http://www.theomahachannel.com/helenthomas...950/detail.html

WASHINGTON -- The Central Intelligence Agency is investigating the accuracy of the Bush administration's conclusions that Iraq represented an imminent and direct threat to the United States.

The administration cited U.S. intelligence assessments that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had ties to al-Qaida terrorists as reasons to attack Iraq.

Now, after seven weeks of U.S. occupation of Iraq, the failure to find evidence supporting those accusations raises the prospect that President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other administration officials either exaggerated the danger to justify the invasion of Iraq or were misled by flawed intelligence.

Blair's taking heat over it too:

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/ap05-...asp?reg=MIDEAST

''Have a little patience,'' Blair said at a news conference alongside Miller. ''I have absolutely no doubt at all that we will present the full evidence after we have investigated all the sites, after we've interviewed all the scientists and experts, and this will take place in the coming weeks and months.''
Many Britons are furious about Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's suggestion that Saddam might have destroyed his weapons before the fighting began.

Things that make you go hummm ...

things that make me go hmmmm ...

other people are probably too busy considering all of the disgrace that Bill Clinton brought on the office of the Presidency to go hmmmm...

see - lying about WMD to justify a war seems to be okay. Lying about a blowjob, however, is an impeachable offense.

whattacountry ....

what was the "lie"
who said it was ok?
:rolleyes:

i think you have it wrong a little PD. Lying under oath in a court of law and giving false testimony as the President of the United States and a licensed attorney was considered to be an impeachable offense.

are you suggesting that if it could be proven that Bush lied that no action would follow?

you are not that naive.

Blair is ever so confident. Love the way that guy talks.

Related ... (Boston Globe)

WASHINGTON - CIA Director George Tenet took the unusual step yesterday of publicly defending the agency's intelligence on Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons amid growing criticism that the Bush administration exaggerated what it knew about the Iraqi weapons programs to advance its case for going to war.

The statement by Tenet - a rarity for a director of central intelligence, who normally does not react publicly to criticism about intelligence matters except during testimony before Congress - underscored the ferment that has been building within the intelligence agencies because of the inability to date of US forces in Iraq to uncover any proscribed weapons.

Three complaints have been filed with the CIA ombudsman about the possible politicization by the administration of intelligence on Iraq, an intelligence official said, but he would not describe the substance of the complaints. One senior administration official said there have been complaints by CIA analysts that they felt pressured by administration policy makers who questioned them before the war about the basis for their assessment of Iraq's weapons programs.

''Our role is to call it like we see it, to tell policy makers what we know, what we don't know, what we think, and what we base it on,'' Tenet said in a statement released by the CIA. ''The integrity of our process was maintained throughout and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong.''

Tenet's statement came in response to the release Thursday of a ''memorandum'' to President Bush posted on several Internet sites by a group of retired CIA and State Department intelligence analysts who said there was ''growing mistrust and cynicism'' among intelligence professionals over ''intelligence cited by you and your chief advisers to justify the war against Iraq.''

The group, which calls itself Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, said a failure to find weapons of mass destruction after six weeks of searching ''suggests either that such weapons are simply not there or that those eventually found there will not be in sufficent quantity or capability to support your repeated claim that Iraq posed a grave threat to our country's security.''

The group called on the president to allow United Nations inspectors to return to Iraq, saying, ''If the US doesn't make undisputed discoveries of forbidden weapons, the failure will feed already widespread skepticism abroad about the motives for going to war.'' It added that intelligence in the past had been ''warped for political purposes but never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize launching a war.''

In a Feb. 5 speech at the UN Security Council, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made the administration's case for going to war. Asked about the intelligence controversy yesterday, Powell asked for patience while the CIA and Congress look into the matter.

''There are always people who come after the fact to say, this wasn't what was presented to you, or this was politicized, or this wasn't,'' he said. ''Let people look into it, let people examine it.''

Speaking as he arrived in Krakow, Poland, yesterday, Bush dismissed charges that the administration had failed to prove its case that Iraq undertook proscribed weapons programs. He cited the discovery last month of two trucks in Iraq that US intelligence officials said appeared to be mobile facilities for the production of biological weapons.

''For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them,'' Bush said.

Meanwhile, Lieutenant General James Conway, commander of the First Marine Expeditionary Force, added a new voice to the mystery of Iraq's weapons when he said that he, too, was surprised that no chemical weapons had yet been found.

