Are These Memos Legitimate? - Page 3

Squawker · 06-19-05, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Squawk, if you can't disprove all the FACTS in my last post then I believe it's safe to say that your opinion is based on blind loyalty, not fact and it can be DISMISSED because your position has been disproved and its blown up in your face....

I dismiss the lefts characterization of what occurred, Champ. I have no doubt these things were discussed as any campaign for President would. The left wants to twist it into some evil plot. If the Bush Administration had not discussed the what "ifs" and what they would do about it, they would be remiss in their duties.

26 X World Champs · 06-19-05, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker

I dismiss the lefts characterization of what occurred, Champ. I have no doubt these things were discussed as any campaign for President would. The left wants to twist it into some evil plot. If the Bush Administration had not discussed the what "ifs" and what they would do about it, they would be remiss in their duties.

I bow down to you Squawk! Your time spent at the Bushnik Institute of Spinology has not been wasted!

The problem is that if you read the PNAC documents (have you?) they are exactly the policy that the Bu****es are employing. It's not like we're talking about suggestions that were never enacted as policy, we're talking about suggestions that became policy. Big, big difference oh King of Debate Politics Spin...

I did note that you did not provide any proof whatsoever that the points that I cited in my previous post were incorrect or non-factual. You did not disprove anything, you simply spin your Tenets (By George). You too might be deserving of a Presidential Medal of Freedom if you keep this up!

Squawker · 06-19-05, 10:25 AM

Quote:

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

I am so afraid.

That's how they keep folks like you voting for them Champ. Fear

What exactly upset you about PNAC? It looks like a well thought out stratagy for the 21st century to me. I thought we were talking about the memos?

26 X World Champs · 06-19-05, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ANAV

For those who think that Bush should be impeached, they must also believe all Senators and Congressmen who voted for the authorization of force must be removed from office as well. They based there votes on the same intelligence that Bush based his decision on invading.

You fail to remember or you left out that none of those people decided to attack Iraq. That falls squarely into Bush's lap, and, as the Downing Street memos prove they were manipulating the "intelligence" to get Congress to back their conspiracy as detailed at the PNAC site.

Therefore all of your quotes, all of your links are meaningless because everyone was lied to by Bush and his Comrades in his version of the American Kremlin (this is an analogy, not a statement that I believe Bush's government is Communist).

So you can quote away but the truth is that all of those politicians were manipulated by Bush so they would say what they did. Wake up Dude, you've been lied to as well.

26 X World Champs · 06-19-05, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker

What exactly upset you about PNAC? It looks like a well thought out stratagy for the 21st century to me. I thought we were talking about the memos?

I'm getting dizzy from the spin coming from your posts. You're a whirling dervish! The PNAC were brought into this by a post you made, and a post made by GPS Flex.

You wrote the following:

Quote:

Bush didn’t plan anything in 1998 Champ.

Source:http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpo...8&postcount=13 (Are These Memos Legitimate?)

Then GPS Flex first called the UK Ambassador to the US a liar and a fake, which was quite hilarious, but then he wrote the following:

Quote:

Do you realize how idiotic this idea is? A governor plans a war, before he wins election, contingent upon the missing ammo provided three year after he supposedly planned said war and you are still talking about the reasons for going to war being lies?

I fail to see the logic in this. This would be a conspiracy unparalleled by any the USA has ever seen.

AND:

Quote:

Are you so ignorant as to think that was the question asked in whatever poll you refer to? How shallow can you get? Perhaps 63% would have preferred Donald Duck ran the war if the question was asked in the right way. Your polls mean jack because you can’t provide the exact verbiage used.

All of the above came from here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpo...6&postcount=16 (Are These Memos Legitimate?)

That is how the PNAC was brought into this discussion. I find it quite amazing that in response to my posts you backpeddle away from your previous posts with a new spin, every time. How come? You wrote:

Quote:

Do you believe every bit of information from left wing sources Champ? The left is so angry about losing power they are becoming unglued. I know how the left twists everything to look bad for President Bush and America, so I dismiss your links as more left wing tripe.

