Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 158

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

  1. #121
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,425

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

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Only in a world where facts don't matter, history is forgotten, and emotion rules the roost... In that case perhaps.

    You folks exhibit what I call Titanic Politics.
    Setting a course of personal destruction and executing it flawlessly.

    snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes
    Only the tip of the iceberg.

    We start with Levin because Lerxst likes eem so much.



    YouTube - Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, & WMD



    .
    You keep falling back on this as if you are making a point. First of all, you go back to 1998 which is irrelevant to the situation in 2003. Second, you have members of Congress who are making statements based upon information that has been provided to them under direction of the Bush White House. Do you know who prepared and cleared the information that was given to the House and Senate? Do you read books? Or do you just pick things off of the internet? Why do you think so many members were so critical of the Bush administration after the truth began to come out? When you have Dick Cheney giving fast paced, deliberately controlled briefings to the Senate when it came to gathering support for the war, using intel that was hand picked for the purpose of getting a "yes" you know there lies the potential for problems.

    So much of what drove those statements in 2002-2003 was born out of cherry picking or manipulating intel. I've got five books that detail this process and name names and date ranges. Would you like the list?
    Last edited by Lerxst; 05-10-09 at 03:22 AM.
    *insert profound statement here*

  2. #122
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Did Clinton invade Iraq, completely deconstruct the governance of the country, fire the military, and set off a years long and bloody insurgency based upon the info he had at that time? No he didn't. Very big difference.
    Yes, the BIG difference between Clintonís Presidency of doing nothing and allowing Al Qaeda a safe haven to plan the 9-11 attacks while he was getting his dick sucked was the actions of 9-11 and the WAKE-UP call to America.

    Liberals like you however, only woke for a short month or so before letting your brains and reality atrophy once more.

    Yes, there is a HUGE difference between Bushís LEADERSHIP, and Clintons pathetic inability to act.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    As has already been pointed out, things in Iraq had changed between when Clinton was in and when Bush was pushing.
    Nothing had changed in Iraq. If you had any clue about the REALITIES of what was occurring in Iraq, you would know that while Clinton was in charge, Saddam had kicked the inspectors out completely.

    The inspectors were not let in until Bush backed up his threat by moving forces into the region. You history suffers from a typical Liberal inflection called LIRS (pronounced liars); Liberal Indistinguishable Reality Syndrome.

    Read, become informed and stop parroting retarded Liberal talking points one can get by reading Moveon.org.

    Events Leading Up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq

    4th Consolidated Report under UNSCR 1051


    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    What did the UNSCOM inspectors say about the WMD's in light of the plans to invade?
    In February of 1998 , UNSCOM unanimously determined that after seven years of attempts to establish the extent of Iraqís chemical weapons programs, that Iraq had still not given the Commission sufficient information for them to conclude that Iraq had undertaken all the disarmament steps required by the UNSC resolutions concerning chemical weapons.[44]

    In August 1998, Ritter resigned his position as UN weapons inspector and sharply criticized the Clinton administration and the U.N. Security Council for not being vigorous enough about insisting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction be destroyed. Ritter also accused U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan of assisting Iraqi efforts at impeding UNSCOM's work. "Iraq is not disarming", Ritter said on August 27, 1998, and in a second statement, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike." In 1998 the UNSCOM weapons inspectors left Iraq.

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction]Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    What did the Counter Terrorism Security Group say about WMD's and the plans to invade?
    Are we talking the UN Security Council Committees?

    What did the Director of the CIA a Clinton appointee say?

    What did the Prime Minister of Britain say?

    What did UN resolutions say?

    What did the former Clinton Administration defense officials and Clinton say?

    The only way someone like you can make the hyperbolic lie filled emotional hysterics you claim is by wallowing in complete denial about the FACTS, the beliefs at the time and the emotions running through Governments post 9-11.

    But what takes an equal willingness to avoid the FACTS is this notion that the decision to go into Iraq was not a massive bi-partisan decision supported by 76% of the American people.