In a teleconference call from Baghdad to reporters in Washington, Conway said he ''truly thought,'' based on intelligence relayed before the war, that chemical weapons had been distributed to Iraqi Republican Guard units whose commanders had authority to fire them.

*sigh*

the Democrats must be slipping... they threw everything at the kitchen sink at this guy (as they should) and they seem to have missed the biggest con of the century pulled off by a failed businessman and wannabe farmer from Texas with the speaking skills of a half retarded 3rd grader and the political talent of Mike Tyson.

that sucks. the system works better when both sides are pulling their weight.

PD, do you think you can get them pointed in the right direction again?

Note the word 'retired'...

Note that it is also apparently sanctioned by the CIA, not the "retired" CIA..And apparently, at Rumsfeld's request... Which makes me feel that at least Rumsfeld may have had doubts....

----------------------------------------------------------

Four retired CIA officials with access to the classified reports of 12 separate intelligence agencies are conducting the U.S. intelligence review.

A CIA spokesman said it would be months before the study is completed.

Rumsfeld, who suggested last fall that the looming Iraq war would provide a perfect case study to compare pre-war intelligence assessments with post-war evidence, requested the study. At the time, Rumsfeld had been frustrated over the conflicting intelligence reports he was getting on Iraq.

The REALITY of the situation is it was the exercise of power politics. What I am about to type out might shock and upset a lot of the liberals, and those who live in la la land.

The US needed to pull out the troops out of Saudi Arabia, the reason we had them in Saudi is due to the threat of Saddam. So with one swoop, we toppled a unfriendly regime, who was destablizing the region, while at same time get out troops out of Saudi Arabia.

Make no mistakes about it - Iraq was a threat, Saddam was causing problems ( not only to the people in his own country, but the entire region). It also gives the US a new base of operations CENTRALLY LOCATED in the Middle East, and will allow us to stabilize the region ( hopefully)...

It also is a country that has a HUGE OIL reserve.... again this might pucker some peoples asses.... but the free flow of oil at market prices is NEEDED for this country to thrive.

Saddam and his regime were evil, terrible people who abused his people.... 20 years from now if Iraq is stabilized, has a semi-democratic regime, a Constitution, market economy.... the people of Iraq get a higher standard of living, more rights,.... it will be the right thing.

BUt MORE importantly, if Iraq provides the US with a base of operations, allows us to spread democracy, free markets, stability to a region that has not had any in decades, while keeping oil at market prices....

Bush will go down as one of the greatest Presidents - World Leaders of all time....

And yes this could backfire on us.... but I think it was a bold move....

One question keeps running through my mind - if Iraq had NO weapons of mass detruction, or facilities to build them, or were not working on attaining them - WHY NOT JUST LET THE UN IN? LET THE INSPECTORS DO THEIR JOBS? They did not do this, they tried to cause problems, and interfere at ever turn.... WHY DO THIS? Especially when we had 250k troops on the borders..... Did they think Bush was bluffing?

"i think you have it wrong a little PD. Lying under oath in a court of law and giving false testimony as the President of the United States and a licensed attorney was considered to be an impeachable offense."

Yes, you are quite right - lying under oath is considered an impeachable offense. However, considering that the last three former Presidents have consistently lied under oath, you will forgive me if I don't consider lying about inappropriate personal conduct equivalent to lying about deliberate attempts to contravene the will of Congress, and obstruction of justice through a coverup of same, of the same magnitude.

"are you suggesting that if it could be proven that Bush lied that no action would following."

Yes, as a matter of fact I suspect that's EXACTLY what would happen. Can't blame GW, however; like Hank Williams Jr. he'e just carrying on in the family tradition.

"you are not that naive." - niave is in the eye of the beholder.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at May 31 2003, 11:28 AM

Then make the case for war that way. That's my gripe. Don't lie to the public to sell the war. It would have been harder. Rather than support levels in the 70's and 80's it might have been anywhere from the mid 40's to low to mid 60's but it could have been done.

I don't pretend to be better than the other guy by any stretch but when someone does come along and bases a campaign about how much more honor and integrity they have and how much of it is soooo much better than they other guy previously and that he's running against, he damn well better live up to that ideal.

I've seen MANY right wingers openly state they don't care if Bush lied (at political chat boards) and that they are convinced that people won't care if Bush lied too as they can point to something else and people's short attention spans will see everything else BUT the lie.

