Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 158

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

  1. #131
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,396

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    Where's that fork?

    That was a good old fashioned
    Seriously, I'm not that good. He just makes it way too easy.

    *insert profound statement here*

  2. #132
    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

    I had to put my hip waders on for this pile of revisionist bile.

    Tell me something, do you EVER address the topic of the thread or what is being discussed? None of this wordy blather even deals with my arguments about regarding your asinine assertions of Bush lying us into war. But then, the desperate desire to avoid your original asinine assertions and wallow in a circle of futility is hardly new for you is it? So aside from the fact that you REFUSE to address the FACTS I stated to dispute your asinine assertions about Bush lies, I will simplify your wordy blather here for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    So where do we start? With your complete lack of knowledge about why very little action was taken under the Clinton watch? ……..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.
    None of the above addresses my response to your asinine statement that Bush lied us into war but rather wordy excuse making on the lack of leadership from the Clinton White House.

    This pretty much summarizes your wordy attempts to obfuscate the facts:

    Don't sit here and tell me Clinton didn't do anything. Clinton tried but was rebuffed by the Pentagon.

    BS; One has to willingly suspend their disbelief to believe in the notion that the President can be rebuffed by the Pentagon. He is the freaking Commander and Chief. Rather than make your case, this statement alone makes mine that Clinton failed massively as a leader and instead ran the Whitehouse as a popular opinion poll while getting a blow job.

    Once more the above wordy blather has NOTHING to do with your asinine assertion that Bush lied us into war. Bravo, another wordy pile of nonsense to avoid the original farcical assertions you made.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    But why did the Pentagon refuse you might ask?
    No one cares why you THINK the Pentagon can refuse their Commander and Chief; that is nonsensical BS that can only be believed by the uninformed and the gullible. It is idiotic to suggest that if the President commands the Pentagon to carry out his strategy, the Pentagon can say; “no, we’re not going to.”

    Good lord, get a grip on reality dude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    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.
    There is a VAST difference between you and I; I stay on topic and you wander into a wonderland of Clinton excuse making and historic diatribes that have NOTHING to do with your original asinine assertion that Bush lied us into war with Iraq. Your desperate diatribes don’t address any of the FACTS I shared illustrating just how asinine your assertions are and merely wander all over the political countryside looking for a purpose.

    The FACT is that Clinton spent much of his time avoiding any REAL decision making and avoided any opportunities to eliminate Osama and conduct offensive efforts against Al Qaeda because he was MORE concerned about popular opinion polls than he was about actually LEADING and protecting American interests and lives.

    Clinton ignored what was occurring in Afghanistan and ignored the Taliban’s take over of the Government of Afghanistan after the Soviets were ejected.

    Clinton spent most of his time in office castrating the intelligence capabilities of this country and gutting the Military to achieve the cuts in Government he and Gore promised.

    Here are a few good books on this topic:

    The Clinton scandal America can't afford to ignore
    New Autographed Edition!
    Betrayal (autographed)
    by Bill Gertz
    Renowned Washington Times defense reporter Bill Gertz accessed classified government documents and confidential sources to expose a national security nightmare of frightening proportions. Bill Clinton's foreign policy has weakened our military and undermined our national defense


    Blinded vigilance: How Deutch and Tenet helped weaken the CIA prior to 9/11
    by J. Michael Waller
    Insight magazine, October 15, 2001



    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    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.
    There was no point to all your obfuscation other than to avoid addressing the comments I made to illustrate your asinine nonsense about Bush lying us into war.

    When are you going to actually address my comments in rebuttal to your typically uninformed notions of history and the events leading up to Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Lesson for the day? Read a book son.
    Here’s a far better list for reading than your worship of Richard Clarke; read some REAL book “son.”

    Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror
    by Richard Miniter


    An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror (Hardcover)
    by David Frum (Author), Richard Perle (Author) "WE TOO LIVE in trying times-and thus far our fellow Americans have passed every test..." (more)


    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    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.
    More kindergarten blather; speaking of nonsensical yammering, when are you going to PROVE your asinine assertions about Bush lying us into the war in Iraq and address my comments?

