• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

So it could be true about the Clintons, but you seem pretty convinced about the guy in the OP based on your posts. What gives him more credibility than Dick Morris, in your opinion?

Did I say he had more credibility? No I didn't. I was commenting on other posters immediately discrediting him. I haven't read his book, however the statements he is making have been corroborated by other people including other former Bush officials in numerous books. What this guy is saying isn't really new.

What Dick Morris said were things that, in some cases, unless the First Lady or secret service body guards were to corroborate, are almost certainly his story...take it or leave it. On those, it's possible.
 
You think it's shocking that planning of Iraq goes way back to 2001? Do some research into those who influenced neo-conservatives at the City College of New York City (CCNY). Many people will cite Leo Strauss as being the primary influence of the Bush administrations foreign policy, but the only one to breifly study under him was Wolfowitz. It was Albert Wohlstetter who had more of an influence than perhaps anyone else. Wohlstetter was the teacher of Wolfowitz, Perle, and Zalmay Khalizad.

Now I'm not saying that Iraq was planned decades ago or whatever. But given the ideology of those who had the strongest influence on Bush's foreign policy, Iraq was inevitable.

I strongly recommend Francis Fukuyama's book "America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy." It's a good insight into the history of the neoconservative movement and their primary ideas.

I've been shouting for people to research The Project for a New America Century for years now. Just look at the signatories on so many of their papers and then compare those names to the list of Bush administration officials and other key advisers.
 
Which part of this statement by the President justifying his military strike against Iraq is a lie?



:confused:

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Nice try. Bush had strong information from our own people well in advance that there was almost no probability of WMD's in Iraq. He did not have the unanimous consensus of his intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq was warranted. What he did was cherry pick intelligence, many bits of which were raw, unvetted intel, and use that to build his case. There are a multitude of publications out there that document this issue in great detail. I can provide a list if you need it. Further there are a number of books detailing the run up to the invasion of Iraq that critiqued the military capacity of Iraq and the conclusions were overwhelmingly consistent...Iraq posed no realistic military threat to it's neighbors. Their capacity to wage a war of aggression against another nation was practically nil. In fact it was all the could do to maintain internal security. There were ZERO imminent threats posed by Iraq. None. Our own military historians have been cautious about touting the ease of which we defeated the Iraqi military, citing the very poor shape it was in when we attacked and warned us not to get complacent.

The whole facade was a big ****ing lie. It was dishonest and designed to convince the public that this was the right thing, the only thing that we as a nation could do to protect U.S. interests and prevent Saddam Hussein from "threatening the world with nuclear weapons and poisonous gas."
 
In 6 years you people cannot even raise enough money to hire attorneys to take this to court.
How many Millions of dollars has MoveOn, DailyKos, etc spent on this crap?

Bush knew this or that. All of it nefarious and bad of course.
Prove it in a court of law. Anyone with sense knows they can't.

Conspiracy Theories - Debate Politics Forums




I also enjoy how the OP believes every Bush official that has anything to say that he wants to hear.

Oh I found this for you all..enjoy-

Current wisdom has it that if there had been a few less hanging chads in Florida in November 2000, the world would be a different place.

Al Gore would have won the presidency, the Iraq war wouldn’t have happened, and several hundred thousand people who perished in that war would be alive today. That conclusion is based on the generally unchallenged belief that Iraq is George W. Bush’s war: that he and a cabal of like-minded right-wingers conceived and executed the invasion for their own ideological motives. Or, as Frank Harvey, a research professor of international relations at Dalhousie University, puts it: “A few powerful ideologues exploited public fears (and international goodwill) in the aftermath of 9/11 to amplify Iraq’s WMD threat as a primary justification for an unnecessary, preventive invasion.”

That view, notes Harvey, “has emerged as the dominant narrative for explaining the U.S. attack. It represents the prevailing consensus running through dozens of the most popular books on the Bush administration, and hundreds of frequently cited (and widely circulated) scholarly articles, media reports and blog entries on the invasion. In fact, casual observers engaged in a cursory review of the literature will find the same thesis repeated (and usually defended) by prominent scholars, journalists and Washington ‘insiders’ on the left and right of the political spectrum.”

Harvey believes the conclusion is dead wrong. In a new paper for the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, he deconstructs the thesis and finds it “overlooks almost all of the relevant historical facts.” More than that, he asks a simple question: Had he been elected, would Al Gore have taken the same path as George Bush? He concludes, overwhelmingly, that he would have.

Given the prevailing mood in the aftermath of 9/11, the institutional structures that surround the president, the political and social pressures of the time, the accepted wisdom regarding Saddam Hussein and the international factors at work, says Harvey, Gore “[would have been] compelled ... to make many of the same interim (generally praised) decisions for many of the same reasons. Momentum would have done the rest.”

