Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 158

Thread: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

  1. #91
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,389

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Grateful Heart View Post
    9/11 was next.
    Sure it was, and Iraq had NOTHING to do with it.

    Followed by the Iraq War Resolution, approved with overwhelming majorities in both House and Senate,
    Approval gained from a very targeted campaign of misleading information and half truths at the very best and outright disinformation and pushing of bad intel at worst.
    which authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"
    Which you think somehow makes this all okay, completely dismissing the fact that the invasion of Iraq wasn't "necessary or appropriate." He screwed up big time, pitching Congress and gaining their approval doesn't make this all go away.
    in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;
    The national security of the United States was not in jeopardy. Please show me evidence otherwise.
    and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
    Again, you act as if this somehow makes what he did right, moral, and justified. It doesn't. The White House misled Congress and everyone else and the evidence absolutely substantiates the fact that Bush got it wrong, that there was no threat to our national security.

    Look you can cite this stuff all day long, we all heard about it when it went down. It's been much debated. This is an overwhelming abundance of information available to us now, that was available to Bush back in the run up to the war, that would have reasonable men taking pause when considering such a costly decision. In fact it had numerous experts working in the Pentagon saying "stop, don't do this, it's not necessary." Bush made a very, very bad decision and it cost this nation, and the nation of Iraq, dearly.

    *insert profound statement here*

  2. #92
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Grateful Heart View Post
    One could surmise that Congress was 'planning' Bush's strategy years before Bush was elected. Of course reasonable people examine the history, the context, and the perceived level of risk when presidents make difficult and controversial decisions. Partisans simply shout 'liar.'
    Bush always wanted to invade Iraq. Find out yourself.

    If you allowed yourself to read any of the books written about Bush, by his ex-staffers, or perhaps Jane Meyer's "The Dark Side" you would learn what we're talking about.

    You could start here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/bo...rinkley-t.html

    or

    Book World: 'What Happened'

    Listening to audio books while driving to and from work is a great way to get more books in.

    And you know what? If you open yourself up to reading any of these books, nobody here will know.

    Good luck!
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  3. #93
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,389

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    They could not confirm there were NO weapons and furthermore the weapons inspectors could not even confirm or offer assurance that Iraq was fully cooperating.
    Seriously, you have UN teams running around Iraq saying "don't invade, give us more time, they are cooperating, and we have yet to find any evidence of WMD's" and you are telling me that in your mind that's actually justification for the invasion? "We can't find any evidence of WMD's" just isn't good enough as "there are no WMD's." I see your logic, however given the very nature of the situation, it's not reasonable.

    You are relying on the inspectors to prove a negative in order to NOT invade. You realize the flaw in that logic? "I think that guy has a gun, he's had a gun before and used it, I had to take that gun off him, he's a bad guy, that other cop is searching him and the perp is giving the cop a hard time, hmmm...I'm gonna pull my gun and shoot him, the guy isn't trustworthy, oh the other cop is saying 'hang on, he's cooperating now, I haven't found a gun yet but I'm not done searching,' oh yeah? well too bad, I warned this guy before that I better not catch him with a gun, and if that other cop can't tell me he doesn't have a gun I'm shooting him...BLAM!"

    Are you familiar with the reports coming out of Iraq prior to the invasion?

    Weapons Inspection Program. This is a compiled list of articles on the subject going all the way back to just before the invasion.
    *insert profound statement here*

  4. #94
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    They could not confirm there were NO weapons and furthermore the weapons inspectors could not even confirm or offer assurance that Iraq was fully cooperating.
    Plenty of experts from our country and others advised Bush and Cheney that they had evidence supporting their doubts that Iraq had WMDs. Joe Wilson, and another man, showed that Iraq didn't try to buy any yellow cake uranium. Gen. Richard A. Clark was a terror expert for three presidents. He saw there was no talking Bush out of it. He has a few books about Bush.

    BushCo ignored all advice against taking us into a War of Choice!

    You seem like an intelligent woman. Do you think all these people coming out of the woodwork are in a vast conspiracy? These are honorable people. Look for the proof yourself. It's out there.