    Your armchair second guessing isnít a statement of the facts, it is a desperate hyper partisan desperation wrapped in denial that your efforts, as well as others, are purely motivated by partisan political BS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    What part of "what Clinton thought is irrelevant" do you not get? Clinton wasn't the President leading this nation around by the nose with bad intel and pushing Congress to war with the same.
    Another intellectually lacking argument in light of the historical facts; what Clinton thought and did was entirely relevant because his INACTION led to the events of 9-11.

    What an amusing notion you have that lacks any factual relevance to suggest that anyone was leading the intelligence agencies around by the nose when BOTH Presidents made identical arguments. If you were not wallowing in denial, the main difference was the events called 9-11 and Bush ACTING instead of getting a blow job by an intern.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Why don't you offer up some relevant facts then. All you are doing is bloviating at this point.
    You couldnít comprehend a relevant fact if it walked up and punched you in the nose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    How about, for once in your life here at DP, instead of whining, you actually put up a fact based argument and let's test it.
    The notion that you could recognize what constitutes a fact based argument speaks of profound irony. Youíre slapped with them every day, and when your asinine arguments are thrown back in your whiney Liberal face you run to the basement to whine about it to your buddies.

    Letís make sure of one thing, you do LIVE here at DP, most of the NORMAL people do not and donít require others approval of their whacked out notions about reality to make them feel credible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    This post is a great example of someone who types a lot and says very little.
    If you are talking about your posts, the above comment would be the first truthful thing you have posted on DP.

    Most your posts are OPINION laced with conspiratorial assertions that cannot be supported by credible facts and requires the willful suspension of disbelief. When confronted by your historical ignorance, you then attack the poster and run to the basement to whine like a baby.

  3. #123
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    You keep falling back on this as if you are making a point. First of all, you go back to 1998 which is irrelevant to the situation in 2003. Second, you have members of Congress who are making statements based upon information that has been provided to them under direction of the Bush White House. Do you know who prepared and cleared the information that was given to the House and Senate? Do you read books? Or do you just pick things off of the internet? Why do you think so many members were so critical of the Bush administration after the truth began to come out? When you have Dick Cheney giving fast paced, deliberately controlled briefings to the Senate when it came to gathering support for the war, using intel that was hand picked for the purpose of getting a "yes" you know there lies the potential for problems.

    So much of what drove those statements in 2002-2003 was born out of cherry picking or manipulating intel. I've got five books that detail this process and name names and date ranges. Would you like the list?
    You are quite hysterical in your desperate, yet false assertions; the notion that the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee didn't act on the same intelligence that the Bush Administration requires willful denial or perhaps even willful denial.

    The purely hyper partisan political BS being foisted on the public by Liberals who are running from their votes to authorize the war is just that, hyper partisan political BS.

    Tell me something, who forced this false intelligence on the following Liberal Democrats prior to Bush's Presidency?

    [ame="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1215699/democrats_on_wmds_before_the_iraq_war/"]Democrats on WMDs Before the Iraq War - Video[/ame]

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
    - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton.
    - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


    You just cannot fabricate the level of hysterical BS it takes to believe that Bush was somehow "selective" in his choice of intelligence based on the comments by the PREVIOUS Democrat Administrations own assertions; unless of course you try to make the farcical argument that they were somehow fooled by Bush before he even became President.

    The FACTS are obvious to those not engaging in hyperbolic and the emotional hysterics of hyper partisan political rhetoric in a vacuum of the facts and events as they unfolded.

    The REAL truth here Lerxst is that you willingly wallow in this type of factual flagellation because of your misplaced hatred of a man for the politically partisan reasons and the idiotic notion that he somehow stole an election in 2000. It would be refreshing if for ONCE in your life you could be honest.
    Last edited by Truth Detector; 05-11-09 at 03:09 PM.

  4. #124
    Student The Jovial One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Last Seen
    07-20-09 @ 11:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    160

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    You are quite hysterical in your desperate, yet false assertions; the notion that the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee didn't act on the same intelligence that the Bush Administration requires willful denial or perhaps even willful denial.