There are several threads to Harvey’s argument, which you can read in its entirety here. At the risk of oversimplifying a very detailed examination, here are a few of the arguments he makes:

• Despite its universal acceptance, the prevailing theory of the war, which Harvey calls “neoconism” “remains an unsubstantiated assertion, a ‘theory’ without theoretical content, an argument devoid of logic or perspective ... Even the most superficial review of its central tenets reveals serious logical, empirical and theoretical flaws.”

For instance, he notes, it presumes that Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and a few like-minded ideologues “had the intellectual prowess and political skills to manipulate the preferences, perceptions and priorities” of non-neocons such as Tony Blair and Colin Powell; the majority of both parties in both houses of Congress; the leadership of foreign policy and intelligence committees in the House and Senate -- including every senior Democrat; most European leaders; “every member of the UN Security Council (including France, Russia and China) who unanimously endorsed UN Security Council Resolution 1441; and 60%-70% of the American people at the time.

• The “neocon” argument presumes Gore, in the same circumstances, would not have been presented with similar advice or faced pressures to act in a similar way. Harvey suggests this is wishful thinking. “In fact, all of the relevant evidence from Gore’s entire political career – his speeches on Iraq, contributions to the 2000 campaign debates on foreign affairs, policy announcements and interviews” argue Gore would have been at least as aggressive as Bush. As Harvey points out:

“Gore was a foreign policy hawk. He consistently opposed efforts to cut defense spending, supported Reagan’s decisions to bomb Libya, invade Grenada, aid the Contras in the 80s, and fund the B-1 and B-2 bomber and MX missile programs.” Gore and his running mate, Senator Joe Lieberman, both backed the 1991 Gulf War. As Vice President, Gore supported military actions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and “consistently adopted the hardest line in the Clinton administration when dealing with Saddam Hussein.” When President Clinton decided to abort his four-day bombing of Iraq in 1998, Gore opposed backing down “despite the absence of UN Security Council endorsement.”

Gore was surrounded by advisers who shared his hawkish views, whose speeches, statements and policy positions at the time give no hint they were reluctant to use force to bring Saddam Hussein into line.

• Bush did not invent the conditions or attitudes at the time. Gore would have been presented with the same flawed intelligence on Iraq’s weapons capabilities, faced the same public fears and pressures and the same international concerns. “Every member of the UN Security Council (including the war’s strongest critics, France and Russia)” unanimously endorsed the belief that Saddam had maintained proscribed weapons and was actively frustrating UN efforts to find them, Harvey writes.

“Anyone looking for reasons to be worried about Iraq could easily ignore speeches by Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld and focus instead on those delivered by Clinton (Bill or Hillary), Gore and Kerry; they could ignore the 2002 [National Intelligence Estimate] and read the NIEs published over the previous five years; or they could simply read the reports by UNMOVIC’s chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, or UNSCOM’s inspector Scott Ritter (one of the war’s strongest critics).”

• The faulty intelligence was backed up by Saddam’s bizarre efforts to encourage such beliefs, in hopes it would reduce the danger of a second conflict with Iran. There is no reason to believe Saddam would have acted differently under a Gore administration.

Harvey notes that the decision to invade was not made overnight but culminated from a series of escalating steps involving the UN and a host of international leaders, both friendly and otherwise.
“President Gore would have been compelled to make all of the same rational moves to get inspectors back into Iraq,” he concludes. “Strategically, the only way to accomplish this goal through multilateral diplomacy would have been to follow the same basic strategy. The competing counterfactual claim that none of these decisions would have been taken is simply not credible.”

He adds: “The only significant difference would have been the size of the invading force – Gore would probably have recommended a much larger troop deployment in line with General Anthony Zinni’s plan under the Clinton administration (OPPLAN 1003-98, originally approved in 1996 and updated in 1998, called for 400,000 troops). Boosted by the confidence of deploying this many troops, and concerned about the cost of sustaining such a large force through prolonged (and unsuccessful) inspections, Gore would have been more, not less inclined to accept the risks of war. It is highly unlikely that a sitting Democratic President would have survived the 2004 election if he decided against enforcing “all necessary means” or “serious consequences” in favour of the French-Russian position.
Kelly McParland: Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq? Definitely, concludes new study - Full Comment

Oh and Polynikes-- Your theory is specifically discredited by the part(s) underlined.
 
Last edited:
No, another former Bush official whose telling tales and naming names. It's kind of a big deal considering what Bush did and how some peoplecontinue to bleat his praises.

It's another dumb ass trying to make a buck. He knows that if he writes some good **** about Bush, the DailyKooks/movealong.org leftists will eat it up.
 
Amazingly enough, none of these people were bothered enough to resign and protest at the time. No, they wait till years later when they can make $$ off of it.


I'm sure you two will buy this stuff up and have bush-to-jail gasms over it.

This is not however a refutation of what they are saying, just a, perhaps accurate, attack on their characters.
 
In 6 years you people cannot even raise enough money to hire attorneys to take this to court.
How many Millions of dollars has MoveOn, DailyKos, etc spent on this crap?

Bush knew this or that. All of it nefarious and bad of course.
Prove it in a court of law. Anyone with sense knows they can't.

Conspiracy Theories - Debate Politics Forums




I also enjoy how the OP believes every Bush official that has anything to say that he wants to hear.

Oh I found this for you all..enjoy-


Kelly McParland: Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq? Definitely, concludes new study - Full Comment

Oh and Polynikes-- Your theory is specifically discredited by the part(s) underlined.

Yes because this one opinion trumps all others? The Gore Theory you call it? Seriously. And your "if it's true you should be able to prove it in a court of law" argument is also flawed. All that means is that nobody has risen to the task of actually trying Bush for this. Not that the information isn't strong enough. You speak like a dyed in the wool Bush apologist.

You've done nothing to deconstruct anyone's argument here, you've simply posted a link to another opinion. So who is right? You're guy? Or the numerous folks, including Bush insiders who defected?

A good portion of that piece is targeted at the "what if Al Gore got elected" theory. Don't try to pass that off as evidence that the Bush defectors are lying.
 
It's another dumb ass trying to make a buck. He knows that if he writes some good **** about Bush, the DailyKooks/movealong.org leftists will eat it up.

Yet you seem to avoid actually addressing what he has to say. Interesting. Yes, better for you to sling very poignant commentary like calling him a dumb ass without even reading his book or trying to corroborate it against other sources for you own benefit. Wouldn't want you to get into the deep end of the pool. :roll:

It's awesome that we have another one of your kind around here, will make for great entertainment I'm sure.
 
In 6 years you people cannot even raise enough money to hire attorneys to take this to court.
How many Millions of dollars has MoveOn, DailyKos, etc spent on this crap?



Oh and Polynikes-- Your theory is specifically discredited by the part(s) underlined.


First off, I never presented a theory, so what you were attempting to discredit is beyond me.

What I stated is that the neoconservative intellectuals that surrounded Bush and shaped much of his foreign policy were a primary factor in regards to the invasion of Iraq. I never mentioned a word about Gore, or that Iraq wouldn't of been invaded had Gore been in office.

As I'm typing this out I am continually asking myself if you even read my post? I don't see how anything you said discredits anything I stated. If anything it affirms it.

Lastly, it couldn't even be considered a theory, it is fact. Those who were in place during the Bush administration as SecDef, Deputy SecDef and various other postings were all neoconservatives and for years had called for a strategic U.S presence in the Middle East.
 
Yes because this one opinion trumps all others? The Gore Theory you call it? Seriously. And your "if it's true you should be able to prove it in a court of law" argument is also flawed. All that means is that nobody has risen to the task of actually trying Bush for this. Not that the information isn't strong enough. You speak like a dyed in the wool Bush apologist.

You've done nothing to deconstruct anyone's argument here, you've simply posted a link to another opinion. So who is right? You're guy? Or the numerous folks, including Bush insiders who defected


Before I ever heard of Bush I was listening to Gore bash Bush for not taking Saddam Out when he had the chance.
Saddams days where done no matter who was in office at the time.

The summary of a study I linked/posted also deconstructs and uses historical facts to refute the standard talking points coming form the left on this stuff. Specifically the much used in this thread NEOCON PLOT routine.

I like historical reality..if that makes me a Bush apologist its probably because the events of the times don't fit what you wish to have portrayed....shrug

These conspiracy theories are simply tiresome.



///

A good portion of that piece is targeted at the "what if Al Gore got elected" theory. Don't try to pass that off as evidence that the Bush defectors are lying.

Its humorous how the evil Bush official we never heard of is instantly believed by the people who don't believe anything that comes out of the Bush administration.
Pretty obvious why this guy is now the pin up atm in far left basements. He said he disagreed with Bush....zz

Every administration has these people. They write books, hold interviews, get used by the side that likes what they say and thats that. Often its some unknown like this.

I did not use the article to say the guy was lying I used the article to say alot of the comments in this thread are based on air.

//


What the OP is posted showed the guy had a different opinion on Iraq then the President of the US..great... so what?
Some guy you never heard of who worked in the Bush years says he disagreed with Bush on Iraq..felt pushed out of the loop, etc, etc
...this warrants an article in newsweek? :roll:
 
First off, I never presented a theory, so what you were attempting to discredit is beyond me.