    Good luck!
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  5. #95
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    You are relying on the inspectors to prove a negative in order to NOT invade. You realize the flaw in that logic? "I think that guy has a gun, he's had a gun before and used it, I had to take that gun off him, he's a bad guy, that other cop is searching him and the perp is giving the cop a hard time, hmmm...I'm gonna pull my gun and shoot him, the guy isn't trustworthy, oh the other cop is saying 'hang on, he's cooperating now, I haven't found a gun yet but I'm not done searching,' oh yeah? well too bad, I warned this guy before that I better not catch him with a gun, and if that other cop can't tell me he doesn't have a gun I'm shooting him...BLAM!"
    This is the level of 'logic' demonstrated by the Bush-bashers. Comparing the threat of potential WMD, in the aftermath of the greatest single attack ever on U.S. soil, developed by a rogue dictator who had gone to war against the U.S. only a decade earlier, to a 'guy with a gun.'


  6. #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Seriously, you have UN teams running around Iraq saying "don't invade, give us more time, they are cooperating, and we have yet to find any evidence of WMD's" and you are telling me that in your mind that's actually justification for the invasion? "
    Hans Blix up until the invasion was actually reporting that they are somewhat cooperating and somewhat NOT cooperating. He says even now he has no idea why Iraq refused to fully cooperate right up until then but he guesses it was pride. The main point though is that the weapons inspectors were not running around claiming full cooperation. They were running around saying, "Well they let us do this, which is more than that, more than before, but they're still being non-cooperative when it comes to this and that."

    In other words, Iraq was told to cooperate or else and Saddam for reasons only really known to him choose OR ELSE. I refuse to feel guilt over that.



    You are relying on the inspectors to prove a negative in order to NOT invade. You realize the flaw in that logic?
    Absolutely not. I'm relying on the inspectors to report that Iraq is FULLY COOPERATING and absolutely no longer being evasive, non-cooperative, etc.
    This was unfortunately something they COULD NOT report. Hans Blix does not deny TODAY that Iraq was NOT fully cooperating. He admits freely that in many ways Iraq was still thwarting the investigation. Think I give a crap if Hans Blix thinks it was pride that caused the non-cooperation? Nope. All I know is that if the weapons inspectors reported they now had full compliance and cooperation THEN It would have been absolutely wrong to invade. But with them reporting meaningful advancements in levels of cooperation but still not full cooperation I say Saddam brought the crap down on his own head.
    "I think that guy has a gun, he's had a gun before and used it, I had to take that gun off him, he's a bad guy, that other cop is searching him and the perp is giving the cop a hard time, hmmm...I'm gonna pull my gun and shoot him, the guy isn't trustworthy, oh the other cop is saying 'hang on, he's cooperating now, I haven't found a gun yet but I'm not done searching,' oh yeah? well too bad, I warned this guy before that I better not catch him with a gun, and if that other cop can't tell me he doesn't have a gun I'm shooting him...BLAM!"
    Um yeah. As a comparison it would be more like, "OK wait he's not letting me check this pocket. He cooperated kind of in letting me check the back pockets but he won't let me check the front. I don't think he has a gun but he's stopping me from checking everywhere so I can' t say for sure he's got nothing. Then BLAM.

  7. #97
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    Plenty of experts from our country and others advised Bush and Cheney that they had evidence supporting their doubts that Iraq had WMDs. Joe Wilson, and another man, showed that Iraq didn't try to buy any yellow cake uranium. Gen. Richard A. Clark was a terror expert for three presidents. He saw there was no talking Bush out of it. He has a few books about Bush.

    BushCo ignored all advice against taking us into a War of Choice!

    You seem like an intelligent woman. Do you think all these people coming out of the woodwork are in a vast conspiracy? These are honorable people. Look for the proof yourself. It's out there.

    Good luck!
    I think it's easy for folks to sit around Monday morning quarterbacking.

    As far as I'm concerned it breaks down like this:

    Saddam spends a decade not cooperating.

    Saddam is told to cooperate or else.

    Saddam offers up various levels of cooperation while still giving the weapons inspectors a hard time.

    Saddam is again told in no uncertain terms COOPERATE FULLY or else.

    Hans Blix begs for more time. He asserts Iraq is cooperating more than ever immediately before the invasion however he is also forced to acknowledge that in some ways Iraq is still not fully cooperating.

    We invade.

    Today Hans Blix will tell you pride kept Saddam from fully cooperating.

    So what?

    Were we supposed to gamble on pride as an excuse?

    If you aren't hiding something THEN DON'T HIDE.

    I know in hindsight everyone embraces the idea that it was well known Iraq had nothing but in reality I think half the world was shocked nothing much was found.

  8. #98
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    I think it's easy for folks to sit around Monday morning quarterbacking.

    As far as I'm concerned it breaks down like this:

    Saddam spends a decade not cooperating.