That comes from this post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpo...1&postcount=18 (Are These Memos Legitimate?)

Now, you come back again and this time you want us to believe that the PNAC's plan was good all along (though you never wrote that until you had no other way of explaining the plot).

The PNAC Manifesto was written between 1997 and 2000 well before Bush became President, well before 9-11. How can you now write that the war in Iraq was not premeditated?

You know it's true, so please enough spin, it's really transparent to all except the most blind Bushniks.

How many current Bushnik Comrades can you spot? Do you want me to name these conspirators? Even John Bolton is there!

Squawker · 06-19-05, 12:53 PM

Quote:

The PNAC Manifesto was written between 1997 and 2000 well before Bush became President, well before 9-11. How can you now write that the war in Iraq was not premeditated?

Good grief, Champ. I didn't see GW Bushes name anywhere as a creator of PNAC. Perhaps you could enlighten us. PNAC is a comprehensive strategy for Republicans dealing with the world in the 21 century. It was a fact that Saddam would have to be dealt with in the future. Clinton was talking about regime change in 1997 and Congress made it legitimate in 98. Why can’t you understand that?

Quote:

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
-snip-
Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

Source -- PNAC
I am getting bored with your silliness, Champ. You just want to try to make President look bad IMO. You have nothing to offer excepted twisted logic.

26 X World Champs · 06-19-05, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker

Good grief, Champ. I didn't see GW Bushes name anywhere as a creator of PNAC. Perhaps you could enlighten us.

Surely Squawk you're not this stupid? Are you telling me that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Armitage, Jeb Bush, have had zero influence on Bushie's decision making? C'mon Squawk, you can do better than this. You'r e grasping for straws. You want all of us to believe that the current VEEP, the current Secretary of Defense, the former (until this year) #2 guy at the DOD, the former (until this year) #2 at the State Dept and the current UN Ambassador nominee had not influence in shaping America's Iraq invasion policy?

We're talking about the most influential members of the Bush Kremlin and you write that Bush's name was nowhere to be found.

Good grief Charlie Brown!

I was correct in my last post when I called you the high priest of spin on this board. You the man!

Squawk, spin us another fine reply, we await with baited breath!

Squawker · 06-19-05, 03:08 PM

I have been taking lessons from the master, Champ. What difference would it make if GW Bush wrote the entire thing? I don't see anything wrong with it, in fact the Democrats probably have something similar. Ah, I take that back. They didn't want to do anything except talk about doing something. You ignored all the points I made Champ as usual. Reread and digest them.

Stinger · 06-19-05, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs

The problem with your "conspiracy theory" is that no one in Tony Blair's government is denying them. I also find it troubling that you slanted this thread so prejudicially.

The problem with your defense of them is that no one in Tony Blair's government is confirming them. I also find it troubling that you slant your spin on them as if they really have anything new to say and accept them on face value. The reporter has admitted he cannot produce originals and what he is presenting are documents he typed. Shades of Rathergate again.

You conveniently left this out from the story:

Quote:

I also suggest that all of you read the material that Squawk linked in his post, it is very, very revealing, and troubling. Spin all you want Bushies, but we're talking smoking gun, and not from Democrats.

A smoking gun of no consequences.

Quote:

Let me ask you something Squawk and all of you Bushniks? If all of these memos are factual then what does that mean?

Nothing.

Quote:

If Clinton was impeached for having sex

Since he wasn't that point is moot.

Quote:

and lying about it

And conspircy to suborn perjury and obstruct justice. The two are not comparable.

It was the Clinton administrations policy to remove Saddam, THEY passed the Iraqi Liberation Act, are you going to indict them too?

Quote:

what should happen to the Bush Cabal if they conspired to lie to the world as to the reasons for invading Iraq?

What was the lie? What did they tell the world that they knew for a fact was not true and be specific.

Quote:

How should Comrade Bush be held accountable?

For what he has done to rid us of Saddam and fight terrorism, appluaded.