map with a red alcohol pen.

[quote=csmelnix]

I am a registered Republican by the way, but will be changing to the conservative party exclusively. 

[/quote]

Hey, it’s your vote. You want to make it worthless, it’s your call.

[quote=csmelnix]

 It's a great victory for freedom and democracy to know that the Patriot Act and data collection at the NSA is in place too.   <?:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

[/quote]

Ohhhh the evvvvilll Patriot Act and the NSA tapping AQ phone calls. Will democracy survive? 

CS, I guess we have different views on threats and how to deal with them.

Do you view WMD's as only germs and nuclear? Two DC snipers had 25 million people scared to leave their home. It only took 19 to kill thousands and level the World Trade Centers.

Some Americans think Saddam hated Americans and was a threat. After all he killed about a million people. Attacked 5 countries. Used chemicals on his own people. Supported terrorism 20k per marter. Saddam invited hundreds of extreme Muslim teachers into his country to preach hatred to his people. Reported by the AP.

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,593 6,18171946%255E1702,00.html

MB - you are just lost;  you are a fraud that makes zero sense. 

7G - we do disagree but I don't think on such a wide scale.  I said from the beginning of this post, I don't necessarily disagree with going into Iraq as much as I just can't stomach how screwed up we have fought the thing.  Mike B being the expert correspondence school CGS graduate that he is feels that he is a much better expert on low intensity conflict than somebody who has been thorough trained in thant type of warfare.  But anyway, WMDs are not the same as terrorists man come on; that's too big a stretch.  And about the invitation of extremists.... it's beyond the borders of Iraq.  Saudi, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Khazakistan, Uzbek, on and on...that's just not the proper barometer.  Again though, I don't necessarily disagree with going into Iraq, we just needed to do it better, which we are far more capable of doing than what we have there thus far. 

[quote=mikebutler222]

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

[quote=csmelnix]Where did Bush's ass kicking in the first week get us to?  [/quote]

Let's see... that would be the end of Saddam's army, the end of Saddam's reign of terror, the end of Saddam's government.

In place of absolute chaos, where parents can't send their kids to school in fear of car bombs, there's less work than before, less energy and oil output than before .... again the policy of poor planning that you have such a hard time seeing (too bad the staff training and state dept jobs you had didn't help you here).

 BTW, I seem to recall the very sort of “OMG, they’ve screwed the pooch. Our supply lines…. Units getting lost….the sandstorm has us stopped in our tracks…” hysteria then that I hear now…

That's great Mike, I am glad you recall that - so do the people who f&*king died because we did not properly provide force protection for this. 

 [quote=csmelnix]In case you missed it, we are still fighting there …

[/quote]

Are we fighting Saddam’s army, or are we fighting a collection of AQ terrorists and thugs who kill more civilians that soldiers, are offending the people they hope to persuade to join them (see AQ’s #2’s letters to the #1 AQ guy in Iraq), who can’t hold terrain. You mean we’re “fighting” IEDs and snipers, both of which have dropped off in their frequency. Some people won’t admit victory a decade after our troops are back home…

Does it matter?  We're still fighting but sorry your son died maddam, the good news is he was killed by a Sunni insurgent. 

Stupid...if you had any idea of the situation there you would know that we are fighting a force made roughly of 85-90% sunni's from inside Iraq; not foreigners.  Al Anbar, ever been there?  It's chock full of the Sunni's that benefitted from the Rule of Saddam.  The chaos is predominately inside there where we fight the Sunni's.  Your broad brush again....wipe the foam off your mouth moron.

[quote=csmelnix]  “… my point is that if we are going to fight terror it just makes more sense to go after the REAL sponsors of terror.”

[/quote]

Hmm, and your “real sponsors of terror”, which of them can claim Saddam’s record of hiding WMDs (remember how his son-in-law had to tell us about his programs at work while the UN was trying to inspect and finding nada?), refusing inspections. Housing/training/recuperating terrorists how have killed Americans, shooting at our planes and plotting to kill a former president?

His son in law also said that there were no WMDs they were destroyed in the mid-90s - I already included that in my posts earlier.  Real sponsor, paying and directly funding Hamas, Fatah, Force 17, Hizballah, AL aqsa, Islamic Jihad, AL Gama Islamiyya, DFLP, Sipah e sahaba and then some v cherry picked and outdated intelligence.... known v unknown - yea makes sense to go after the suspected unknown v the known.  Again, thank God you were part of the downsizing in the officer corp.