My guess would be to keep his enemies guessing.....If I 'did' have WMD at one time, I was looked at as a threat.....if I was stripped of my WMD I would want my enemies to 'think' I was rebuilding my arsenal....

Mike, well said :okthumb:


gigi, interesting point, never thought of it that way.
but most likely used to threaten his own people kurds and shiates to stay in power.

So Mike, what you're saying then is that whether the intelligence was good or not... it was ok to start this war because it aids the US in our quest for world domination?

That's kinda scary and reminiscent of pretty much every "bad guy" the world has ever seen. Perhaps we should call GW, George "Dr. Evil" Bush ?

I dont think anybody would be making a stink about this issue cept that if this intelligence proves to be false, that the entire justification that the president gave the people for this war would be hollow.

Government by the people & for the people sound familiar? Or are we all just dumb little sheep who are too stupid to know what is good for us?



Last edited by Hooper at May 31 2003, 02:43 PM

IF the US wanted to dominate the world, it would not be that difficult for us to do so. The US is NOT a traditional imperial power.... we will not stay in Iraq.

What the US does is make sure the world is STABLE.... then we let our idea dominate. If Iraq had no ill intentions to the world, region or the US - we would not have invaded just for fun. Or as part of "world domination"....

We did it to help the ENTIRE world. The more stable the world is ( lack of war, terrorism, ethnic cleansing, etc... the more we can get about what WE do best... and that is BUSINESS!!!

Hooper, if you were President of the US in 1939, and knew of the attrocities that were going inside od Germany by Hitler. If you knew that the Holicost was begining..... would you try to stop it? Would you take out Hitler before he was to powerful? BEfore he could reign in destruction that caused millions of deaths, and billions of $$$?

Think of it as a business decision.... :D

Oh and TE.... it is ashame that we live in a country where we have to frame the issues in a certain way to get popular support for them. There is numerous reasons for that - the biggest is the population of the US do not want to feel that we are a bully, we are very hesitant to use out power, and the idea of justifying a war for National security, WMD,and terrorism makes the case easier.

I have no doubt that by liberating Iraq, as part of a comprehensive plan, we will make the world a better place, cut down terrorism, bring stability to a region that is important to the future of this Nation.

If Saddam was not hiding anything he had YEARS to make it abudently clear.... I guess he was too stupid... and now he is out of power... so maybe there will be no more mass graves dug for the people of Iraq. Is that wrong TE?

Oh and if you would hav done your research, and I am sure you did - the reasoning and purpose was there all along. Politicians just have to spin it a little...

Not to interrupt the thread...but

Mike, you have mail at your hirise addy (from last night) :)

We now take you back to the thread

:yowsa:

I love how the left tries to spin things. Iraq is a country the size of California. Hide something somewhere in California and see how long it takes to find it if you ever can. Taking out Hussein was the right path to take. I know liberals will never agree with this but force is the only thing brutal dictators understand. If you think leaving Hussein in power and appeasing him would have been a better strategy you are living in a dream world. We sent a very powerful message to the world by taking over Iraq. That message is "Don't fuck with us".

The US has a role in the world no country has ever had before. We are the lone superpower so we get blamed for everything and get credit for nothing. Personally I could care less what the French or Germans think of us. We will do what needs to be done to protect our interests. And yes, in the case of Iraq it is oil. There are equally brutal dictators in Africa but you won't see our troops there any time soon. Why? We really don't need sand that bad.

Do I sound cruel and heartless? Maybe I am. I understand the dynamics going on in the world and our role in it. If I was president (like that would ever happen) I would have made the exact same choices in regards to Afghanistan and Iraq.

A stable democracy in Iraq will do an immense amount of good in terms of stabilizing the region. Qatar is already on it's way to democracy. Add Iraq to the equation and you have a formula for empowering the Middle East. Even Iran is starting to become a modern society. Once freedom takes hold in these countries it will be tough to stop.

I guess my whole point in this long diatribe is that the reason terrorists exist is because of EXTREME poverty that is mainly caused by the people that run these countries. Once people have economic opportunity it removes much of the incentive to strap a pile of C4 to yourself and blow up some Israeli's.

I love how the right tries to spin things. We know they have weapons of mass destruction. We have intelligence that proves it but we can't give it to the Weapons Inspectors because they don't really want to find them. The Iraqis are so fucking good and so fucking sneaky that they issued those weapons of mass destruction to troops that lacked the discipline of a bunch of suburban street-gang wanna-bes, but then took them back and disappeared into the vastness of the countryside and hid them again.