    The purely hyper partisan political BS being foisted on the public by Liberals who are running from their votes to authorize the war is just that, hyper partisan political BS.

    Tell me something, who forced this false intelligence on the following Liberal Democrats prior to Bush's Presidency?

    Democrats on WMDs Before the Iraq War - Video


    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
    - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton.
    - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


    You just cannot fabricate the level of hysterical BS it takes to believe that Bush was somehow "selective" in his choice of intelligence based on the comments by the PREVIOUS Democrat Administrations own assertions; unless of course you try to make the farcical argument that they were somehow fooled by Bush before he even became President.

    The FACTS are obvious to those not engaging in hyperbolic and the emotional hysterics of hyper partisan political rhetoric in a vacuum of the facts and events as they unfolded.

    The REAL truth here Lerxst is that you willingly wallow in this type of factual flagellation because of your misplaced hatred of a man for the politically partisan reasons and the idiotic notion that he somehow stole an election in 2000. It would be refreshing if for ONCE in your life you could be honest.
    Wow. You listed a bunch of quotes from the Clinton administration explaining why we couldn't allow Saddam to have WMDs as rationale for believing the lie that he HAD WMDs.

    Fail.
    When you can't win an election outside of the south or mountain west, the answer to your problems is NOT "more of the same, but LOUDER!!!"


  5. #125
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Jovial One View Post
    Wow. You listed a bunch of quotes from the Clinton administration explaining why we couldn't allow Saddam to have WMDs as rationale for believing the lie that he HAD WMDs.

    Fail.
    The quotes contained solid belief that he actually had WMDs and would USE them; the epoch fail of your inability to comprehend simple English and hyperbolic efforts to defend the indefensible are noted.

    You might also want to watch the video, hear and see these Democrats statements and keep an OPEN mind and be honest for once in your life.

    Carry on!
    Last edited by Truth Detector; 05-11-09 at 03:45 PM.

  6. #126
    Student The Jovial One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Last Seen
    07-20-09 @ 11:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    160

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    The quotes contained solid belief that he actually had WMDs and would USE them; the epoch fail of your inability to comprehend simple English and hyperbolic efforts to defend the indefensible are noted.

    You might also want to watch the video, hear and see these Democrats statements and keep an OPEN mind and be honest for once in your life.

    Carry on!
    Um... no. The quotes say we shouldn't let him GET those pesky WMDs.

    Read your own quotes, Binky!
    When you can't win an election outside of the south or mountain west, the answer to your problems is NOT "more of the same, but LOUDER!!!"


  7. #127
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Jovial One View Post
    Um... no. The quotes say we shouldn't let him GET those pesky WMDs.

    Read your own quotes, Binky!
    Apparently in your hyper partisan denial, you also failed reading comprehension.

    Carry on.

  8. #128
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,425

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Yes, the BIG difference between Clintonís Presidency of doing nothing and allowing Al Qaeda a safe haven to plan the 9-11 attacks while he was getting his dick sucked was the actions of 9-11 and the WAKE-UP call to America.
    So where do we start? With your complete lack of knowledge about why very little action was taken under the Clinton watch? How about let's start there. First and foremost, ths National Security Advisor and the National Security Council principles under the Clinton administration pushed for small scale anti-terrorist operations and renditions on multiple occasions. Some of these requests were documented in two books by Richard Clarke, the former head of the Counter Terrorism Security Group. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was one of those requested by the NSA. The Pentagon resisted those missions by insisting on operational plans that would have involved large scale military force be used. We are talking the capture of single individuals, covert operations. The CIA and FBI said they had no such covert capability in the region. Security advisors to the administration suggested utilizing elements such as Navy Seals and Delta Force for the operations. When told to ask the Qatari government to pick him up, the administration protested that the odds of Mohammed being tipped off and fleeing were too great. The Pentagon balked and said that they did not want to risk the assets that way, they wanted to use more conventional units in much larger force. Their plans amounted to small scale invasions. The NSA complained that an operation of that size would tip the target off and send him running. Eventually we convinced the Qatari government to attempt a snatch, and guess what. He was tipped off and fled before the capture could occur. When Clinton personally asked Chairman of the JC Hugh Shelton for plans to use special forces to launch attacks against Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan he responded in the negative, citing that the risk was too great, the mission too difficult to ensure success. Don't sit here and tell me Clinton didn't do anything. Clinton tried but was rebuffed by the Pentagon. You know why you don't hear about this? Because had we went after Khalid Sheik Mohammed in Khartoum when Clinton asked the Pentagon to, had we struck at Al Qaeda camps when Clinton asked the Pentagon to...we might not have suffered the attacks on 9/11.

