Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 158

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

  1. #141
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,428

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    ....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.
    Once again, rather than actually counter my argument you retreat to the "I'll insult him for being on this forum, even though I'm here too."


    Another whiney insulting response in a vacuum of your own hypocrisy I see. Here let me re-cap your nonsense:
    There is one difference here...my posts actually contain relevant information. Your posts are almost exclusively insults and hyper partisan rhetoric. You've become almost a legend of sorts around here because of your posting. Let's see, after you came after me for not being "on topic" let's look at your contributions. First volley ad hominem.

    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.
    Quoting me is a start...but what did you quote? About 1/20th of the content of my posts. Your focus here once again is on me, not the subject we were discussing. Hmm....is this a pattern? Let's keep looking.

    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.[/I]
    Whoops! He did it again! More lines of text, no reference to the actual topic of the debate. And a complete "head in the sand" strategy to boot! Rather than counter what I actually posted with an articulate argument you choose the path of least resistance and familiarity...whining, ad hominem, and more whining. You claim I'm ignorant of history but surprisingly absent is any cogent argument to back this up? I laid out a pretty decent argument that, if what you say is true, you should be able to deconstruct point by point. Why don't you do that TD? Wait...I know why you don't.

    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.
    Same as a above. One would think given all your blustering in the other post you might actually want to discuss the topic of our debate. Not you though.

    The notion that you could comprehend simple facts while wearing those hyper partisan blinders really requires willful suspension of disbelief.
    Oh and here goes the recyling of the smack talk! Boom baby! Consistency...your strength here at DP. Still no reference to the topic of discussion.
    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.
    Okay here we go, granted you never actually address the points I'm making with a counter. You put your fingers in your ears and try to type louder than me. You are falling back on a very age old tactic of pretending that anyone ever made the case that Bush acted alone in his selling of this war. I never said that. Bush was the figure head. There were many people involved in the planning of it. Among those Cheney, Rice, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and a host of others. The country and the Congress were force fed information cleared by the White House. This is documented in the books I have listed previously. Dates, locations, attendees...it's all in there. The methodology, the intel that was referenced, the press conferences. All of it. But in order for your case here to have any merit, you must reduce what has been presented to "oh in the other threads Bush is an idiot, but somehow he masterminded this whole thing." You are straw manning. It's very easy to spot when you do it too.
    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.
    Again, very poor logic. As I have pointed out to you before, this was a case of bad intelligence from the get go. Clinton obviously suffered from his decision to reduce our HUMINT capacity as the quality of the intel we were producing was degraded. This is no secret to anyone. It's one of the chief criticisms he faces. And during the 90's there was some credible evidence Saddam was still actively seeking a WMD program. But he didn't actually have them. That is one difference. Clinton didn't make a major decision to go to war based on that intel either. That is another difference. After 9/11 our intel communities were in overdrive and even then they knew the available intel was spotty and they had no way to confirm whether or not Saddam had any WMD's. In fact they had a lot of contradicting intel coming directly from their informants in Iraq. But that is not what Bush presented. No, Bush's campaign was the result of hard work by the Office of Special Plans. They used raw intelligence that had not been vetted or corroborated. They went so far as to form and engage their own intelligence gathering teams without conferring with the other intelligence organizations and that caused quite conflict. Further when Senate Select Intelligence Committee were actually presented with intel from the CIA and intel from OSP they were told, by the administration, to dismiss the information provided by the CIA and use the OSP analysis instead. This was the wellspring of intelligence the Bush administration used to sell the war. Do you know what the Department of Defense Inspector General had to say about the OSP? Have a look.

    From Global Security.org, DOD Report #07-INTEL-04, Summary of the OSP investigation by the DOD Inspector Generals Office.
    Quote Originally Posted by From the Executive Summary
    Results. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq-al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers. While such actions were not illegal or unauthorized, the actions were, in our opinion, inappropriate given that the intelligence assessments were intelligence products and did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community. This condition occured because of an expanded role and mission of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from policy formulation to alternative intelligence analysis and dissemination. As a result, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy did not provide "the most accurate analysis of intelligence" 2 to senior decision-makers.