    The only thing more laughable about your essay above is the fact that it contains NOTHING that supports your asinine assertion that Bush lied us into war.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    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.
    Apparently in your desperate attempt to AVOID my response to the asinine assertion that Bush lied us into war you didn’t read much of what I posted; if you had, you would have had a more coherent response to it and not wandered so far off topic you can’t remember what it is that is being debated.

    What I am saying is that during Clinton’s failure to lead, Saddam continued defying the UN resolutions and there was no solid evidence that Saddam had indeed destroyed known WMDs and was not attempting to re-constitute his efforts to develop a nuclear weapon.

    What I am saying is that Saddam kicked out the inspectors during Clinton’s failure to lead and did not allow them back in until Bush had assembled a HUGE military coalition force on his borders.

    What I am saying, and you are refusing to hear, is that even after that, Saddam continued to defy the inspectors and the coalition regardless of the ramifications if he did not comply.

    What I am saying is that unlike your asinine assertions that there was a RUSH to war and that Bush lied us into war, it was a long process of obfuscation, denials and deliberate attempts to obstruct UN efforts to ensure that Saddam complied with his agreements and the EVIDENCE the Bush Administration believed was IDENTICAL to the PREVIOUS administration and that Bush’s statements were IDENTICAL to the Democrats and the PREVIOUS administration.

    Your desperate attempts to avoid those FACTS don’t make your wordy blather above a credible substitute for substance.

    So with all that, when are you going to address the FACTS I posted that refute your original asinine assertion that Bush somehow lied us into war?


    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    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.
    I would suggest that you don’t let your Liberal denial dictate your attempts to avoid substantive debate and attempt to obfuscate your original asinine assertions which require the willful suspension of disbelief.

    Your laughable attempts to avoid substance are only exceeded by the laughable notion that OTHERS are acting like partisans ASSuming yours are not; it more the POT calling the KETTLE black.

  3. #133
    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
    Seriously, I'm not that good. He just makes it way too easy.

    Being thanked by ADK is nothing to brag about. But the notion that you are good at anything other than uninformed bloviating would again; require the willful suspension of disbelief.

  4. #134
    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:
    Are we talking the UN Security Council Committees?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    I don't know...are we? Why don't you post up what you think they said?
    So you don’t remember what you said? Why am I not surprised?

    Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
    What did the Director of the CIA a Clinton appointee say?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    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.
    So your bloviating aside, you’re agreeing that Tenet, the political appointee holdover from the Clinton Administration supported the statements made by Bush, the Clinton Administration, Colin Powell etc etc.

    Thank you for confirming this.

    Quote:
    What did the Prime Minister of Britain say?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    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.
    So you are confirming that the British thought the same thing Bush did, Tenet did, Powell did, the previous Democrat administration believed etc etc.

    Thank you for confirming this.

    Quote:
    What did UN resolutions say?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    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?
    You should care; you are the one making the asinine assertions that Bush somehow lied us into a war of choice.

    You think the Joint Resolution is irrelevant yet is the legal justification for going in? REALLY?

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    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 notion that when making asinine assertions about Bush, what the previous administration believed using the SAME intelligence requires willful denial don’t you think?

    Because when you make asinine assertions about Bush for purely partisan political reasons, the FACT that the previous administration stated the exact same thing with the exact same intelligence suggests that either they were also all lying, or your asinine assertions are merely lies for purely partisan reasons; which is it for you?

    Quote:
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    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.
    I haven’t seen any FACTS to support your asinine assertion that Bush “lied” us into a war of choice in Iraq. As a matter of fact, I see profound incongruence between your farcical rhetoric that Bush is an idiot, yet so damned smart he fooled all the Democrats and half the world into supporting the war in Iraq based on lies.

    As is typical with uninformed Liberals who blather divisive offensive rhetoric to support their hyper partisan views, the inconsistencies of your own statements and the lies contained in your asinine assertions suggests someone who is very careless with the truth and inconsistent when it comes to their hyper partisan political views.

    Quote:
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    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.
    Ah yes the old asinine assertion that the “dumbest” man in America “duped” the entire world and Congress. But in order to believe this asinine assertion, one must also believe that he also duped the Clinton Administration for saying and using the EXACT same evidence, the British and 34 other coalition partners and NOT just Democrats in Congress, many of whom parroted the same assertions Bush did.