And besides, it's not really about weapons of mass destruction (or won't be until they find some). It's about the oil or it's not about the oil, depending upon who you listen to. It's about the eeeeeeeevil-diktater or it isn't, depending upon the audience being preached to. It's about Isreal or it isn't, depending upon which group is being pandered to. It's really hard to argue with people who don't seem to have a position for longer than ten minutes, and who can change it at will depending upon who they are talking to.

I don't think a whole lot more about the "spread democracy" horseshit that the right is trying to spread, either. IMHO that's every bit as niave as attempting to negotiate with eeeeeeeevil-diktaters (with or without oil reserves). Overwhelming military force and armies of occupation don't have a tremdendously promising record against gurilla forces - and that's essentially what terrorists are.

And JR ... "they seem to have missed the biggest con of the century pulled off by a failed businessman and wannabe farmer from Texas with the speaking skills of a half retarded 3rd grader and the political talent of Mike Tyson" - I couldn't agree more, and have been saying that since November, 2000.

PD, sometimes when you have the muscle you have to use it. You can cry all you want but the bottom line is you aren't in charge. The US military kicked the shit of Iraq. As far as I'm concerned that's a good thing.

So the ends justifies the means? Or the ends justifies whatever lies a democratic republic may tell to it's people?

I just want to be clear that what ya'll are saying is that you dont mind being lied to.

I mean.. it's easy, yes or no.. you dont mind or you do.

Hooper, I do not think I was lied to.... I understand the concept of REAL POLITIK, and the dirty business of foreign policy. The world is a dangerous place.... with many threats to our interests. Fortuntely we have people who are looking out for them for us.

And yes, many times the ends DOES justify the means....

Damn, Ulfie, I thought it was bad enough when you were advocating a return to the diplomatic policies of 1903. When you start using an analogy more approprite for an after (junior high) school rumble, you really begin to disappoint me. I expected more from you than "just because."

As far as your remark about my "crying" because I disagree with the polices of the Mullahs in Washington every bit as much as I do the ones in the Middle East - you can cram that where the sun don't shine, buckwheat.

Why do I suspect that your attitude about deference to the decisions of "who was in charge" was substantially different just a few years ago - or are such a good little German that you go along with whoever is in charge?

Okay ... I'm trying to figure out what the hell you're saying. As best I can piece it together, you weren't lied to because you have the big picture, or the proper education, or the proper ideaology.

That begs the question - was mom and pop America lied to? Not everyone has all the advantages that you do, Mike.

Whatever. Bill Clinton would have given a nice speech, said all the right things, and accomplished nothing. Maybe that's what you call leadership.

PD, why are you so determined that we were lied to? Being wrong (and that's yet to be proven....) isn't the same as lying. :awinky:

Why do I think this Administration has lied to the American people?

For one thing, I think Mike is probably correct in his assessment of the relationship of oil to the decision to invade Iraq. The Administration went to great lengths to call anyone who suggested such a relationship a liar, question their motivation and their patriotism, and quite possibly their relationship with their mother. Some of the very same bobble-headed webmasters who are nodding in approval of such a policy nowdays were quite incensed when Europeans suggested the same thing on GFY, or the few liberals who poke their heads up around here suggested it.

There is also the embarassing performance of Powell at the United Nations when he presented the U.S. case. Fraudlent documents and ripped off disertation analysis don't make a compelling case. Rather than performing like Adli Stevenson, he came off like Ari Fleischer - the President said it, and he wouldn't lie. I think the absence of a discovery by this point in time indicates that there was no evidence withheld due to national security concerns.

Now, as far as "Being wrong (and that's yet to be proven....) isn't the same as lying." - you are probably on to something there. I think the deniability was built into the process. IF the WMD, like the alQaida connections, turn out to be smoke, mirrors, and spin, there will be another Whitewash at the Whitehouse. I'm beginning to think I need to get me a job selling white paint to the government. As long as I can sell it to Justice and DoD, the deficit is not a discouraging factor, and I suspect they're gonna need it.

:ph34r: Maybe computer databases to snop, er, detect terrorist indiclinations weren't the only thing that ADM John Pointexter was consulting on. :ph34r: (please note - that is a Republican-landslide joke (52%).