What I stated is that the neoconservative intellectuals that surrounded Bush and shaped much of his foreign policy were a primary factor in regards to the invasion of Iraq. I never mentioned a word about Gore, or that Iraq wouldn't of been invaded had Gore been in office.

As I'm typing this out I am continually asking myself if you even read my post? I don't see how anything you said discredits anything I stated. If anything it affirms it.

Lastly, it couldn't even be considered a theory, it is fact. Those who were in place during the Bush administration as SecDef, Deputy SecDef and various other postings were all neoconservatives and for years had called for a strategic U.S presence in the Middle East.


In 1996 and 1998 plans where formulated to invade Iraq with 400,000 troops. In 1998 Gore was Pushing Clinton to do more to take out Saddam.
From 1991-2002 some of the most vocal voices on taking actions against Iraq where DEMOCRATS.


You seemed to imply it was some grand plot by Neocons and not the universal opinion of a good number(if not most) US federal politicians until some of them decided to stab US soldiers in the back.

If that was not what you meant then nm.
 
Which part of this statement by the President justifying his military strike against Iraq is a lie?
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.


:confused:

The parts in red are the lies you asked for, and Bush knew going in that they were lies
 
Did I say he had more credibility? No I didn't. I was commenting on other posters immediately discrediting him. I haven't read his book, however the statements he is making have been corroborated by other people including other former Bush officials in numerous books. What this guy is saying isn't really new.

What Dick Morris said were things that, in some cases, unless the First Lady or secret service body guards were to corroborate, are almost certainly his story...take it or leave it. On those, it's possible.

You didn't say it, but it appeared to me that you were implying it in your posts. If not, then my mistake.
 
Amazingly enough, none of these people were bothered enough to resign and protest at the time. No, they wait till years later when they can make $$ off of it.

& they probably didn't shave this morning either! (none of which has the slightest relationship to the fact that what they are saying is true, so your point is that "People like Money"....I guess??)
I totally agree....People DO indeed like money.
 
Last edited:
Yet you seem to avoid actually addressing what he has to say. Interesting. Yes, better for you to sling very poignant commentary like calling him a dumb ass without even reading his book or trying to corroborate it against other sources for you own benefit. Wouldn't want you to get into the deep end of the pool. :roll:

It's awesome that we have another one of your kind around here, will make for great entertainment I'm sure.

Sorry, this poster is absolutely BORED with DamnYankee's posts. Click on his name and look at "See More Posts." You'll see exactly what I am talking about. Talk about adding NOTHING to this message board.
 
Last edited:
Which part of this statement by the President justifying his military strike against Iraq is a lie?

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

The truest statement in there was "I have decided". But, the entire statement should have been "Back when I was thinking of running for President of the United States I decided, if I won, I was going to invade Iraq. I will show what a big, strong War President I am and show my daddy that I could do one thing in my life that better than he did. (Didn't I almost look like a fighter pilot in that jumpsuit under my Mission Accomplished banner?) I was just lucky that 9/11 happened."
 
Can you prove that Bush knew they were lies?

That's been proven on here over and over and over... You get the point. Instead of looking for openings for your one liners if you spent more time reading the posts then you would be up to speed. :mrgreen:
 
That's been proven on here over and over and over... You get the point. Instead of looking for openings for your one liners if you spent more time reading the posts then you would be up to speed. :mrgreen:
Can you prove that Bush knew they were lies?
 
Can you prove that Bush knew they were lies?


We have the best intelligence in the world (outside of Israel)(and maybe England)(and Russia of course) and Dick Cheney had to personally go over to CIA headquarters and intimidate analysts to get enough damning information to cook up an excuse for war. No, I don't think Bush himself necessarily knew because he didn't care, he was enjoying the food and the airplane and letting Cheney run the country. Did Cheney know they were lies? Damn right.
 
We have the best intelligence in the world (outside of Israel)(and maybe England)(and Russia of course) and Dick Cheney had to personally go over to CIA headquarters and intimidate analysts to get enough damning information to cook up an excuse for war. No, I don't think Bush himself necessarily knew because he didn't care, he was enjoying the food and the airplane and letting Cheney run the country. Did Cheney know they were lies? Damn right.

The parts in red are the lies you asked for, and Bush knew going in that they were lies
Didn't you say that Bush knew? Can you prove that Cheney knew?
 
Why do you think this guy would "lie" about Bush?
What would his motive be?

How many people have to say the same thing, about Bush, for you to start doubting your allegiences?




You would have more insight on this than us, since you lie about him all the time.
 
Back
Top Bottom