    What you seem to have a problem with is consistency, factual events and REALITY.

    Quote:
    Your armchair second guessing isn’t 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
    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.
    No, your asinine assertions which you have yet to support with anything credible other than your typically uninformed blather suggest someone who has no grasp on the FACTS or REALITY.

    Instead you wander off topic and blather this forum with your typical uninformed bile for your audience which contains some of the most rabid hyper partisans on the forum,

    The REAL facts is that you make such uninformed asinine assertions for purely partisan purposes based on your misplaced hatred of a man for the false belief he perhaps stole the 2000 elections and for nothing more than you disagree with his politics.


    Quote:
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    See above and heed my admonishment to actually read a real book.
    Your trite condescension aside, perhaps you should actually READ a book instead of parroting asinine assertions one can read on blog sites like moveon.org.

    Quote:
    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
    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.
    No, I type a lot of sentences and posted links to credible data that support my assertions; meanwhile you continue to blather in a total void of reality or the facts. Nothing you stated here comes close to supporting your asinine assertion that Bush lied us into war.

    Rather, they support the reality of the ignorance you bring to the debate, a vacuum of facts and vast inconsistencies of your rude and offensive remarks suggesting that Bush is an idiot, yet he was so brilliant he fooled the whole freaking world.

    I am sorry; did you say you were from planet denial? If I want to read uninformed lunatic ignorance, I can read postings on moveon.org.


    Quote:
    You couldn’t comprehend a relevant fact if it walked up and punched you in the nose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    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."
    Awwww, you don’t like have the truth and facts shoved into your face when making asinine comments; I can say that I am hardly surprised by that.


    Quote:
    The notion that you could recognize what constitutes a fact based argument speaks of profound irony. You’re 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Oh wait, here you go again. Wait...where are the facts he always brags about? Oops...somebody forgot to bring them again. Imagine that!
    No one forgot to bring the facts, they are back in my thread, you just choose to avoid them so that you can continue to wallow in your misplaced ignorance and avoid reality.

    I am still waiting for the FACTS you claim that supports your asinine statement that Bush lied us into war. But alas, while making asinine comments, you rarely see the FACTS put in front of you illustrating how truly asinine that statement is.


    .........Continued due to length......

  5. #135
    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

    ....continued......


    Quote:
    Let’s make sure of one thing, you do LIVE here at DP, most of the NORMAL people do not and don’t require others approval of their whacked out notions about reality to make them feel credible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    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."
    Another whiney insulting response in a vacuum of your own hypocrisy I see. Here let me re-cap your nonsense:

    With your complete lack of knowledge

    I know what I am talking about, you just know you are talking and that's all you care about.

    Lesson for the day? Read a book son.

    Blah, blah, blah...more bloviating from the resident hyper partisan spam machine

    Instead of cackling, why don't you…..

    … don't let your hyper partisan gland flare ups

    You yap like a rabid Yorkie repeating that mantra

    Someone farted.


    This one is just profound irony based on the unintelligent blather above:
    300 lines of text do not a sound argument make

    Lesson; pot attempting claim everyone else is black. Thanks for being the definition of hypocrisy and uninformed Liberal hyper partisanship.

    Quote:
    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.

    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.
    Based on your responses, it is comedic that you have such grand notions about your ability to have a coherent debate; but even more denial when confronted with your asinine assertions; you wander off topic on a historic treatise that begs for a purpose.

    The notion that you could comprehend simple facts while wearing those hyper partisan blinders really requires willful suspension of disbelief.

    I am still waiting for anything CREDIBLE to support your asinine assertion that Bush, whom you claim is an idiot on many occasions, FOOLED the Congress, the Senate, the military and the rest of the world into a war of choice.

    The ONLY way anyone with a brain can support such an asinine assertion is by claiming that all the other people I have listed were also LYING to us about WMDs. But that denial aside, it also requires one to wallow in ignorance to the text of the Joint Resolution by making the asinine argument that the ONLY reason we went into Iraq was to find WMDs; yet of the approximately 1,850 words contained in the document, only a mere 200 address the word WMDs.