Ulfie - when in doubt, invoke Clinton? Puuuuu-leaze. Could be that Clinton - or any Democrat in the office - would have made a GENUINE effort to establish a truly international coalition (as opposed to Britian, Australia, Spain, Poland, and a who's-who of the fifth world) to depose Saddam. Kinda like the Bush Administration is doing with Korea? Could be we would have focused more efforts on alQaida, or making Afghanistan genuinely secure.

I really don't mind having a war over me saving 50 cents a gallon on gas, but I just don't like smoke bown up my ass....just like when a sponsor promises a certain number and shaves, for fuck's sake, I know the score, just stop with the smoke....

If the rightwingers are really so concerned about overthrowing dictators, why aren't we in Africa doing something down there? Oh, yeah...no oil....Africa has nothing to give us in return (hmm, if only we could find a way to exploit those diamiond mines)...but you know if there was oil in southern Africa, we'd be over there bombing brown people into oblivion...

likewise, if the leftwingers are so concerned about charity, why not help the poor Africans or haitians? And I'm talking about beyond the $5 donation to Bob Geldof....

I really have no problems being the world's badass, I just hate the bullshit wishy washy smoke and mirrors from BOTH sides...

fuck, I wish I had bought some Haliburton stock a couple years ago :(

My point Mike is if you are a person who says they are so much more honorable than your opponents then live up to it. If you believe the war is a good thing for other reasons then have the balls to say so. If he knowingly hyped or lied about our WMD he's doing EXACTLY what you and other right wingers whined about Clinton doing. He basing policy and the way he presents it on the POLLS and not the merits of the action itself.

I'm certainly willing to give the admin some more time to find them but to just sit back and say well "it doesn't matter" because he was doing this other stuff too shouldn't cut it. I'm happy that Sadaam is gone and agree it's a good thing no matter whether WMD's are found or not. Hell I thought he should have been gone after the first Gulf War, but just because that is the case doesn't mean that we shouldn't care if we were told the truth or not.

BTW- here's an interesting article you might want to read.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030609/...ews/9intell.htm

I sincerely hope that we do find a boatload of WMD's, and I won't be surprised if we do, but to just ignore the issue would be foolish.

Blah, blah, blah, we didn't have a "coalition". Leadership sometimes involves doing things that are unpopular. I've been in more leadership positions than you will ever know. Sometimes the right decision isn't the popular one. Thankfully I've never had to send men and women off to die. No human being takes that decision lightly.

Bill Clinton (yes I'm bringing him up again) licked his finger, stuck it in the air and determined which way the wind was blowing. He set policy based on what people wanted to hear. That's not leadership, that's cowardice. Being more concerned about being reelected than doing what's right for the country isn't something to be proud of.

Hate Bush all you want. 20 years from now we will be able to judge his legacy. Will he be hailed as one of our greatest Presidents? I doubt it. He will be far above the Clinton and Carter disasters though.

I'd be a little hesitant to jump from "investigating" to "concluding". The CIA investigates a lot of things.

"The CIA is investigating the accuracy of the Bush administration's conclusions that Iraq represented an imminent and direct threat to the United States. " What's the big deal?

Completely logical. Either:

A. Weapons of mass destruction will be found
B. Weapons of mass destruction will not be found.

If A, game over.

If B, either:
a. There is a plausible explanation such that WMD's were moved or recently destroyed
b. Evidence was erroneous
c. Evidence was overly speculative
d. Evidence was out-dated
e. Evidence was exaggerated
f. Other perturbations

I seriously doubt anyone here would consider it outside the realm of possibility that Saddam would hide and move banned weapons but if I'm wrong, please say so. Does anyone doubt that Saddam Hussein is capable of such deception?

It has been a consistent policy of this administration to prevent the proliferation of WMD's in the world and their marriage to terrorism. There were thousands of analysts the world over that thought Saddam had illegal weapons and his continual noncompliance with the UN and the weapons inspectors did nothing to convince anyone, especially presidents Clinton and Bush that he was in compliance.

I'm sorry but no one had to lie to anyone about anything. It's been thought by plenty enough analysts in that line of work (Ken Pollock for example) and many at the CIA that Saddam had chemical weapons and the will to use them. Many people have been convinced that Saddam never destoyed all his WMD capabilities and armaments and that was not and is not any stretch of logic to believe he didn't.