[quote=csmelnix]

  But how is that suggestion closed minded when it was Bush's determination to use the military option v <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq? 

[/quote]

See the above for a brief review of how your “real sponsors” aren’t nearly in the same category Saddam was.

[quote=csmelnix]

That's why apologists like you and Mike B are true Hypocrites who just can't be intellectually honest with reality.

[/quote]

You wouldn’t know reality if someone drew a circle around it on your map with a red alcohol pen.

[quote=csmelnix]

I am a registered Republican by the way, but will be changing to the conservative party exclusively. 

[/quote]

Hey, it’s your vote. You want to make it worthless, it’s your call.

Spoken like a real moron -

[quote=csmelnix]

 It's a great victory for freedom and democracy to know that the Patriot Act and data collection at the NSA is in place too.   <?:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

[/quote]

Ohhhh the evvvvilll Patriot Act and the NSA tapping AQ phone calls. Will democracy survive? 

Yea, that's the assumption.  NSA isn't tapping either, go do some research there numb nuts...data mining grabs far greater info from far greater sources...if it was just wire tapping, even I believe Bush would have sought court appointed warrants.  I guess you are comfortable though that only one branch of government, and one person in that branch gets to determine who the suspected terrorists is, and determines that they can listen in on him w/o any oversight. 

[quote=SonnyClips]You are never free...if you are a Republican...[/quote]

Clipper...if you use that as your sig line, I'll have to charge royalties for copyright infringement...

BTW...I am an independent...both in my line of work and my politics, but I'll have to confess to some republican leanings...

...and I still feel pretty free...

[quote=csmelnix]

MB - you are just lost;  you are a fraud that makes zero sense.  [/quote]

This from the expert that doesn't know what the mission is....

[quote=csmelnix]

Mike B being the expert correspondence school CGS graduate that he is feels that he is a much better expert on low intensity conflict than somebody who has been thorough trained in thant type of warfare. 

[/quote]

As opposed to the "expert" that never advanced that far but feels qualified to tell the commanders on the ground there how they "screwed it up"...

[quote=csmelnix]But anyway, WMDs are not the same as terrorists man come on; that's too big a stretch. [/quote]

Hmmm, as if Saddam couldn't have handed a small, easily concealed WMD to a terrorist pal of his. Yeah, too big a stretch.

BTW, the "secret tapes" of Saddam are now public, including the discussions in his office about how they kept UN inspectors from their WMD programs and Saddam commenting on how easy it would be to attack the US with small, concealable WMDs...

Secret tapes dating back to 1995.  Smokn gun brother.

Funny I never saw you mention the mission.  Downsized - gotta love it.

[quote=csmelnix][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=csmelnix]Where did Bush's ass kicking in the first week get us to? [/quote]

Let's see... that would be the end of Saddam's army, the end of Saddam's reign of terror, the end of Saddam's government.

In place of absolute chaos, where parents can't send their kids to school in fear of car bombs, there's less work than before, less energy and oil output than before .... again the policy of poor planning that you have such a hard time seeing (too bad the staff training and state dept jobs you had didn't help you here).

[/quote]

So Saddam keep the trains running on time. This might be news to you, but the “plans” change the second the first round is fired. It is true from time immortal. I just love tha backbenchers harping on “planning” that would have made this all run like a Superbowl halftime show.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=csmelnix]

BTW, I seem to recall the very sort of “OMG, they’ve screwed the pooch. Our supply lines…. Units getting lost….the sandstorm has us stopped in our tracks…” hysteria then that I hear now…

[/quote]

That's great Mike, I am glad you recall that - so do the people who f&*king died because we did not properly provide force protection for this. [/quote]

Perhaps you could name the “force protection” agenda in ALB2000 that protects the long supply lines. Oh, that’s right, the doctrine accepts as a given that supply line would be vulnerable, but that that price is worth it to run the offense deep and fast to destroy the enemies centers of influence early…. I guess you slept thru that part of IOAC…

[quote=csmelnix]In case you missed it, we are still fighting there …

[/quote]

Are we fighting Saddam’s army, or are we fighting a collection of AQ terrorists and thugs who kill more civilians that soldiers, are offending the people they hope to persuade to join them (see AQ’s #2’s letters to the #1 AQ guy in Iraq), who can’t hold terrain. You mean we’re “fighting” IEDs and snipers, both of which have dropped off in their frequency. Some people won’t admit victory a decade after our troops are back home…

[/quote]

Does it matter? We're still fighting but sorry your son died maddam, the good news is he was killed by a Sunni insurgent. [/quote]

As a matter of fact, it does matter. We now face a ragtag “enemy” that is fading, can’t hold terrain and is offending the civilian populace he had hoped to bring into his movement. I know in your cherry little world the right “planning” would have made this easy as pie.

[quote=csmelnix]

Stupid...if you had any idea of the situation there you would know that we are fighting a force made roughly of 85-90% sunni's from inside Iraq; not foreigners.

[/quote]

When did I ever suggest the majority of the insurgency was foreigners? I used to joke with infantry guys about their lack of reading ability, but it really was a joke. Here’s the deal, pal, the commanders on the ground know better what we face than you do.

[quote=csmelnix] “… my point is that if we are going to fight terror it just makes more sense to go after the REAL sponsors of terror.”

[/quote]

Hmm, and your “real sponsors of terror”, which of them can claim Saddam’s record of hiding WMDs (remember how his son-in-law had to tell us about his programs at work while the UN was trying to inspect and finding nada?), refusing inspections. Housing/training/recuperating terrorists how have killed Americans, shooting at our planes and plotting to kill a former president?

[quote=csmelnix]

His son in law also said that there were no WMDs they were destroyed in the mid-90s - I already included that in my posts earlier. [/quote]

His son-in-law, the one that ran from him, told us Saddam had WMD programs WHILE THE UN INSPECTORS WERE FINDING NONE, returned to Iraq with Saddam’s promise of safety. He then was promptly killed.

[quote=csmelnix]

Real sponsor, paying and directly funding Hamas, Fatah, Force 17, Hizballah, AL aqsa, Islamic Jihad, AL Gama Islamiyya, DFLP, Sipah e sahaba and then …[/quote]

I love how the guy with the CV Saddam had isn’t a “real sponsor of terror” ….

[quote=csmelnix]

Again, thank God you were part of the downsizing in the officer corp.{/quote]

Gee, another faulty assumption jumped to. You have a really bad habit there, junior.

[quote=csmelnix]

I am a registered Republican by the way, but will be changing to the conservative party exclusively.

[/quote]

Hey, it’s your vote. You want to make it worthless, it’s your call.

[/quote]

Spoken like a real moron -

Spoken like someone who’s never counted the number of “conservative party” members in the House or Senate….

[quote=csmelnix]

It's a great victory for freedom and democracy to know that the Patriot Act and data collection at the NSA is in place too.

[/quote]

Ohhhh the evvvvilll Patriot Act and the NSA tapping AQ phone calls. Will democracy survive?

[quote=csmelnix]

Yea, that's the assumption. NSA isn't tapping either,

[/quote]

I suspect you mean isn’t “just”…

[quote=csmelnix]….go do some research there numb nuts...data mining grabs far greater info from far greater sources...if it was just wire tapping, even I believe Bush would have sought court appointed warrants.

[/quote]

The data mining programs are well known, junior. Call me crazy, but in a time of war, I don’t have a problem with the president not going to the courts to ask permission to listen to enemy transmissions. Say, should FDR have had the court’s permission to cack the Japanese codes?

[quote=csmelnix]

I guess you are comfortable though that only one branch of government, and one person in that branch gets to determine who the suspected terrorists is, and determines that they can listen in on him w/o any oversight.

[/quote] [/quote]

Very. It’s war, not a police action.

I knew you would throw that crap about the son in law.  Again showing your lack of knowledge.

His son in law stated to the CIA flat out that the weapons were destroyed.  If you knew anything about the situation you would be aware of this.  Are you familiar with "the farm" operation?  Obviously not.  When he defected he stated what I mentioned above, the caviot is he also detailed how Saddam's Regime maintained the information necessary to reconstitute the WMD program.  As a result of his defection however, Saddam had the weapons inspectors do an inspection of the defectors "farm" in Iraq - guess what they found?  All the documents and equipment that the son in law was talking about with regard to the information necessary to reconstitute the WMD program. 

Sorry to blow your story up, but that's what you get for being a staff pogue which by the way you also fail to declare to those who read this thread when you brag about your "advanced" school/correspondence.  Those schools teach you how to be a good staffer and print pretty power point documents for the men in charge. 

Oh yea, also love your comment about acceptable price for long supply lines - is it acceptable that no force protection was allocated?  Where I got training, supply lines to an overextended enemy were target #1; did they teach that at correspondence?

One last piece, maybe we agree on this small point - I have no problem in times of war for the President eavesdropping or mining info on the enemy either.  However, there's no distinguishing factor here between who is enemy and who isn't - again, learn what data mining is and what the NSA is doing and you would see this.  Another broad brush attempt - the Japanese code breaking = NSA casting a wide net across all people; citizens, non-citizens, terrorists etc...yea that is pretty similar; was the codes from Japan or in the US?

Oh I didn't realize my one vote matter more if I was a Republican instead of a registered Conservative.  I better brush up on my citizenry studies. 

"are we fighting Saddam’s army, or are we fighting a collection of AQ terrorists and thugs"  

does that look familiar?  You are assuming we are fighting AQ predominately in Iraq by your statement.. so yes you did state that.  Facts are we are barely fighting these scum bags; we are predominately fighting Sunni Bathists - what party did Saddam control again?

I will also agree with your "cherry little world" comment... however, I take strong issue with the idea that the insurgency was an unknown.  Detailed in my other posts, more than a few experts warned and what ever else about this and it was the corner stone of the argument of having a much larger force presence; but good 'ol Wolfowitz and cronies actually made the comment that>>>"there has never been any history of ethnic strife in Iraq...." 

having said that, I guess Monday morning quarterbacking is out of line. 

[quote=csmelnix]

I knew you would throw that crap about the son in law.  Again showing your lack of knowledge.

His son in law stated to the CIA flat out that the weapons were destroyed.  If you knew anything about the situation you would be aware of this.  Are you familiar with "the farm" operation?  Obviously not.  When he defected he stated what I mentioned above, the caviot is he also detailed how Saddam's Regime maintained the information necessary to reconstitute the WMD program.  As a result of his defection however, Saddam had the weapons inspectors do an inspection of the defectors "farm" in Iraq - guess what they found?  All the documents and equipment that the son in law was talking about with regard to the information necessary to reconstitute the WMD program. 

Sorry to blow your story up, but that's what you get for being a staff pogue which by the way you also fail to declare to those who read this thread when you brag about your "advanced" school/correspondence.  Those schools teach you how to be a good staffer and print pretty power point documents for the men in charge. 

Oh yea, also love your comment about acceptable price for long supply lines - is it acceptable that no force protection was allocated?  Where I got training, supply lines to an overextended enemy were target #1; did they teach that at correspondence?

One last piece, maybe we agree on this small point - I have no problem in times of war for the President eavesdropping or mining info on the enemy either.  However, there's no distinguishing factor here between who is enemy and who isn't - again, learn what data mining is and what the NSA is doing and you would see this.  Another broad brush attempt - the Japanese code breaking = NSA casting a wide net across all people; citizens, non-citizens, terrorists etc...yea that is pretty similar; was the codes from Japan or in the US?

Oh I didn't realize my one vote matter more if I was a Republican instead of a registered Conservative.  I better brush up on my citizenry studies. 

"are we fighting Saddam’s army, or are we fighting a collection of AQ terrorists and thugs"  

does that look familiar?  You are assuming we are fighting AQ predominately in Iraq by your statement.. so yes you did state that.  Facts are we are barely fighting these scum bags; we are predominately fighting Sunni Bathists - what party did Saddam control again?

I will also agree with your "cherry little world" comment... however, I take strong issue with the idea that the insurgency was an unknown.  Detailed in my other posts, more than a few experts warned and what ever else about this and it was the corner stone of the argument of having a much larger force presence; but good 'ol Wolfowitz and cronies actually made the comment that>>>"there has never been any history of ethnic strife in Iraq...." 

having said that, I guess Monday morning quarterbacking is out of line. 

[/quote]

Damn csmelnix, you are givin' the bulldog a run for his money on this one, I appreciate your stamina as well as your background. 

Some people say going after Saddam was a shot at the bow of all terrorist nations. When Zarquari was hurt he fled to IRAQ. I suspect he knew Saddam accepted him? Either way if the goal was to remove Saddam and Iraq have a stable government then we have won. Now just to clean up and move out!

Of course IRAQ is in the middle of the fire. So its nice to see the world including France taking a stand against Iran. Syria and Hamas have some serious pressure on them also.

Before it was Lebanon to Afganistan that hated us. Now it's every other. Not a bad way to balance the field in three years.

Agreed 7G; like I said my true beef it's just the way Iraq was run.  The cleaning out could have been done much better w/ the proper planning and execution. 

Take care, hopefully the next bow we shoot across is done cleaner.

Yeah I hear you, but I don't think there is a perfect war? Iraq was crazy due to so many factors including: UN bs, the removal of Iraq Army in one week, support from Syria and Iran, Turkey not allowing troops as we attacked from the south.

You really think Bush/Cheeny/Rumsfield drew up all the plans then without any Generals opinions? I know you have reviewed this, but I doubt they drew up the plans.

Under the assumption that we had 300k troops on the ground do you think it would have been easier to manage? Would the terrorists still have attacked? Would the result be the same (Saddam removal, IRAQ forces fighting for freedom and a solid government)? Could we have expected 2500 US troops dead (many recently have died by road side bombs)?

To me the theory of having 300k troops would have resulted in numerous unknown variables that may have resulted in a better or worse conclusion after 2 years. No one will ever know so why think about it.

All we can do is support the troops... Finish the job and get out... Party like its 1999... Continue to remove terrorists from the earth, where ever they may hide...

[quote=7GOD63]

Some people say going after Saddam was a shot at the bow of all terrorist nations. When Zarquari was hurt he fled to IRAQ. I suspect he knew Saddam accepted him? Either way if the goal was to remove Saddam and Iraq have a stable government then we have won. Now just to clean up and move out!

Of course IRAQ is in the middle of the fire. So its nice to see the world including France taking a stand against Iran. Syria and Hamas have some serious pressure on them also.

Before it was Lebanon to Afganistan that hated us. Now it's every other. Not a bad way to balance the field in three years.

7G,

No I certainly don't think they drew up plans w/o Generals involvement, however, I do KNOW that they were given specific parameters of which to build a plan with in - the worst thing a civilian leader can do is micromanage for those w/ the expertise.

If we went in heavier, I believe we would have been in a much greater position than today.  But there were more mistakes on planning than just size of force...one being the placing of many Republican party members involved with state campaigns getting position in the IPA initially after the war "ended" when none had any experience overseas let alone in the middle east.  There was a tremendous loss of time and momentum due to this part of the plan or lack there of, that really led steam to the insurgency.  Having a larger force there would have helped prevent a lot of the follow on chaos and given us better capability to restore infrastructure. 

Anyway, it was good throwing stuff back and forth with you.

Sixers lost to the Bulls last night. They showed a small glimmer of life and closed the 30 point gap to about 20.

Moving 300,000 troops with equipment is not that easy. After 91 (desert storm revolution) everyone suspected when we went in the people would help. Well this sorta happened, but terrorists from Syria, Afganistan and Iran joined the fight. Then for $2 a kid would plant a bomb.

Maybe 300,000 troops would have been for the best, but for sure we would have been an "occupier".

Hey Joe thanks for helping me with the spelling. 

[quote=Indyone]

[quote=SonnyClips]You are never free...if you are a Republican...[/quote]

Clipper...if you use that as your sig line, I'll have to charge royalties for copyright infringement...

BTW...I am an independent...both in my line of work and my politics, but I'll have to confess to some republican leanings...

...and I still feel pretty free...

[/quote]

You are not "independent".  Independent is actually a party.

You are not free unless you are unaffiliated.

[quote=tjc45]Sixers lost to the Bulls last night. They showed a small glimmer of life and closed the 30 point gap to about 20.[/quote]

How did AI play?

The Knicks RAWK!

You should all listen to Michael Savage, he has been right on, after 9/11 we should have given the Muslims 48 hours to kill all of their radical extremist leaders,(They know who they are) if they didn't comply, we start nuking cities why put our troops in arms way?

How many cities would we have to nuke before they started cutting off heads of extremist ?  ONE..............

America needs to get back taking care of their own, if the terrorist kill one American we should kill 100,000 of theirs ..........not with troops, but with nukes.................better them,  than our home land.

We are at WAR, UNFORTUNATELY 50% of Americans are our worst enemies, called LIBERALS.............Maybe we need a civil war at home first, or we could divide the country and let the Liberals be taken over by the Terriost, they could offer peace and love while their heads are being cut off.........we don't need a military do we? 

Maybe I am in the middle. :)

Player…you’re an idiot.  Now get back to watching the 700 club, your leader needs more lemmings.

More "postive" developments on the Iraq front.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/la-022206iraq_ lat,0,403842.story?coll=ny-leadworldnews-headlines

Yeah, civil war (as was predicted by many experts) may be an outcome of our meddling.  Love to see where this ends up.

Three cheers for Bush.