SOTU

[sirs]

Guys, quit confusing Sirs with facts. He wants to blame Clinton for everything and then charge all of you with Blame Bush Syndrome, or some such nonsense when you say anything negative about the past seven years.

Or, I could actually acknowledge the facts, concede that my original position on when the CIA/FBI firewall was established, then go back to highlighting the facts of how the economy is doing well (never said "rosy", simply not the 2nd coming of the depression as the left & MSM would have us think), empolyemnt continues to remain at record lows, the Iraqi surge is working, and how UHC would be a bureacratic nightmare, when you see what simply Katrina demonstrated on a regional level.  And we won't even reference the FACT to the plethora of criticisms I've leveled right here in the saloon, at Bush over the last several years, and how very rarely I bring up Clinton's name

But, nice try Js.  In nearly every case I've noted, facts to a hard core liberal is like kryptonite to Superman

[Plane]

Withdrawing from Iraq would not have any effect on Al Qaeda attacks in the US. .....

Why not ?

Arn't Al Queda resorces being used in Iraq and Afganistan?

Is their tolerance for attrition absolutely endless?


If they can stand ten times the attrition we can , we must attain at least eleven .

Al Queda can't quit untill their strategy seems foolish world wide  , till then they can't stop attacking us no matter what we do.

[Brassmask]

I've been scanning over this thread and all I can say is that sirs is living in absolute BatShitCrazyLand.

Sirs, you're talking about leaving Hussein "unchecked" in a time when we KNOW, absolutely, positively that he was a toothless tiger and a smoke and mirrors liar.  Hussein told his interrogator flatly that he was bluffing and that he never believed Bush would invade.

They've either combed Iraq over and found nothing or the military has secreted the WMD away and given them over to folks who will use them when it most behooves the DLC/neo-con New World Order plans.  Either way, you got screwed and lied to.

All this "given the intelligence he had at the time" bullshit is just that.  They cherry-picked that intelligence the way my 3 year old picks the pickles out of his tuna salad.  They put out the lie that Saddam was somehow behind 9/11 to get the people who watch ONLY American Idol and all things Britney to get them behind and create buzz.  The whole time people like you and me who actually read what they are saying were either saying THAT'S A LIE or HE NEVER SAID THAT.

So here we are YEARS after the initial lies and bullshit and coverups and cherrypicking and bravado and insanity and murder of the illegal invasion of IRaq and you are STILL implying that it was all worth it and honorable and, most insane of all, NECESSARY?!!?!?

WTF!?!?!?

[Plane]

"...... or the military has secreted the WMD away and given them over to folks who will use them when it most behooves the DLC/neo-con New World Order plans.  Either way, you got screwed and lied to...."

You beleive this possible?

Why then do you beleive it impossible that Saddam and compay hid materiels, or even more onimous, hid experts and a liabrary of know how?

I seems like it would be easyer for Saddam to hide something well , given that he had nearly twelve years to get it hid.

[sirs]

I've been scanning over this thread and all I can say is that sirs is living in absolute BatShitCrazyLand.  Sirs, you're talking about leaving Hussein "unchecked" in a time when we KNOW, absolutely, positively that he was a toothless tiger and a smoke and mirrors liar.  

No, FACTUALLY, we didn't.  FACTUALLY our intel told us, it was a slam dunk, that he still had a whole host of WMD.  FACTUALLY, there were direct and indirect connections Iraq had with Islamic terrorists, which included AlQeada.  Following 911, and referenced by David Kay, when he was charged into looking into the disposition of Saddam's WMD program, while that program uncovered that those stockpiles were largely not, given what Bush knew (as the rest of the intel community believed they knew), of course Bush acted appropriately

No, my friend.  BSCLand is completely the domain of those that think 911 was an inside job, that no plane hit the Pentagon, that Bush "lied us into war"

 

[Michael Tee]

<<No, FACTUALLY, we didn't.  FACTUALLY our intel told us, it was a slam dunk . . . >>

Yeah, well FACTUALLY, it's not the job of the President to swallow uncritically everything that "intel" (i.e., the people who supposedly are working for him) tell him, especially when issues of war and peace are riding on it.  A chief executive has the responsibility to examine the intel, check it over skeptically (particularly due to known forgeries that had already crept into it) see what the sources are, what the interests of the sources are, etc.  The fact is that the "intel" that "everybody" believed in was not sufficient to convince the leaders of China, Russia, France, Germany, Canada and dozens of other countries of any need for urgency, and the U.S. withdrew a motion to the UN Security Council on the eve of the vote, knowing that the Security Council would REJECT their bullshit claim of urgency and imminent danger.

And FACTUALLY there is plenty of evidence that the Bush administration cooked the books to obtain the "intel" that it needed in order to invade Iraq. 

And FACTUALLY there is an undeniable case made out that most of the people around Bush had already made the case for invading Iraq and presented it to Clinton BEFORE anyone had invented the phony WMD issue as the excuse for invading Iraq.

