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.Another whiney insulting response in a vacuum of your own hypocrisy I see. Here let me re-cap your nonsense:
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.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
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.
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.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]
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.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.
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.The notion that you could comprehend simple facts while wearing those hyper partisan blinders really requires willful suspension of disbelief.
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.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.
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.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.
From Global Security.org, DOD Report #07-INTEL-04, Summary of the OSP investigation by the DOD Inspector Generals Office.
Ouch. That had to sting. Here is the full report. Have a read, it's right there.Originally Posted by From the Executive Summary