Lest we forget a number of interviews with defecting Iraqi scientists and other information led analysts to these conclusions since well before Bush even became president and they are a matter of public record. None of this "Iraq has WMD's" is new and none of it was new to the Bush administration. This struggle over WMD's with Saddam had been going on for more than a decade and very consistently so.

Most of those GFYers you mention PD thought Bush would cowboy the US to a loss in Iraq. One of them even mentioned 75,000 Americans coming home in body-bags. Those same GFYers were predicting tens of thousands of dead US soldiers (from Iraqi chemical weapons no less).

I didn't find Powell's presentation embarassing nor did I find it perfect. It was presentation of evidence. I for one PD, and I'm sure you'll remember this, never bought into the al-Qaeda/Iraq connection. It's a different matter entirely as to whether Bush and Blair believed or believe it though.

Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. I think Clinton had the best response for Iraq for 1998 and Bush had the best response for Iraq for 2003. I'm not so sure Bush would have went to war in Iraq pre-9/11 and I'm not so sure Clinton wouldn't have not went to war in 2003. I think Al Gore would have. Pollack's book - for what it's worth - says Gore was very hawkish on Iraq during his tenure at VP and was one of the biggest voices for action against Iraq during that administration.

I don't think anyone could have built a coalition for this war. France and Russia were immovable objects. Period. Their national interests made it prohibitive for them to be in a coalition. China maybe could have been swayed but if not by Colin Powell, by whom and under what conditions? How could they have benefitted.

This war has turned out better than anyone thought especially with the dire predictions surrounding urban combat. For any faults we may find in what the administration was wrong about they were also right about even more things that surprised many of us. Half of this board thought the administration was lying about the lack of will of the Iraqi military to fight, about the progress being made during the war, about supply lines
etc. No millions of refugees, humanitarian crises, or expansion of the war.
The "outcome was never in doubt". Historic war and everyone will have to adjust their perceptions of US military strength and military doctrine will now evolve.

For all the predictions of the UN falling apart and the end of international relations it seems quite evident to me that international relationships are being mended and will be quite normal soon enough.

Blah, blah, blah, we didn't have a "coalition". Leadership sometimes involves doing things that are unpopular. I've been in more leadership positions than you will ever know. Sometimes the right decision isn't the popular one. Thankfully I've never had to send men and women off to die. No human being takes that decision lightly.

Bill Clinton (yes I'm bringing him up again) licked his finger, stuck it in the air and determined which way the wind was blowing. He set policy based on what people wanted to hear. That's not leadership, that's cowardice. Being more concerned about being reelected than doing what's right for the country isn't something to be proud of.

Hate Bush all you want. 20 years from now we will be able to judge his legacy. Will he be hailed as one of our greatest Presidents? I doubt it. He will be far above the Clinton and Carter disasters though.[/b][/quote]
Talk about blah-blah-blah... golly gee ulfie, I bow to your vast experience. After all, you must be the only one with any experience in leadership. Fuck, I thought I spent ten years in the goddamned U.S. Navy - must'a been a delusion. You know the Navy, don't you? That's part of the bunch of folks the Deserter-in-Chief ordered over to Iraq for whatever reason they're offering at the momemt. Never worked for a little St. Louis based beverage company, or a law firm that represented a fair portion of the Fortune 100, either.

You can spin it right, and you can spin it to the right a little further. You left out the Kennedys, btw, although I suppose if we keep at it they'll come into the discussion as well. I wonder if you'll be just as critical of actions designed to get reelected when the yellow security alerts start kicking in after Labor Day next year? Or will you rationalize that as more "leadership?"

Actung, baby ...

Oh, I forgot, you were in the Navy. Serving in the military and being in a leadership position are 2 entirely different things. My last job I was in charge of a system that processed $5 billion in transactions every year. Oh and btw I wrote most of the code for it as well. I know how politics work, you don't get to that level in corporate America without knowing how the game is played. When I left I had 30 people working for me. I would challenge you to find any of them that wouldn't tell you I was the best guy they ever worked for. Of course being the Republican I am I threatened to kill anyone that said anything bad about me.....

You and I will never agree on politics, that's for sure. I just don't understand your hostility towards Bush. You seem to think he's the antichrist or something.

Hello? Is anyone home?

There are a couple of leadership opportunities in the Navy, Ulfie, and most of the time my decisions affected a hell of a lot more than a P&L or my annual bonus. I really have no idea what it was worth in money, although I understand that a guy named Walker made a couple million selling some stuff - and I had as much as he did for a while. Oh, and throw in the value of that P3 aircraft that ended up in China two years ago (although we had nine of 'em). And as far as bodies go, I had more people working for me in the Navy, or at the law firm, than your thirty.

However, if it will make you feel better I will concede that your experience is far more valuable to mine, your dick is bigger, and that this even has some semblance of relevance to any subject discussed in the thread.

I don't like Mullahs. I don't like idealouges. I consider Bush a lot of both. Let me put it to you this way - I have no more, or no less, respect for Bush than you do for Clinton.

As long as you concede that my dick is bigger everything is cool. ;)

PD,

as usual you made some good points here on this thread.

I was just reading this article:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...id=540&ncid=716

Look my thoughts are, I know deep down that the Evil Saddam at one point did have WMD, when he got rid of them, or hid them I am not sure of. Bush was allready fucked Domesticly pre 9/11, after 9/11 he had a new higher agenda. As far as Saddam goes, I think it was allready planned and in the books for this Premptive war, i.e. Oil, Pay back for Daddy bush, More Stability in the middle east, etc.

I really could care less at all that Saddam is gone, he was a tyrant and evil person, i.e. killed thousands of his own ppl, gassed, etc. My problem is that Bush used Scare tactics, threat to us land / people to get in there and goto war, well also WMD.

Your point about our terror level (color) going up by labor day next year is probably true to heart, I have said that myself many times. Bush will of course never ever win re-election on domestic policies, but if voters are worried about security, threats abroad, etc he has a damm good chance of winning. Morals wise, sure he might be better then Clinton Personally, running the country, nah he's not even close. Clinton could of had alot of the world in the colaition, bush was always looked at like a cowboy to alot of countries. Bush SR was great with other leaders, he knew politics inside and out. Hopefully we can get this patriot act BS out sometime soon, just gives me pause when I see more of big brother around.... Republicans are supposed to be for less goverment aren't they??

In Summary, I think bush and his administration did probably extend the truth on certain facts to win popular approval in the usa for the war, did the lie about certain things, probably so. As did other presidents, democrat and republican alike. now we will finally get out of Saudi like the hawks such as Perl and Wolfawitz wanted, and setup new bases in quatar and Iraq :)

If 85-90% or more of this war wasn't for OIL, then what was it for??

You Decide on Election day if Bush has done well for this country....

The title of this thread sound pretty dumb, the thousands of kurds massacred by Chemical Ali certainly weren't gassed with Nitrous Oxide.

At least there wasn't some black-op operation to plant the WMD so if nothing is found the administration will gain my trust rather than lose it.

I believe there were many reasons for the invasion such as:

- the need to bring Iraqi oil into the world market

- prevent Iraq from invading other countries who supply oil to the west

- prevent Iraq from supplying dangerous chemicals and technology to terrorist organizations

- prevent Iraq from providing other rogue states with WMD technology

- stop Iraq from promoting and financially supporting Palestinian suicide bombers

- the need to set an example to other rogue states

etc. etc. etc.

Wether or not WMD are inside Iraq at this particular time or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is that Saddam has shown the will to use them, the means to produce them and the terrorist ties to get them to the West's doorstep. It is also extremely probable that Saddam would keep a secret stockpile of WMD and I personally haven't seen or heard of US claims that their evidence of this is anything more than circumstantial, while it is fact that they could always easily be produced at a future time.

And what is the drawback of this war? The military financial expense will be earned back by the future decrease in oil prices and revenues earned from future trade with Iraq. Saddam would probably have killed many more civilians than the war did and the likelyhood of terrorists obtaining dangerous materials, technology and financial support has been reduced a lot.

Having said that I still think Bush is a sad joke but the people around him seem to be doing a decent job.

Great post Timon....

You should run for President here in the States!!

:D

this whole conversation is kinda funny.

give me a fucking break already! "Us poor Democrats were duped by that Evil Genius "Dubya" and we are shocked"

how can the President of the United States be at the same time so stupid that he cannot properly construct a simple sentence and so brilliant that he pulled off the biggest con in the history of the planet which included tricking 200,000,000 US citizens and hundreds of millions of others worldwide.

yeah right. Clinton could not get his dick sucked without getting impeached... but Bush can start a war by decieving the American public and thats ok? does anyone see any contradictions here? are Democrats so completely weak that they cannot make an issue out of this if there was one to be made?

the same people crying before the war
are the same people crying after the war.

coincidence?