    Yes Lerxst, your asinine assertions merely parrot the typical rabid hyper partisan blather one can find on any conspiracy site like moveon.org; BUT, the notion that your apparent partisan rhetoric is a substitute for the historic facts as somehow a credible rebuttal to me does require willful denial.

  6. #136
    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 Truth Detector View Post
    Being thanked by ADK is nothing to brag about.
    Of course it is. You keep studying and I'm confident before the year is out, I'll find something to thank you for.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  7. #137
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,396

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I had to put my hip waders on for this pile of revisionist bile.

    Tell me something, do you EVER address the topic of the thread or what is being discussed?
    Well, let's take a look at your attempted diversion here. If you will look at my post you will see that I QUOTED YOU and responded to YOU. Those are your comments old man. Not sure if it's the early signs of dementia or your just on the run here, but it's pretty silly of you to chastise me over not being on topic when I'm clearly responding to YOUR post.

    None of this wordy blather even deals with my arguments about regarding your asinine assertions of Bush lying us into war. But then, the desperate desire to avoid your original asinine assertions and wallow in a circle of futility is hardly new for you is it? So aside from the fact that you REFUSE to address the FACTS I stated to dispute your asinine assertions about Bush lies, I will simplify your wordy blather here for you.
    Are you clinically insane? My post directly addressed YOUR argument. I quoted YOUR exact words and countered every point you made. Seriously, there is something wrong with you.

    None of the above addresses my response to your asinine statement that Bush lied us into war but rather wordy excuse making on the lack of leadership from the Clinton White House.
    I quoted YOUR response there Truth Detector.

    This pretty much summarizes your wordy attempts to obfuscate the facts:

    Don't sit here and tell me Clinton didn't do anything. Clinton tried but was rebuffed by the Pentagon.
    I know, I can actually make a point in less that 100 sentences when I choose to, unlike you.

    BS; One has to willingly suspend their disbelief to believe in the notion that the President can be rebuffed by the Pentagon. He is the freaking Commander and Chief. Rather than make your case, this statement alone makes mine that Clinton failed massively as a leader and instead ran the Whitehouse as a popular opinion poll while getting a blow job.
    That's exactly what happened and further shows you are absolutely clueless as to how the military operates under the post-Vietnam reorganization and Goldwater-Nichols Act. You are so ignorant that it is laughable. This clearly exposes the level of bull**** you are willing to spread. I provided source material to back up my case. I the how, the when, and the why. You just ran your suck and showed us how uniformed you really are about the modern political-military relationship.

    Once more the above wordy blather has NOTHING to do with your asinine assertion that Bush lied us into war. Bravo, another wordy pile of nonsense to avoid the original farcical assertions you made.
    No it addresses the asinine post YOU made.

    No one cares why you THINK the Pentagon can refuse their Commander and Chief; that is nonsensical BS that can only be believed by the uninformed and the gullible. It is idiotic to suggest that if the President commands the Pentagon to carry out his strategy, the Pentagon can say; “no, we’re not going to.”

    Good lord, get a grip on reality dude.
    The Pentagon refused to execute the specific method the administration asked for, which was a small unit black op, not the goal of capturing the target. They refused Clintons "how to do it." They said they would do it, but they mandated the overwhelming use of force. The Pentagon drew up the plan to execute the strategy and that plan was well beyond what anyone wanted to contemplate. Read the whole post Sparky.

    There is a VAST difference between you and I; I stay on topic and you wander into a wonderland of Clinton excuse making and historic diatribes that have NOTHING to do with your original asinine assertion that Bush lied us into war with Iraq. Your desperate diatribes don’t address any of the FACTS I shared illustrating just how asinine your assertions are and merely wander all over the political countryside looking for a purpose.
    Correction TD, YOU were the one that brought Clinton into the discussion. If you will check, I quoted YOU and your EXACT WORDS.