So, FACTUALLY, my friend, you are fulla shit.

Oh, and BTW, not only did Bush actually lie the country into war, but it seems that most of the Amerikkkan sheeple know that by now.  So if you really believe that Bat-Shit Crazy Land is inhabited by people who believe that Bush lied the country into war, you've just produced a rather damning indictment of your own country.  Isn't that treasonous of you?

[Plane]

"A chief executive has the responsibility to examine the intel, check it over skeptically......."


If you can't trust your spys , who can you trust ?


Seriously , who?

I think he was a sceptic , only tward the ones that thought Iraq innocent, considering the record Saddam ran up , I consider this scepticism justified.

[Michael Tee]

<<If you can't trust your spys , who can you trust ?   Seriously , who?>>

Nobody.  The decision rests with the President of the U.S.A.  I don't recall any part of the Constitution that says that the nation's spies are immune from being grilled by their boss and that when the spies think another country is a menace, that the President has no option but to declare war and invade.  I this case there were already forgeries present in the case that had been built for war.  That alone was enough to cast suspicion on the case.  Who is Curveball, who did he represent?  How come most of the other information came from the same people that Curveball represented?  Essentially, you're going to war and ALL of the information leading you to war comes from the Iraqi National Congress, the one group that aims to benefit by being returned to power if Saddam is overthrown?  That's not "intel," that's a fig leaf cooked up to provide an excuse.

Despite sirs' pathetic insistence that all the other intelligence agencies in the world believed the same "intel" as Bush, that is obvious crap.  Nobody can know for sure what anybody else "believes" - - not even the all-knowing sirs - - but their actions give a good indication of it - - Germany, France, Russia, China, Canada and others as revealed by their words and their actions DID NOT BELIEVE that the "intel" made a case for invasion.  The U.S. withdrew a Security Council motion on the eve of the vote because they KNEW they could not get the votes.  Period.  End of story.

[Plane]

<<If you can't trust your spys , who can you trust ?   Seriously , who?>>

Nobody.  The decision rests with the President of the U.S.A.  I don't recall any part of the Constitution that says that the nation's spies are immune from being grilled by their boss and that when the spies think another country is a menace, that the President has no option but to declare war and invade.  I this case there were already forgeries present in the case that had been built for war.  That alone was enough to cast suspicion on the case.  Who is Curveball, who did he represent?  How come most of the other information came from the same people that Curveball represented?  Essentially, you're going to war and ALL of the information leading you to war comes from the Iraqi National Congress, the one group that aims to benefit by being returned to power if Saddam is overthrown?  That's not "intel," that's a fig leaf cooked up to provide an excuse.

Despite sirs' pathetic insistence that all the other intelligence agencies in the world believed the same "intel" as Bush, that is obvious crap.  Nobody can know for sure what anybody else "believes" - - not even the all-knowing sirs - - but their actions give a good indication of it - - Germany, France, Russia, China, Canada and others as revealed by their words and their actions DID NOT BELIEVE that the "intel" made a case for invasion.  The U.S. withdrew a Security Council motion on the eve of the vote because they KNEW they could not get the votes.  Period.  End of story.

This shows the advantage of an open society .


Saddam had such tight controll that spying in Iraq was unsuccessfull and all of his critics and whistleblowers were dead.

With such effort at hideing , the safe assumption is that there is nothing to hide?

Asumeing the worst might turn out to be wrong , I am still not sure.


But in the face of extreme secrecy and extremely tight controll assumeing the best was a real and serious risk.

Shame on Saddam for makeing it nessacery to make an assumption.

[hnumpah]

FACTUALLY, over 70 years on, some people still try to justify Hitler's actions.

[sirs]

FACTUALLY, over 70 years on, some people still try to justify Hitler's actions.

Wow, I coulda swore not more than a few days ago, H made it clear he wasn't of the Bush = Hitler crowd.  I have to say, I am unfortunately surprised

[hnumpah]

Think about what I said. Go ahead, give your brain a workout.

I said nothing about Bush = Hitler.

Not surprised you tried to twist the meaning of what I said, though. It's a habit with you.

[sirs]

Hmmm, let's see folks defending what Bush has done.  H prompts a statement of those still defender Hitler.  Yea, no connection what-so-ever     

[hnumpah]

There is a connection. You just have the wrong one, as usual.

I did clearly compare those who would still defend Bush's actions with those who would defend Hitler, 70 years after the fact.

That in no way infers that Bush = Hitler. Not to most normal people, anyway. Their followers might be alike in their senseless defense of their chosen one, but that does not mean there is any resemblence between the chosen ones.

[sirs]

I did clearly compare those who would still defend Bush's actions with those who would defend Hitler, 70 years after the fact.  That in no way infers that Bush = Hitler.

RIIIIIGHT.  Whatever you say, H