    But why did the Pentagon refuse you might ask? I know I did when I first read it. And the answer is simple. The Pentagons plans were derived from a post-Vietnam military reorganization that was shaped by the Goldwater-Nichols Revolution and the Weinberger doctrine. Do you know what those are? I doubt it. Your not a very good student when it comes to actual military matters. Your right wing regurgitation fest leaves little room for actual facts. In the post-Vietnam era the military underwent a cultural shift out of the desire to protect itself from being used for operations it was neither trained for nor equipped to execute. Vietnam was a prime example of politicians being able to push our troops into wars we never intended them to fight without the need for large scale public support. The result was that we had a largely conventional military fighting an unconventional war, a counter insurgency...something it was not trained to do and something we had no solid strategy to combat. We were still operating along World War II operational models that promoted a very disjointed battlefield command command and constant inter service rivalries. The result was years of protracted give and take in the jungles and over 50,000 U.S. dead. It wasn't until Giap transitioned from a guerrilla war to a conventional war that we were able to beat them wholesale. But by that time it mattered very little. The public was through with the war and swept a new group of Congressional leaders into office on an anti-war message. We withdrew from Vietnam under the appearance that it had all been for nothing. That was the beginning of the military's relationship with the Democratic party. They came home to a resentful nation on the orders of a government dominated by democrats, and it seemed their sacrifices meant little. That is what happens to your military when you send it out unprepared, improperly equipped, and without your nations full support. That is what the officer corps resolved to prevent from happening again. They would push to incorporate more civilian oversight of the military and ensure that they would never again be used for large scale long term operations without the support of the Congress and the people.

    In the aftermath of that war, and through the efforts of men like General David Jones, there began a major reorganization of the military command structure. The draft was done away with and the all volunteer force was established under the watch of General Creighton Abrams (the strategy was that an all volunteer force would be more effective man for man, but smaller...this would force our government to choose its battles wisely as the resources needed for large scale wars would be very limited). The resulting concept was called "Total Force." Abrams used the AVF to staff primary combat units and put the task of supporting the combat units on the Guard and Reserves (this meant that the pressure to engage in long term, large protracted wars would be doubly hard to sell since it meant calling up significant numbers of citizen soldiers to do so). Jones proposed restructuring the Joint Chiefs of Staff and an overhaul that would effectively end inter service rivalries in theater. This eventually led to the Goldwater-Nichols Act. A policy of joint operations was implemented and extreme weight was given to the JCS, who could now directly advise the President. If our civilian leaders were contemplating war, the JCS would be in a position to influence that decision one way or the other. In other words, the military now had a say on when they went and for what reasons. What came out of this was a very force heavy doctrine that ensured rapid victories and minimal casualties. We went in with overwhelming force when needed to combat an imminent threat and win quickly. We saw the development of the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force. The idea was to use force in defense of our interests and our allies, not to fight wars of choice, but wars of necessity. We did not make it a point to develop long term counter insurgency plans because our military never intended to be used for that.

    Fast forward to Bill Clinton's years in office. The structure of the JCS prevented Clinton from "ordering" Delta or SEAL team operations, all he could do was request the Pentagon to develop a plan to achieve an end. The result he got back were force heavy, overt military operations that required major funding and resources positioning. There would be no element of surprise here. At that time those were not options the military or the President wanted to exercise. But you seem contented to hide in your world of partisan hackery and inject little gems like "he was too busy getting his dick sucked" instead of speaking with any actually command of the subject. There is the difference between you and I. I know what I am talking about, you just know you are talking and that's all you care about.