    Management Comments. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Director, Defense Intelligence Agency provided comments on the draft report. The complete responses are included in the Management Comments section of the report. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy did not concur with the report stating that their actions were not intelligence activities and, even if they were, would be appropriate given that they were responding to direction from the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Further, he states that their assessment on a "cooperative" Iraq-al Qaida relationship was consistent with the Director of Central Intelligence's own statements to Congress in 2002. The Director, Defense Intelligence Agency comments were administrative in nature and were completely integrated into the final report.

    Evaluation Response. The assessments produced evolved from policy to intelligence products, which were then disseminated. The Deputy Secretary of Defense direction made the action authorized; however, we believe the actions were inapprorpriate because a policy office was producing intelligence products and was not clearly conveying to senior decision-makers the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community. The statement of the Director of Central Intelligence included his assessment that "our understanding of the relatinoship between Iraq and al-Qaida is evolving and is based on sources varying reliability." Further, analysis of the statement does not support the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy position of a "mature symbiotic relations" in all areas. The circumstances prevalent in 2002 are no longer present today. We believe that the continuin collaboratino between the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence will significantly reduce the opportunity for the inappropriate conduct of intelligence activities ourside the intelligence channels. As a result, we are not making any recommendations.
    Ouch. That had to sting. Here is the full report. Have a read, it's right there.

    Continued...
    Last edited by Lerxst; 05-12-09 at 07:10 PM.
    *insert profound statement here*

  2. #142
    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
    I am quite certain that HELL would have frozen over before that day arrives.
    Heyyy, you gots to have more confidence in yourself. Hang in there, study and keep trying. I betcha you can git er done.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  3. #143
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,428

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

    In that report it clearly details how the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Doug Feith, and the OSP (which was actually created by Paul Wolfowitz at the direction of the Bush administration and who answered to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney) created and disseminated their own alternative intel reports, outside the scope of the actual intelligence community, and provided that to key decision makers. Those reports included the case of a mature link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Those reports were not supported by the intelligence community. That alleged relationship was a key selling point after 9/11. It was repeated and inferred over and over again. Here are some examples.
    Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

    President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
    -------------------------------------
    The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime.

    President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003.
    -------------------------------------
    For America, there will be no going back to the era before 11 September 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength.

    They are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans.

    We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.

    President Bush in a televised address to defend his administration's policy on Iraq, September 2003.
    ------------------------------------
    We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

    Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September.

    US Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime, February 2003.
    -----------------------------------
    We don't know.

    Vice-President Dick Cheney when pressed on whether there was a link between Iraq and 11 September during a TV interview, September 2003.
    ------------------------------------
    We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

    Mr Cheney in the same interview, commenting on the war against Iraq.
    --------------------------------------
    We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it.

    Mr Cheney in the same interview, while recounting the controversial claim that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, met an Iraqi official in Prague before the attacks.

    -------------------------------------
    [Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged.

    National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003.
    Darn, how do you counter that TD? That's not just conspiratorial bull****, that's what Bush, Cheney, and Rice are telling the public based on intel produced by the OSP. And I'll be darned if the Department of Defense didn't have something to say about that in the report. Now why would the Bush administration create an entirely new intelligence apparatus specifically to process raw intel for the invasion of Iraq? Why would they dismiss intel from CIA and DIA analysts in favor of their own alternative intel reports? Could it be that the CIA and DIA did not support the case made by the OSP? Clearly that has been identified as a problem.

    More on this subject can be found in some of the books I've already presented in this thread.