    The FACT is that Clinton spent much of his time avoiding any REAL decision making and avoided any opportunities to eliminate Osama and conduct offensive efforts against Al Qaeda because he was MORE concerned about popular opinion polls than he was about actually LEADING and protecting American interests and lives.
    And I've clearly stated that Clinton didn't avoid decision making on this matter. Clinton tried to implement plans to address Al Qaeda. However his strategy was subject to the Pentagons planning for it's execution, and that is what stopped the activity in it's tracks. The difference here is that my assertion is backed by the source material I provided you with. Richard Clarke was at the epicenter of dealing with terrorism and the CSG's prime focus under Clinton was Al Qaeda. Clinton advocated small scale, surgical covert operations. The Pentagon said "no, we can't do that, it's too risky, we'll go after them but we do it based upon our strategy of overwhelming combined force." You are simply offering your opinion on what Clintons motivations were, you have nothing to base that on but speculation of others.

    Clinton ignored what was occurring in Afghanistan and ignored the Taliban’s take over of the Government of Afghanistan after the Soviets were ejected.
    You're lying. I proved, through the source material I provided and you can verify it, that Clinton specifically requested military operations against ground targets in Afghanistan and was rebuffed by both the Secretary of Defense and the Pentagon. They rejected the idea of covert ops because they believed they would be too risky and too difficult. The military would only subscribe to large scale, force heavy operations, and those are exactly the plans they returned to the administration for the operations. Everyone agreed there was no way that they would be able to get that kind of support in order to respond to the threat Al Qaeda posed at the time. To paraphrase one response to the request "it's going to take a lot more body bags to get that kind of support."

    Clinton spent most of his time in office castrating the intelligence capabilities of this country and gutting the Military to achieve the cuts in Government he and Gore promised.
    Clinton didn't "gut" the military. This is a common lie that ignorant partisan hacks with little military knowledge like to spread. Clinton downsized the military in response to post-Cold War geopolitical changes. At the same time he injected increased funding into it for modernization and training.

    Here are a few good books on this topic:

    The Clinton scandal America can't afford to ignore
    New Autographed Edition!
    Betrayal (autographed)
    by Bill Gertz
    Renowned Washington Times defense reporter Bill Gertz accessed classified government documents and confidential sources to expose a national security nightmare of frightening proportions. Bill Clinton's foreign policy has weakened our military and undermined our national defense


    Blinded vigilance: How Deutch and Tenet helped weaken the CIA prior to 9/11
    by J. Michael Waller
    Insight magazine, October 15, 2001
    I'll check those out and compare them to the dozens of other books available and see what shakes out.

    There was no point to all your obfuscation other than to avoid addressing the comments I made to illustrate your asinine nonsense about Bush lying us into war.

    When are you going to actually address my comments in rebuttal to your typically uninformed notions of history and the events leading up to Iraq?
    Hey smart guy, I DID ADDRESS your comments as it's clear to everyone that I QUOTED YOUR EXACT WORDS.


    Here’s a far better list for reading than your worship of Richard Clarke; read some REAL book “son.”

    Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror
    by Richard Miniter


    An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror (Hardcover)
    by David Frum (Author), Richard Perle (Author) "WE TOO LIVE in trying times-and thus far our fellow Americans have passed every test..." (more)
    Can you debunk Richard Clarke's information? Where is your articulated counter to what I have said. Where have you shown Clarke to be a liar? I can also list a half dozen books that corroborate what Clarke said.

    [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Going-War-Misinformation-Disinformation-Arrogance/dp/0312360355]Amazon.com: Going to War: How Misinformation, Disinformation, and Arrogance Led America into Iraq: Russ Hoyle: Books[/ame]
    [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Hubris-Inside-Story-Scandal-Selling/dp/0307346811]Amazon.com: Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War: Michael Isikoff, David Corn: Books[/ame]
    [ame=http://www.amazon.com/One-Percent-Doctrine-Americas-Pursuit/dp/0743271092/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242152636&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11: Ron Suskind: Books[/ame]


    In all of this you have failed to actually counter what I said with anything of substance. You said "the Pentagon can't refuse the President." That's it. And I knew you would say that which is why I prefaced my end point with a history lesson, which you ignored because unlike you, I took the time to substantiate my case.


    More kindergarten blather; speaking of nonsensical yammering, when are you going to PROVE your asinine assertions about Bush lying us into the war in Iraq and address my comments?

    The only thing more laughable about your essay above is the fact that it contains NOTHING that supports your asinine assertion that Bush lied us into war.
    My post was in response to YOUR EXACT WORDS. Point by point.