    The point to all this I just typed? To show you that I don't need to cut and paste from the internet, as you so frequently do without quoting the source. I know much of this because I've studied it, intently, from many angles.

    Lesson for the day? Read a book son.

    [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Your-Government-Failed-You-Disasters/dp/0061474622"]Your Government Failed You.[/ame]
    [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Against-All-Enemies-Inside-Americas/dp/0743260244"]Against All Enemies.[/ame]
    [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-War-Terror-Counterinsurgency-Strategy/dp/0760328684"]Amazon.com: Fighting the War on Terror: A Counterinsurgency Strategy: James S. Corum, Sir Michael Howard: Books[/ame]
    [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0313310858"]Reorganizing the Joint Chiefs of Staff: The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986.[/ame]

    Liberals like you however, only woke for a short month or so before letting your brains and reality atrophy once more.

    Yes, there is a HUGE difference between Bushís LEADERSHIP, and Clintons pathetic inability to act.
    Blah, blah, blah...more bloviating from the resident hyper partisan spam machine. Instead of cackling, why don't you actually articulate your argument here? I see no substance...just you yammering as usual.

    Nothing had changed in Iraq. If you had any clue about the REALITIES of what was occurring in Iraq, you would know that while Clinton was in charge, Saddam had kicked the inspectors out completely.

    The inspectors were not let in until Bush backed up his threat by moving forces into the region. You history suffers from a typical Liberal inflection called LIRS (pronounced liars); Liberal Indistinguishable Reality Syndrome.

    Read, become informed and stop parroting retarded Liberal talking points one can get by reading Moveon.org.
    So what your saying is that from the Clinton administration of the 90's and the situation in 2003, prior to the invasion...things had changed. Cool, that's exactly what I was saying. The inspectors were back in and they were advising us not to invade. Gee, sounds like a change to me. Glad we could agree on this.

    I would suggest that you don't let your hyper partisan gland flare ups dictate your posting. You get yourself all caught up in your mess making and look really silly.
    Last edited by Lerxst; 05-11-09 at 10:10 PM.
    *insert profound statement here*

  9. #129
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,425

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

    Are we talking the UN Security Council Committees?
    I don't know...are we? Why don't you post up what you think they said?

    What did the Director of the CIA a Clinton appointee say?
    Yes, what did he say? How about you actually cite what statements he made that back you up since you are offering them. But, slam dunk comes to mind. Of course, George Tenet was also aware that raw, unvetted intel was being used to accelerate the case for the war. This is the same man who pushed the aluminum tubes theory, even though there were analysts in his own organization as well as others who openly disputed the theory. Just because Tenet worked for Clinton doesn't mean he got it right. Stop letting your partisanship dictate your logic. CSG analystes were viewing intel coming from the CIA and warning those in charge of it's dubious nature. Tenet ran blocking back for the administration and failed to actually address the nature of the intel that was being used. Again...you need to read a book sometime.

    What did the Prime Minister of Britain say?
    Again, why don't you tell me what he said instead of making me guess at what you actually mean. Give some examples instead of hinting that you actually have something up your sleeve. He parroted bad intel, just like George W. did. What's your point? They both pushed an agenda, they both got it wrong. Read up on MI6 agent Michael Shipster and the intel he provided his boss, Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of British Intelligence. Why, when one of Britains top intel officers reports that high level informants in the Iraqi government are telling him there are no WMD's does this get brushed under the rug? I mean, the man was proven right, but he was ignored when it counted most.

    What did UN resolutions say?
    Who cares? U.N. resolutions don't prove that WMD's existed or that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the world or his regional neighbors. You gonna fall back on that resolution again? The "it was on paper so it's justified" defense?

    What did the former Clinton Administration defense officials and Clinton say?
    Irrelevant, they weren't leading the nation to war in 2003. Why do you keep bringing this up without actually making any relevant case from it?

    The only way someone like you can make the hyperbolic lie filled emotional hysterics you claim is by wallowing in complete denial about the FACTS, the beliefs at the time and the emotions running through Governments post 9-11.
    No, I can make my case based on facts. You've failed miserably to do the same. You type a lot, but fail to actually make a solid case. 300 lines of text do not a sound argument make.