    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.
    Uh oh, more straw manning from Truth Detector! Now who didn't see this coming? I didn't say or even infer that the Joint Resolution was about WMD's or that Iraq was ONLY about WMD's. Did I? Can you show one post of mine where I said that? I only said that you were falling back on a line that you attempted to use before, that because the Joint Resolution authorized force that the invasion was justified. That's what I said. I never once stated that the war was ONLY about WMD's and that this was the crux of the Joint Resolution. You can search the entire forum and you will not find a single quote of mine that even remotely hints at this. You have managed to concoct a false position, claim I took it, and then attack me for it. I'll ask this again...what the hell is wrong with you? For all your whining about reading comprehension you certainly seem to have problem with it yourself. Once again we find you straw manning me in the absence of an actual argument.

    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.
    And still yet we have you completely avoiding actually discussing the subject, and instead relying on insults and blabbering. I've provided a large amount of relevant information and sources. You've done **** to actually debate the topic.

    You are living up to your reputation here Truth Detector.
    *insert profound statement here*

  4. #144
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,428

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    You have just entered The TD Zone. Nothing makes sense in here so, don't beat your head against a brick wall.
    No kidding. I'm sitting here reading this **** he posted and thinking, he's actually lost his damn mind.
    *insert profound statement here*

  5. #145
    Sage
    akyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,455

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

    Yet another buildeburg whore come forward to distract you from what is currently happening. SOP.


    President, Council on Foreign Relations

    A CFR globalization nut to the core in service to the federal reserve.

    Pimping his book too.
    Thank you

  6. #146
    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
    Okay here we go, granted you never actually address the points I'm making with a counter.
    That is because your points do not address your original asinine statements; that Bush lied to everyone or that the ONLY reason we went into Iraq was for Nukes.

    How blatantly ignorant does one have to be to see the OVERWHELMING consensus Democrats, the previous administration and our allies had on the EXACT same set of FACTS.

    Just because the intelligence was flawed doesn’t make Bush a liar. Just because you are stuck on the straw man issue of WMDs when the LEGAL document on going to war only mentions it in 200 words of a 1,857 word document.

    How ignorant do you have to be to not comprehend the difference between EVERYONE having the same faulty intelligence on WMDs and the REAL reasons for going into Iraq?


    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    You put your fingers in your ears and try to type louder than me.
    What irony coming from the person who can’t even distinguish the OBVIOUS from the SPECULATION and DENIAL.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    You are falling back on a very age old tactic of pretending that anyone ever made the case that Bush acted alone in his selling of this war. I never said that. Bush was the figure head. There were many people involved in the planning of it. Among those Cheney, Rice, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and a host of others. The country and the Congress were force fed information cleared by the White House.
    No, you are pretending that Bush LIED us into a war of CHOICE and the DISTORTED logic that it was all about WMds. Did you READ the Joint Resolution yet?

    The notion that it was Bush’s selective “cherry” picking of intel is a farcical partisan political Liberal talking point lacking in any serious credible factual context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    This is documented in the books I have listed previously. Dates, locations, attendees...it's all in there. The methodology, the intel that was referenced, the press conferences. All of it. But in order for your case here to have any merit, you must reduce what has been presented to "oh in the other threads Bush is an idiot, but somehow he masterminded this whole thing." You are straw manning. It's very easy to spot when you do it too.
    The books you list are speculative novels second guessing the decisions that were made and in Clark’s case, a major CYA effort to profit from his mistakes. DUH

    I posted some books for you to read that have far more credibility and facts involved and do not rely on pure OPINION and SPECULATION.

    The notion that these books somehow support your asinine assertions about why we went into Iraq and the asinine notion that Bush lied once again requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

    Once again you avoid the FACTS that the Clinton Administration, the British and Australian Intelligence agencies, Democrats sitting on the Intelligence committees ALL said the SAME thing.

    Did you READ the joint Resolution? Because it is OBVIOUS you refuse to admit that out of a LEGAL document that contains 1,857 words, only 200 are devoted to the WMD issue, yet here you go again with another of your WMD straw man arguments desperately asserting that Bush had lied.

    Do you even comprehend the irony of your asinine arguments? IF BUSH LIED, so did EVERYONE else.

    Good lord, where did I put my crayons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Again, very poor logic. As I have pointed out to you before, this was a case of bad intelligence from the get go. Clinton obviously suffered from his decision to reduce our HUMINT capacity as the quality of the intel we were producing was degraded. This is no secret to anyone. It's one of the chief criticisms he faces. And during the 90's there was some credible evidence Saddam was still actively seeking a WMD program. But he didn't actually have them. That is one difference. Clinton didn't make a major decision to go to war based on that intel either. That is another difference. After 9/11 our intel communities were in overdrive and even then they knew the available intel was spotty and they had no way to confirm whether or not Saddam had any WMD's. In fact they had a lot of contradicting intel coming directly from their informants in Iraq. But that is not what Bush presented. No, Bush's campaign was the result of hard work by the Office of Special Plans. They used raw intelligence that had not been vetted or corroborated. They went so far as to form and engage their own intelligence gathering teams without conferring with the other intelligence organizations and that caused quite conflict. Further when Senate Select Intelligence Committee were actually presented with intel from the CIA and intel from OSP they were told, by the administration, to dismiss the information provided by the CIA and use the OSP analysis instead. This was the wellspring of intelligence the Bush administration used to sell the war. Do you know what the Department of Defense Inspector General had to say about the OSP? Have a look.
    There you go again desperately attempting to assert that Bush claimed something that no one else did.

    Here are a series of statements, you tell me who made them:

    "The intelligence we have, we believe is genuine. We stand by that intelligence”

    "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

    Your clown like desperation to support the asinine notion that Bush cherry picked can only be expressed in a vacuum of reality dude.

    The only thing more laughable is your equally asinine assertion that; “at least Clinton didn’t act on it.”

    How quickly we like to forget the events on 9-11 eh?



    You do realize that this is an analysis of whether there were any actual ties between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?

    Of course, we should also pretend that Al Zawahiri was not the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq and living there when our troops deposed Saddam.

    I am struggling for the relevance to your asinine assertions that Bush and company lied about WMds or how the reasons that we went into Iraq were solely to find WMDs.

    The FACT is that in your desperate search for a purpose, you deliberately ignore the FACT that the ONLY way you can support your original asinine assertions is claim that EVERYONE from the British, Russian and Australian intelligence operations, Tony Blair, Clinton and all the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence committee were liars as well, and to ignore the REAL reasons for going into Iraq contained in the Joint Resolution and pretend that the ONLY reason was his WMD program.

    So tell me something, why are you so dad to see Saddam deposed? Did you think he was a cool dude? You liked his hairdo? You felt that he had more to offer the Iraqi people than the coalition did? You felt that he was less of a threat to his neighbors than George Bush?

    Help me out here, I am very curious what goes through the mind of a Liberal who desperately attempts to distort, lie and obfuscate the truth for purely partisan political purposes that do not serve the interests of the security of our citizens and nation.

  7. #147
    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
    You have just entered The TD Zone. Nothing makes sense in here so, don't beat your head against a brick wall.
    Watching you two thank each other is quite amusing; almost as amusing as lerxsts asinine assertions that we went into Iraq Solely due to WMDs and that Bush lied rather than dealing with the FACTS contained in the Joint Resolution, that Democrats made the same claims as did many of our allies.

    Carry on; you two make a cute, but uninformed, couple.

  8. #148
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,428

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    That is because your points do not address your original asinine statements; that Bush lied to everyone or that the ONLY reason we went into Iraq was for Nukes.
    Patently false. Bush did lie, and I never said the only reason we went into Iraq was for WMD's. I said it was central to selling the war. And the reason for that? Because he didn't have a case for war without it.

    How blatantly ignorant does one have to be to see the OVERWHELMING consensus Democrats, the previous administration and our allies had on the EXACT same set of FACTS.
    Well first and foremost, you've not provided any facts to speak of. You blather on about them, yet you do not post them. If you are going to make a case, actually make it. Substantiate it. Don't just sit here and drool on your keyboard. You keep bringing up the previous administration and I've already pointed out that is irrelevant. George Bush took this nation to war in 2003, Bill Clinton was the President until 2000. Now let's try to focus on the situation here. What is at question is Bush's invasion of Iraq. Not Clinton's position on the issue in the late 90's. Clinton didn't take us to war with Iraq over that intel in 2003, Bush did.