    Apparently in your desperate attempt to AVOID my response to the asinine assertion that Bush lied us into war you didn’t read much of what I posted; if you had, you would have had a more coherent response to it and not wandered so far off topic you can’t remember what it is that is being debated.
    I avoided nothing and quoted your EXACT WORDS.

    What I am saying is that during Clinton’s failure to lead, Saddam continued defying the UN resolutions and there was no solid evidence that Saddam had indeed destroyed known WMDs and was not attempting to re-constitute his efforts to develop a nuclear weapon.

    What I am saying is that Saddam kicked out the inspectors during Clinton’s failure to lead and did not allow them back in until Bush had assembled a HUGE military coalition force on his borders.

    What I am saying, and you are refusing to hear, is that even after that, Saddam continued to defy the inspectors and the coalition regardless of the ramifications if he did not comply.
    What you said was nothing had changed, what I said was it had changed. You've not countered my statement, in fact you only substantiated it. It matters not who the President was or why it changed. What matters is that it changed prior to the invasion, that is what matters, and that was point. Thank you for substantiating it for me.
    *insert profound statement here*

  8. #138
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,396

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

    What I am saying is that unlike your asinine assertions that there was a RUSH to war and that Bush lied us into war, it was a long process of obfuscation, denials and deliberate attempts to obstruct UN efforts to ensure that Saddam complied with his agreements and the EVIDENCE the Bush Administration believed was IDENTICAL to the PREVIOUS administration and that Bush’s statements were IDENTICAL to the Democrats and the PREVIOUS administration.
    There was an absolute rush to war. And yes, Bush did in fact lie us into war. The books I have cited giver examples of where the Bush administration manipulated the intel in order to present a case against Iraq that was no accurate. They did so in order to get a consensus for military action before the elections and before an organized, intelligent opposition to the war could be underway. Witness Rumsfelds assertion that the war could be won and troops home in a very short time. That was presented despite the fact that the both civilian and military advisers had told the administration that an invasion of Iraq would require a much larger number of troops than the White House was allowing for and that there would definite post-occupation issues that could last for years. There were two reports on this that were presented before the invasion. That was deliberate. I'll find them and revisit this. Telling the American people we had solid evidence and were convinced Saddam had WMD's was a lie. Our intel agencies never said that. They said that they had raw intel suggesting that, it was unvetted. The administration knew this. The aluminum tubes issue I pointed out. They had their own analysts challenging the theory they were for centrifuges. They ignored their own experts in favor of an individual who wasn't even qualified to make the statements he made with any authority. I can go on.

    Your desperate attempts to avoid those FACTS don’t make your wordy blather above a credible substitute for substance.
    What facts have I avoided? I'm waiting on you to produce some to avoid.

    So with all that, when are you going to address the FACTS I posted that refute your original asinine assertion that Bush somehow lied us into war?
    In progress. Pay attention.

    I would suggest that you don’t let your Liberal denial dictate your attempts to avoid substantive debate and attempt to obfuscate your original asinine assertions which require the willful suspension of disbelief.
    I'm in denial of nothing. And can you recycle your lame smack anymore?

    Your laughable attempts to avoid substance are only exceeded by the laughable notion that OTHERS are acting like partisans ASSuming yours are not; it more the POT calling the KETTLE black.
    Yeah, I've avoided substance. Right. Your performance here is just as I predicted it would be in another thread.
    *insert profound statement here*

  9. #139
    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 ADK_Forever View Post
    Of course it is. You keep studying and I'm confident before the year is out, I'll find something to thank you for.
    I am quite certain that HELL would have frozen over before that day arrives.

  10. #140
    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
    Well, let's take a look at your attempted diversion here. If you will look at my post you will see that I QUOTED YOU and responded to YOU. Those are your comments old man. Not sure if it's the early signs of dementia or your just on the run here, but it's pretty silly of you to chastise me over not being on topic when I'm clearly responding to YOUR post.


    Are you clinically insane? My post directly addressed YOUR argument. I quoted YOUR exact words and countered every point you made. Seriously, there is something wrong with you.
    You have just entered The TD Zone. Nothing makes sense in here so, don't beat your head against a brick wall.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 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
  •