    But what takes an equal willingness to avoid the FACTS is this notion that the decision to go into Iraq was not a massive bi-partisan decision supported by 76% of the American people.
    And that's your problem, you are the only one denying the reality of the situation. Both the Congress and the people of this nation were duped by a very well orchestrated and fast paced war campaign that was based on the manipulation of information. It was cherry picked and and used in such a way as to convince everyone we needed to go to war and we needed to go now.

    Your armchair second guessing isnít a statement of the facts, it is a desperate hyper partisan desperation wrapped in denial that your efforts, as well as others, are purely motivated by partisan political BS.
    No, my criticism of the Bush administration and their actions is based entirely on years long examination of available information, all of which has been vindicated by the facts as they turned out. There is no denial here. You yap like a rabid Yorkie repeating that mantra, but you've proven nothing. There are a host of books that examine the lead up to the war in Iraq. The amount of evidence we do have clearly points to the fact that the Bush administration orchestrated this venture in a very deliberate fashion. They detail with great intricacy the manner in which it was foisted upon us.


    Another intellectually lacking argument in light of the historical facts; what Clinton thought and did was entirely relevant because his INACTION led to the events of 9-11.
    See above and heed my admonishment to actually read a real book.
    What an amusing notion you have that lacks any factual relevance to suggest that anyone was leading the intelligence agencies around by the nose when BOTH Presidents made identical arguments. If you were not wallowing in denial, the main difference was the events called 9-11 and Bush ACTING instead of getting a blow job by an intern.
    Because you say so right? You type several sentences to say "I'm right, you're wrong." That's all you did here. You never once actually debunked my argument. What even funnier is you chastising people over a lack of reading comprehension and then accusing me of claiming that Bush led the intelligence communities around by the nose. I clearly did not say that.

    You couldnít comprehend a relevant fact if it walked up and punched you in the nose.
    Ah, the typical TD response. In other words, "I don't have any relevant facts to offer up, only my caustic opinion and a bunch of insulting text and assorted bloviating."


    The notion that you could recognize what constitutes a fact based argument speaks of profound irony. Youíre slapped with them every day, and when your asinine arguments are thrown back in your whiney Liberal face you run to the basement to whine about it to your buddies.
    Oh wait, here you go again. Wait...where are the facts he always brags about? Oops...somebody forgot to bring them again. Imagine that!
    Letís make sure of one thing, you do LIVE here at DP, most of the NORMAL people do not and donít require others approval of their whacked out notions about reality to make them feel credible.
    Oh here we go, now we get down to the real meat and potatoes of the Truth Detector brand of debate. "You're a meany poo poo head, and even though I make an ass out of myself here religiously, I'll somehow try to bash you for posting here and arguing with me."


    If you are talking about your posts, the above comment would be the first truthful thing you have posted on DP.
    Someone farted.

    Most your posts are OPINION laced with conspiratorial assertions that cannot be supported by credible facts and requires the willful suspension of disbelief. When confronted by your historical ignorance, you then attack the poster and run to the basement to whine like a baby.
    Quite the opposite son. I have never, ever ran from a debate with anyone on this forum. In fact I have a history of confronting your nonsense. You see, you have been dissected here by many members of this forum for just this kind of behavior. You bloviate, you whine, you talk a big game and then NEVER deliver. I have no idea how many references you made to "relevant facts" that you are supposedly hitting me in the face with, but you've produced none.
    *insert profound statement here*

  10. #130
    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 Lerxst View Post
    Quite the opposite son. I have never, ever ran from a debate with anyone on this forum. In fact I have a history of confronting your nonsense. You see, you have been dissected here by many members of this forum for just this kind of behavior. You bloviate, you whine, you talk a big game and then NEVER deliver. I have no idea how many references you made to "relevant facts" that you are supposedly hitting me in the face with, but you've produced none.
    Where's that fork?

    That was a good old fashioned
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... 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
  •