    Further, as I have asserted, Congress was swayed by information the Bush administration presented. Information, which I have shown, was manipulated in order to get quick support for the war.

    Just because the intelligence was flawed doesn’t make Bush a liar. Just because you are stuck on the straw man issue of WMDs when the LEGAL document on going to war only mentions it in 200 words of a 1,857 word document.
    I've already addressed the Joint Resolution. You are straw manning again. And the issue is that the Bush administration knew full well the intel was flawed because they produced a good lot of it. See my comments on the OSP.

    How ignorant do you have to be to not comprehend the difference between EVERYONE having the same faulty intelligence on WMDs and the REAL reasons for going into Iraq?
    The U.K. had intelligence that said exactly the opposite and they ignored it because the Bush White House advised them too. I've already named the agent who reported to the director of British Intelligence that Iraq had no WMD's. He was ignored. I've given you the names of those involved and what was said. You are blatantly lying when you said EVERYONE had the same faulty intelligence. No they did not. They had good intelligence that countered the WMD and terrorism links. They ignored it. I've provided the relevant information and sources for this.

    You have not debunked my argument. Why is that? Why are you still lying about my position on the Joint Resolution. I have challenged you to produce quotes of mine to back up the claims you made about me, and you've yet to do that either. Why is that?
    What irony coming from the person who can’t even distinguish the OBVIOUS from the SPECULATION and DENIAL.
    Please show me the "obvious." Back it up with citation. I'll not accept your bloviating and insults as the truth of the matter. Again you have rambled on and on about facts, yet produced none.

    No, you are pretending that Bush LIED us into a war of CHOICE and the DISTORTED logic that it was all about WMds. Did you READ the Joint Resolution yet?
    I see you continuing to lie about my position on the Joint Resolution. Why are you doing this? I never made that case. Please show the readers where I did this.

    The U.N. Joint Resolution 1441 was drafted by the U.S. and the U.K. and then unanimously approved with the clear message from both author nations that no hidden triggers or automacity existed within it. Any violations by Iraq that would provoke a military response would be taken back before the council. However once it became clear that the U.S., U.K. and Spain were setting their own deadlines for compliance and that military action was a high probability several UNSC nations immediately announced their intentions to oppose any plan for invasion. It was at that point that the U.S. and it's partners completely abandoned any approval from the U.N. for military operations. This farce that you are lifting that the U.N. backed Bush's play for an invasion is over. The U.S. had no intention of honoring the U.N. position on Iraq. So you can stop right there in your use of the 1441 as a backstop for your argument.

    The notion that it was Bush’s selective “cherry” picking of intel is a farcical partisan political Liberal talking point lacking in any serious credible factual context.
    It absolutely was and I've already given you ample source material to back up my case.

    The books you list are speculative novels second guessing the decisions that were made and in Clark’s case, a major CYA effort to profit from his mistakes. DUH
    You're full of ****. They are not "speculative novels." Clarke was there in the middle of it as it unfolded. He listed witnesses and identified specific instances of the manipulation of the information. The other books are thorough documentations that also list key individuals, detailed interviews, and full examination of the facts. The information is corroborated. Prove otherwise.
    I posted some books for you to read that have far more credibility and facts involved and do not rely on pure OPINION and SPECULATION.
    Again, you are full of ****. It's only your opinion that they are more credible. It's obvious you've not read the books I suggested. Care for a time trial test to see if you've read them? I have them right on the bookshelf by my desk. You up for the challenge there hoss?

    The notion that these books somehow support your asinine assertions about why we went into Iraq and the asinine notion that Bush lied once again requires the willful suspension of disbelief.
    Are you some kind of robot? How many times will you recycle that line without actually making a valid point? When do you ever plan on actually debating me here? These books absolutely support my case and you can't prove otherwise or you already would have. If these books are what you say they are then articulate your specific criticism of them.
    *insert profound statement here*

  9. #149
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,428

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

    Once again you avoid the FACTS that the Clinton Administration, the British and Australian Intelligence agencies, Democrats sitting on the Intelligence committees ALL said the SAME thing.
    Prove it. I am calling you a liar. Prove it.
    Did you READ the joint Resolution? Because it is OBVIOUS you refuse to admit that out of a LEGAL document that contains 1,857 words, only 200 are devoted to the WMD issue, yet here you go again with another of your WMD straw man arguments desperately asserting that Bush had lied.
    Here you are once again lying about my position on the Joint Resolution.

    I'm going to challenge you again to substantiate your argument against me on this matter. Thus far you have proven to be an intellectual coward and blatant liar.

    Do you even comprehend the irony of your asinine arguments? IF BUSH LIED, so did EVERYONE else.
    No, that is not true and I've told you why this very stupid line of attack won't work.

    Good lord, where did I put my crayons.
    I can give you a suggestion as to where to look.
    There you go again desperately attempting to assert that Bush claimed something that no one else did.
    The Bush administration pushed that intel to others who repeated it. This has already been established. Unlike you I have posted my sources and given an articulate argument that substantiates my conclusions. You've yet to actually debunk a single point I've made. You've bleated like feral sheep but not produced a single cogent counter point.
    Here are a series of statements, you tell me who made them:

    "The intelligence we have, we believe is genuine. We stand by that intelligence”

    "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    No, you identify them and then provide their relevance to the invasion of 2003. Then I will examine them and make a counter argument.

    Your clown like desperation to support the asinine notion that Bush cherry picked can only be expressed in a vacuum of reality dude.

    The only thing more laughable is your equally asinine assertion that; “at least Clinton didn’t act on it.”
    More of your intellectually deficient and hollow bleating.

    How quickly we like to forget the events on 9-11 eh?
    Well, I've been waiting on this. Why don't you go ahead and tell me how 9-11 plays into this. Now that you've injected it into the discussion, let's have a go at it.

    You do realize that this is an analysis of whether there were any actual ties between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?
    No Einstein, it is not. It's an inspector generals report on the actions of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. How the **** can you call that an "analysis of whether there were any actual ties between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda." It's an investigation into the intelligence collecting activities of the Office of Special Plans and the manner in which they provided their reports to high level decision makers. The analysis part had been undertaken by the CIA and the DIA, what was at stake here was the fact that the OSP took this intel and created an alternative analysis that was not supported by the intelligence community and the presented that as the source material used by the Bush administration for marketing the invasion. Are you on drugs or what?

    DOD Report No. 07-INTEL-04. Read the title Corky. Then the contents.

    Of course, we should also pretend that Al Zawahiri was not the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq and living there when our troops deposed Saddam.
    So make your case here. Are you saying that there was an Al Qaeda cell in Iraq before the invasion of after it?

    I am struggling for the relevance to your asinine assertions that Bush and company lied about WMds or how the reasons that we went into Iraq were solely to find WMDs.
    Well that's probalby because I never made such an assertion.

    The FACT is that in your desperate search for a purpose, you deliberately ignore the FACT that the ONLY way you can support your original asinine assertions is claim that EVERYONE from the British, Russian and Australian intelligence operations, Tony Blair, Clinton and all the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence committee were liars as well, and to ignore the REAL reasons for going into Iraq contained in the Joint Resolution and pretend that the ONLY reason was his WMD program.
    Already addressed. I think you have hit a new all time high for recycling retarded bull**** in a single post.
    So tell me something, why are you so dad to see Saddam deposed? Did you think he was a cool dude? You liked his hairdo? You felt that he had more to offer the Iraqi people than the coalition did? You felt that he was less of a threat to his neighbors than George Bush?
    Tell me something, why are you such a dishonest person? I never once endorsed Saddam Hussein. I never once said he was a good guy. But that alone doesn't justify what we did in Iraq. Saddam was not a threat to his neighbors in 2003. I'll cite one of your own references, Scott Ritter to back me up on this, since you like him so much...
    There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)

    We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. (page 32)

    If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple. (page 37)

    [A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance. (page 46)[8]
    [ame=http://www.amazon.com/War-Iraq-What-Team-Doesnt/dp/1893956385]Amazon.com: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know: William Rivers Pitt, Scott Ritter: Books[/ame]

    OH SNAP!!!!!

    Or, I really love this one. REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ. Here are some great excerpts from that report detailing their assessment of Iraq's conventional military and whether or not it was a regional threat in 2003.
    (U) This period included seven selected assessments that focused on the condition of Iraqi conventional military forces and Saddam Hussein's possible calculus for launching a conventional attack against U.S. forces or his neighbors in the region. Additionally, this period includes an assessment of neighboring nations' perceptions of and relations with Iraq. Analysts concluded that Saddam Hussein's conventional forces were in poor condition and continued to degrade under the effects of economic sanctions. They believed that Saddam would not choose to risk a confrontation in the region because of the presence of U.S. forces. Analysts also pointed out their lack of certainty about Saddam's intentions to use force, citing poor HUMINT reporting.
    ---------------------------
    (U) Reading Saddam's intentions is difficult. He can be impulsive and deceptive; critical factors important in shaping his behavior are largely hidden from us . . . . But there are two fundamental guideposts that drive our calculus of his actions. First, we judge that Saddam would be careful not to place his regime's survival at risk. Second, he probably believes that a re-invasion of Kuwait would provoke a Coalition response that could threaten to destroy his regime.

    (U) Iraq's military capabilities have deteriorated significantly as a result of UN sanctions and damage inflicted by Coalition and US military operations. Its military forces are even less well prepared for major combat operations than we judged in the National Intelligence Estimate . . . of July 1994 and in an Update Memorandum published in January 1995 . . . . They remain more capable than those of regional Arab states, but could not gain a decisive military advantage over Iran's forces . . . . Iraq's military capabilities will continue a slow and steady decline as long as both economic sanctions and the arms embargo are maintained. Smuggling and other efforts to circumvent the embargo will be inadequate to halt the trend . . . . Saddam probably realizes that a reinvasion of Kuwait is now more likely to provoke a Coalition military response that could destroy his regime.
    Wow, that really sounds like an endorsement that Iraq was a regional threat in 2003. Hey it's a big report...maybe you can go through it and show me one instance in which they determine Iraq is an actual imminent threat to the U.S. or it's neighbors.

    Help me out here, I am very curious what goes through the mind of a Liberal who desperately attempts to distort, lie and obfuscate the truth for purely partisan political purposes that do not serve the interests of the security of our citizens and nation.
    Tell me, what goes through the mind of a (I don't know what you are, you aren't normal that's all I can say for sure) who desperately attempts to distort, lie, obfuscate the truth for purely partisan political interests that do not serve the interests of the security of our citizens and nation?

    You are complete coward. Nowhere in this entire debate have you substantiated a single lie you've told against me or successfully countered any argument I have made. You have consistently ignored my articulated position and substituted it with dishonest straw manning and insults. I wouldn't even care about the insults if you would actually make a ****ing valid point at least once. You could call me any name you want and I would ask the mods to give you a pass if you would actually spell out your case with some kind of sound logic and substantiation.

    But that's just too much to ask from you I suppose.
    *insert profound statement here*

  10. #150
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,428

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

    Quote Originally Posted by akyron View Post
    Yet another buildeburg whore come forward to distract you from what is currently happening. SOP.


    President, Council on Foreign Relations

    A CFR globalization nut to the core in service to the federal reserve.

    Pimping his book too.
    Why is he a "whore?"
    *insert profound statement here*

Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 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
  •