    Saddam is told to cooperate or else.

    Saddam offers up various levels of cooperation while still giving the weapons inspectors a hard time.

    Saddam is again told in no uncertain terms COOPERATE FULLY or else.

    Hans Blix begs for more time. He asserts Iraq is cooperating more than ever immediately before the invasion however he is also forced to acknowledge that in some ways Iraq is still not fully cooperating.

    We invade.

    Today Hans Blix will tell you pride kept Saddam from fully cooperating.

    So what?

    Were we supposed to gamble on pride as an excuse?

    If you aren't hiding something THEN DON'T HIDE.

    I know in hindsight everyone embraces the idea that it was well known Iraq had nothing but in reality I think half the world was shocked nothing much was found.
    Never mind. My mistake.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  9. #99
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,389

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Grateful Heart View Post
    This is the level of 'logic' demonstrated by the Bush-bashers. Comparing the threat of potential WMD, in the aftermath of the greatest single attack ever on U.S. soil, developed by a rogue dictator who had gone to war against the U.S. only a decade earlier, to a 'guy with a gun.'

    The logic model works.

    So where is your rebuttal to my two posts that are directed at you?
    *insert profound statement here*

  10. #100
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,389

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    Hans Blix up until the invasion was actually reporting that they are somewhat cooperating and somewhat NOT cooperating. He says even now he has no idea why Iraq refused to fully cooperate right up until then but he guesses it was pride. The main point though is that the weapons inspectors were not running around claiming full cooperation. They were running around saying, "Well they let us do this, which is more than that, more than before, but they're still being non-cooperative when it comes to this and that."
    But you have failed to make any valid case for going to war that resulted in the utter destruction of a nation and thousands upon thousands of dead and wounded. For nothing. For a hunch.

    In other words, Iraq was told to cooperate or else and Saddam for reasons only really known to him choose OR ELSE. I refuse to feel guilt over that.
    Well that's good for you, you go ahead and refuse to see the horrible mistake we made for what it was. I'll not avoid the chewy chunks and call it like it is.


    Absolutely not.
    No, you absolutely are.

    I'm relying on the inspectors to report that Iraq is FULLY COOPERATING and absolutely no longer being evasive, non-cooperative, etc.
    We aren't talking about sanctions at this point, we are talking about killing and wounding thousands of Iraqis, raining destruction upon them, all because Saddam is not "fully cooperating" only "somewhat cooperating." Never mind that our teams on the ground from the U.N. were saying "do not invade, they are cooperating, we are making headway." Yeah that doesn't count for anything, what we are worried about is the difference between "fully" and "not fully." Results are irrelevant.

    This was unfortunately something they COULD NOT report.
    They absolutely reported that Iraq was cooperating, more than they had been, and there was no evidence of WMD's. Our own people who were assigned emphatically stated that Iraq was no military threat to the region or the world, period. They said "we need more time, they are cooperating, don't invade." We just couldn't wait, because all the signs pointed to a "mushroom cloud" right? Only thing is, NONE of the signs pointed that way.

    Hans Blix does not deny TODAY that Iraq was NOT fully cooperating. He admits freely that in many ways Iraq was still thwarting the investigation.
    But progress was being made, cooperation was there and it was coming at increasing levels. Here is the problem, nowhere in this whole scheme could anyone prove Iraq had WMD's. At. All. I think that before you wage war, you should know that an imminent threat is present. We had nothing to substantiate that.

    Think I give a crap if Hans Blix thinks it was pride that caused the non-cooperation? Nope. All I know is that if the weapons inspectors reported they now had full compliance and cooperation THEN It would have been absolutely wrong to invade. But with them reporting meaningful advancements in levels of cooperation but still not full cooperation I say Saddam brought the crap down on his own head.
    Yeah because Saddam being stubborn, and a complete lack of evidence that there were any WMD's at all, is worth killing and injuring tens of thousands of people, destroying the infrastructure of a country, sending four thousand of our men and women to their deaths, and spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. Because Saddam was being stubborn.

    Um yeah. As a comparison it would be more like, "OK wait he's not letting me check this pocket. He cooperated kind of in letting me check the back pockets but he won't let me check the front. I don't think he has a gun but he's stopping me from checking everywhere so I can' t say for sure he's got nothing. Then BLAM.
    That still doesn't work because you have no identified threat. At all. None. Just a hunch. And now you have a dead guy, and the knowledge that you ****ed up and got it wrong.
    *insert profound statement here*

Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •